Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 2647 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 3:52 pm: | |
Long time, no post. Anyhow, I know this subject has been beaten to death, but after spending about an hour-and-a-half searching this site, I couldn't find what I was specifically looking for. Around about 1926 is when Detroit last annexed. Now it's my understanding, in general terms, that this is the case because all of the surrounding municipalities (and Hamtramck and Highland Park) became incorporated cities. Cities can't annex cities. Furthermore, what I really am trying to find, is if there was some specific changes to the state constitution around this time regarding the subject of annexation. If so what was the change and where can I find info on the 'before' and 'after?' North Carolina state legislators are looking to change the state law to make it more difficult to annex. Currently, the only requirement is that the city must provide services to the annexed land. They would like to change it so that a vote would be required, and no offense, but I don't want Charlotte to be like Detroit in 75 years and have an unfair metro burden. |
Danindc Member Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4426 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 4:16 pm: | |
quote:They would like to change it so that a vote would be required, and no offense, but I don't want Charlotte to be like Detroit in 75 years and have an unfair metro burden Considering that most of the areas Charlotte has annexed are outlying suburban areas, I don't think you have much to worry about for a while. :-) |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1118 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 4:45 pm: | |
"Now it's my understanding, in general terms, that this is the case because all of the surrounding municipalities (and Hamtramck and Highland Park) became incorporated cities." Not true and easily disproved since Redford Township still shares a common border with Detroit. "Cities can't annex cities." Generally true but Detroit wasn't surrounded by incorporated cities in 1926. "Furthermore, what I really am trying to find, is if there was some specific changes to the state constitution around this time regarding the subject of annexation." No. The state constitution went major overhauls in 1908 and 1963. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M ichigan_Constitution There's a good analysis on the web about why Detroit stopped annexing land after 1926. The three major factors were: 1) Much of the area annexed in 1926 was farmland and it took a lot of time for those areas to develop. 2) The Depression and WWII slowed the growth of development in the 1926 annexation areas. 3) After WWII, most of the areas around the city did incorporate, in some cases to stop Detroit from annexing them and in others, in order to provide urban services in areas that had rapidly developed during and after the war. The assumption is that Detroit wanted to annex but was stopped from doing so by annexation laws, etc. Actually, there wasn't a great desire for Detroit to keep growing and the annexation that took place pre-1926 was under the same laws that were in effect into the late 1960s. |
Mwilbert Member Username: Mwilbert
Post Number: 508 Registered: 11-2007
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 4:56 pm: | |
Don't worry about it. In 75 years Charlotte will be so hot and humid in the summer that no one will want to live there anyway. Seriously, if the government of Detroit had anticipated the future, they probably would have annexed a lot more land, but very few people in the 20's anticipated how the suburbs would develop, and the pattern that emerged wasn't inevitable anyway. I strongly suspect that Charlotte's big problem in 75 years will be something completely different. Termites or subsidence or water or earthquakes or something. |
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm
Post Number: 1735 Registered: 02-2005
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 5:11 pm: | |
In Michigan, it wasn't the state constitution that governed annexation, but laws passed by the legislature. The process for a city to annex an adjacent entity is (and probably was in the 1920s) dependent on whether the residents of the area to be annexed agreed or not, and what was the legal form of the adjacent entity (village, township, unincorporated, etc.). You'd have to look into the evolution of the law around annexation to determine if it was a legal issue, or other issue as suggested above, that controlled Detroit's annexing activities. |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 4499 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 5:23 pm: | |
The Michigan Legislature may stop Detroit from annexing more suburban cities, but Redford TWP. is still under numerous threats for proposed annexation to Detroit or Livonia if the township board follows the State Boundry Commission requirements to have their own water system. However they don't have a their own water system, the get their water from Detroit. The legislature could propose to appeal the city to city annexation laws anytime soon. This means Detroit could annex any suburban city by citizen vote of the new law passed. (Message edited by danny on February 23, 2009) |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 2648 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 5:46 pm: | |
