Just some surrounding areas, increasing the city's footprint, much of it on the west side. It included the Cook campus.
I read a compelling essay many years ago, written by, of all people, James Michener, which argued that one of the worst things for a city was a state's unwillingness to allow annexation. He believed that Pennsylvania's reticence to let Philly expand was largely to blame for keeping resources out of Philly proper, and that if the city had been allowed to annex the suburbs, the entire metro area would have been better off.
Not a midnight amendment. Those non annexation provisions have floated through the legislature as part of HB 1450 and only got put in the budget at the end of the session.
That sounds like pretty much the definition of a midnight amendment. What's it matter what other bill the provisions were previously attached to?
Rumors I have heard are Jeff Ellington and Steve Ferguson.
This one answer and then no more detailed discussion.
The problem is that a lot of time you pay more taxes and get absolutely nothing in return. I live close to Greenwood and they want to annex everything but if they build a park or anything for Greenwood citizens it always goes in the original city limits of Greenwood and never in any of the annexed areas.
In theory we would have gained city police and fire. No offense to the Sheriff's office, but they have fewer patrols out over a larger geographic area than the city does. And no offense to the volunteer firefighters, but I would hazard a guess the full-time pros are better trained and equipped. So in our case, in theory, we would gain something even if they didn't build a park.
So you either don't know or won't tell. Fair enough.
Call me stupid, but I'm fine with it. I'm poor white trailer trash, living in a trailer park. My property taxes are pocket change. They could double and I would barely feel it, but I suspect my lot rent will go up, since the park owner's taxes will probably increase. I have a county park directly across the street, and a fire station directly behind me. The trailer park is already on city sewer and water. So there's nothing in it for me, except for paying a little more for the greater good of the community I live in. Like I said, I must be stupid.
Okay, then that would be "won't tell".
This shouldn't be hard. Just figure out which legislator lives in the affected area. Five bucks says it was done at his request.
Saw that. Which means he supported the amendment. I'd like to know who actually got it inserted it into the budget bill in the conference committee. I don't know if Ellington has that much pull. I was under the impression that these last minute, under the cover of darkness additions could only be done by leadership or those with some real influence. But like I say, I don't claim to know anything. That's why I'm asking. Looks like the one guy who claims to know all about this kind of shit isn't talking. (Or doesn't know and won't admit it.)
Well, since he couldn't even accurately describe the language of the amendment, I'm going to put my money on "doesn't know and won't admit it."
That's a two way street though...it's not like all those city folks just stay in the city.
I intentionally did not include the actual language. I said it would be general and my remarks were general.
Homework. Local units of government ONLY exist under legislation adopted by the General Assembly. They are all literally creatures of the state. Annexation ONLY exists pursuant to law enacted by the General Assembly. IF the legislature had not enacted an annexation statute, no city or town would have any authority to annex any parcel of property outside their jurisdiction at all. One of those local units behaved in such a way that the legislature took umbrage and stopped them with what was originally HB 1450 but the language ended up in the budget in conference committee and passed as part of the budget bill.
Well, your "general" remarks were still incorrect. You said:
Yeah, it doesn't take a genius to realize that the business interest cited by the bill's author was Cook.
Basically. What it actually says is this:
