Citizens United Against Forced Annexation
|
Citizens United Against Forced Annexation
|
        
|
Excerpt from 1959 Annex commision: EH:
"The 1959 Commission got it right, and got it well balanced.” The
Commission got many things right, but fifty years have passed and the
demographics of However,
somewhere between the submission of the Municipal Government Study Supplemental
Report in 1958 and the passage of the current law, something changed. The
Commission members obviously struggled for a recommendation which would provide
a growth management tool for the municipalities while still protecting the
rights of the annexed citizens. For example: “We
do not believe that city governments should have uncontrolled authority in
determining the boundaries of a city.” In
discussing how they determined the policy they finally recommended, they asked
themselves, “Should
the policy be one designed to support the objectives of the larger urban
community, assuming that those
objectives have been reached in a democratic fashion?” (emphasis
added.) “...the
question for the General Assembly is, how to delegate the actual power of
decision to political subdivisions in each community so as to (1) assure that
sound State policy is met, and (2) assure that the rights
of individual property owners are protected.” (emphasis
added) “And
since it is not fair for people to
help build facilities that will give them no benefit, or at most an indirect
regional benefit, the dividing line between a city and its rural and suburban
periphery can be based on the idea that only the
land and its people who need such
facilities, now and in the near future, should be within the city.”(emphasis
added.) “...the
significant feature of city government today is the system of facilities which
the city provides and which is essential for urban living. We believe, in
general that the boundaries of a city should include all that part of the urban
area which is developed in such a fashion as to presently require
the package of services offered by a city, as well as that part of
the urban area which is -
2 - presently
being developed in such a way as to need such
services in the near future.” (bold
emphasis added.) Likewise,
the Commission envisioned the heavy involvement of the Counties in the
annexation process: “... “As
we have discovered in studying the process of urban growth and local
government’s responsibility for helping plan that growth, a
single county-wide governing board could probably give more effective leadership
for the entire urban area.” (emphasis
added.) Where
is this County involvement in the annexation process today? Perhaps more
counties should do as Our
current Committee has heard the complaints of citizens who have been annexed and
have not received water and sewer service. The 1958 Commission stated, “And
unquestionably, without a high quality of water and sewer service and fire
protection, other municipal services have relatively little attraction.” and,
“...this does not mean that protection
cannot be afforded to individuals in areas annexed to a city....The inequity
is suffered by the people who are brought into the city, made liable
for city taxes, and to whom the full range of services is not made available.”(emphasis
added.) “But
we believe that the most important factor in balancing
equities is whether land within the city actually has the services of
the city available to it when the time for development comes. If the services
are not available, then there is no justification for including such land within
the city.”(emphasis
added.) The
1958 Commission felt that if a city is required to give assurances prior to
annexation. that services are or will be available, that the basic inequity
will have been eliminated. “...we
seriously doubt, that any city, required to give such assurances, will overreach
its grasp...” -
3 |
|
For web site problems contact jeremy@c-a-f-a.org. Designed by www.oneagleswingscomputer.com.
|