(01-02-2015 08:22 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 06:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Which city is a bigger deal?

1) a city of 1,000,000 with a metro area of 6,000,000?
2) a city of 2,000,000 with a metro area of 4,000,000?

I would select #1. I'm sure there are others that would say #2.

The masses won't know the difference, which is good for San Antonio. Houston has been the fourth largest city for decades now but is just now starting to look anywhere near the part.

Some "small" cities that are bigger than San Antonio:

Miami (approx. 400,000 in only 36 sq. mi., less than SA's potential annexation)
--5 million plus in the metro

St. Louis (approx. 250,000)
--2.7 million in the metro

Atlanta (approx. 450,000)
-5.5 million in the metro

San Francisco (800,000. about 200,000 less than San Jose but SF's in a smaller land area and is clearly the most important city in the Bay)
--7 million in the metro


You get the idea, you can't go off city population alone, which as we're seeing with San Antonio can paint an inaccurate picture.

Yea. But Miami and DFW are kind of odd cities. Miami sort of counts Broward and Palm Beach Counties, but they really act as separate, but adjacent cities. Fort Worth and Dallas kind of have the same thing going on. At least Dallas and Fort Worth share an airport.

Heck, West Palm and Miami are about as integrated as Austin-San Marcos-San Antonio are.

I hate forced annexation. It should all be voluntary. If San Antonio wants to grow, they should have a tax, utility, and service structure SO GOOD people WANT to annex themselves in.

(01-03-2015 10:34 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I hate forced annexation. It should all be voluntary. If San Antonio wants to grow, they should have a tax, utility, and service structure SO GOOD people WANT to annex themselves in.

Actually SA is taking in a huge chunk that will be a net drain on the city. My land is included. No idea why they are annexing it.

(01-03-2015 10:34 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I hate forced annexation. It should all be voluntary. If San Antonio wants to grow, they should have a tax, utility, and service structure SO GOOD people WANT to annex themselves in.

It can be a bit more complicated than that.

In Texas, developers or private property owners can (usually) avoid non-voluntary annexation by not using resources owned by (and built by) the city holding annexation rights.

Here in Houston, there was a big upset over Kingwood getting annexed to the City of Houston. But they use our water. The developers could have not used resources paid for by the taxpayers of the City of Houston for their new subdivisions, but they chose to use our assets instead

(01-03-2015 02:57 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  What's the point? Here in El Paso, we are trying to get smaller because it cost the city too much money in infrastructure cost. So why are these cities wanting to get bigger?

National and international prestige.

While numerous people understand that metro area population is very arguably the best indicator of a place's size (I'd venture to say urban area i.e. how much continuous development does a region have and the population within it) a sizeable amount don't and will assume that San Antonio is in a class with NYC, LA and Chicago or even Houston, which isn't there yet. Thus, when people say "San Antonio is the fifth largest city," it will give a large amount of people a false sense of how big the place is.

Imagine if New York did that to all of Long Island and Hudson County, it'd probably have 12 million people instead of 8. New York is a bad example though because it can already be argued that it did so in 1898 when Manhattan took over every adjacent county, including Brooklyn who fought it and would be the fourth largest city in the country if not for being attached to Manhattan et al. Boston would be huge if it took over every city in the region.

Otherwise, you're right, why extend your boundaries and coverage areas? It will bring in more headaches rather let the city deal with everything it already has to deal with.

(01-02-2015 06:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Which city is a bigger deal?

1) a city of 1,000,000 with a metro area of 6,000,000?
2) a city of 2,000,000 with a metro area of 4,000,000?

I would select #1. I'm sure there are others that would say #2.

Gotta give it to 1.

(01-04-2015 03:24 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 06:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Which city is a bigger deal?

1) a city of 1,000,000 with a metro area of 6,000,000?
2) a city of 2,000,000 with a metro area of 4,000,000?

I would select #1. I'm sure there are others that would say #2.

Gotta give it to 1.

That one is interesting because there's a real life example that's very close: The Bay Area versus the Metroplex. The Metroplex is anchored by a 1 million+ city in Dallas and has 6.8 million while the Bay Area is anchored by San Francisco which has 800,000 or so in a metro listed as 4.5 million. I say listed because it does not include San Jose, which would add another 2 or 3 million people.

I'd definitely place San Fran over Dallas in importance. That said, your viewpoint is the rule and not the exception.

It's interesting, but half of Baton Rouge breaking away is more interesting.

Not good if SA is run by democrats.

(01-03-2015 10:34 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I hate forced annexation. It should all be voluntary. If San Antonio wants to grow, they should have a tax, utility, and service structure SO GOOD people WANT to annex themselves in.

This. Most annexation is nothing more than a revenue grab. Those that get annexed get the paupers share of the ROI.

(01-02-2015 09:36 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  There are some cities and counties that have effectively merged the municipal and county governance. Jacksonville and Duval Co. (Fla.), Augusta and Richmond Co. (Ga.), and I think Macon and Bibb Co. (Ga.). Also New Orleans and Orleans Parish in La. … I'm sure there are others. That's not a good idea everywhere and in every case, but maybe San Antonio and Bexar Co. would be better off if they conducted all their business under one roof.

Memphis/Shelby County needs to do this so very badly...