Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
If SF annexed Daly City, South SF and the like, would it be richer? Almost certainly no.
|
The answer is less clear than you think. The population certainly wouldn't be wealthier, but revenue might actually increase. When it comes to taxation in California, thanks to Proposition 13, residential uses are a cypher but commercial uses generate revenue. Daly City includes lots of working class families and very little by way of commercial uses, so that would be a drag, but South San Francisco's massive biotech cluster would likely bring in a tremendous amount of rax revenue that might just make the amalgamated city "richer." SSF has only something like 50,000 residents and probably as many high-paying jobs.
Anyway, as to San Antonio annexation, "growth management" isn't really plausible within the Texan context. The areas in question already house 200,000 people and will almost certainly continue to see poorly-planned suburban sprawl regardless of jurisdiction. So what we're left with is the question of whether annexation can benefit San Antonio, e.g. prevent a rival jurisdiction from becoming a threat to the primary city like Irving is to Dallas. The answer seems to be yes. If I were in charge of San Antonio, assuming the long-term advantages outweigh any short-term and long-term disadvantages, I'd probably go for annexation.