3 thoughts on “Residents of recently annexed neighborhoods would not qualify for mayor, council under proposed changes”

1. Interesting. I wonder, given the problems we are facing with home ownership, why we would propose striking “promote neighborhood integrity” from the goals of the government.

   A quick Google search brought up this explanation of “neighborhood integrity” from the city of College Station:

   ——
   The term Neighborhood Integrity is often used to describe the core components that make up the identity of a particular neighborhood. There are certain attributes that contribute positively to neighborhoods, such as

   * definable boundaries (roads, land use, natural boundaries)
   * relatively compact size that promotes interaction between neighbors,
   * connectivity or reasonable proximity to schools, parks, clinics, etc.

   Similarly, Neighborhood Integrity incorporates a quality-of-life aspect. Residents expect neighborhoods to be relatively quiet, safe, have lower volumes of traffic and be well maintained. Making sure the character and feel of a neighborhood remains stable and protected will also help solidify it’s identity over time.
   ——-

   Most of that sounds pretty important and desirable in promoting homeownership and long-term residency.

   Similarly, why strike “create a strong community” from those goals? That is what we are lacking more than anything. There are too many “Us and Them” issues in this city.

2. Good questions Ted. I didnt ask about those. It might have something to do with having more concrete objectives. Neighorhood integrity, et. al. seem like worthy goals but are maybe too abstract to codify as a goal of city government. It’s still an interesting change in light of all the neighborhood issues that come up like your problems in the Sierra Circle area.

3. Makes me wonder who the city is planning to annex next. Can anyone say Country Estates?