Involuntary annexation -- yes or no?

[hauntedheadnc]

My state is one of the few that allows cities to annex residents on their fringes without their consent and as a result it could be argued that North Carolina cities are healthier than others. Cities tend to be more environmentally conscious than counties, and impose stricter regulations on the growth they annex and the growth they allow in newly annexed areas.

The debate is heating up around Asheville about this practice because the city wants to annex a very large and very wealthy subdivision absolutely packed with lawyers and at least one retired Florida legislator. Those lawyers and the legislator have enough clout to get a bill introduced in Raleigh that would forbid involuntary annexation outright in North Carolina, although at the moment they're specifically targeting Asheville and Buncombe County.

Idealogically, I'm all for the idea of forced annexation because of the environmental aspects, which won't wash with the retired lawyer crowd who care about nothing except keeping their taxes low.

There are others here much more educated than I on matters like this, and I would like to hear people's opinions on it. Are you for or against a city being able to turn urbanized areas into municipal areas, whether the residents and businesses of that area like it or not? I definitely am, though more for fuzzy, feel-good reasons that for any reason that will satisfy a retired Florida legislator (Who is a real douche, coincidentally. Poor little rich thing. Your heart just bleeds for him.).

The debate is really heating up on the city's newspaper messageboards, and it's going to get a lot hotter in more important places soon also.

[J. Will]

Much of the reason these people don't want to be annexed is because they don't want to have to pay their fair share of costs for services. Those with the means should be helping out the less fortunate.

[the pope]

cut off their water supply (assuming the main city is providing it)

[hauntedheadnc]

Much of the reason these people don't want to be annexed is because they don't want to have to pay their fair share of costs for services. Those with the means should be helping out the less fortunate.

These are rich, conservative retirees we're talking about here, and firstly they'll argue that they don't owe the less fortunate dick. Secondly try that argument about services and they'll just argue back that they don't use any city services aside from water, which they pay for and which by law is guaranteed to them anyway because...

cut off their water supply (assuming the main city is providing it)

Asheville would love to, but unfortunately the lawyer and legislator crowd got a bill passed that forces the city to provide water to whoever asks for it as long as the capacity is there. It also forbids the city from charging different rates for water customers in the city as opposed to water customers outside the city limits. The appeal is currently winding its way toward the state supreme court. It's the same situation they're trying to stick us with, with annexation, as the water law, called the Sullivan Act, only affects Asheville and Buncombe County.

[brian_b]

The situation you describe sounds about right for the fringes of a lot of cities. It is certainly no coincidence that the wealthy enclave is right outside of the city limits and enjoying city services at a discount.

My final year of college I lived in a nice brand-new apartment in the same situation. However, we did have a volunteer fire department as our first line of fire defense, just like almost every unincorporated township in the midwest (and probably the whole US). Everyone was totally against annexation, and I suppose they probably still are. But their eyes were opened one night when a well-placed bolt of lightning sent a few million dollars worth of real estate up in flames, despite being around the corner from the fire station. By the time the fire people decided it was beyond their ability to deal with and called the city for assistance it was too late.

Perhaps these people in NC need some similar tragedy to wake them up.

[Cirrus]

Absolutely. Except in rare circumstances, all urbanized areas should operate under a single local goverment. Ultimately it costs less for everyone because it's more efficient. Adjacent municipalities aren't fighting over the commercial tax base, services need not be duplicated, and NIMBYs have less power in city hall.

Break things up into NYC-style borough for decisions better made at smaller levels.

[hauntedheadnc]

Absolutely. Except in rare circumstances, all urbanized areas should operate under a single local goverment. Ultimately it costs less for everyone because it's more efficient. Adjacent municipalities aren't fighting over the commercial tax base, services need not be duplicated, and NIMBYs have less power in city hall.

Try that argument though, and they'll advocate the city of Asheville being dissolved into Buncombe County before they'll ever support becoming part of the city. This is partly because the city is very liberal while the county is conservative, and if there's going to be a single government entity, they'll want the one that's the least liberal with the least government "restriction." This would damage the city of Asheville irreparably, because most of the reason that it's the jewel that it is, is because it's a sky-blue sapphire in a rusty red setting.

