[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Annexation processes are further complicated by the degree to whichthe state encourages the incorporation of new municipalities and/or or-ganization of special taxing districts.In states such as Oregon, Arizona,and Illinois, residents of developing areas can incorporate new munici-palities rather easily, providing a potentially attractive alternative tobeing annexed by the city next door.Residents of two urbanizing areasin the Portland, Oregon region, for example, voted to incorporate to pre-vent potential development of multifamily housing in their areas.Devel-opers and residents of urbanizing areas in many states can also form spe-cial taxing districts to provide essential services, thus removing a majorincentive for annexation to adjoining cities.(See the discussion of spe-cial districts in Chapter 6 for more details on this process.) 72 3.MANAGING COMMUNITY EXPANSION: WHERE TO GROW Unfortunately, the primary way in which individual municipalities cancontrol their growth in many states is through negotiating annexationdeals with developers for more permissive zoning than allowed outsidethe municipality.Illinois towns, for instance, regularly compete for de-velopment, especially commercial and business development that wouldincrease tax bases, by negotiating annexation agreements that promisedesired zoning in return for being absorbed by the municipality.Thattype of deal making zoning for sale, in effect occurs in many states,virtually eliminating opportunities for growing cities to retain controlover the quality of future development.Service ExtensionsMost cities and towns perform basic governmental functions in manag-ing services essential to the entire community, such as police and fireprotection, road construction and maintenance, sewage collection andtreatment, water treatment and distribution, and libraries.Some of theseservices may be provided in other ways: Fire protection may be providedby volunteer groups, for example, and some services may be provided se-lectively by other levels of governments, private companies, or specialdistricts formed for that purpose.To the degree that local governments provide desirable services un-available from other service deliverers, however, these services can be aninstrument for managing growth.Earlier in the chapter the importanceof metropolitan sewer service as a means of managing growth by regionalagencies in Portland, Oregon and the Twin Cities in Minnesota was de-scribed.In most cases, growth boundaries are employed in companywith policies for extension of urban services to determine the locationand quality of future development.As demonstrated by Raleigh s experi-ence, the effective use of extraterritorial jurisdiction and annexationpowers depends on capabilities for extending desired urban services todeveloping areas.Local governments sometimes fail to take advantage of this means ofmanaging development.Local managers of semi-autonomous sewer andwater agencies, for instance, frequently act like private enterprises in-terested in maximizing their service areas rather than serving other pub-lic purposes such as growth management.In King County, Washington,in the Seattle area, for example, county officials spent decades attempt-ing to reach agreements with the regional sewer agency to limit sewerextensions to planned-growth areas.In other cases, state laws or courtdecisions limited the ability of local governments to direct services to se-lected areas.Boulder, Colorado s intentions to limit expansion of waterand sewer service outside its borders as part of its growth policy weredashed by a Colorado Supreme Court decision declaring that such ser- MANAGING DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION 73vices were public utility enterprises that should not be constrained byother policy concerns of the city.11The fly in this particular ointment is that the services must be viewedas desirable or necessary by residents of the areas proposed for serviceextensions who probably will pay new fees, charges, and taxes for theservices.Sewer service extensions, for example, are considered neces-sary where private septic tanks are not feasible alternatives.In bothRaleigh and the Minneapolis/St.Paul areas, an essential part of theirgrowth management programs was based on the inability of large areasin the path of potential development to pass soil percolation tests, so thatthe lack of sewer service effectively limited development.In Lexing-ton/Fayette County, Kentucky, the capabilities of the urban limit line toprotect rural areas is reinforced by the state health department s re-quirement for a minimum of 10 acres for the use of septic tanks.However, where septic tanks and water wells can function, residents,who are located in those areas to avoid expensive city services, can andoften do oppose annexation or extension of urban services.The problemsrural residents have caused in resisting changes in Portland s growthboundary are just one example of many.Recently in the Phoenix area,development of an upscale project complete with all urban services andamenities was opposed by neighboring landowners content with wellsthat produced intermittently, failing septic tanks, and unpaved streetsbut concerned that more development would ruin the neighborhood.Interlocal AgreementsAs indicated in the preceding sections, interlocal agreement plays an im-portant role in securing guidance over development outside jurisdic-tional boundaries [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl odbijak.htw.pl
