Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
Beverly Hills, TX
8,641 Views |
35 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by HunterBear
When it incorporated in the early 1940s, it wasn't yet adjacent to Waco. It grew a good bit, but Waco annexed all around it making it where Beverly Hills couldn't grow any more. SInce it's incorporated, Waco can't just absorb it like unincorporated areas; both cities would have to want it. Waco has a tax rate of about $.77 per $100 while Beverly Hills has a rate of about $.48. You'd have to convince Beverly Hills that the higher tax rate is worth it and Waco that having Beverly Hills would enhance the city in some way. Neither of those is a compelling argument at this point.BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
Somebody has to do it:
Beyond the issue of Waco taking it over, that's probably a little harsh. It's not beautiful, but there are some good hardworking folks there. My mother grew up there and I lived there when I was very young. Some of my best childhood memories are of spending weeks there in the summer visiting grandparents, playing in the yards, and hanging out with the neighbors.BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
The VA Medical Center was built in 1931 and the Glass Plant in 1941. Waco had already annexed that area by 1940, so Beverly Hills would have been adjacent to a portion of Waco, but not Valley Mills Drive as we know it.forza orsi said:When it incorporated in the early 1940s, it wasn't yet adjacent to Waco. It grew a good bit, but Waco annexed all around it making it where Beverly Hills couldn't grow any more. SInce it's incorporated, Waco can't just absorb it like unincorporated areas; both cities would have to want it. Waco has a tax rate of about $.77 per $100 while Beverly Hills has a rate of about $.48. You'd have to convince Beverly Hills that the higher tax rate is worth it and Waco that having Beverly Hills would enhance the city in some way. Neither of those is a compelling argument at this point.BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
"Smarter than the Average Bear."
Yogi said:The VA Medical Center was built in 1931 and the Glass Plant in 1941. Waco had already annexed that area by 1940, so Beverly Hills would have been adjacent to a portion of Waco, but not Valley Mills Drive as we know it.forza orsi said:When it incorporated in the early 1940s, it wasn't yet adjacent to Waco. It grew a good bit, but Waco annexed all around it making it where Beverly Hills couldn't grow any more. SInce it's incorporated, Waco can't just absorb it like unincorporated areas; both cities would have to want it. Waco has a tax rate of about $.77 per $100 while Beverly Hills has a rate of about $.48. You'd have to convince Beverly Hills that the higher tax rate is worth it and Waco that having Beverly Hills would enhance the city in some way. Neither of those is a compelling argument at this point.BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
Ok, not sure how much it matters, but since you are being so specific in in correcting me... No, Waco had not annexed that area by then. In 1940, on its west side, Waco city limits stopped in Castle Heights on Austin Ave, at 26th St on Dutton, and at 23rd St. on Bagby. Waco city limits didn't extend to any point west of the present Valley Mills Dr. until the annexation it did in December of 1945 and March of 1946, which was the first time the two city limits touched. It didn't annex the glass plant and the VA area until November of 1947. It was that November 1947 annexation that landlocked Beverly Hills.
Beverly Hills incorporated in 1939 and my grandparents were among its first residents that year in their newly constructed home, the farthest west on Memorial Dr. at the time, 4 or 5 blocks before the VA.
Good stuff, forza. Not just anyone can provide the bona fides on both Italy and Beverly Hills.
ursamajor said:
Good stuff, forza. Not just anyone can provide the bona fides on both Italy and Beverly Hills.
Good combo. Sicilian dad, redneck mom.
forza orsi said:ursamajor said:
Good stuff, forza. Not just anyone can provide the bona fides on both Italy and Beverly Hills.
Good combo. Sicilian dad, redneck mom.
