PDA

View Full Version : The Woodlands and Houston might have a deal re:annexation


Major AWACS
Dec 8, 2006, 10:23 AM
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4387682.html

Dec. 8, 2006, 1:22AM
Woodlands strikes deal to end annexation threat
Plan allows community to vote on governance and become regional economic partner

By RENÉE C. LEE and MATT STILES
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Voters in The Woodlands could decide as early as next year whether to take the first steps toward self-government under a deal that also would remove the possibility of annexation by Houston, local officials announced Thursday.

The agreement marks a dramatic shift in how potential boundary takeovers have been handled. Mindful of acrimonious debates that erupted when Houston annexed Clear Lake and Kingwood, local officials said they worked hard to avoid a similar situation with The Woodlands.

What it means for people in The Woodlands is a chance to make decisions about their community without the threat of becoming a part of Houston.

It also provides the master-planned community of about 84,000 a chance to be a regional player for the first time. Under the agreement, The Woodlands would enter into an economic partnership with the city to fund mutually beneficial regional projects totaling $45 million over time.

Houston Mayor Bill White and state Sen. Tommy Williams, R-The Woodlands, heralded the deal as an example of cooperation between communities that depend on each other.

White said the deal also would offer the residents a "greater degree of independence."

"Decisions should be in the hands of the people most affected, and that would be the people of The Woodlands," White said.

Williams said the proposal is what The Woodlands residents asked for in a recent report that listed the goals they wanted to achieve as they worked toward a new form of governance.

''They wanted to work with Houston, not against it. They wanted to work to maintain their independence and avoid annexation. And they wanted to take action now. I took them at their word," he said.

Established more than 30 years ago by business mogul George Mitchell, The Woodlands has long been considered one of the premiere master-planned communities in the nation. The 28,000-acre community, 25 miles north of Houston, is known for its system of hiking trails, forested streets and environmental preservation standards.

Many people who live there think all that could deteriorate if Houston took over.

Thursday's proposal would require legislation, which Williams and state Rep. Rob Eissler, R-The Woodlands, pledged to get passed in the upcoming session.

Lawmakers need to pass at least two bills — one to expand an existing improvement district to collect sales taxes in all of The Woodlands and one to make it possible for Houston and The Woodlands — and other cities and communities in the future — to enter into a regional agreement.

With the new laws in place, The Woodlands residents then could vote in November on whether to expand the existing improvement district — which already collects a sales tax in the retail district of The Woodlands — as a first step toward possible incorporation.

Williams said that part of the agreement would provide a mechanism for lowering the property taxes and assessments used to provide services.

"A locally elected board will provide the residents with the same high-quality services that they have come to expect during this transition period to our permanent form of government."

The agreement, which also would need approval from the Houston City Council and the various governing boards in The Woodlands, would not affect Conroe's plans to annex Harper's Landing, the only Woodlands neighborhood east of Interstate 45 and not within Houston's expansion boundaries.

Under the terms of the proposed deal, Houston would agree to release The Woodlands from its extraterritorial jurisdiction — a distinction in state law that would allow annexation. That would allow residents to decide after 2014 whether to incorporate or choose another form of local self-governance.

In return, The Woodlands would give up an initial $16 million to pay for certain regional projects. The money would come from existing local funding sources to be determined. It would not come from increases in municipal utility district fees or property tax increases.

The projects would include $3 million for improvements to Lake Houston Park, much of which is in Montgomery County; $3 million for other major parks, including Memorial and Hermann; $5 million for road improvements at the Texas Medical Center, and a $5 million contribution to a planned project that would extend the Hardy Toll Road closer to downtown.

The Woodlands also would make another $29 million in payments from sales taxes during the next 30 years.

Houston officials have shown a willingness to work with The Woodlands in the past. In 1999, Houston and The Woodlands municipal utility district officials agreed to an annexation moratorium, protecting the community until 2014.

Joel Deretchin, co-chair of the steering committee that has studied governance options, said the agreement reflects the will of the people.

"

Jeff Long, president of The Woodlands Community Association board of directors, also was surprised by the announcement.

''The beneficial portion so far is being out from under the threat of annexation. That was paramount," Long said. "But the devil is in the details. We knew all along that there would be a price, so whether I can live with it or not, I have to study it first."

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, New Mexico-Not new, not Mexico

Double L
Dec 8, 2006, 10:42 AM
We did it. What a breakthrough.

Complex01
Dec 8, 2006, 3:37 PM
I will believe it when i see it. But i doubt that i will still be in Houston in 2014. Next city please...

JManc
Dec 8, 2006, 10:05 PM
i would like to see the woodlands as an incorporated city and not another victim of houston's amoeba like sprawl.

txrngr
Dec 8, 2006, 10:08 PM
Please correct me if my opinion is skewed, I want to understand this situation. But from my observations, Houston has been trying to annex The Woodlands for a long time now with much opposition from residents in The Woodlands. It seems Houston is being very greedy in trying to attain more tax revenue rather than listening to the voice of the people of The Woodlands which is a unified NO. If they don't wish to be part of Houston and pay for projects in other parts of the city like the Texas Medical Center then they have the right. Houston's government seems like a bully trying to steal money from the rich kid. Just doesnt seem right....now someone tell me where I am going wrong.

