The Woodlands May Be Headed For Self-Government

[lockmat]

The article is here if you haven't seen it.

What are the positives and negatives for this happening?

[LTAWACS]

This cannot be allowed to happen:

http://chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4386362.html

[KinkaidAlum]

There goes George Mitchell's dream. He never intended for the Woodlands to become just another place that ended up hurting the city by draining the tax base.

[TheNiche]

There goes George Mitchell's dream. He never intended for the Woodlands to become just another place that ended up hurting the city by draining the tax base.

Read the article closely. I'd think that a person of your political ideology would appreciate the political implications of White's move. After all, what good is a tax base if the voting citizens are too fiscally conservative to allow themselves to be taxed?

[LTAWACS]

Read the article closely. I'd think that a person of your political ideology would appreciate the political implications of White's move. After all, what good is a tax base if the voting citizens are too fiscally conservative to allow themselves to be taxed?

I'd hardly call owning million dollar homes an example of being "fiscally conservative". Houston should annex this area with deliberate speed. As it stand I'm not sure how Houston will benefit from this proposed arrangement.

[KatieDidIt]

Honestly any form of government up here would be helpful. It would be refreshing for residents to VOTE for who runs the place. Currently our choices are made for us by people who were hired by the Development Corp. It would be nice to see the overlord of the association broken down into Village HOAs that would look over their own particular area's interests and contracts. Its amazing that BFI could pick up trash twice a week for nearly the same cost as the Waste Management group, but the association insists on Waste Management.

I really don't understand why everyone is so afraid of Big Bad Houston. As long as your association and patrol is solid, there really isn't a problem. However this is something that still needs working out here. In fact with the exception of the school district,I would say overall the services provided by the COH were better than what this Association, police and local Mud currently provide.

We will just have to see how everything pans out, but I can't see tax bills going any higher and keep its current population. What happened to Kingwood's taxes overall?

JMO

[jasons]

This is a Godsend for The Woodlands, long term IMO

I'd hardly call owning million dollar homes an example of being "fiscally conservative". Houston should annex this area with deliberate speed. As it stand I'm not sure how Houston will benefit from this proposed arrangement.

Maybe some people CAN afford million-dollar homes b/c throughout their lifetimes they WERE fiscally conservative and properly managed their money - as opposed to spendthrifts that can't afford a pot to pi$$ in. What a concept...

[DJ V Lawrence]

I'd hardly call owning million dollar homes an example of being "fiscally conservative". Houston should annex this area with deliberate speed. As it stand I'm not sure how Houston will benefit from this proposed arrangement.

I understand The Woodland's point of view with this deal. I could understand why they'd wanna pull off a Kingwood and start whining about not wanting to become part of the big city. But I don't understand Houston's part of the deal. I would imagine Woodlands being the first place Houston would want to annex if given a choice. The land value is high, the population is huge for a Houston-area suburb (85,000), and the tax revenue to go with the higher-income residents would have been WAY higher than the amount recieved from this deal.

Knowing all that, what are the odds now that more higher-income Houstonians could jump ship to Woodlands. Where's the benefit on Houston's side? Not saying we should force Woodlands to become a part of Houston, but I don't understand what Mayor White's trying to accomplish there. Why Kingwood and not Woodlands?

[jasons]

I think the reason is b/c The Woodlands is prepared to fight and they have deep pockets. The problem with Kingwood is they waited until it was too late to fight; they didn't learn the lesson from Clear Lake and got sideswiped. After Kingwood, The Woodlands said "not again, not here", and Houston knows it. All else being equal, the key advantage The Woodlands has is time.

[KinkaidAlum]

Actually, the problem lies in the fact that people continue to BUY THEIR HOMES in areas that are very clearly annexable (is that a word?). Then, they go all up in arms about needing self government and the big bad city of Houston. Well, they had a FREE CHOICE and they made it when they purchased in unincorporated areas that were within Houston's boundaries for annexation.

If these people were truly fiscally conservative, then they would have purchased in places that COULD NOT be annexed by Houston.

To make matters worse, the original developer of The Woodlands ALWAYS intended for the City of Houston to eventually take over.

Compromise or not, this will eventually HURT the city in the long run just as Plano, Richardson, Irving (Las Colinas) hurt the city of Dallas. This is especially true as more and more businesses (Anadarko, Chevron-Texaco, the Mall, etc...) are established out there that not only service folks in the Woodlands but pull in people who used to shop, dine, and work in the city.

