South-of-Emigration-Creek-City?

Looking at the Salt Lake City Zoning Map [1], I idly wonder if Salt Lake wouldn't be a better off if it just transferred (de-annexed) everything south of Emigration Creek and East of 1700 E.  It's the part of the city characterized by houses zoned for 7000 SF and even 12,000 SF lots. It certainly complicates city politics. 

I suspect it's a non-starter for financial reasons--what city would want to lose the taxable revenue from the affluent suburbs its annexed? But I also suspect were Urban3 to do an analysis of SLC, it would show that most of the actual money comes from the urban core. (Lots of expensive property doesn't always generate a lot of revenue due to things like homestead exemptions). Which represents a substantial shift - for a long time, land values (and land uses) have so low that controlling affluent areas seemed like a win. But as suburbia ages, and the infrastructure renewals costs roll in, I suspect that may less the case. I doubt 'South-of-Emigration-City' would be financially sustainable on its own - not enough commercial development, not enough density. Perhaps it could join up with the City of Millcreek? 

I suppose it you were an arch-capitalist, you'd cut Salt Lake City down to the revenue generating parts, and de-annex the rest, and create something like the City of London. Not very politically viable though - the Utah Legislature would just bully it like they did with the Inland Port Overlay District, but worse. So perhaps that explains why two very different polities exist in one city--mutual defense. 

[1] I often genuinely forget that Salt Lake City extends south of I-80. It's a part of the city I never think about and almost never visit. Likewise, the part of South Salt Lake that extends north of I-80 always seems faintly absurd. Partially it's because SLC was so rigorous in annexing everything north of the 201 to the west.