Thursday, September 18, 2014
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
 
Join Metro Jacksonville and get in on the conversation today!Already have an account?  Sign In

Author Topic: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map  (Read 4282 times)

stephendare

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38551
  • truth beauty art and love
    • MetroJacksonville
1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« on: July 03, 2010, 02:10:01 PM »
And now abide faith, hope and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love

thelakelander

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22816
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2010, 06:29:35 PM »
Were Biltmore, Riverview, Highlands and Garden City incorporated municipalities?

Jaxson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1448
    • Peace of Mind blog
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2010, 07:06:06 PM »
Biltmore, Riverview, Highlands, Garden City and Arlington were unincorporated areas.
John Louis Meeks, Jr.

hillary supporter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 512
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2010, 09:57:13 PM »
My parents and i moved to cedar hills in 1960, it also was unincorporated. My parents said there were no property taxes!

thelakelander

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22816
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2010, 10:04:40 PM »
Here is the 1960s city limit map we put together for an article two years ago.



A link to Jax city limit changes since 1832: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-oct-the-plight-of-the-urban-core

Mattius92

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 315
  • It's time to bring the "Change" to Jacksonville.
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2010, 12:35:52 AM »
Edgewood used to be the edge, now its far from it.

Jacksonville has certainly grown over the years for good or for bad...
SunRail, Florida's smart transit idea. :) (now up on the chopping block) :(

Jaxson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1448
    • Peace of Mind blog
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2010, 01:00:16 AM »
I worked as a temp for Collection and Recycling back in '93.  I remember having to learn what addresses were in the old city limits.  The City of Jacksonville was/is responsible for garbage collection within the pre-1968 city limits.  I still think of this whenever I am driving up U.S. 17 and pass by Verona Avenue... 
John Louis Meeks, Jr.

I-10east

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3404
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2010, 03:13:51 AM »
I'm glad that Jax had consolidated with Duval County; I don't see anything "bad" about it. Talk about an identity crisis, we can't even accept the fact that we're consolidated.

tufsu1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10597
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2010, 09:02:17 AM »
Jacksonville has certainly grown over the years for good or for bad...

I would say for good and for bad

Some of the negatives have been clearly documented recently....but think about this....our tax burden is the 6th lowest among large cities....we're the lowest in FL and 20% less per capita than the next closest city (Orlando)....that could never have hapopened without the revenue from all the suburban areas.

For those that are curious about the effect of annexation (in general) on city finances, I suggest checking out Cities Without Suburbs by former Albuquerque mayor David Rusk

stephendare

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38551
  • truth beauty art and love
    • MetroJacksonville
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #9 on: July 04, 2010, 10:45:38 AM »
Jacksonville has certainly grown over the years for good or for bad...

I would say for good and for bad

Some of the negatives have been clearly documented recently....but think about this....our tax burden is the 6th lowest among large cities....we're the lowest in FL and 20% less per capita than the next closest city (Orlando)....that could never have hapopened without the revenue from all the suburban areas.

For those that are curious about the effect of annexation (in general) on city finances, I suggest checking out Cities Without Suburbs by former Albuquerque mayor David Rusk

This is misleading.  We also have the least to show for the money, per capita.

Because of the gigantic burden placed on the citizens to maintain the sprawl based infrastructure, we get the some of the least efficient usage of tax dollar expenditure in the country.

Consider the fact that even with our massive tax net, during this downturn we are having to cut public safety rather than new capital projects.  This is an untenable position created solely by the simultaneous annexation of the property of (and therefore the responsibility for) the entire county coupled with a desire to lower per capita tax revenues.

You have to maintain an infrastructure that is fifteen times the size of the original city size, but using only 9 times the revenue.

Additionally we have zoning laws and an infrastructure industry which, combined with a builder/developer driven political culture makes it more likely that the available revenue base will continue to shrink by allowing the city's end users to live out of county (in much lower taxation areas like Ponte Vedra and Clay County) and increase our responsibility to maintain infrastructure giving them access to do so.

The Outer Beltway, a boondoggle of titanic proportions that has been given the bona fide's from the Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) is a prime example of this kind of nonsense.