Shasta
Dec 8, 2006, 10:32 PM
Your opinion is skewed.

The Woodlands was developed by George Mitchell. His plan all along was for the Woodlands to be incorporated into the City of Houston. You can look it up and see for yourself. He never intended for the Woodlands to stand alone and suck away tax dollars from the central city.

Additionally, I have very little sympathy for people who are trying to "flee the city" and yet they purchase their new homes in locales that are LEGALLY in Houston's annexation zones. That simply isn't smart and they certainly could have purchased their homes in areas that couldn't be annexed (Tomball, Katy proper, Sugar Land, Missouri City, Conroe, Galveston, Pearland, Humble, etc...).

If The Woodlands defeats what was the original developer's goal (to become a part of Houston) then it will HURT the city of Houston. The Woodlands is no longer just a bedroom community full of middle to higher end homes. It is now also home to a major mall, new entertainment district, and several large companies. This will erode the tax base of the city and it is MUCH MORE UNFAIR for the people who live in the Woodlands but work within the city limits to use The City of Houston's services (roads, sewers, public transportation, convention centers, utilities, safety patrols, etc...) without ever paying a dime for them.

While people hate Houston's sprawl and wide annexation powers (which have been dramatically cut back since the 1980s), that is the reason Houston doesn't struggle like many other cities who are landlocked and watching as the people flee.

Double L
Dec 8, 2006, 10:37 PM
I also heard a rumor from a former friend of mine that George Mitchell signed a deal with Houston that said if they build the Hardy Toll Road they could annex The Woodlands. So I think that there's something in writing.

Tex1899
Dec 9, 2006, 3:13 AM
George Mitchell was the original developer for The Woodlands. George Mitchell is no longer the developer - he sold the development (I guess the undeveloped portion) to a partnership (Crescent Real Estate Equities and I believe a Morgan Stanley unit)...I think The Rouse Co. now owns the undeveloped portion. Once the Mitchell/Crescent-Morgan Stanley transaction took place, unless the annexation wish was part of the sale agreement, and I doubt it was, the original developer's annexation wishes flew out the window.

Life's not perfect. Yes, many large cities are seeing competition from smaller and growing cities/suburbs. It's called change. There's not one document or law that states that the large cities as of today must remain the large cities from now until eternity. It's also called competition. And Houston, like other cities, needs to make itself more attractive to residents and businesses in order to remain competitive. If these cities don't, they'll die. Detroit is a perfect example.

Everything is equal in the end. Yes, a lot of citizens live in a suburb or non-incorporated area and work in Houston. Just the opposite happens, too. A buddy of mine lived near downtown and worked for a company in The Woodlands. Houston has a lot of corporations, so they derive revenue and philanthropic dollars from those corporations...the suburbs and unincorporated areas often don't.

As far as I'm concerned, the argument of non-residents working in a city and not paying for its services is a crock. If you purchase anything in the city of Houston, you are contributing towards the services the city provides via sales tax. Even if you don't, if you purchase something a Houston company manufactures, you still pay a 1/2% Houston city tax. Really, give me a break. If I want to go out on a Saturday, drive around, and drive through a city, should I have to pay a toll upon entering that city because I'm benefiting from its services? Of course not. You win some, you lose some. And Houston has won much more than it has lost. Although, Louisiana does have a toll-type system for 18-wheelers. Upon leaving Louisiana, trucks have to show proof of purchase of a tank of diesel, or they have to pay I guess you'd call it a permit fee or penalty roughly equal to the amount a tank of diesel would cost.

I lived in Kingwood when it was annexed by Houston. Houston botched the annexation, plain and simple. There are several examples of the fire department taking "too long" to get to fires because they couldn't find the street, claiming it wasn't on the map. The volunteer fire dept. didn't have that problem. Traffic is now worse on Kingwood Drive. due to "traffic management" ie stoplights. I can think of 4 stop lights that have been added to Kingwood Dr. since the annexation, and with the exception of one new development (at the front of Kingwood...a shopping center anchored by Randalls), there hasn't been a ton of development on Kingwood Dr. As a matter of fact, the stoplights were placed at points where development had been completed (by at least 10 years).

People who move into unincorporated areas need to realize that there's a pretty good chance their subdivision will eventually be annexed by Houston or another city. At the same time, those subdivisions should be allowed to incorporate and form their own city.

Double L
Dec 9, 2006, 4:10 AM
That's not what's happening here. The Woodlands will have autonomy it will simply give some of its money to Houston. The Woodlands will still make its own decisions. Houston and The Woodlands worked together for an agreement profitable for both sides.

txrngr
Dec 9, 2006, 6:47 PM
the argument of non-residents working in a city and not paying for its services is a crock. If you purchase anything in the city of Houston, you are contributing towards the services the city provides via sales tax. Even if you don't, if you purchase something a Houston company manufactures, you still pay a 1/2% Houston city tax. Really, give me a break. If I want to go out on a Saturday, drive around, and drive through a city, should I have to pay a toll upon entering that city because I'm benefiting from its services? Of course not.
I agree with this 100%.

