Talk:City of Pensacola annexations

I have a ton of articles about the various attempts that I will try to fill in soon. Just getting the table set up tonight. — admin • talk  00:04, 18 October 2009 (CDT)

Contents

Slight discrepancy

In one of the table items, you have the phrase "15th Street" directing to Lakeview Avenue; Lakeview was 16th Street, and 15th was Avery Street. — dscosson • talk  18:52, 19 October 2009 (CDT)

Are we sure about that? There was a map in one of the articles, and the street labeled 15th seemed to line up with modern-day Lakeview, but I wasn't 100% sure. — admin • talk  22:54, 19 October 2009 (CDT)

Yep. The numbers refer to streets north of Wright. Belmont was 1st Street. Count your way up :-) This is also reflected on the Watson map [1] which lists Avery as "formerly 15th" and Lakeview (which was then Stoddart) as "formerly 16th." — dscosson • talk  09:13, 20 October 2009 (CDT)

Okay, I'll change it. On the map I saw, Chipley Avenue was "1st" and the streets went up from there, but there must have a shift over the years. Thanks! — admin • talk  10:15, 20 October 2009 (CDT)

I think you're thinking of the EPH plat map [2]. I think the EPH streets were numbered separately, as EPH was not in the City when it was platted. You're right, there is a shift of minus one there because Belmont Street does not exist in EPH and the numbering started at Chipley (which would otherwise be la Rua). — dscosson • talk  10:32, 20 October 2009 (CDT)

So it could be Lakeview after all? I can scan the map from the newspaper article when I get home. If EPH streets were numbered separately, then it's the EPH numbering that is relevant here, since that's where the annexation boundaries were being drawn. — admin • talk  11:08, 20 October 2009 (CDT)

Aw, man, I'm sorry... I misread the description... I thought the area went from the airport down to Lakeview on the west side of Bayou Texar... if it's on the east side of Bayou Texar, then 15th is Lakeview... my bad, sorry for wasting your time. — dscosson • talk  11:17, 20 October 2009 (CDT)

LOL, no worries. — admin • talk  11:40, 20 October 2009 (CDT)

Non-electoral annexations

There are a few non-electoral annexations that it doesn't look like are on your list... I'm not sure if they're large enough to merit additions, but I wanted to note them. — dscosson • talk  11:30, 25 October 2009 (CDT)

• Ordinance #41-58, adopted June 12, 1958, describes the annexation of the following area:

Begin at the intersection of the southeast corner of Lot 8 Brookview, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4, at Page 29 of the Public Records of Escambia County, Florida and the center of Carpenter's Creek, thence continue westerly along the north line of the present City Limits of Pensacola to a permanent reference monument in the center of the North line of Lot 4, Block "E" Springdale, a subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 4 at Page 189 of the Public Records of Escambia County, Florida. Thence northerly along the east line of the present City Limits of Pensacola to the south right-of-way line of East 48th Street, thence easterly along the south right-of-way line of East 48th Street to the east right-of-way line of North 9th Avenue, thence northerly along the east right-of-way line of North 9th Avenue to Carpenter's Creek. Thence southeasterly along the center of Carpenter's Creek to the point of beginning. All lying and being in Sections 48 and 49, Township 1 South, Range 30 West, Escambia County, Florida, containing 18.6 acres more or less.

• Ordinance #42-58, adopted June 26, 1958, describes the annexation of the following area (seems pretty small):

South 160 feet of the East 100 feet of Lot seven (7) of the Pensacola Tar and Turpentine Subdivision as recorded in Deed Book 59, Page 380, all lying in Section 9, Township 1 South, Range 29 West, Escambia County, Florida.

Awesome additions to the article, thanks for tracking down that information. Let's definitely include the non-electoral annexations too, even if they're small; I just didn't find the records of them. — admin • talk  13:08, 25 October 2009 (CDT)

October 11, 1966

I think that both items you added for October 11, 1966 are the same... the area described as between Brainerd, Lee, J, and M Streets is coterminous with Morris Court. — dscosson • talk  13:45, 25 October 2009 (CDT)

I wondered that too, except that the October 12 1966 Journal article definitely says voters rejected annexation 81 to 73. Where did you get the 78-33 victory? Were 48 'no' votes later declared invalid? — admin • talk  16:17, 25 October 2009 (CDT)

The 73-38 result is recorded in Ordinance #50-66 of the City of Pensacola, which describes the Morris Court area annexed as a result of an October 11, 1966 referendum election. That's the only ordinance dealing with annexation in that timeframe, so votes being declared invalid is a possibility... If you aren't familiar with the City's online records system, I can show you how to access the ordinance in question. — dscosson • talk  16:41, 25 October 2009 (CDT)

Article title

Would you object to moving the article to Annexations by the City of Pensacola? I think the present title could be confusing due its use of the word "of" rather than "by." — dscosson • talk  16:20, 26 October 2009 (CDT)

Sure thing. Or maybe just City of Pensacola annexations? I was using Wikipedia:Annexations of Edmonton as a naming guide, as it was the only article I found that seemed comparable, but I agree it's not ideal. — admin • talk  17:04, 26 October 2009 (CDT)