"Actually, there wasn't a great desire for Detroit to keep growing and the annexation that took place pre-1926 was under the same laws that were in effect into the late 1960s." So basically then, there was little to stop Detroit from continuing to annex until the 1960s, but they stopped annexing because they didn't feel like doing it anymore? Kind of boring. I was hoping there was going to be a better reason. "Seriously, if the government of Detroit had anticipated the future, they probably would have annexed a lot more land, but very few people in the 20's anticipated how the suburbs would develop, and the pattern that emerged wasn't inevitable anyway." Well, if it was still legal (or relatively easy to annex up to the 60s), how come they didn't annex in the 40s or 50s? Something seems amiss in this whole situation. |
Taj920 Member Username: Taj920
Post Number: 282 Registered: 01-2004
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 6:21 pm: | |
If Redford is a charter township, that will prevent annexation (just like Mt. Clemens can't annex Clinton Township). |
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55
Post Number: 2594 Registered: 09-2005
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 6:52 pm: | |
In Michigan, it's the outlying townships that need to merge. The 6-mile by 6-mile township grids were laid out in the 1820's when it might take two hours to walk 4 miles to the local polling place. In today's world, these little postage-stamp municipalities are ridiculous - every one of them have to have residential, commercial, industrial, and trailer park zoning. Every one has to have it's own Board of Trustees, Supervisor, Clerk, Assessor, and Treasurer, whether there are qualified residents or not. They are so small and poorly-funded that any developer with deep pockets can roll in and sue the township into submitting to whatever he wants. It's time for the State Legislature to pass enabling legislation to allow two or more adjoining townships to merge. I don't hold out hope of this happening, however. Too many nice campaign contributions from developers. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1119 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 8:33 pm: | |
"Well, if it was still legal (or relatively easy to annex up to the 60s), how come they didn't annex in the 40s or 50s? Something seems amiss in this whole situation." World War II pretty much stopped business as usual during most of the 1940s. You didn't have large-scale residential development except for military housing at places like Willow Run. After the war, Detroit still had areas of land within the 1920s annexation areas that had not been developed. Also, don't forget that Detroit's population peaked in the 1950s at almost 2 million people. At that time, the idea that the city needed to grow likely wasn't shared by many people. At the same time, outlying suburban areas like Livonia and Southfield were developing to a point where residents demanded city level services and those cities finally incorporated as cities. Unlike other major cities that required annexation in order to get water and sewer service, Detroit took the opposite approach and extended water and sewer far beyond the city without requiring annexation. That allowed even places like Novi to see suburban development. Once these areas had water and sewer service, there was little incentive to join the city. Even back then, the easiest way to annex an area was by voter consent. There were other ways to annex land but it was much more difficult and it was quite common for there to be protracted legal battles over annexation. Cities like Grand Rapids, Flint and Kalamazoo also grew through annexation but many times, only after winning legal battles with the surrounding communities. |
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal
Post Number: 337 Registered: 10-2007
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 9:04 pm: | |
It's hard to believe now, but substantial parts of the northeast and far west sides of the City of Detroit were undeveloped until the boom years of the early '50s. You have to remember that the Depression was still in the recent past then, and a lot of people in Detroit were still very unhappy over what was seen as the gross over-expansion of the city's borders during the 1920s. This expansion left miles of city streets lined with valueless vacant lots sitting out in undeveloped countryside during the 1930s, and increased the tax burden on the city's residents. Even by the '50s a lot of older people still had very little faith in the sustainability of suburban growth. My grandfather used to talk about how crazy they were to have built Northland "way the hell out there in the country," and he really resented having to go visit my cousins "out in the sticks" in what became Taylor. When my uncle bought a tract of land near 13 Mile and Evergreen my Grandpa thought he'd lost his mind. However, I have often wondered what stopped the city from annexing the remaining part of Redford Township that sits next to Old Redford, or the piece of Gratiot Township that remained unincorporated for a long time until it became Harper Woods. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3806 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 9:04 pm: | |
Isn't it also part of the story that cities in Michigan cannot annex across county borders? Wasn't that put in as a means of preventing Detroit from growing north? |
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal
Post Number: 338 Registered: 10-2007
