AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Well, in most places the areas outside the limits pay substantially more for services that the city provides.

Such as?

Austin energy customers outside the city limits pay _less_ than residents.

Soon to be the same for water
http://kut.org/post/puc-calls-order-...in-water-rates

Originally Posted by wwmiv

That and roads are also typically not paid for by the cities either, they're county and state maintained.

If a non-annexed area resident gets on a road and commutes into work, they're often driving part-way on a city maintained road. And if they get into an accident, the Austin fire department and EMS respond.

And any driving they're doing on a county road, again, that's a great deal for them. They're driving on a road that Austin residents are paying for (we pay county taxes too).


My subdivision never got a chance to vote. Could my block de-annex from the city?

[drummer]

^^ And many county and state roads leave a lot to be desired. Annexation is certainly a big deal and one should weigh both sides of it - I support voting for it as well. Sometimes it's the right move, sometimes not.

[lzppjb]

I grew up my entire life on a road that was half city and half county. Let me just say that my experience is the complete opposite of what has been said in the last couple of posts. The county half is smooth and well maintained. The city half is a piece of shit.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by drummer

^^ And many county and state roads leave a lot to be desired. Annexation is certainly a big deal and one should weigh both sides of it - I support voting for it as well. Sometimes it's the right move, sometimes not.

Okay, so my next question. Who votes for it?

Residents? Landowners? What if those aren't the same people?

What about commercial or corporately owned land. Do they get a vote too?

Any proportionality? Could two single homeowners on 1/4 acre plots "force" the annexation of 5000 acres of corporate owned land? What about 5000 acres of family owned land (like an old ranch)?


It's just a huge bucket of worms, and as I've said, completely inequitable because no one else got the same opportunity.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Okay, so my next question. Who votes for it?

I believe the Constitution settled that question: White male property owners. I'm sure they would have included "heterosexual" if there had been such a thing as being openly gay at the time, but today we would need to state that explicitly.

Kidding aside, I've been watching this debate with a lot of ambivalence because there seems to be no clear answer to any of these questions. I'm a pro-cooperation kind of guy and favor incorporation in most cases, but that's likely an uninformed knee-jerk reaction. But it does seem incredibly inefficient and inherently unfair for cities to be the geographic equivalent of a pair of torn, holey jeans. Austin's boundaries make the coast of Maine look like it was drawn with a ruler. Something about this just strikes me as being wrong.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Tech House

I believe the Constitution settled that question: White male property owners. I'm sure they would have included "heterosexual" if there had been such a thing as being openly gay at the time, but today we would need to state that explicitly.

Kidding aside, I've been watching this debate with a lot of ambivalence because there seems to be no clear answer to any of these questions. I'm a pro-cooperation kind of guy and favor incorporation in most cases, but that's likely an uninformed knee-jerk reaction. But it does seem incredibly inefficient and inherently unfair for cities to be the geographic equivalent of a pair of torn, holey jeans. Austin's boundaries make the coast of Maine look like it was drawn with a ruler. Something about this just strikes me as being wrong.

At least Austin is mostly geographically compact and contiguous (not counting enclaves). Check out LA.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

At least Austin is mostly geographically compact and contiguous (not counting enclaves). Check out LA.

LA is contiguous not counting enclaves of other cities (i.e. it has no exclaves itself).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

LA is contiguous not counting enclaves of other cities (i.e. it has no exclaves itself).

No exclaves, but almost.

I was referring more to the compactness. Austin is still somewhat circular, while LA has that extension along I110.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

No exclaves, but almost.

I was referring more to the compactness. Austin is still somewhat circular, while LA has that extension along I110.

There is no such thing as being an almost exclave. It either isn't or it is, pure and simple. And by pretty much any measure of compactness that we use in academia, Los Angeles would be more compact than Austin even considering the Port of L.A. extension.

[Tech House]

For direct comparison, Austin:




And Los Angeles:



Austin looks like something that needs to be surgically removed, whereas LA looks like something that might be living in your attic.

But Columbus, OH, takes the cake:

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Tech House

But Columbus, OH, takes the cake:

That image of Columbus is actually not the city limits, but rather a U.S. Congressional District proposal from the last round of redistricting which would have comprised the Columbus area had it been enacted. Columbus itself is actually significantly worse.

