|
|
Post by 956dna on Jan 16, 2024 21:20:35 GMT -6
So creating this new "Greater Brownsville Municipal Development District" will allow this new entity to collect taxes not only within Brownsville's city limits, but within its ETJ, including a portion of Starbase. The GBIC and BCIC can only collect tax $ within Brownsville's city limits. And if any future commercial development happens along the new highway connecting to the 2nd causeway, this new entity gets that tax $ too. Everything in green:  |
|
|
|
Post by BRO956 on Jan 17, 2024 3:30:40 GMT -6
BRO ETJ has covered now much of CC... it has reached all the way to the proposed main entry where the 2nd causeway is going to be located.. they can control as to what areas to develop commercially..👍
|
|
|
|
Post by nativebrownsville on Jan 17, 2024 6:26:32 GMT -6
Brownsville’s ETJ extends into portions of the Laguna Madre.
|
|
|
|
Post by miles on Jan 17, 2024 9:15:58 GMT -6
BRO ETJ has covered now much of CC... it has reached all the way to the proposed main entry where the 2nd causeway is going to be located.. they can control as to what areas to develop commercially..👍 i thought the state had made strip annexations illegal? Too many cities were annexing roads only ... or just a few feet on either side of roadways to block any other city from annexing. Looks like Brownsville did that everywqhere north of city limits to control the county |
|
|
|
Post by nativebrownsville on Jan 17, 2024 9:52:11 GMT -6
They sure did. They literally blocked Harlingen/San Benito from growing east , I don’t feel bad because they would’ve done it to us if they wouldn’t have the opportunity. Our ETJ extends past VIA/HRL. I believe all legal matters regarding this strip annexation have been settled between the cities of Brownsville and Los Fresnos, Bayview, Laguna Vista, and Port Isabel. The #1 and #2 wealthiest zip codes in the RGV lie within or surrounded by Brownsville’s ETJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by BRO956 on Jan 17, 2024 10:14:54 GMT -6
No its not illegal to pick the direction of the growth of each city. You are allowed to extend your ETJ according to each census.. so if los fresnos hasnt grown then they can't annex land.. but as you can see BRO has.. push back from harlingen and san Benito was in dispute of some land by los indios bridge..
Since its owned by both cites and BRO beat them and had already annexed most of military hwy.. but land was swapped.. BRO got much of the interstate section that san Benito annexed south heading towards BRO. Same thing with PI ... they wanted so land for future growth but hardly no growth in PI so BRO agreed to annex around PI into laguna madre and close to arroyo city..... same thing with McAllen n Edinburgh.. McAllen was land locked but Edinburgh allowed a roadway for McAllen to grow north to where los tres lagos is.. McAllen was allowed to annex that land that probably Edinburgh would hve jurisdiction of.. Edinburgh can grow as much as it wants north... all of the northern HC is all rural area
|
|
|
|
Post by miles on Jan 17, 2024 10:29:03 GMT -6
They sure did. They literally blocked Harlingen/San Benito from growing east , I don’t feel bad because they would’ve done it to us if they wouldn’t have the opportunity. Our ETJ extends past VIA/HRL. I believe all legal matters regarding this strip annexation have been settled between the cities of Brownsville and Los Fresnos, Bayview, Laguna Vista, and Port Isabel. The #1 and #2 wealthiest zip codes in the RGV lie within or very close to Brownsville’s ETJ. McAllen was almost land-locked too by Edinburg to the North and Mission/Alton/Palmhurst to the West/NW... except a sliver that opened up the far northwest that now includes Tres Lagos and beyond.   |
|
|
|
Post by miles on Jan 17, 2024 10:31:34 GMT -6
No its not illegal to pick the direction of the growth of each city. You are allowed to extend your ETJ according to each census.. so if los fresnos hasnt grown then they can't annex land.. but as you can see BRO has.. push back from harlingen and san Benito was in dispute of some land by los indios bridge.. Since its owned by both cites and BRO beat them and had already annexed most of military hwy.. but land was swapped.. BRO got much of the interstate section that san Benito annexed south heading towards BRO. Same thing with PI ... they wanted so land for future growth but hardly no growth in PI so BRO agreed to annex around PI into laguna madre and close to arroyo city..... same thing with McAllen n Edinburgh.. McAllen was land locked but Edinburgh allowed a roadway for McAllen to grow north to where los tres lagos is.. McAllen was allowed to annex that land that probably Edinburgh would hve jurisdiction of.. Edinburgh can grow as much as it wants north... all of the northern HC is all rural area The illegal part if i remember correctly, was strip annexing slivers of land along roadways. no city services were going to be provided to those annexed property owners but they had to pay city taxes for nothing. txplanningguide-ojs-utexas.tdl.org/txplanningguide/article/view/40/28 |
|
|
|
Post by Granolabright on Jan 17, 2024 10:54:31 GMT -6
So you saying its ok for McAllen to do it but not BRO??? ETJ was and is within BRO jurisdiction..most of it is unincorporate land... you may hve disputes when a city annexes an area where there is more population... the would hve to render city services... such is the case in Cameron park..population close to 5k... but city will not annex because of lack of services.. it would cost the city more in providing all utilities n roads.. thats a reason why BRO doesn't want any poverty low income colonias popping up everywhere..
|
|
|
|
Post by miles on Jan 17, 2024 11:42:13 GMT -6
So you saying its ok for McAllen to do it but not BRO??? ETJ was and is within BRO jurisdiction..most of it is unincorporate land... you may hve disputes when a city annexes an area where there is more population... the would hve to render city services... such is the case in Cameron park..population close to 5k... but city will not annex because of lack of services.. it would cost the city more in providing all utilities n roads.. thats a reason why BRO doesn't want any poverty low income colonias popping up everywhere.. I never said it was ok for McAllen to do it. and no, McAllen didn't do it too. The strip heading north on the map above are parcels of land, not a few feet on either side of a roadway. i was talking about the law going back and forth several years ago about it. Not just specific to Brownsville. Even San Juan tried to strip annex roadways to keep Pharr out of the south side that was up for grabs. their official city maps still show the strip annexed land and Pharr's ETJ shows all the way to Donna's international bridge, including San Juan's property. There were many lawsuits back and forth about it.   |
|