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 9:09 pm: | |
Yes, that's true. Many years ago a special exception had to be passed in Lansing in order to allow the Edsel Ford mansion, which actually sits in Macomb County, to be a part of Grosse Pointe Shores. As far as I know, that's still the only municipal boundary that crosses a county line in Michigan. |
Treble484 Member Username: Treble484
Post Number: 65 Registered: 02-2006
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 9:25 pm: | |
Northville also crosses a county line. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4166 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 10:40 pm: | |
My city (Lansing) also sits in two counties (Ingham and Eaton). BTW, I'm sure that Detroit figured it had grown large enough. While relatively small for today's metropoli, the 138 sq mi Detroit was only smaller in area than NYC and Chicago, and ever slightly so bigger than Philly by a few sq miles. If Detroit could have seen into their future (our present), I bet would have been content with its 40 or so sq miles of its Grand Boulevard-looped original city. The city would be infinitely more manageable and easier to put back together. |
Stosh Member Username: Stosh
Post Number: 43 Registered: 01-2009
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 10:43 pm: | |
And years ago, a part of what was then Royal Oak township voted to annex Detroit, but was rejected by Detroit voters. |
Ray Member Username: Ray
Post Number: 575 Registered: 06-2004
| Posted on Sunday, February 22, 2009 - 10:46 pm: | |
How ironic that the chief architect and enabler of suburbia (Detroit) didn't see it coming. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1120 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 12:08 am: | |
"Isn't it also part of the story that cities in Michigan cannot annex across county borders? Wasn't that put in as a means of preventing Detroit from growing north?" No. I'm not sure why this keeps getting repeated but if it ever was true, it's not true now and hasn't been true for years. A number of Michigan cities and villages cross county lines and have annexed across county lines, even in the recent past. In addition to the ones listed earlier, other larger Michigan cities that cross county lines include: * East Lansing * Fenton (includes a small part of Oakland County) * Holland * Midland * Milan * Niles |
Rooms222 Member Username: Rooms222
Post Number: 179 Registered: 04-2005
| Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 1:13 am: | |
As to why Redford did not get annexed in total, I think the best guide is a book from the early 60s about the history of Redford Township in the Redford Twp library. It details all the various annexation votes etc. My recollection is that the Depression and WWII put a hold on the annexation movement probably because the people in the part to be annexed might not approve because of higher taxes and the people in the city might not approve because of the burden and expense (higher taxes) of providing city services to the new area when no growth or new construction is occuring. The votes would not have been approved by both sides in bad times. The Charter Township act was first approved in 1947 which helped provide a check on annexation as it started to gain steam after WWII. http://www.michigantownships.o rg/whatisatwp.asp Note that places like Westland and Livonia chose to become cities rather than charter townships right after that date (around 1950). I'm sure that someone can fill in that history better than I, but a mix of control, political opportunity, and development probably influenced the choice to incorporate rather than become a charter township. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1122 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 2:01 am: | |
Livonia incorporated in order to get a share of the revenue from the DRC racretrack. The village of Northville incorporated as a city for the same reason. Back in the 1950s, city incorporation was much more common that it is today. While Charter Townships did have more protection from annexation, they didn't have the range of powers that they've gained over the past 50 years. Also, many residents in those areas had moved from Detroit and other established cities and the expectation was that when a community grew to a certain size, it would become a city. The last big wave of township-sized incorporations happened in the late 60s and early 70s with places like Taylor, Novi, Romulus, Sterling Heights and Farmington Hills reaching city status. The last major city incorporations happened in the early 1980s (Auburn Hills and Rochester Hills). |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1123 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 2:06 am: | |
Once the voters of the Village of Grosse Pointe Shores approve a city charter, two townships, Grosse Pointe and Lake, will no longer exist. The last townships to go out of existence were Pontiac Township, which occurred in 1983 with the incorporation of Auburn Hills and the city of Lake Angelus and Avon Township in 1984 with the incorporation of Rochester Hills. http://www.grossepointeshores. org/charter (Message edited by Novine on February 23, 2009) (Message edited by Novine on February 23, 2009) |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 2649 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 12:38 pm: | |