The Woodlands is no longer just a bedroom community full of middle to higher end homes. It is now also home to a major mall, new entertainment district, and several large companies.
So, why can't The Woodlands govern and tax themselves if they have the economic power to do so. It seems Houston is looking for a way to get some extra money in its pocket by claiming an area that is doing excellent on its own. I just dont see the point other than Houston wanting more money.

Double L
Dec 9, 2006, 9:35 PM
I think it disengages us from a fair tax system when you have small bedroom community suburbs with their own tax rates seperate from the city core of the region. The entire region under one regional tax system is just fair.

However, that is not what is happening here. The Woodlands residents will even be able to set their own tax rates. They just have to put some of their money aside for regional projects in Houston and Montgomery County.

What Woodlands residents might be complaining about is that before they didn't have their own taxes, not much of anything at least and now they will need to implement taxes on the area.

txrngr
Dec 9, 2006, 11:51 PM
I dont mean this to be a "my way is better than your way" statement, I'm just trying to understand the issue. The Dallas area is made up of many suburbs which compete with Dallas on all levels. Therefore, Dallas has to give people and business a reason to locate within their city limits instead of Plano, Frisco, Grapevine, etc. This is the system I am used to. I guess my main question is what benefits will the residents of The Woodlands recieve if they join the city of Houston and what will make this annexation good for The Woodlands. I understand Houston's reasons, I just dont know the reasons this thriving community, which has done fine on its own, would want to join Houston. Thanks.

Double L
Dec 10, 2006, 12:09 AM
George Mitchell made Houston annexing The Woodlands a part of his master plan. So this is in writing and was supposed to happen (I think he said he would do it if they build the Hardy Toll Road). Most residents of The Woodlands wanted to stay away from Houston because The Woodlands is so well planned and doesn't give it's own taxes as a city. So this deal gives The Woodlands autonomy, lets them set their own tax rate and some of the money must go to projects in Houston and Montgomery County (The county The Woodlands is in)

Shasta
Dec 10, 2006, 6:12 PM
While Dallas has many things I envy as a native Houstonian, one of the few things Houston has over Dallas is the fact that we are a much stronger central city.

Downtown Dallas struggles with massive amounts of vacancy downtown because of the suburban pull. Dallasites don't have baseball downtown. The best museum in the Metroplex is in Fort Worth. The airport is in Grapevine. The Cowboys play in Irving but are going to be moving even further away soon. The soccer team plays in Southern Oklahoma (Frisco). Tha major universities are in various cities too (SMU in the Park Cities, TCU in Fort Worth, UT Arlington, even the U of Dallas is in Irving).

To me, a healthy central city is a much better thing to have than a bunch of prosperous edge cities. That's just my opinion.

totheskies
Dec 10, 2006, 8:46 PM
Your opinion is skewed.

The Woodlands was developed by George Mitchell. His plan all along was for the Woodlands to be incorporated into the City of Houston. You can look it up and see for yourself. He never intended for the Woodlands to stand alone and suck away tax dollars from the central city.

Additionally, I have very little sympathy for people who are trying to "flee the city" and yet they purchase their new homes in locales that are LEGALLY in Houston's annexation zones. That simply isn't smart and they certainly could have purchased their homes in areas that couldn't be annexed (Tomball, Katy proper, Sugar Land, Missouri City, Conroe, Galveston, Pearland, Humble, etc...).

If The Woodlands defeats what was the original developer's goal (to become a part of Houston) then it will HURT the city of Houston. The Woodlands is no longer just a bedroom community full of middle to higher end homes. It is now also home to a major mall, new entertainment district, and several large companies. This will erode the tax base of the city and it is MUCH MORE UNFAIR for the people who live in the Woodlands but work within the city limits to use The City of Houston's services (roads, sewers, public transportation, convention centers, utilities, safety patrols, etc...) without ever paying a dime for them.

While people hate Houston's sprawl and wide annexation powers (which have been dramatically cut back since the 1980s), that is the reason Houston doesn't struggle like many other cities who are landlocked and watching as the people flee.


Solution for both parties:

Create a payroll tax for commuters that work within Houston city limits. If they have the money to maintain the lifestyle of driving 50 or 60 or 70 miles a day for work, they can pay a small tax for Houston's maintenance.

Double L
Dec 10, 2006, 9:16 PM
^^^

Or you could do what they did here and ask The Woodlands to put part of their money into projects in Houston and Montgomery County.

The Hardy Toll Road was also part of this plan and although I'm not sure where that money goes I think it's been going to The Woodlands.

Tex1899
Dec 10, 2006, 11:15 PM
Re: City Payroll Tax

If I owned or ran a non-manufacturing company and the City of Houston did this, I'd strongly consider moving the company to a suburb. And I bet a lot of other companies would consider the same. You can only tax entities so much.