[nmainguy]

Actually, the problem lies in the fact that people continue to BUY THEIR HOMES in areas that are very clearly annexable (is that a word?). Then, they go all up in arms about needing self government and the big bad city of Houston. Well, they had a FREE CHOICE and they made it when they purchased in unincorporated areas that were within Houston's boundaries for annexation.

If these people were truly fiscally conservative, then they would have purchased in places that COULD NOT be annexed by Houston.

To make matters worse, the original developer of The Woodlands ALWAYS intended for the City of Houston to eventually take over.

Compromise or not, this will eventually HURT the city in the long run just as Plano, Richardson, Irving (Las Colinas) hurt the city of Dallas. This is especially true as more and more businesses (Anadarko, Chevron-Texaco, the Mall, etc...) are established out there that not only service folks in the Woodlands but pull in people who used to shop, dine, and work in the city.

In addition, all these "fiscally conservative" yet politically naive buyers should have known what the deal was: the agreement that Houston controls the destiny of any kind of governance. They would be wise to take the deal-or we could just begin by annexing their business tax base and come back for the residential when the political climate is more favorable for Houston as a whole. We already have enough politically naive already.

[lockmat]

Can anyone tell me the pros and cons for annexing from the city of Houston view and in this case, The Woodlands' view?

It just seems to me that annexing would be better for both parties than the alternative taking place. But that's my naive opinion.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Can anyone tell me the pros and cons for annexing from the city of Houston view and in this case, The Woodlands' view?

It just seems to me that annexing would be better for both parties than the alternative taking place. But that's my naive opinion.

As a Houstonian, annexing Woodlands would be nothing but a major pro. It's an upper-class population of 85,000 added to our tax base, not to mention their business boom. It'd mean much-needed revenue coming to a city that just passed eight bonds this past November, still paying off it's stadiums (including the Astrodome), and would love to take some of the future tax burdens off taxpayers already in Houston. If Houston had it's way, more new residents within Houston would be upper-middle class at least.

In the point of view of someone in the Woodlands, they would have major pros, and major cons. Pros: They would recieve all the amenities Houstonians recieve with public transportation, public servicies, etc. Cons: They would have to pay the same amount of taxes as other Houstonians. Plus, they wouldn't have power and control over themselves anymore; they'd have downtown Houston for it's City Hall. That would mean less funds going directly to them and going to the big city as a whole, while at the same time paying more taxes.

[westguy76]

If these people were truly fiscally conservative, then they would have purchased in places that COULD NOT be annexed by Houston.

Like Lufkin?

Some of the people on this board really have a problem with people who live in these areas, don't they?

Is it because you see these people enjying the city of Houston and it's ammenities? Or is it because they are clogging up the freeways by commuting in to town? Or is it because they are contributing to what you percieve as sprawl or creating ring-rot. Do you despise the "white flight" social implications of it? Is it because it is affeting your neighborhood? Is it all of these, or just some for different folks? I am just trying to understand the psychology of it.

[lockmat]

As a Houstonian, annexing Woodlands would be nothing but a major pro. It's an upper-class population of 85,000 added to our tax base, not to mention their business boom. It'd mean much-needed revenue coming to a city that just passed eight bonds this past November, still paying off it's stadiums (including the Astrodome), and would love to take some of the future tax burdens off taxpayers already in Houston. If Houston had it's way, more new residents within Houston would be upper-middle class at least.

In the point of view of someone in the Woodlands, they would have major pros, and major cons. Pros: They would recieve all the amenities Houstonians recieve with public transportation, public servicies, etc. Cons: They would have to pay the same amount of taxes as other Houstonians. Plus, they wouldn't have power and control over themselves anymore; they'd have downtown Houston for it's City Hall. That would mean less funds going directly to them and going to the big city as a whole, while at the same time paying more taxes.

How much more are the taxes? A lot? And which ones? Sales, property???

[TheNiche]

I'd hardly call owning million dollar homes an example of being "fiscally conservative". Houston should annex this area with deliberate speed. As it stand I'm not sure how Houston will benefit from this proposed arrangement.

News flash: People don't work for money so that they can save it. They work for money so that they can maximize and optimize their consumption patterns over time; saving/investing it is only a tool to further maximize/optimize consumption patterns.

The mantra of most fiscal conservatives is that the private sector does a better job at producing goods and services and allocating wealth than does a bureaucracy.

By the way, the vast majority of homes in The Woodlands are worth far less than a million dollars. And those that do own homes, especially those of high value, are the most likely to not want high tax rates. Taxes would affect them the most directly, and they aren't going to be happy about it. That should be pretty obvious.