Interesting. Think that about sums up what I really wanted to know--there was no real change in annexation laws that prevented Detroit from continuing to do so, but rather for various economic reasons, they chose to not continue expanding the city. Thanks all! (Message edited by charlottepaul on February 23, 2009) |
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936
Post Number: 3932 Registered: 01-2005
| Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 12:52 pm: | |
Excellent thread. Thoughtful responses. Thanks to all! |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3560 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 12:53 pm: | |
Read David Rusk's "Cities without Suburbs" |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 4503 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 12:58 pm: | |
Taj920, Yes if Redford TWP. follow SBC requirements to provide their own water system in which they don't. Therefore Redford TWP. will be face proposed annexation to Detroit or Livonia. In a matter of fact they put asphalt on their once dirt roads to prevent annexation. That is part of SBC requirements to keep Redford a charter TWP. Look at Northville TWP. It's a charter TWP. but get's it water from Detroit. Northville doesn't have its own water system. so anytime they could bt annexed to Livonia, Plymouth anytime when developers come in the petition the Michigan Legistlature or city councils. Last year The developers want to buy the land where the Northville Psychiatric Hospital is at. They petition Livonia City Council to have parts of TWP. to be annexed to Livonia. The result it folks in Livonia will have to pay higher property taxes. The votes was cast and the people of Livonia voted NO. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3561 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 1:10 pm: | |
I think the late 1800s was a period where people viewed annexation by cities as progressive. Starting around the 1910s, with the advent of the automobile, I think people began viewing cities with mistrust and suspicion. I do think the suburbs organized themselves as municipalities to avoid being annexed by Detroit. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1126 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 2:39 pm: | |
" I do think the suburbs organized themselves as municipalities to avoid being annexed by Detroit." This is partially true. It's more true that many of the suburbs incorporated to avoid being annexed by their neighboring suburbs. This was true of Westland, Dearborn Heights, Farmington Hills, Auburn Hills and Rochester Hills among others. None of those communities faced an annexation threat from Detroit. They did face annexation threats from neighboring communities. In many cases, incorporation followed after a successful annexation. |
Thoswolfe Member Username: Thoswolfe
Post Number: 100 Registered: 11-2007
| Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 9:08 pm: | |
When Westland Mall was proposed, Livonia did consider annexing part of Nankin Twp. where the mall is. Reason for forming City of Westland, to prevent losing part of the township to annexation. City of Farmington annexed a thin sliver of land going across I-96(now M5) and all the way to 8 Mile Rd from Farmington Twp, preparing to seize all the industrial property taxes on 8 Mile. City status for Farmington Hills stopped any further annexation. When Pontiac needed land for a proposed stadium, they annexed part of Pontiac Twp. Yes, the Silverdome was also in (the future) Auburn Hills before being annexed by Pontiac. Going back a few more years- Lincoln Park and Wyandotte were trying to annex the last piece of Ecorse Twp, the Twp residents formed City of Southgate. Why would it be necessary for a city to have their own water department to exist as a city(or charter township)? Most municipalities in Wayne Oakland Macomb counties buy their water from Detroit, very few exceptions- maybe Highland Park and Wyandotte. Wixom had no city water available in most of the city until recently. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1127 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Monday, February 23, 2009 - 10:21 pm: | |
"Why would it be necessary for a city to have their own water department to exist as a city(or charter township)?" There's language in the Charter Township Act dealing with which townships are exempt from annexation that references water and sewer service. Danny has insisted that this requirement would allow townships like Redford to be annexed by Detroit. No one else agrees his interpretation of the law. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1132 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 9:58 pm: | |
Strike a blow for consolidation. One new city, one less village and two fewer Townships in Michigan. GP Shores voters approve the new city charter. http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20090224/METRO 01/902240458 GP Shores now has the option of voting to alter the County boundary to be solely in Wayne or Macomb County. Which way should they go? |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4175 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 10:05 pm: | |
I love the new name of the new Grosse Pointe Shores. municipality. It's incorporated as a city, but they kept the village name, so now it's the "Village of Grosse Pointe Shores, A Michigan City." I sh%t you not. lol Now, if they can get a City of Greater Grosse Pointe going... (Message edited by lmichigan on February 24, 2009) |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1134 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 11:16 pm: | |