TUFSU, when you make these misleading and poorly reasoned statements you are contributing to the problem, not helping people understand it.  Its so easy to toss out these random statistics that seem as though they are making a point---when often times they are not----but what is important is telling the whole story and letting people form opinions based on reality rather than manipulated rhetoric.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2010, 10:52:31 AM by stephendare »
And now abide faith, hope and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love

Jaxson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1448
    • Peace of Mind blog
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #10 on: July 04, 2010, 11:08:10 AM »
I'm glad that Jax had consolidated with Duval County; I don't see anything "bad" about it. Talk about an identity crisis, we can't even accept the fact that we're consolidated.

There are advantages and disadvantages to a lot of things in our lives.  Yes, consolidation streamlined our city and county governments.  It is not truly consolidation, however, because the Beaches (As was their right to do so) chose not to give up their respective municipal governments.  In my opinion, the Beaches have much more responsive governments than the City of Jacksonville.  I work at the Beaches and see daily that their residents are more engaged in local politics. 
Consolidation also placed minorities into an awkward situation.  The black community could have easily seen Jacksonville elect its first black mayor during the course of the 1970s or 1980s.  Instead, their political power is diluted and it is limited to a few token seats on the city council.  Yes, Nat Glover was sheriff, but I do not sense the same need for a 'fresh start' that we had when Delaney and Glover were both elected respectively mayor and sheriff.
Speaking of dilution, even downtown has to contend with having a city councilman whose interests are spread over a district with about as Detroit, MI and Davenport, IA. 
Overall, consolidation was good, but it was not perfect. 
Are there people who can't accept the fact that we're consolidated?  Well, there are lots of people wh can't accept lots of things.  In the end, reality rules.  So, they can wear their 'black hats' and pray to Mayor Ritter on a daily basis, but we remain consolidated.
John Louis Meeks, Jr.

stephendare

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38551
  • truth beauty art and love
    • MetroJacksonville
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #11 on: July 04, 2010, 11:15:28 AM »
I'm glad that Jax had consolidated with Duval County; I don't see anything "bad" about it. Talk about an identity crisis, we can't even accept the fact that we're consolidated.

There are advantages and disadvantages to a lot of things in our lives.  Yes, consolidation streamlined our city and county governments.  It is not truly consolidation, however, because the Beaches (As was their right to do so) chose not to give up their respective municipal governments.  In my opinion, the Beaches have much more responsive governments than the City of Jacksonville.  I work at the Beaches and see daily that their residents are more engaged in local politics. 
Consolidation also placed minorities into an awkward situation.  The black community could have easily seen Jacksonville elect its first black mayor during the course of the 1970s or 1980s.  Instead, their political power is diluted and it is limited to a few token seats on the city council.  Yes, Nat Glover was sheriff, but I do not sense the same need for a 'fresh start' that we had when Delaney and Glover were both elected respectively mayor and sheriff.
Speaking of dilution, even downtown has to contend with having a city councilman whose interests are spread over a district with about as Detroit, MI and Davenport, IA. 
Overall, consolidation was good, but it was not perfect. 
Are there people who can't accept the fact that we're consolidated?  Well, there are lots of people wh can't accept lots of things.  In the end, reality rules.  So, they can wear their 'black hats' and pray to Mayor Ritter on a daily basis, but we remain consolidated.

I dont think that anyone believes that Consolidation was a bad thing, Jaxson.  At least I havent heard much discussion about that.

There are people who dislike the race based motives of some of the proponents of Consolidation, and there are others who feel that we lost diversity of opinion or strategy, but in general no one wants to return to a system of competing, litigious rednecks controlling small areas at the expense of everyone around them.

The point in posting the map (at least my point) is to help strip away the curtain that Consolidation allows for people to use when discussing the appalling destruction of the urban area of Jacksonville.

What will often happen during comparison discussions, is that they will use Jacksonville's entire consolidated county statistics in order to compare with City Numbers that are not consolidated, and generally the same size as our old city government. 

Seeing the map allows for readers to more accurately visualize the comparisons and information.

