The Campaign For DA

10.03.2017

Is This True?



There is no question Bridgeport is trying to annex property -- I have personal knowledge of it. But are they going after this much?




20 comments:

Anonymous said...

No. That is simply the map of where the ETJ ends. Could they? Yes. Are they at this time? No.

Anonymous said...

I'm going to annex all your guns.

Anonymous said...

Anytime annexing occurs, it's just another government entity wanting additional tax revenue, that they will in turn mostly waste.

Anonymous said...

Looks like a middle-schooler drawing a dong on a map.

Anonymous said...

I bet they don't have enough money to. But--that maroon line is the extent that they could legally annex in a year, it does not mean they are actually doing it.

What cities usually do is creep outward alone the roads, basically throwing elbows to any other city that may try to encroach, without having to provide services for anyone back in the boonies. Plus, the boonies are usually under an ag exemption, and don't provide much tax revenue.

Rage

Anonymous said...

Coyote Flats, in Johnson County, is a fairly recent example of one strategy to avoid eventual annexation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coyote_Flats,_Texas

http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/archives/welcome-to-coyote-flats-texas/article_9e1c0448-791c-5172-aaaa-962e5f2ffb2d.html

Anonymous said...

In the initial annexation, they can legally increase the area of the city by 30%. This map is intentionally misleading people to believe the city is annexing everything in the ETJ. The proposed annexation boundaries can be found on the city's website. The sign posted in the picture is on property on the north side of Hwy 380 adjacent to the Rhino Linings shop. Those two properties are completely surrounded by the city limits. There is no way it is right for them to avoid city property taxes when all their neighbors pay their share.

After the initial annexation, the city can legally annex an area equal to or less than 10% of the existing size of the city.. Given those restrictions, it would take a long time to ever get everything in the current ETJ.

Anonymous said...

We live in a free country, until a city council wants your land outside their limits.

Anonymous said...

Hold your breath until they provide city services to the annexed area. In the meantime, they WILL be taxed for them.

Anonymous said...

Communism is alive and well in the council chambers.

Anonymous said...

What I wanna know is which council member made the annexation lines in the shape of my dear ol Popeye the sailor man

DF Olive Oyl

Anonymous said...

12:08...They don't want your land, just the tax revenue. In my opinion, there is only one landowner in the current annexation plan with a legitimate bitch. If you don't think the city has anything to offer you, sell the property and move further out.

Anonymous said...

Rage, the limit is 30% in the first year. The maroon line would be much more than 30%.

Anonymous said...

Nope. They don't have a thing to offer. It's Bridgeport for crying out loud.

Anonymous said...

They want the revenue off land they never helped work.

Anonymous said...

1:01
Why should someone have to sell their land and move because they don't want to be in the city limits? Looks like they were there 1st.

Anonymous said...

Are you sure that's a maroon line? Or a moron line?

Anonymous said...

1:02, you're right about the %, I was not thinking about the actual 30%, just assuming their lines were correct.

But I made an ass out of u and me. OK, mostly me.

Rage

Anonymous said...

It's just a map of Bridgeport's ETJ. And if the city limits change somewhere, the ETJ boundary might grow a bit. That's all. Sometimes people just don't want to pay taxes to the nearby city; though those same people sure don't seem to mind driving on that city's roads all the time, using that city's park, etc.

Anonymous said...

I believe the limit is 10%, not 30%. If property is involuntarily annexed, the City is required to provide municipal services within a reasonable period. I forget what exactly that is, but there is a statute that specifies it.

Involuntary annexation is not 'easy'. There are a lot of hoops the City has to jump through, which is why it doesn't happen very often.

But when property is located in an 'enclave' (surrounded by property located IN the City limits; i.e., a sort of 'hole' in the City), then the process is a little easier because it is obvious that those City services ARE ALREADY available to that parcel, from the adjacent land already inside the City limits.

And if your property is already located in an 'enclave', then understand you are ALREADY receiving City police and fire protection, which your taxes are NOT paying for. So who is the moocher there?