But they're not the first. I think the Village of Clarkston started that particular trend and other Michigan villages have done the same including Douglas which is adjacent to Saugatuck. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4179 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 - 11:25 pm: | |
Yeah, they are not the first, but I believe the appended "A Michigan City" is definitely a first. There others are formed things such as "City of the Village of Clarkston" and "City of the Village of Douglas". None of them have an appendaged after-thought. lol |
Thoswolfe Member Username: Thoswolfe
Post Number: 101 Registered: 11-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 5:06 am: | |
City Of Lathrup Village, but that name was chosen to AVOID confusion, with similar-named Lathrop,Michigan.(And that town is just a dot on some U.P. maps, if that) |
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal
Post Number: 346 Registered: 10-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 5:46 am: | |
So, are Redford and Royal Oak Twp. now the last unincorporated townships left in close proximity to Detroit? |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1135 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 6:42 am: | |
Those are the only ones left that have a common border with Detroit. |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 4514 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 8:27 am: | |
If Detroit annexed every last township in the tri-counties, The Detroit would be 100 times bigger than Chicago, 80 times bigger then Los Angeles and not as big as New York City. Detroit would have a booming population of 5 to 6 million. There would be little or no suburbs at the city/county borders. The ethnic population would be 65% white, 20% black, 10% Arabs Muslims and Chaldeans, 7% Hispanics and 2% other. |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 4515 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 8:34 am: | |
GP Shores (Snobbyville) to become a city (A.K.A Snobbycity) with the population of 850! Where's that laughing dog! SILLY! they should have joined with Grosse Pointe Woods, Grosse Pointe Farms and Grosse Pointe, Grosse Pointe Park and become Caviar Heights! |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 4517 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 8:49 am: | |
Ferndale and Oak Park could annex what's left of Royal Oak TWP. if the township council don't reduce their financial problems. So far 2 parts of the R.O.T. had been annexed to Oak Park: One, at the 10 Mile Rd. and Greenfield area where the Hasidic Jews built their walk-about community at the subsidized and co-operative apartment complexes. The other, at the industrial complexes and few black dominate subsidize apt. complexes along and Wyoming Rd. Scotia Rds. |
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1841 Registered: 12-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 12:05 pm: | |
Redford Township and Royal Oak Township already were the only unincorporated places bordering Detroit (not counting townships in Ontario). Grosse Pointe Shores does not border Detroit at all. (It is the only one of the Pointes which does not.) |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3574 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 12:20 pm: | |
"This is partially true. It's more true that many of the suburbs incorporated to avoid being annexed by their neighboring suburbs. This was true of Westland, Dearborn Heights, Farmington Hills, Auburn Hills and Rochester Hills among others. None of those communities faced an annexation threat from Detroit. They did face annexation threats from neighboring communities. In many cases, incorporation followed after a successful annexation." Don't forget Troy. Before Troy incorporated as a city, either Clawson or Birmingham had annexed a bit of the southern portion, which Troy had hoped to use for industrial development. But is it MORE true that the suburbs engaged in protective incorporation to avoid annexation from each other? (As opposed to Detroit?) Certainly the scores of suburban communities did not ALL incorporate because they bordered Detroit. But the initial phase of protective incorporation may well be what started this chain reaction of reincorporation. I remember, one time, I was in the map division of the Detroit Public Library's main branch. The librarians do the best they can there, but it's understaffed enough that maps don't get put away immediately. Anyway, an old map was still out, waiting to be collected and I looked at it. It was from about 1920 or 1925, I think. And the map projected that, by 1930, the boundaries of the city of Detroit would extend beyond Eight Mile Road. That fascinated me, because that assumption flies in the face of everything since then. I don't hate the suburbs. I think they've allowed plenty of people the option to live life off a menu of choices, and burbs like Birmingham or Mt. Clemens have lots of character to my mind. But I do believe that, in our rush to "protect" one municipality from another, we've lost something important: A regional vision, whether it's one of a super-city like New York, or one of an integrated region like San Francisco. And that kind of inter-municipal conflict bodes ill for a future where we are likely to have much less to compete for. Anyway, kind of a long rant. Thanks for posting, Novine. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1141 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 1:57 pm: | |
