Comments » 56

COR415 writes:

72.9% of Shelby population live in Memphis, per US census. The County population is up 2.5%, but the city population down 1.8%. That alone says something about the city. People are moving out of the city. The question is why? Until that is answered the city will continue the drag the metro-area down.

pony94 writes:

in response to bcintennessee:

"They eventually ring in the city on all sides, preventing the central city from growing or increasing its tax base through annexation." Isn't this inevitable with or without consolidation? There are limits as to how much Memphis can grow, such as the county and state lines, even if it were to annex all of Shelby county. What then?

Just for the record, Memphis could cross county lines (not state lines) if the citizens of the other county wanted city services. This is the case in East TN.

BogeyMan2013 writes:

So, if I understand correctly, consolidation isn't a good thing unless its proponents can tell us EXACTLY how much money will be saved, how much taxes will go down, how many more business will be attracted to come here or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

GIVE ME A BREAK! Scientists can't tell us how much longer we'll live if we stop smoking, but we know we'll better off if we do. It stands to reason that if we eliminate the redundancies in our current two-government system, we'll HAVE to save money, so why is everyone so hung up on quantifying that amount when we know we'll be better off not wasting money.

Parzinger (Inactive) writes:

in response to MoCash:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Say Hi to Fred for all of us in the County.

TheKingfish writes:

in response to forwardmemphis:

I will explain it to you. Metropolitan areas develop in two ways, one healthy, the other unhealthy. Cities of Type I spawn suburbs, but these suburbs remain unincorporated and are eventually annexed into the central city. The original city grows larger and larger, dominating the county it is in. The county's cost of providing services dwindles as the city's increases, but the city is always able to increase its population and tax base through annexation. In most cities of Type I, there is no hostility toward the city, and residents do not mind living in it. Cities of Type II are cities that develop in an unhealthy way. In Type II cities, suburbs form that are quickly incorporated to prevent annexation by the central city. They eventually ring in the city on all sides, preventing the central city from growing or increasing its tax base through annexation. As the central city's financial picture worsens, its population declines, its property values also decline, and therefore its revenue declines precipitously, conversely while its ever-poorer population desperately needs more services which the city is unable to provide due to the budget crunch. If such cities raise property taxes, they run residents and businesses away, and if they cut services they do the same. There is no way out for cities of Type II except through bankruptcy or some form of consolidation. So there's your answer. Cities of Type I do not need consolidation, while cities of Type II do.

Why haven't more type 2 cities consolidated?