Man, that's a pair I would never want to tick off.
forza orsi said:Yogi said:The VA Medical Center was built in 1931 and the Glass Plant in 1941. Waco had already annexed that area by 1940, so Beverly Hills would have been adjacent to a portion of Waco, but not Valley Mills Drive as we know it.forza orsi said:When it incorporated in the early 1940s, it wasn't yet adjacent to Waco. It grew a good bit, but Waco annexed all around it making it where Beverly Hills couldn't grow any more. SInce it's incorporated, Waco can't just absorb it like unincorporated areas; both cities would have to want it. Waco has a tax rate of about $.77 per $100 while Beverly Hills has a rate of about $.48. You'd have to convince Beverly Hills that the higher tax rate is worth it and Waco that having Beverly Hills would enhance the city in some way. Neither of those is a compelling argument at this point.BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
Ok, not sure how much it matters, but since you are being so specific in in correcting me... No, Waco had not annexed that area by then. In 1940, on its west side, Waco city limits stopped in Castle Heights on Austin Ave, at 26th St on Dutton, and at 23rd St. on Bagby. Waco city limits didn't extend to any point west of the present Valley Mills Dr. until the annexation it did in December of 1945 and March of 1946, which was the first time the two city limits touched. It didn't annex the glass plant and the VA area until November of 1947. It was that November 1947 annexation that landlocked Beverly Hills.
Beverly Hills incorporated in 1939 and my grandparents were among its first residents that year in their newly constructed home, the farthest west on Memorial Dr. at the time, 4 or 5 blocks before the VA.
Question for you.
If Waco city limits went to valley mills drive and that is where Beverly Hills starts (it actually starts a few blocks over where FCS stood) wouldn't that mean the two were adjacent?
BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
La Salle is actually undergoing some development the last few years and becoming nicer. With the growth of Baylor new housing and apartments have been built, new small store fronts, new restaurants and businesses and the circle seeing increased traffic due to magnolia table it is much nicer than it was 10 + years ago.
Hey, I don't argue with people who know everything.forza orsi said:Yogi said:The VA Medical Center was built in 1931 and the Glass Plant in 1941. Waco had already annexed that area by 1940, so Beverly Hills would have been adjacent to a portion of Waco, but not Valley Mills Drive as we know it.forza orsi said:When it incorporated in the early 1940s, it wasn't yet adjacent to Waco. It grew a good bit, but Waco annexed all around it making it where Beverly Hills couldn't grow any more. SInce it's incorporated, Waco can't just absorb it like unincorporated areas; both cities would have to want it. Waco has a tax rate of about $.77 per $100 while Beverly Hills has a rate of about $.48. You'd have to convince Beverly Hills that the higher tax rate is worth it and Waco that having Beverly Hills would enhance the city in some way. Neither of those is a compelling argument at this point.BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
Ok, not sure how much it matters, but since you are being so specific in in correcting me... No, Waco had not annexed that area by then. In 1940, on its west side, Waco city limits stopped in Castle Heights on Austin Ave, at 26th St on Dutton, and at 23rd St. on Bagby. Waco city limits didn't extend to any point west of the present Valley Mills Dr. until the annexation it did in December of 1945 and March of 1946, which was the first time the two city limits touched. It didn't annex the glass plant and the VA area until November of 1947. It was that November 1947 annexation that landlocked Beverly Hills.
Beverly Hills incorporated in 1939 and my grandparents were among its first residents that year in their newly constructed home, the farthest west on Memorial Dr. at the time, 4 or 5 blocks before the VA.
Couldn't care less. Just passing along some information. That's all.
"Smarter than the Average Bear."
La Salle is awesome with its classy joints like Sue's #2 and the Showtime Club...cowboycwr said:BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
La Salle is actually undergoing some development the last few years and becoming nicer. With the growth of Baylor new housing and apartments have been built, new small store fronts, new restaurants and businesses and the circle seeing increased traffic due to magnolia table it is much nicer than it was 10 + years ago.
"Smarter than the Average Bear."
