Category Archives: Annexation

Annexation, City of Peoria, Comprehensive Plan

City must pursue higher density for new development

26 Comments

I’ve been reading through the City of Peoria’s new draft Comprehensive Plan and started despairing when I hit page 51:

The density of the population of Peoria in the mid Twentieth Century will not return. The current demand by the majority of the population is for larger residential lots, more space between neighbors, and more open space. Current zoning requirements cause large parking areas to accompany commercial development, further reducing the overall density of the city.

If that statement is true, then we might as well put a sign on every entrance to the city that says, “Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.”

Studies have shown that densities less than 4 to 5 dwelling units per acre are unsustainable — in other words, the expense of providing services exceeds the revenues generated. (E.g., Cost of Sprawl [2005]; Figure 4, “Residential Service Costs,” p. 5) Peoria’s growth cells currently have 2.6 dwelling units per acre according to the city’s recent Growth Cell Strategy Report. If land mass is going to continue to increase faster than population growth, and if density is thus going to continue to decrease, then we’ve barely scratched the surface of our financial difficulties. Having land that costs more to maintain than it produces in revenue is a recipe for structural deficits that will be impossible to eliminate.

Reading on in the proposed Comp Plan:

If the attempt to re-populate many of the least dense areas of the city, some of the oldest neighborhoods in Peoria, is successful, the overall density may increase, or at least offset the increase in land area. Without the successful repopulation of older neighborhoods, the projected trend is for the overall population density to continue to decline in future years.

First of all, the “least dense areas of the city” are not the oldest neighborhoods, but the growth cells and far-flung annexations to the north and west. Secondly, what “attempt to re-populate . . . the oldest neighborhoods in Peoria”? I’m not aware of any serious attempt, although one would be welcomed. Thirdly, why not attempt to also increase density in the newer areas of town? No, not to the same level of density as the West Bluff. But isn’t it reasonable to require at least 4 or 5 dwelling units per acre for new subdivisions — or enough that they can pay for the services they consume?

Annexation, City of Peoria

Thought experiment: Annexation

4 Comments

The date is November 21, 1964. The voters are going to the polls to decide whether Peoria should annex Richwoods Township. The voters approve annexation by a slim margin: only 336 votes.

But let’s do a little thought experiment, just for fun. Suppose that vote had gone the other way. Suppose the annexation vote had lost by 336 votes. What would things look like today? What would be different? What would be the same?

Here’s some further background info. From a 1979 article in Illinois Issues:

The population of “old” Peoria slipped from 106,000 in 1960 to less than 100,000 in 1970, but the addition of Richwoods added some 25,000 new residents to its population. Present city officials believe that the tax revenues collected from the Richwoods section have been vital to the city in maintaining its services in the older parts of Peoria.

The annexation has not been without cost to the city. Because Richwoods, like so many fringe areas around Illinois cities, had been developed according to the relatively lax zoning, construction and planning standards of county government, resulting deficiencies became Peoria’s responsibility to remedy. Fortunately, a preannexation agreement with Peoria County spared the city from having to remedy all the problems at once. As Peoria’s Mayor Richard E. Carver complained recently: “Our city is, even today, spending millions of dollars developing the basic road network which would normally have been constructed as the area developed had there been an adequate degree of planning and control present at that time.”

And also, here are a couple of charts from an undated (but apparently late-1990s) report on Peoria population growth (click on the thumbnails below to view larger image):

Peoria Population Chart Peoria Population Density Chart

On the population chart, you’ll notice that population declined from 1970 to 1990. Census figures from 2000 (not included on the chart) show the population was 112,936 — a further decline. There have been special censuses conducted since 2000 that would indicate population is rising, but since they only look at population growth in one section of the city, they’re not really comparable to the decennial censuses.

One argument is that population migration would not have been any different if the annexation referendum had failed. The 15-square-mile Peoria would have suffered from the population loss, while Richwoods Township would have been a boomtown, acquiring all the wealth that used to belong to Peoria. The two municipalities would look identical to the way they look today (booming growth to the north, destitute of commerce to the south).

The other argument is that Peoria and Richwoods would have been in competition for residents and businesses, and thus would have both been stronger as a result. Without greenfield development sites, Peoria would have had to invest its money revitalizing or keeping vital its east bluff, west bluff, and south side neighborhoods, attracting developers and industry to the core of the city, etc. It would have incentivized people and businesses to stay in the city instead of acquiescing to the perceived inevitability of northward migration. As a result, Richwoods would still be a boomtown, but Peoria would not be in as bad of condition as it is today (infrastructure, commerce).

Which scenario do you buy? Or do you have a completely different scenario you think would have played out?

Annexation, General News

Trending toward urban living

6 Comments

Many scoff at the idea people would want to abandon suburban life for a more urban setting, but researchers are noticing a trend in just that direction. If these forecasts are true, what will the ramifications be for all those low-density developments on the fringe of town? Here’s an article from Atlantic Monthly that should give city planners and developers something to think about:

Arthur C. Nelson, director of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, has looked carefully at trends in American demographics, construction, house prices, and consumer preferences. In 2006, using recent consumer research, housing supply data, and population growth rates, he modeled future demand for various types of housing. The results were bracing: Nelson forecasts a likely surplus of 22 million large-lot homes (houses built on a sixth of an acre or more) by 2025—that’s roughly 40 percent of the large-lot homes in existence today.