See here for the congressional districts which were eventually enacted (which are substantially similar):
http://images.dailykos.com/i/user/303419/OH_map.html

[Tech House]

Thanks for the correction. Daily Kos is where I got the original image, maybe from the same article but I failed to look at the context in my image search for "weird city limit maps". By the way, if you just search "weird city limits" you get images from ACL. I had to exclude those with -music -festival -acl. It was actually pretty hard to find images of Austin's city limits, other than a very good one that was way too large.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Tech House

For direct comparison, Austin:




And Los Angeles:



Austin looks like something that needs to be surgically removed, whereas LA looks like something that might be living in your attic.

But Columbus, OH, takes the cake:

That Austin one isn't including parts of Austin that are limited purpose.

Update: Actually, I'm wrong. I hadn't realized those few limited annexation areas were actually disconnected (though connected by ETJ and presumably connecting long term).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

There is no such thing as being an almost exclave. It either isn't or it is, pure and simple.

Come on, if that extension along I110 was only 1 foot wide, or 1 inch (so that it wasn't physically possible to travel from the one part of LA to the other without leaving it) you wouldn't call that "almost an exclave"?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Come on, if that extension along I110 was only 1 foot wide, or 1 inch (so that it wasn't physically possible to travel from the one part of LA to the other without leaving it) you wouldn't call that "almost an exclave"?

No, I wouldn't, because exclave has a very precise and specific definition.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

And by pretty much any measure of compactness that we use in academia, Los Angeles would be more compact than Austin even considering the Port of L.A. extension.

Which measures are those? Not to be (too ) confrontational, I'm curious.


Like I said, Austin is still mostly circular. If you compare (overlay) Austin with the idealized compact Austin ( a perfect circle with radius 9.3 miles), it doesn't actually deviate all that much. A few miles in a few places.

Do the same thing with LA ( a circle of radius 12.6), and it deviates more.

Put another way, the longest (crow flys) distance from one point of Austin to another is about 27 miles (compared to a perfectly compact Austin where it would be 18.6).

In LA, that's 46 miles (while in perfectly round LA it would be 25). 80% longer vs. 50% longer.

[wwmiv]

One of the most standard ways is the length of the radius of the smallest circle's circumference as a ratio with the length of the distance around the cities outside boundary. Austin's ratio would be larger because of the significantly more deviations from the boundary of the circle itself, and thus is less compact.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

One of the most standard ways is the length of the radius of the smallest circle's circumference as a ratio with the length of the distance around the cities outside boundary. Austin's ratio would be larger because of the significantly more deviations from the boundary of the circle itself, and thus is less compact.

That measure just doesn't seem to capture the actual qualitative measure (and benefits) of compactness. Everyone being closer to downtown, being able to reach any part of the city from any other, etc.


It would value a long,thing (but smoothly surfaced) city over a nearly perfect circle with a fractal boundary.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

That measure just doesn't seem to capture the actual qualitative measure (and benefits) of compactness. Everyone being closer to downtown, being able to reach any part of the city from any other, etc.


It would value a long,thing (but smoothly surfaced) city over a nearly perfect circle with a fractal boundary.

I don't think you realize that even if you talk about "being able to reach any part of the city from any other" Austin is less compact than Los Angeles... There are parts of Austin that are almost impossible to reach by road from anywhere else, whereas L.A. is for the most part almost entirely easy to navigate to any other part while staying entirely within the city limits.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I don't think you realize that even if you talk about "being able to reach any part of the city from any other" Austin is less compact than Los Angeles... There are parts of Austin that are almost impossible to reach by road from anywhere else, whereas L.A. is for the most part almost entirely easy to navigate to any other part while staying entirely within the city limits.

The navigability/efficiency of the road system seems a totally separate issue from the geometric form of the city boundaries.

Which parts of Austin are impossible to reach from anywhere else? And are any of those cases an issue of geometry/political boundaries, or are they issues of geography (the river, hills)?

You're navigability claim also seems to presuppose motor vehicles as well. A more (geometrically) compact city layout also tends to be more easily navigable by bike/transit.