I agree with this, and have been (ineloquently) saying this in the forum a couple of times - any bragging rights about size are secondary, I've highlighted what I think are critical benefits - come at me, doubter-bros:
Commentary: Chicago should annex adjoining suburbs
By Edward McClelland
"...There's more than simple civic pride on the line here. Sitting atop the standings with the anchors of the East and West coasts is essential to Chicago's reputation as a global city.
"The farther we fall down that list, the less appeal the city and region have
," says Alden Loury, director of research and evaluation for the Metropolitan Planning Council...
...Unlike our fellow Midwestern population losers Detroit, Cleveland and St. Louis, Chicago has something to offer its suburbs: lower taxes. Because it contains so much valuable commercial, industrial and residential property, Chicago's 6.9 percent property tax rate is the lowest in Cook County, according to the Cook County clerk's office. The village of Riverdale, which lies across the Calumet River from a Chicago neighborhood of the same name, pays 29.7 percent. There's a long list of border suburbs where property tax rates are double those of the city
, including Cicero, Stickney, Bridgeview, Bedford Park, Evergreen Park, Oak Lawn, Blue Island, Calumet Park and Dolton.(Suburbs that join the city would be able to keep their school districts, since those entities are separate from municipalities.)...
...What does Chicago have to gain? More people mean more tax dollars from the state and federal government. And vacant suburban land would become more desirable at the city's lower tax rate
If you have a valid counter-argument as to why this isn't a good idea, let's hear it; this is a discussion forum.