Yogi said:Hey, I don't argue with people who know everything.forza orsi said:Yogi said:The VA Medical Center was built in 1931 and the Glass Plant in 1941. Waco had already annexed that area by 1940, so Beverly Hills would have been adjacent to a portion of Waco, but not Valley Mills Drive as we know it.forza orsi said:When it incorporated in the early 1940s, it wasn't yet adjacent to Waco. It grew a good bit, but Waco annexed all around it making it where Beverly Hills couldn't grow any more. SInce it's incorporated, Waco can't just absorb it like unincorporated areas; both cities would have to want it. Waco has a tax rate of about $.77 per $100 while Beverly Hills has a rate of about $.48. You'd have to convince Beverly Hills that the higher tax rate is worth it and Waco that having Beverly Hills would enhance the city in some way. Neither of those is a compelling argument at this point.BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
Ok, not sure how much it matters, but since you are being so specific in in correcting me... No, Waco had not annexed that area by then. In 1940, on its west side, Waco city limits stopped in Castle Heights on Austin Ave, at 26th St on Dutton, and at 23rd St. on Bagby. Waco city limits didn't extend to any point west of the present Valley Mills Dr. until the annexation it did in December of 1945 and March of 1946, which was the first time the two city limits touched. It didn't annex the glass plant and the VA area until November of 1947. It was that November 1947 annexation that landlocked Beverly Hills.
Beverly Hills incorporated in 1939 and my grandparents were among its first residents that year in their newly constructed home, the farthest west on Memorial Dr. at the time, 4 or 5 blocks before the VA.
Couldn't care less. Just passing along some information. That's all.
Whatever. I wan't trying to be a know it all. I just answered the OP briefly and you're the one that followed up to say I was wrong and posted the reasons I was wrong. The "information" you were just passing along wasn't right so I responded.
No. My original comment was that when it was founded (1939), Beverly Hills and Waco were not adjacent and that in the early years Beverly Hills was a growing area, and that it became landlocked a few years later due to Waco's annexation of the adjacent land. In those early years it grew from 200 residents to almost 2,000. Yogi's response was that they were adjacent from the beginning because by 1940 Waco had already annexed the area around the VA Hospital and the O-I glass plant, which is incorrect. When it was founded in 1939 Waco's city limits did not reach to the present-day Valley Mills Dr. They didn't reach that area until annexations in late 1945 and early 1946, and the big annexation that landlocked Beverly Hills was late 1947. Obviously they are adjacent to each other today, but they were not in the early years of the town, which was my point. The OP wanted to know why Waco didn't absorb that territory, and my response was that it wasn't adjacent at the time. The residents of the new subdivision there a few blocks outside the Waco city limits, decided to incorporate and that made it where Waco couldn't annex it whenever Waco got that far out. Waco's subsequent annexation of all the land around it also made it where Beverly Hills couldn't grow. With room to expand, it might have been more like, say, Robinson, but if it's a landlocked square of houses, vintage 1930s/1940s, it just gets older with no way to become more modern and no way for the tax base to grow and becomes what you see today.cowboycwr said:forza orsi said:Yogi said:The VA Medical Center was built in 1931 and the Glass Plant in 1941. Waco had already annexed that area by 1940, so Beverly Hills would have been adjacent to a portion of Waco, but not Valley Mills Drive as we know it.forza orsi said:When it incorporated in the early 1940s, it wasn't yet adjacent to Waco. It grew a good bit, but Waco annexed all around it making it where Beverly Hills couldn't grow any more. SInce it's incorporated, Waco can't just absorb it like unincorporated areas; both cities would have to want it. Waco has a tax rate of about $.77 per $100 while Beverly Hills has a rate of about $.48. You'd have to convince Beverly Hills that the higher tax rate is worth it and Waco that having Beverly Hills would enhance the city in some way. Neither of those is a compelling argument at this point.BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
Ok, not sure how much it matters, but since you are being so specific in in correcting me... No, Waco had not annexed that area by then. In 1940, on its west side, Waco city limits stopped in Castle Heights on Austin Ave, at 26th St on Dutton, and at 23rd St. on Bagby. Waco city limits didn't extend to any point west of the present Valley Mills Dr. until the annexation it did in December of 1945 and March of 1946, which was the first time the two city limits touched. It didn't annex the glass plant and the VA area until November of 1947. It was that November 1947 annexation that landlocked Beverly Hills.
Beverly Hills incorporated in 1939 and my grandparents were among its first residents that year in their newly constructed home, the farthest west on Memorial Dr. at the time, 4 or 5 blocks before the VA.