If these people were truly fiscally conservative, then they would have purchased in places that COULD NOT be annexed by Houston.

See prior post.

Compromise or not, this will eventually HURT the city in the long run just as Plano, Richardson, Irving (Las Colinas) hurt the city of Dallas. This is especially true as more and more businesses (Anadarko, Chevron-Texaco, the Mall, etc...) are established out there that not only service folks in the Woodlands but pull in people who used to shop, dine, and work in the city.

I do agree with you here.

As a Houstonian, annexing Woodlands would be nothing but a major pro. It's an upper-class population of 85,000 added to our tax base, not to mention their business boom. It'd mean much-needed revenue coming to a city that just passed eight bonds this past November, still paying off it's stadiums (including the Astrodome), and would love to take some of the future tax burdens off taxpayers already in Houston.

Well, that's not entirely accurate. The stadiums are mostly the burden of Harris County; The Woodlands isn't in Harris County.

If Houston had it's way, more new residents within Houston would be upper-middle class at least.

Try telling that to Ada Edwards.

How much more are the taxes? A lot? And which ones? Sales, property???

The difference in property taxes is hard to peg down because the City of Houston would have to buy out each of many different Woodlands MUDs, all with different tax rates. There would also be a one-cent sales tax to fund METRO services.

I don't think that the property taxes within The Woodlands would increase by any drastic amount. In fact, for several of the newer Woodlands MUDS, the City of Houston may have to take a financial loss for several years before the annexation became profitable.

[LTAWACS]

This is a Godsend for The Woodlands, long term IMO

Maybe some people CAN afford million-dollar homes b/c throughout their lifetimes they WERE fiscally conservative and properly managed their money - as opposed to spendthrifts that can't afford a pot to pi$$ in. What a concept...

Fiscal conservatism and money management are two different things. Like I said... it's not being fiscally conservative. Excessive? Perhaps. Unecessary? Perhaps.

Compromise or not, this will eventually HURT the city in the long run just as Plano, Richardson, Irving (Las Colinas) hurt the city of Dallas. This is especially true as more and more businesses (Anadarko, Chevron-Texaco, the Mall, etc...) are established out there that not only service folks in the Woodlands but pull in people who used to shop, dine, and work in the city.

Bingo. This is why we must NEVER let them get away. Never. If we cannot stop them it will set a dangerous precedent. This cannot be allowed to pass.

[TheNiche]

Fiscal conservatism and money management are two different things. Like I said... it's not being fiscally conservative. Excessive? Perhaps. Unecessary? Perhaps.

Bingo. This is why we must NEVER let them get away. Never. If we cannot stop them it will set a dangerous precedent. This cannot be allowed to pass.

You know, I agree with you that this needs to be a long-term consideration...on the other hand, there's no game in town like legally-sanctioned civic extortion. It is a tried and true tactic. The City of La Porte does something similar. They don't want to have to deal with all the issues that come with having refineries and chemical plants within their city limits, so they only threaten to annex the plants within their ETJ unless the plants pay up a hefty chunk of money each year that goes straight to La Porte without any expectation that services will be returned.

There's even a word for it, but I can't remember what it is. HAIF Jeopardy: Back in the middle ages, stronger city-states and empires would demand this from their weaker neighbors as compensation for not conquering them.

[bachanon]

You know, I agree with you that this needs to be a long-term consideration...on the other hand, there's no game in town like legally-sanctioned civic extortion. It is a tried and true tactic. The City of La Porte does something similar. They don't want to have to deal with all the issues that come with having refineries and chemical plants within their city limits, so they only threaten to annex the plants within their ETJ unless the plants pay up a hefty chunk of money each year that goes straight to La Porte without any expectation that services will be returned.

There's even a word for it, but I can't remember what it is. HAIF Jeopardy: Back in the middle ages, stronger city-states and empires would demand this from their weaker neighbors as compensation for not conquering them.

extortion.

[TheNiche]

extortion.

Nope. But the same meaning, just with an even more despicable connotation.

[jasons]

Re: Plano/Frisco/Allen, etc.:

As a former resident of Plano & Frisco, and now TW, I can tell you this is correct. Those cities had the foresight to box Dallas in. It's not good for Dallas - but for the people who live in the 'burbs, it's a GREAT thing. Why are Plano, Frisco, Allen, etc. such great places to live, with virtually zero violent crime? Why have they been the fastest-growing cities in the entire USA? Because they are NOT Dallas. Dallas has had to learn to deal with its own problems without the help of the "rich suburbs". Houston needs to learn the same instead of raiding every wealthy ETD around it like Robin Hood. And yes, that's exactly what annexation is - a land/money grab under a false veil of "better services." Ask the people in Kingwood where all their state-of-the-art fire equipment went.

