Coral Gables Historical Archive
The Coral Gables Times
Thursday, November 15, 1962, page 56 (of 64)
The page
The text of this pageRead by computer from the scan, so some words may be wrong. The page picture is the original.
HOW TO bring out the natural beauty of wood in an INSTANT
WOOD FLOORS. Give two coats of Minwax Wood Finish, smart darker tones or natural, to well sanded surface. Finish with Minwax Paste Wax. A Minwax finish needs little upkeep—is scratchproof and long-lasting. UNFINISHED FURNITURE. Choose from 14 tones of Minwax Wood Finish. Then use Minwax Paste Wax or other surface finishes. Fun to be your own decorator—give inexpensive pieces collector-item beauty. PANELING. For authentic Colonial effects, use Minwax Wood Finish in Puritan Pine or Ipswich Pine. For Contemporary—try Driftwood, Straw or Spruce Gray. Finish with Minwax Paste Wax. Protects and beautifies paneling. • floors • furniture • paneling MINWAX WOOD FINISH PENETRATES • STAINS SEALS • PRESERVES Choice of 14 Colors! FREE: Please send Color Charts and the Wood Finishing Booklet to: Name Address City State MINWAX, Dept. S112, 11 W. 42 St., N.Y. 36, N.Y.
Who Needs Annexation?
A few suburbs are willing to join their cities... more are fighting to keep their independence BY GEORGE FIELDING ELIOT IN MANY metropolitan areas of the United States, annexation is once more a burning issue. We're going to take you in! cry the big-city expansionists. We're going to fence you in! retorts defiant suburbia. To City Hall, desperately seeking resources to meet mounting demands for municipal services and tormented by the knowledge that more and more of the daytime users of these services are paying taxes elsewhere, annexation promises to add more taxpayers and more scope for the area-wide planning which is considered crucial for the city's future. To Mr. and Mrs. Homebody, happily established with the little Homebodies in their suburban split-level with its rectangle of grassland, the idea of annexation—recapture by the big-city "machine"—looms as a peril to their chosen way of life and to the future of their children. So, in the legislative chambers of state capitols and around the fringes of exploding cities, the annexation battle is on—with results of interesting variety. Consider, for example, the case of Brown Deer, Wisconsin, a village which was originally part of the town of Granville, on the northern outskirts of Milwaukee. Milwaukee city planners are ardent advocates of the expanding city. They believe in taking time by the forelock, for which purpose they have established a frankly named city Department of Annexation. The 20 square miles of Granville town were high on the department's shopping list in 1954. But a group of embattled Homebodies in one section of the town filed an incorporation petition as the Village of Brown Deer. An incorporated village, under Wisconsin law, can't be annexed without the consent of its citizens. There was a hassle in the courts, Brown Deer won, and stands proud and inviolate on the frontier of the metropolis. Not satisfied with this victory, however, Brown Deer incorporators filed annexation papers in their turn, covering the rest of Granville. This time they came out on the short end—the courts said the city had priority. This lively affair—made livelier by the pitch of feeling aroused among those concerned—illustrates the vigor with which some city planners seek to prevent having the expansion of their city cut off by suburban incorporations. It also illustrates a new technique developed by the suburbs, which might be called defensive incorporation: not just incorporating your own home area, but anticipating its future growth by fencing the city off from the land next door. Many furiously fought elections to decide annexation proposals have taken place; the result has often depended on the skill with which the campaign was conducted. IN NASHVILLE, a "metropolitan government" proposal f[or?] the city of Nashville and Davidson county lost in 1958 through failure to work the grass roots. The antis, who were short of funds, held their fire till the last week before election and then did a concentrated job in the county areas with slogans: "Do you want a $6 tax rate?"—"Do you want to see your home sold for taxes?"—"Save your freedom!"—"Don't vote for BIG GOVERNMENT!" The outside "No" vote beat a 62% "Yes" vote in the city. But in 1961 the city of Nashville succeeded in annexing som[e] 23 square miles of reluctant suburban territory, arousing considerable antagonism. The chickens came home to roost in 1962, when the proposal for a metropolitan government to include Nashville and the rest of Davidson County was revived. The Mayor of Nashville, who had supported "Metro" in 1958, opposed the 1962 proposition (presumably satisfied with the 1961 annexation), but the still-outraged voters of the annexed areas turned out to g[et] even with His Honor regardless, and voted "Yes." In th[e] county areas the supporters of "Metro" were far better organized than in 1958, with a well-managed speakers' bureau and a zealous women's division 1,500 strong. The proposal won this time both in the city and county areas—one more illustration of the value of thorough preparation. Coercion—for instance, using city-owned water rights as a club—was once used, though later abandoned, by Los Angeles. Milwaukee and Columbus, Ohio, have been accused of similar practices in more recent times. In Lima, Ohio, refusal of an extension of the city's sewer system