Thanks. I'm not as familiar with the earlier annexation attempts in the pre-World War II era but someone else posted how parts of Oak Park sought annexation to Detroit in the 1930s but those efforts were rebuffed by Detroit voters. So there were some efforts to expand Detroit beyond its current boundaries. There may have been others that would explain why people expected the city to be beyond 8 Mile in the 1930s. "But is it MORE true that the suburbs engaged in protective incorporation to avoid annexation from each other? (As opposed to Detroit?" I think so. Novi provides a good example of this pattern in the suburbs. In the early 1950s, Novi was a township. In the mid-1950s, Northville Village, which included part of Novi Township, incorporated as a city to take advantage of the same legislation to secure race track fees that led to Livonia's incorporation. Northville then annexed land from Novi Township east and west of the original Northville Village boundaries. Around the same time, the Wixom portion of Novi Township, along with a portion of Commerce Township, incorporated first into Wixom Village and then into the City of Wixom to capture the taxes from the new Ford assembly plant that was constructed in the northwestern part of the Township. In response to these annexation and incorporation efforts, most of Novi Township incoporated as a Village in 1958 and then as a city in 1969. None of this was in response to the threat of annexation from Detroit. It also seems unlikely that the incorporation of Livonia or Southfield inspired this effort. The same is true of the incorporation of places like Farmington Hills and Auburn Hills and Rochester Hills. All were in response to annexation efforts from surrounding communities. Were the inner-ring incorporations in reaction to Detroit? Maybe. But once you get beyond those communities, Detroit's reach seems to have had little influence on the incorporation of those communities. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1142 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 2:07 pm: | |
Here's some history on the annexation of portions of Troy. I do believe that Troy incorporated in response to annexation threats from other communities. http://www.troymi.gov/Museum/H istory/TimeLine.asp I also recall that a portion of the city of Troy was annexed into Birmingham after approval by voters in both cities back in the 1970s or early 1980s. This included the area between Maple and Derby east of the railroad tracks. This was one of the few times in Michigan history that land was annexed from one city into another. That can only happen when the annexation is approved by voters in both cities. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3576 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 2:41 pm: | |
Thanks. Enlightening and interesting to learn more about the details of suburban incorporation. I've long studied the initial phase of incorporation, and I'm now moving on to examining the second- and third-phase annexations with some interest. "Were the inner-ring incorporations in reaction to Detroit? Maybe. But once you get beyond those communities, Detroit's reach seems to have had little influence on the incorporation of those communities." I'd argue that the inner-ring incorporations were in reaction to Detroit, and it laid the template for what would come later. The history of that trend probably begins in 1918, when Highland Park incorporated itself as a city. I imagine Henry Ford HAD to have something to do with that. I'm sure he didn't want his brand-new factory to come under the city's powers of taxation. (Ford deeply mistrusted cities, even as he urbanized much of the area with his new plants.) Similar thing with Hamtramck in 1922, a Polish enclave, yes, but also home to the Dodge Main complex; I could believe that the Dodge brothers had an interest in avoiding city taxes too, and it was likely helped along by H-town's ethnic homogenity. What's now Dearborn in the 1920s was Dearbornville and Greenfield, and other township lands. After Ford sank all that investment into the Rouge Plant (again, outside Detroit city limits), I imagine he encouraged the creation of Dearborn so it wouldn't be swallowed by the city. (I also heard, apocryphally, that Ford engineered the incorporation of Inkster, to house his black workers.) Whatever was driving it, here's how it played out in the late 1920s. Dearborn incorporates as a city in 1927, blocking Detroit out along Michigan Avenue at Wyoming. That same year, Ferndale incorporates as a city, barring annexation along Woodward Avenue north of Eight Mile. Two years later, East Detroit incorporates as a city in 1929, blocking Detroit's expansion out along Gratiot Avenue at Eight Mile Road. It's worth noting that Northwest Detroit was the least developed, and Redford Charter Township did not need to protectively incorporate itself at all. I think this bolsters my theory. It's important to remember how vital Detroit's spoke roads were to its development. Detroit had vast areas of land in between those spoke roads that had not developed by 1929. The ensuing years of depression and war stalled any new development that would fill all that in. Also, by the end of the 1920s, the interurban was a memory, so no rail transportation linked Detroit with the outside along those thoroughfares. By 1930, the city's growth had been blocked not just by suburban incorporation, but by national economic