.Annexation processes are further complicated by the degree to whichthe state encourages the incorporation of new municipalities and/or or-ganization of special taxing districts.In states such as Oregon, Arizona,and Illinois, residents of developing areas can incorporate new munici-palities rather easily, providing a potentially attractive alternative tobeing annexed by the city next door.Residents of two urbanizing areasin the Portland, Oregon region, for example, voted to incorporate to pre-vent potential development of multifamily housing in their areas.Devel-opers and residents of urbanizing areas in many states can also form spe-cial taxing districts to provide essential services, thus removing a majorincentive for annexation to adjoining cities.(See the discussion of spe-cial districts in Chapter 6 for more details on this process.) 72 3.MANAGING COMMUNITY EXPANSION: WHERE TO GROW Unfortunately, the primary way in which individual municipalities cancontrol their growth in many states is through negotiating annexationdeals with developers for more permissive zoning than allowed outsidethe municipality.Illinois towns, for instance, regularly compete for de-velopment, especially commercial and business development that wouldincrease tax bases, by negotiating annexation agreements that promisedesired zoning in return for being absorbed by the municipality.Thattype of deal making zoning for sale, in effect occurs in many states,virtually eliminating opportunities for growing cities to retain controlover the quality of future development.Service ExtensionsMost cities and towns perform basic governmental functions in manag-ing services essential to the entire community, such as police and fireprotection, road construction and maintenance, sewage collection andtreatment, water treatment and distribution, and libraries.Some of theseservices may be provided in other ways: Fire protection may be providedby volunteer groups, for example, and some services may be provided se-lectively by other levels of governments, private companies, or specialdistricts formed for that purpose.To the degree that local governments provide desirable services un-available from other service deliverers, however, these services can be aninstrument for managing growth.Earlier in the chapter the importanceof metropolitan sewer service as a means of managing growth by regionalagencies in Portland, Oregon and the Twin Cities in Minnesota was de-scribed.In most cases, growth boundaries are employed in companywith policies for extension of urban services to determine the locationand quality of future development.As demonstrated by Raleigh s experi-ence, the effective use of extraterritorial jurisdiction and annexationpowers depends on capabilities for extending desired urban services todeveloping areas.Local governments sometimes fail to take advantage of this means ofmanaging development.Local managers of semi-autonomous sewer andwater agencies, for instance, frequently act like private enterprises in-terested in maximizing their service areas rather than serving other pub-lic purposes such as growth management.In King County, Washington,in the Seattle area, for example, county officials spent decades attempt-ing to reach agreements with the regional sewer agency to limit sewerextensions to planned-growth areas.In other cases, state laws or courtdecisions limited the ability of local governments to direct services to se-lected areas.Boulder, Colorado s intentions to limit expansion of waterand sewer service outside its borders as part of its growth policy weredashed by a Colorado Supreme Court decision declaring that such ser- MANAGING DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION 73vices were public utility enterprises that should not be constrained byother policy concerns of the city.11The fly in this particular ointment is that the services must be viewedas desirable or necessary by residents of the areas proposed for serviceextensions who probably will pay new fees, charges, and taxes for theservices.Sewer service extensions, for example, are considered neces-sary where private septic tanks are not feasible alternatives.In bothRaleigh and the Minneapolis/St.Paul areas, an essential part of theirgrowth management programs was based on the inability of large areasin the path of potential development to pass soil percolation tests, so thatthe lack of sewer service effectively limited development.In Lexing-ton/Fayette County, Kentucky, the capabilities of the urban limit line toprotect rural areas is reinforced by the state health department s re-quirement for a minimum of 10 acres for the use of septic tanks.However, where septic tanks and water wells can function, residents,who are located in those areas to avoid expensive city services, can andoften do oppose annexation or extension of urban services.The problemsrural residents have caused in resisting changes in Portland s growthboundary are just one example of many.Recently in the Phoenix area,development of an upscale project complete with all urban services andamenities was opposed by neighboring landowners content with wellsthat produced intermittently, failing septic tanks, and unpaved streetsbut concerned that more development would ruin the neighborhood.Interlocal AgreementsAs indicated in the preceding sections, interlocal agreement plays an im-portant role in securing guidance over development outside jurisdic-tional boundaries [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]