Annexation has long been a hot button on this blog.
A central city surrounded by suburbs can't plan for growth. Downtowns languish because the richer suburbs keep all the money to themselves (in the case of schools, property taxes don't fund the full school system).
So Dan Voelpel's article today about Rick Talbert hoping to annex everything to 512 is a welcome sigh of relief. That unincorporated land should be a part of Tacoma.
Ideally, Fircrest, Ruston, and UP would also join Tacoma, but I believe that requires a vote of the State Legislature and I'm not sure those residents would be totally down with it. Maybe with a strong neighborhood council program and some other ways to promote their self-identity. I'm thinking we create 5 burroughs just like another city did when they annexed a few others.
When Brooklyn went into New York they were the 11th biggest city in the US at the time. And many credit that consolidation of New York as a reason for its unparalleled success in the 20th Century.
Let's hope Tacoma can do a little bit of growing in the coming years.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Erik,
Nothing against Tacoma, but why in the world would anyone in UP believe they would have anything to gain by being annexed by Tacoma?
Is it Tacoma's stellar school system? Or perhaps its professional and world famous police force?
Or maybe because UP residents are just dying to help pay for Tacoma's amazing municipal computer system...
Gosh, in writing this I've talked myself into it! Let's do it!
Love, U.P. Yours
UP,
No offense taken! But there are some compelling reasons for UP to benefit from being part of Tacoma.
1. UP doesn't need to boost sales tax in order to not go broke. When cities rely on sales tax, they have to bring in big box stores. UP wouldn't need to spend millions to create a UP town center in order to collect enough revenue to pay the bills. In a sense, UP could stay just the way people want it (mostly residential with beautiful roads) because the commercial/industrial development would be elsewhere.
2. We can govern a larger area with less taxes. Instead of two mayors, we'd have one. Instead of two planning/code departments, we'd have one. It's much more efficient use of tax dollars.
3. UP is hurt by the poor performance of its neighbors' schools. Pooling the money together gives everyone a much better education without taking away anything from a school.
4. Growth is going to happen. Long term, like 20 or 50 years, we can either look like a bunch of hodge podge strip malls or we can have a coherently planning community. Annexation would help us all be on the same page. It would keep the urban urban, the suburbs suburbs, and the rural rural.
I firmly believe that if new towns keep filling in the borders around the central city where people live, but don't work, the system gets very big problems in a hurry. Economically, racially, and the environment and quality of life go down. I can continue this later but I must get to a meeting.
Thanks, UP,
Erik
Post a Comment