trends. Filled with plenty of open space and without steady employment, there was little reason for Detroit voters to approve annexations of all that land "out in the middle of nowhere." For the new inner-ring suburbs, there was little reason to hitch their future to the city plagued by hard times, rising government expenditures and modest economic activity. Anyway, what does all this ancient history have to do with trends of municipal incorporation that extend 6, 12 and 18 miles beyond the city limits, and as many as eight decades after the city was finally faced with growth boundaries? I think it set the stage for annexation as a defensive way to deal with problems of competing for development and tax revenues. (What works to "tame" Detroit will work to "tame" Birmingham or Troy.) And, frankly, since 1930, that has been the standard operating procedure for newly developed land. Older suburbs like Birmingham and Clawson tried to grow, threatening townships that were poised for the postwar boom. As new townships like Troy tried to gain more of the tax revenue pie, that squeezed the next ring of suburbs (like then-Avon Township), who reacted by incorporating too. And the template for it hasn't changed much since that first incorporation of Highland Park in 1918. And that's the same sort of game plan we've followed for almost 80 years now, again and again, ring after ring. Who knows what might have happened had Detroit grown to become a super-city like New York, which sprawls over five counties? Might we have been able to harness the new growth to help provide for a growing region? Who knows? What I fear is that what you're left with after all this defensive incorporation is a crazy-quilt of municipalities all fighting each other for resources that are diminishing. And it bodes ill for our future as a region. It may be that we're past the time when it would do us any good, but new thinking about metropolitan areas suggests that our best hope for the next 100 years is for our metroplexes to stop fighting for resources and start behaving like an integrated region, sharing resources (such as shared revenue from new growth across municipal boundaries) instead of holding each other at bay. |
Oldertimer Member Username: Oldertimer
Post Number: 2 Registered: 01-2009
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 4:05 pm: | |
I believe that the city of Milan MI is in two different counties. Monroe and Washtenaw Cntys. |
Detroitnerd Member Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 3577 Registered: 07-2004
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 4:17 pm: | |
Oldertimer: You're right. Milan (pronounced MY-lun) straddles those counties and it's fine. I have some friends out there. The inside is all old-timey small-town goodness, surrounded by a shell of nightmarish sprawlburbia... |
Eastsideal Member Username: Eastsideal
Post Number: 349 Registered: 10-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 4:26 pm: | |
Yeah, I guess I've been proven wrong on that issue. Which makes me wonder about the basis for persistent story (told to me repeatedly by several relatives, friends, and neighbors over many years) told on the eastside of Detroit that municipalities in Michigan normally aren't allowed to cross county lines. But that GP Shores was granted a special exemption to cross over into Macomb County only because of Edsel Ford's wish to have his estate included in GP Shores, rather than in a Macomb community, and the influence of the Ford family in Lansing to make it so. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1147 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 5:44 pm: | |
It sounds like the same story told that the portion of Detroit that used to be in Redford Township is covered by some reversion process that would allow it to be "de-annexed" from Detroit. There's no truth to that claim but it has been repeated here on DY. I don't know enough about the history of the annexation of the Ford property to GP Shores to say that it's not true but I'm also not aware of any impediment to crossing county lines that would have led to those claims. Another reason I question that story is that the Ford's owned additional property to the west of the Estate. They sold that to Grosse Pointe Woods for their Lake Front Park. From the GP Woods web site: "The acreage was acquired in 1948, after residents of Grosse Pointe Woods voted in 1947 to purchase the land adjacent to the Edsel and Eleanor Ford home. The City purchased the land for $60,000 from Eleanor Clay Ford, who was the original owner. The land is in the jurisdiction of St. Clair Shores and, as a result, Grosse Pointe Woods pays taxes to that city in the amount of $100,000 annually. In return, St. Clair Shores provides police, fire and emergency services." As that acquisition preceded the incorporation of St. Clair Shores, why wouldn't the Ford's have had that land annexed into GP Shores along with rest of their estate before that land was sold off? |
Thoswolfe Member Username: Thoswolfe
Post Number: 102 Registered: 11-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 9:00 pm: | |
Odd- It does Seem as if the Fords could have set up any kind of a legal arrangement to suit their needs or civic pride, but maybe annexation laws are tougher. After all, when they donated all that land in Allen Park for Veteran's Hospital, it went back to Ford ownership when the hospital closed. And when Comerica preferred the Ford Auditorium site, it was ruled out because that parcel also reportedly goes back to Ford ownership if the Auditorium is demolished. |