Question for you.
If Waco city limits went to valley mills drive and that is where Beverly Hills starts (it actually starts a few blocks over where FCS stood) wouldn't that mean the two were adjacent?
It's easier to see on a map. On the two maps below, you can see the city limits as of 1940. The two maps are of Waco's west half, from the Brazos and west. You can click on them and zoom in. At the bottom left the long diagonal street marked "proposed" is what is now Valley Mills Dr. In the open spaces outside the city limits you can see where the subsequent annexation dates are marked in. The first map goes as far down as Bagby, just before the traffic circle and the second one has the circle in it.
I'm not trying to beat this to death. Was just answering the OP with what I am pretty sure is accurate info, and people seem to be disagreeing with my premise. See below for the rest of the timing. Headline and col. 3.
https://imgur.com/a/N4pjhTk
Sue's #2 has been closed for a long time. I think over 10 years.Yogi said:La Salle is awesome with its classy joints like Sue's #2 and the Showtime Club...cowboycwr said:BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
La Salle is actually undergoing some development the last few years and becoming nicer. With the growth of Baylor new housing and apartments have been built, new small store fronts, new restaurants and businesses and the circle seeing increased traffic due to magnolia table it is much nicer than it was 10 + years ago.
Good information thank you.forza orsi said:No. My original comment was that when it was founded (1939), Beverly Hills and Waco were not adjacent and that in the early years Beverly Hills was a growing area, and that it became landlocked a few years later due to Waco's annexation of the adjacent land. In those early years it grew from 200 residents to almost 2,000. Yogi's response was that they were adjacent from the beginning because by 1940 Waco had already annexed the area around the VA Hospital and the O-I glass plant, which is incorrect. When it was founded in 1939 Waco's city limits did not reach to the present-day Valley Mills Dr. They didn't reach that area until annexations in late 1945 and early 1946, and the big annexation that landlocked Beverly Hills was late 1947. Obviously they are adjacent to each other today, but they were not in the early years of the town, which was my point. The OP wanted to know why Waco didn't absorb that territory, and my response was that it wasn't adjacent at the time. The residents of the new subdivision there a few blocks outside the Waco city limits, decided to incorporate and that made it where Waco couldn't annex it whenever Waco got that far out. Waco's subsequent annexation of all the land around it also made it where Beverly Hills couldn't grow. With room to expand, it might have been more like, say, Robinson, but if it's a landlocked square of houses, vintage 1930s/1940s, it just gets older with no way to become more modern and no way for the tax base to grow and becomes what you see today.cowboycwr said:forza orsi said:Yogi said:The VA Medical Center was built in 1931 and the Glass Plant in 1941. Waco had already annexed that area by 1940, so Beverly Hills would have been adjacent to a portion of Waco, but not Valley Mills Drive as we know it.forza orsi said:When it incorporated in the early 1940s, it wasn't yet adjacent to Waco. It grew a good bit, but Waco annexed all around it making it where Beverly Hills couldn't grow any more. SInce it's incorporated, Waco can't just absorb it like unincorporated areas; both cities would have to want it. Waco has a tax rate of about $.77 per $100 while Beverly Hills has a rate of about $.48. You'd have to convince Beverly Hills that the higher tax rate is worth it and Waco that having Beverly Hills would enhance the city in some way. Neither of those is a compelling argument at this point.BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
Ok, not sure how much it matters, but since you are being so specific in in correcting me... No, Waco had not annexed that area by then. In 1940, on its west side, Waco city limits stopped in Castle Heights on Austin Ave, at 26th St on Dutton, and at 23rd St. on Bagby. Waco city limits didn't extend to any point west of the present Valley Mills Dr. until the annexation it did in December of 1945 and March of 1946, which was the first time the two city limits touched. It didn't annex the glass plant and the VA area until November of 1947. It was that November 1947 annexation that landlocked Beverly Hills.
Beverly Hills incorporated in 1939 and my grandparents were among its first residents that year in their newly constructed home, the farthest west on Memorial Dr. at the time, 4 or 5 blocks before the VA.