I personally think the use of county numbers to debate Jacksonville's position in regards to similar urban areas is---at the very least---disingenuous, and at the worst, deliberately dishonest.
And now abide faith, hope and love; these three, but the greatest of these is love

thelakelander

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22816
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #12 on: July 04, 2010, 01:59:43 PM »
Consolidation can be a great thing with good leadership in place.  Jax's downfall is that for most years since the act of consolidation, leadership hasn't had the will to follow a long term vision of any kind for a extended period of time. 

stjr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3153
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2010, 02:23:41 PM »
One comment alluded to in a preceding post, is the need to offer "equal" service to urban, suburban, and rural areas.  When the city consolidated, perhaps these areas should have been delineated with the understanding that different types and levels of service would be provided accordingly.  If you chose rural, you could expect to live with less infrastructure and drive further and longer to your needs.  If you picked urban, you received the most service and amenities.  Rural taxpayers could not complain that they paid the same for less because their services simply cost more to render given their lower densities and greater distances.  The value proposition would be the same for everyone.  

With this model, residents everywhere couldn't say they expected urban services 20 miles from downtown which is prohibitively expensive.  Yet, I believe that is what we find ourselves doing more than not and it has drained disproportionate funding from the urban core.  Maybe this is a reason more cities have chosen to maintain compact boundaries versus massive consolidations and why downtown Jax struggles to stay viable.

Maybe Jax should create a zoned, per capita, distance and density based, funds allocation system for some of its expenditures and evaluations of land use and zoning.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2010, 02:26:53 PM by stjr »
Hey!  Whatever happened to just plain ol' COMMON SENSE!!

Jaxson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1448
    • Peace of Mind blog
Re: 1968 Jacksonville City Limits Map
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2010, 04:19:52 PM »
I'm glad that Jax had consolidated with Duval County; I don't see anything "bad" about it. Talk about an identity crisis, we can't even accept the fact that we're consolidated.

There are advantages and disadvantages to a lot of things in our lives.  Yes, consolidation streamlined our city and county governments.  It is not truly consolidation, however, because the Beaches (As was their right to do so) chose not to give up their respective municipal governments.  In my opinion, the Beaches have much more responsive governments than the City of Jacksonville.  I work at the Beaches and see daily that their residents are more engaged in local politics. 
Consolidation also placed minorities into an awkward situation.  The black community could have easily seen Jacksonville elect its first black mayor during the course of the 1970s or 1980s.  Instead, their political power is diluted and it is limited to a few token seats on the city council.  Yes, Nat Glover was sheriff, but I do not sense the same need for a 'fresh start' that we had when Delaney and Glover were both elected respectively mayor and sheriff.
Speaking of dilution, even downtown has to contend with having a city councilman whose interests are spread over a district with about as Detroit, MI and Davenport, IA. 
Overall, consolidation was good, but it was not perfect. 
Are there people who can't accept the fact that we're consolidated?  Well, there are lots of people wh can't accept lots of things.  In the end, reality rules.  So, they can wear their 'black hats' and pray to Mayor Ritter on a daily basis, but we remain consolidated.

I dont think that anyone believes that Consolidation was a bad thing, Jaxson.  At least I havent heard much discussion about that.

There are people who dislike the race based motives of some of the proponents of Consolidation, and there are others who feel that we lost diversity of opinion or strategy, but in general no one wants to return to a system of competing, litigious rednecks controlling small areas at the expense of everyone around them.

The point in posting the map (at least my point) is to help strip away the curtain that Consolidation allows for people to use when discussing the appalling destruction of the urban area of Jacksonville.

What will often happen during comparison discussions, is that they will use Jacksonville's entire consolidated county statistics in order to compare with City Numbers that are not consolidated, and generally the same size as our old city government. 

Seeing the map allows for readers to more accurately visualize the comparisons and information.

I personally think the use of county numbers to debate Jacksonville's position in regards to similar urban areas is---at the very least---disingenuous, and at the worst, deliberately dishonest.

my response was more of a tongue-in-cheek reply to I10east's comment, "we can't even accept the fact that we're consolidated."  i agree with stephen when he says that it is unfair to compare jacksonville (a consolidated city) with cities that are not consolidated.  such comparisons do skew the data.
John Louis Meeks, Jr.