IMO this is a good thing for TW. I don't like the payout involved but at least a good chunck gets earmarked for the Hardy. For those of us in TW at least it stops the bleeding before it gets out of control.

[DJ V Lawrence]

Where does Houston benefit in the deal where Woodlands doesn't become a part of it? I understand the Woodlands standpoint, but why would Houston want Clear Lake and Kingwood more than Woodlands?

[nmainguy]

Re: Plano/Frisco/Allen, etc.:

As a former resident of Plano & Frisco, and now TW, I can tell you this is correct. Those cities had the foresight to box Dallas in. It's not good for Dallas - but for the people who live in the 'burbs, it's a GREAT thing.

Why hasn't Frisco lobbied to have their soccer team named after...Frisco? Imagine the PR value! After all, they are no different than the Arlington Rangers and Irving-soon to be Arlington-Cowboys. I'd grab the glory of being the home base of these teams instead of abdicating it to a place they don't exist: Dallas.

[bachanon]

Nope. But the same meaning, just with an even more despicable connotation.

do tell

[ricco67]

The biggest problem I see with a city being boxed in, is that when "flight" occurs to the subburbs, tax revenues go down considerably and then you have what happend to NYC and other Northeastern cities back in the 70's and 80's.

Without additional ways to get revenue, the city and property taxes would be absolutely insane. That's why it's so expensive to live in NYC, Boston, etc.

The benifit of those from the subburbs would be that they can come into town during the week and weekends to use our infrastructure with only having those within the city limits to pay for it all.

Basically it's like going to a friends house to snarf their food and use the TV on weeknights and not contributing at least a pizza or two when you visit.

It creates an additional burden to those living in the city.

[bachanon]

for every bread winner who works in the greater houston area (less than 5% of houston's workforce works in downtown houston btw) 2 or 3 family members are staying home, going to school, going to the doctor, attending church functions, etc. in the suburb in which they live. the majority of people who live in the suburbs are "living" in the suburbs. out of the 85,000 people living in the woodlands proper, the majority are not using houston's infrastructure on a regular basis. even if half of the bread winners in the woodlands commute to some location in the city of houston, the remaining members of their family have daily activities within a short distance.

it is a gross generalization to assume that the entire population of the woodlands is a constant drain on city resources.

in addition, the decay of nyc in the 70's is not going to happen in houston. houston's city core and its tax base are growing.

[ricco67]

for every bread winner who works in the greater houston area (less than 5% of houston's workforce works in downtown houston btw) 2 or 3 family members are staying home, going to school, going to the doctor, attending church functions, etc. in the suburb in which they live. the majority of people who live in the suburbs are "living" in the suburbs. out of the 85,000 people living in the woodlands proper, the majority are not using houston's infrastructure on a regular basis. even if half of the bread winners in the woodlands commute to some location in the city of houston, the remaining members of their family have daily activities within a short distance.

it is a gross generalization to assume that the entire population of the woodlands is a constant drain on city resources.

in addition, the decay of nyc in the 70's is not going to happen in houston. houston's city core and its tax base are growing.

you know, you're right.

I forgot one of the things I say/complain about human nature; People rarely wander far from the nest.

There are people that won't go beyond their paritulcar area if they don't have to.

The same is true for those in the 'burbs, the Montrose, Midtown, Rice U, Bellaire, or any of the other communities people live in.

while the majority may stay in the 'burbs, there is still quite a few people that come to/from the 'burbs that use the infrastrature, but they do contribute to the city economy when they do. (i.e. attend games/shopping/resturants) whether this is enough to help maintain a tax base worthy of city improvements/infrastruture remains to be seen.

[nmainguy]

"The Woodlands would be nothing but a deer lease if it weren't for the city of Houston," he said. "Residents of The Woodlands enjoy the golden goose of Houston. They get the benefits of working here during the day and then going back to their comfortable, homogenous, bedroom communities at night."

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/

[VicMan]

One thing is certain; do not give any incorporated Woodlands an ETJ. It must not have the power to annex!

[Gank]

I think annexation laws exist for a reason - so wealthy white communities don't leech off the core city without contributing taxes. The alternative is you turn into Detroit. The fact is a lot of us grew up here and love the city and choose not to flee. There's plenty of empty land in west Texas if you don't like the idea of being annexed.