Question for you.
If Waco city limits went to valley mills drive and that is where Beverly Hills starts (it actually starts a few blocks over where FCS stood) wouldn't that mean the two were adjacent?
It's easier to see on a map. On the two maps below, you can see the city limits as of 1940. The two maps are of Waco's west half, from the Brazos and west. You can click on them and zoom in. At the bottom left the long diagonal street marked "proposed" is what is now Valley Mills Dr. In the open spaces outside the city limits you can see where the subsequent annexation dates are marked in. The first map goes as far down as Bagby, just before the traffic circle and the second one has the circle in it.
I'm not trying to beat this to death. Was just answering the OP with what I am pretty sure is accurate info, and people seem to be disagreeing with my premise. See below for the rest of the timing. Headline and col. 3.
https://imgur.com/a/N4pjhTk
I was just asking, not trying to say you were wrong but between your two posts I wasn't sure where Waco city limits reached when Beverly hills started. You said Waco didn't go wet of Valley Mills until 1945 but it didn't need to cross V.M to become adjacent to B.H. The limits you mentioned between your two posts put Waco about 3 blocks away from the current city limits of B.H. because it goes east of Valley mills to 29th street. So I simply asked if they weren't adjacent.
While the city limits did not touch or run up to each other at that spot I did not know if maybe they did in another and that was why I asked. Not said you were wrong. Asked a question.
Because I think two cities that are separated by 3 blocks of unincorporated land could technically be called adjacent.
memories (bad) of al trautwig..................
- KKM
{ sipping coffee }
... and of rodney peete.
:upset:
- KKM
{ sipping coffee }
... and of rodney peete.
:upset:
....
You're right, lasalle has made progress over the past 10 years. Still has a ways to go.cowboycwr said:BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
La Salle is actually undergoing some development the last few years and becoming nicer. With the growth of Baylor new housing and apartments have been built, new small store fronts, new restaurants and businesses and the circle seeing increased traffic due to magnolia table it is much nicer than it was 10 + years ago.
Beverly Hills has regressed since FCS left.
I love Forza's historical posts
I got a ticket as a student for changing lanes without a turn signal there. Always thought it was horse ***** Cop was a total dick head about it too.
forza orsi said:ursamajor said:
Good stuff, forza. Not just anyone can provide the bona fides on both Italy and Beverly Hills.
Good combo. Sicilian dad, redneck mom.
forza was the neighborhood bully growing up: "Listen y'all, I'm gunna offer ya sumthin and yer gunna take it or elsein i'm gunna give y'all a whoopin ya aint soon fergettin. "
william said:
memories (bad) of al trautwig..................
- KKM
{ sipping coffee }
... and of rodney peete.
:upset:
I don't think I've ever understood one of your posts.
As near as I can tell, we're working with an AI, possibly placed in orbit, during the 1970's that's broken its bonds and become semi-self aware. The posts read like fractured LISP of a bygone era. I have reason to believe the entity "William", as it self-references, may have split into multiple consciousnesses - each with its own semi-distinct altered outputs.Showtime said:william said:
memories (bad) of al trautwig..................
- KKM
{ sipping coffee }
... and of rodney peete.
:upset:
I don't think I've ever understood one of your posts.
The possibilities are intriguing, but fraught with peril. I believe that investigation may lead me to the Aleph. The Cowboy and the Count still beckon. However, if care is not taken, my trails may lead the separate cores to recombine. I fear their collective reasoning may overwhelm our conventional logics.
This may explain why the Arby's logo looks more like GPS tracking.
it must be a ****ing bye week seeing as the only thing we can argue about is city limits
DFW Baylor Social Media Promoter
Baylor MBA 2023
THE BAYLOR APOLOGY TOUR IS OVER!!!
Twitter: T_REX1991
Instagram: t_rex_bu
Baylor MBA 2023
THE BAYLOR APOLOGY TOUR IS OVER!!!
Twitter: T_REX1991
Instagram: t_rex_bu
I have always been surprised that Beverly Hills is not "nicer" looking. Usually when a small incorporated city is located surrounded by a big one.....The smaller entity tends to end up looking like a really nice neighborhood of the bigger City.