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed
Post Number: 3829 Registered: 04-2006
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 9:09 pm: | |
So in theory, Detroit can still annex Redford Township? Then Detroit and Livonia can be next door neighbors? Blackest city in America meets the whitest city in America. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1150 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 10:23 pm: | |
"So in theory, Detroit can still annex Redford Township?" Yes but not really. Under the Charter Township Act, this could only happen if the township voters petitioned to be annexed to Detroit and then both Detroit and Redford voters approved the annexation. That's very unlikely to happen in our lifetime. |
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan
Post Number: 4183 Registered: 10-2003
| Posted on Wednesday, February 25, 2009 - 10:24 pm: | |
Yes, in theory, if both sides agreed to the to it. More realistically, if even still highly unlikely, any part of Redford Township could agree to a Detroit-initiated annexation. Heavily urbanized charter townships are virtually treated as if they were cities, to be honest. BTW, in my area of Metro Lansing, there has been made huge use of 425 Agreements. 425's are essentially annexations with time limits and other requirements. In fact, the City of Lansing has entered into a handful of non-contiguous 425 "annexations" since 1999 to capture shared tax revenue with the township they share the tax revenues with. All of these have been for large-scale developments that wanted special tax incentives (something townships can't offer), but didn't find suitable land in the central city of the region. For instance, when GM was looking to build a new plant in Metro Lansing, they chose an a tract of land in Delta Township, but wanted special tax breaks that the township couldn't offer, so the City of Lansing offered to 425 the area, so everyone came out winners. In another instance, Lansing entered into a 425 with Alaiedon Township to retain the headquarters of Jackson National Life Insurance, who were going to move outside of the region. Alaiedon wanted the tax revenues that they'd otherwise not be getting, at all, and Lansing was able to retain the company within its boundaries (since 425s count as annexations). Lansing agreed to offer the site water and tax incentives, so Alaiedon agreed to the 425. There have also been 425's intiated between two charter townships in the area. |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 2651 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 2:45 pm: | |
"But I do believe that, in our rush to 'protect' one municipality from another, we've lost something important: A regional vision..." Yeah. That is essentially my view and reason for this thread. You do have to feel bad for areas that get annexed--they have to pay higher taxes and lose their small town identity. On the other hand, I feel that the more overarching issue is to not "...set the stage for annexation as a defensive way to deal with problems of competing for development and tax revenues." Just seems that the ability for a city to easily annex land around it, is the best way to prevent divisiveness. People might be angry for a generation, but in the long run it should be better for the whole region. |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 2652 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 2:48 pm: | |
Anyone know of a published number (be it print or a web site) that lists the number of municipalities in metro Detroit? I recall the number 144 (probably for the 3-county area), but I can't remember where I got that from. SEMCOG lists their members, but I want the number so that I can cite it. |
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul
Post Number: 2653 Registered: 10-2006
| Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 2:57 pm: | |
Looks like Charter Townships in Michigan are immune from annexation: Charter Township Act 42.34 Exemption of charter township from annexation to contiguous city or village http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(5hhjpr455e4w5n45lku21455))/ documents/mcl/pdf/mcl-act-359- of-1947.pdf |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1160 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 5:13 pm: | |
"Looks like Charter Townships in Michigan are immune from annexation" There are exceptions. That's how a developer was able to annex land to Pontiac from Bloomfield Township and there was the proposal to annex land from Northville Township to Livonia that was defeated by the voters. |
Danny Member Username: Danny
Post Number: 4523 Registered: 02-2004
| Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 5:33 pm: | |
"Cities can't annex cities" I don't think so! There were some talks that the cities of Farmington and Farmington Hills wanted to merge. |
Novine Member Username: Novine
Post Number: 1161 Registered: 07-2007
| Posted on Friday, February 27, 2009 - 8:02 pm: | |
A merger of two cities is called "consolidation" and is different from annexation. As I noted above, cities can annex property from each other as long as voters in both cities approve it. "Except as otherwise provided, this section shall not be construed to give any city the authority to attach territory from any other city unless the question relative to the territory has been voted upon by the voters of the entire cities affected" |