For 60 years, Americans have pushed steadily into the suburbs, transforming the landscape and (until recently) leaving cities behind. But today the pendulum is swinging back toward urban living, and there are many reasons to believe this swing will continue. As it does, many low-density suburbs and McMansion subdivisions, including some that are lovely and affluent today, may become what inner cities became in the 1960s and ’70s—slums characterized by poverty, crime, and decay.

Hat tip: Chris Setti

Annexation

What happens when the “bread crumbs” end?

10 Comments

puzzle piecesThe Journal Star reported yesterday that some residents just north of Peoria are trying to preempt annexation to Peoria by annexing themselves to Dunlap. Not a bad idea. Peoria’s population keeps moving north, and the city keeps chasing them via annexation:

For Peoria, annexation is simply following the bread crumbs of development.

Pat Landes, the city’s director of planning and growth management, says the city is just responding to developers’ requests; policy dictates the property be contiguous, and those seeking annexation conform to certain guidelines such as how the property is to be developed.

But here’s my question: what happens when Peoria runs out of annexation opportunities? The “bread crumbs” will end someday, just like it ended at the borders of West Peoria, Peoria Heights, and Bartonville. Communities will incorporate or annex themselves to surrounding communities to avoid being annexed into Peoria, and eventually we’ll be, for all feasible purposes, boxed in. Then what?

Well, of course, we’ll have to start focusing on how to improve and more efficiently use the land we already have. We’ll have to start thinking strategically about infill development. We’ll have to start pursuing regional partnerships to share the costs of certain resources (we’re starting to see that already with the airport taxing authority being extended to all of Peoria county and negotiations between Peoria and West Peoria on sewer repair costs). I could go on.

But the next question is, are we pursuing those things enough right now? Or are we pinning all our growth strategies on annexation? Is there a 50-year vision for Peoria and, if so, what does it look like?

Annexation

An interesting take on annexation

3 Comments

We always hear that annexation is good for the city because it’s “capturing” the growth just outside municipal borders. But there’s another hypothesis out there as to why municipal employees might be so gung-ho for more annexation — higher wages.

In an article originally published in 1987 for the journal “Public Choice,” Rodolfo A. Gonzalez (Department of Economics, University of California, Davis) and Stephen L. Mehay (Department of Administrative Science, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey) concluded the following (emphasis mine):

We hypothesized that extending municipal boundaries will have a positive effect on discretionary outlays and on expenditures per capita. The evidence presented supports these hypotheses. Furthermore, municipal wages appear to be significantly increased in cities experiencing annexation growth. Therefore, we would expect to find that municipal employees are more inclined to favor annexation than the rest of the electorate. From a policy standpoint, this study suggests that significant perverse effects on fiscal efficiency may follow adoption of legal reforms that facilitate the ability of municipalities to extend their borders, or that restrict the formation of new municipalities.

The name of the article is “Municipal annexation and local monopoly power,” and if I had $30 to spare, I’d download and read the whole thing just so I could see how they came to such conclusions. But I found the abstract alone to be thought-provoking. One wonders whether there truly is a correlation here, or if these findings are simply raw cynicism.

Annexation, City Council

Council roundup: Crusen’s request to leave city deferred

Crusens wants their newly-acquired Hunts property at the corner of Farmington and Park roads to be annexed to West Peoria.  To do that, they have to get permission from the City of Peoria to disconnect from the city.  City of Peoria staff recommends denying that request, so Crusens asked for a one-week deferment.

After some acrimonious comments from Councilman Morris (who clearly is against letting the Hunts property out of the city), the council approved the deferral.

Annexation, Peoria History

A little annexation history

4 Comments

During the latest annexation of 715 acres, I heard more than one media outlet describe it as “the largest annexation since the city added Richwoods Township.” I wasn’t even born yet when Peoria annexed Richwoods Township, so that meant nothing to me, but I figured it must have been a big addition of land.”Big” doesn’t begin to describe it.

I spent some time at the library familiarizing myself with some annexation history tonight and was shocked at the size of the Richwoods annexation. It more than doubled the physical size of the city, expanding it from 15 square miles to 35 square miles. The additional land extended from just north of War Memorial Drive (south of Lake) all the way past Detweiller Park to Ravinswood Road to the north. It also added about 21,000 residents.

And it almost didn’t happen. The residents of the township had to vote for annexation, and pro-annexation voters won by only 336 votes. There was quite a bit of debate leading up to the big vote, which took place on November 21, 1964. Most of the arguments centered around the then separate Richwoods school district which did not want to join Peoria’s District 150. Proponents of annexation pointed out all the city services Richwoods would enjoy: storm sewers, water (provided by the Peoria Water Works Co.), buses, increased law enforcement, the replacement of volunteer firefighters with “city firemen” (lowering their fire insurance bills), garbage collection, street repair, street lights, etc., etc., etc. One of my favorite quotes was, “Speakers for annexation have told prospective voters to consider the long range view, that a bigger city could attract more industry by showing evidence of a growing, vibrant city.”

It’s growing, alright–but only in size. Check out these numbers:

Year
 Square Miles
 Population
1960 15 103,162
2006 49.26 112,936

The physical size of the city is over three times as large as it was 46 years ago, yet our population has increased only 9.5%. Is it any wonder that we’re having trouble balancing budgets? Why is our population stagnant despite the immense increase in land mass, strip malls, retail stores, etc.?

(One interesting side note: the city next tried to annex Peoria Heights in February 1965, but it was roundly defeated by voters there.)