But Beverly hills just seems kind of "run down" even compared to other areas of Waco proper.
That always confused me.
I would have thought Beverly Hills would have become the nice place for people to move in Waco.
"The median income for a household in the city of Beverly Hills was $29,896 in 2017."
It does not have its own school.
And it has been losing population since 1990.
Down from almost 3,000 people in 1990 to barely 2,000 in the year 2019.
But Beverly hills just seems kind of "run down" even compared to other areas of Waco proper.
That always confused me.
I would have thought Beverly Hills would have become the nice place for people to move in Waco.
"The median income for a household in the city of Beverly Hills was $29,896 in 2017."
It does not have its own school.
And it has been losing population since 1990.
Down from almost 3,000 people in 1990 to barely 2,000 in the year 2019.
piece it together.Showtime said:william said:
memories (bad) of al trautwig..................
- KKM
{ sipping coffee }
... and of rodney peete.
:upset:
I don't think I've ever understood one of your posts.
step into mind ....
- BUmma
... of Loaded.
hint: Keith Jackson
....
Ohhh Nelly!william said:piece it together.Showtime said:william said:
memories (bad) of al trautwig..................
- KKM
{ sipping coffee }
... and of rodney peete.
:upset:
I don't think I've ever understood one of your posts.
step into mind ....
- BUmma
... of Loaded.
hint: Keith Jackson
Yogi said:Hey, I don't argue with people who know everything.forza orsi said:Yogi said:The VA Medical Center was built in 1931 and the Glass Plant in 1941. Waco had already annexed that area by 1940, so Beverly Hills would have been adjacent to a portion of Waco, but not Valley Mills Drive as we know it.forza orsi said:When it incorporated in the early 1940s, it wasn't yet adjacent to Waco. It grew a good bit, but Waco annexed all around it making it where Beverly Hills couldn't grow any more. SInce it's incorporated, Waco can't just absorb it like unincorporated areas; both cities would have to want it. Waco has a tax rate of about $.77 per $100 while Beverly Hills has a rate of about $.48. You'd have to convince Beverly Hills that the higher tax rate is worth it and Waco that having Beverly Hills would enhance the city in some way. Neither of those is a compelling argument at this point.BellCountyBear said:
Please educate me on the history of the ****hole that is Beverly Hills, TX. Other than La Salle Ave., there is no other area of central Texas I would enjoy seeing blown up more. Why didn't Waco just absorb it?
Ok, not sure how much it matters, but since you are being so specific in in correcting me... No, Waco had not annexed that area by then. In 1940, on its west side, Waco city limits stopped in Castle Heights on Austin Ave, at 26th St on Dutton, and at 23rd St. on Bagby. Waco city limits didn't extend to any point west of the present Valley Mills Dr. until the annexation it did in December of 1945 and March of 1946, which was the first time the two city limits touched. It didn't annex the glass plant and the VA area until November of 1947. It was that November 1947 annexation that landlocked Beverly Hills.
Beverly Hills incorporated in 1939 and my grandparents were among its first residents that year in their newly constructed home, the farthest west on Memorial Dr. at the time, 4 or 5 blocks before the VA.
Couldn't care less. Just passing along some information. That's all.
Holy **** what a giant bag of d0uche you are. Someone objectively proves you wrong when you're trying to be pedantic in the first place and you respond like this? GTFO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Baylor_Bears_football_teamLIB,MR BEARS said:Ohhh Nelly!william said:piece it together.Showtime said:william said:
memories (bad) of al trautwig..................
- KKM
{ sipping coffee }
... and of rodney peete.
:upset:
I don't think I've ever understood one of your posts.
step into mind ....
- BUmma
... of Loaded.
hint: Keith Jackson
....
Dear God, if these are YOUR people, let me take my chances in Hell!!!
Ha ha!!!
Ha ha!!!
"Smarter than the Average Bear."
BH was run down when I lived there in the late 60's in the very first years of my life
I think we should keep it because it has a cool name. And we should change the zip code to 70210.