I think when all is said and done I’m indifferent to the question of whether or not Houston eventually annexes the Woodlands. From a strictly Houston perspective, I can see pros and cons to either outcome, as I’m sure our neighbors to the north can based on the Kingwood experience.
I don’t know what will ultimately happen. I do know that whoever wants to be Mayor of Houston after Bill White leaves office in 2009 should be spending all of his or her spare time thinking about how to handle this, because it will all happen during the next Mayor’s three terms. We’ll have a better idea what the possibilities are by then, probably after this next legislative session.
The road to self-governance won’t be easy. Several political and legislative hurdles must be cleared.
To become a city, The Woodlands must get Houston’s approval or seek a change in the state’s annexation law.
Forming a public service district with taxing powers also would require legislative approval, but it would be a much easier task to accomplish than incorporation. Lawmakers routinely pass bills to create the special districts.
It’s possible the community could end up relying on both options, using a management district while leaders work toward incorporation, which could take longer.
Both options require time to study and implement, and that is what’s behind the sense of urgency, Deretchin said. The Legislature meets only every two years, which means The Woodlands has just two sessions, 2007 and 2009, to try to get a governance bill passed, he said.
But the time and money spent on exploring becoming a city could be moot if Houston refuses to allow the community to incorporate or it decides to annex.
I think if something doesn’t happen this session, you can just about count on Houston annexing the Woodlands on schedule. Keep an eye on Rep. Rob Eissler, and tune into my interview with his opponent Sammie Miller, who has some things to say on this subject.
One more thing, from this sidebar piece on the ins and outs of annexation:
Q: Is any other Texas city as aggressive as Houston has been with annexation?
A: It’s a fascinating subject, because Houston is a unique case in Texas. Other cities are pretty aggressive, but Dallas-Fort Worth got surrounded and shut down. San Antonio pretty much dominates the metropolitan area there. Austin has some cities to the north that are constraining them.
When I first moved to Houston in 1988, I made regular excursions back to San Antonio to visit college buddies. I was always amused at how the city limit of San Antonio was reached almost immediately after crossing the Bexar County line, which was about ten miles before you reached any real population center. At least now I understand why that is.
I wonder what the impact of so many Woodlands voters would be on Houston municipal politics.
In typical chron fashion, they misrepresent stuff from time to time. While Dallas is essentially “surrounded and shut down,” Fort Worth is far from “surrounded and shut down” by other municipalities. Fort Worth has tremendous room for growth in pretty much all directions but east. Fort Worth learned from Dallas’s mistakes and did numerous “finger” annexations to landlock all the suburbs around it.
Kevin, assuming similar growth over the next few years and assuming that a similar amount of voter turnout, The Woodlands would make up a whopping 3% of an electorate (65,000 by the 2005 census bureau estimate). Even if you got all of them to vote for Repubs, it wouldn’t be anywhere near enough to sweep the types of people you want in office there.
Kingwood is similar sized, and there wasn’t a huge impact on municipal politics there, either, past a couple thousand “Free Kingwood” bumper stickers.