Stay Curious. Stay Connected.
MailNewsletters♡Donate Now
Sign up
*Password must be at least 8 characters and contain one uppercase letter, one lowercase letter, one number and one symbol.
Already have an account?
By submitting, you consent that you are at least 18 years of age and to receive information about MPR's or APMG entities' programs and offerings. The personally identifying information you provide will not be sold, shared, or used for purposes other than to communicate with you about MPR, APMG entities, and its sponsors. You may opt-out at any time clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of any email communication. View our Privacy Policy.
Sign in to your profile
Forgot Password?
New to MPR News?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Reset Password

Enter the username on file and we'll send you a code to reset your password.

Still require assistance or not sure what your User Name is?
Welcome back
to news
for you
Email Verification

A verification code has been emailed to

Still awaiting the code?
Ground Level Blog
Dave Peters

Princeton annexation talk stirs again

Go Deeper.

Create an account or log in to save stories.

Log inCreate a free Account

Like this?

Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.

Show me!

After a period of calm over the notion of Princeton annexing land in Baldwin Township, the city's economic development authority raised the possibility of charging newly annexed property owners a lower tax rate until they received full city services.

It's an idea that has been tried elsewhere, like Elk River, as the Union-Eagle's Joel Stottrup writes in this story.

There's a lot of time to weigh in, since the matter would go to the city planning commission and then the full city council.

Thanks to Sue Hix for calling my attention to the Union-Eagle story.

You can check out some other nearby township-city relationships at Ground Level: Baldwin.