What's scary about this situation is that these people have a lot of power. They've gotten one law passed that screws the city and the city alone, and they're working on another. Although, either one of these laws could turn out harmful for the entire state. Seems to me that a state law only affecting a single county is unconstitutional, and the only way to make it fair is to either repeal that law or apply it to the entire state. There are plenty of other people in this state deadset against urban growth and annexation, so I'm sure there would be plenty of conservative legislators happy to take up the cause and apply the same restrictions currently bedeviling Asheville to every city and county in the state. What will we do when every city loses control over how it expands its water system, and when no city is allowed to annex without a referendum?

[vid]

Involuntary annexation is undemocratic, but they way you describe this situation I think I might support it. Those rich fucks have been riding our backs for far too long.

Thankfully our rich conservative 'suburb' doesn't have access to any of the city's municipal services. They all have to drink out of wells, in their 3400sqft mansions on the lake. :)

[miketoronto]

We can send the Ontario Gov down to your city, and your entire metro region will be merged into one city before you can blink and eye, and all the crying from the suburbs will not do one thing :)

Thats what they did here, where local governments don't have as much power. The Ontario gov basically said

"Toronto, your going to merge with your inner suburbs no questions asked"

"Hamilton, your going to merge with every suburb and farm town in your metro region"

"Ottawa your going to merge with every suburb and farm town in your metro region"

And thats what happened. All the debates did not stop them.

[asher11]

To add to miketoronto's comments, it was a big mistake. City services were dumbed down to the lowest common level (the old City of Toronto) at the highest costs (again, the old City of Toronto) delivered in the least efficient manner (once again, the old City of Toronto) - all with the original aim (by the province of Ontario - as Mike said above) of saving money. In all fairness to the new city though, the province took the opportunity to download alot of its responsibilities onto the city without transferring the tax dollars so now property taxes are paying for things that income taxes used to pay for.

IMO I think it would work in a smaller city better than it has here, but on the other hand, it's not really democratic when it goes against the wishes of the people as has happened here.

[bnk]

Absolutely. Except in rare circumstances, all urbanized areas should operate under a single local goverment. Ultimately it costs less for everyone because it's more efficient. Adjacent municipalities aren't fighting over the commercial tax base, services need not be duplicated, and NIMBYs have less power in city hall.

Break things up into NYC-style borough for decisions better made at smaller levels.

I will listen to any word that is typed by this forumer.

He is one of the most intelligent people I have crossed in my time in the forums.

If you do not believe me look into the space thread, for he is like a god in there.

But then again he might be a laid off astronaut.

No joke about super absorbent undergarments coming.

Just read what he says and learn.

[volguus zildrohar]

It could work in reverse in which case I may end up being a resident of Delaware County. No dice.

[seaskyfan]

I oppose forced annexation. I believe the residents of an area should have a voice as to joining a city. I do also believe that the water deal sucks - the folks in the subdivision are getting a municipal benefit (the resident price for water) without being part of Asheville.

Why would the folks in Asheville want to add a lot of conservatives to the voting pool?

[asher11]

Why would the folks in Asheville want to add a lot of conservatives to the voting pool?


:previous: Good point that.

[LMich]

Yes, there are plenty of trade offs to consider, but you have to carefully study this. On top of that, there are different types of consolidations, so this isn't a "one size fits all" solution for every city in the country

Annexation, shouldn't be adding for the sake of adding, but to cut down on municipal duplicity of services more than anything else.

Coming from one of the most anti-annexation states in the Midwest, I wish we weren't so divided here in Michigan. We have three cities over 40 square miles, Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Battle Creek. All of the remaining cities are 36 square miles or smaller.

[hauntedheadnc]

Why would the folks in Asheville want to add a lot of conservatives to the voting pool?

Partly because of the revenue and partly because the city firmly believes, and has for years, that what is urban should be incorporated. This gives the city some control over what happens in and around it, and the city is much more interested in orderly growth than Buncombe County. The city of Asheville annexes at least a little every year. Not coincidentally, two unincorporated suburbs outside the city limits, Leicester and Swannanoa, are talking of incorporation to stave off Asheville's creeping city limits, and in the past Asheville aggressively nabbed entire towns on its flanks whose names now live on only as city neighborhoods such as Victoria, Oakley, Montford, West Asheville, and Biltmore Village. It would have gotten Biltmore Forest too but, like the people in today's subdivision, the people of Biltmore Forest back in the 1920's were extremely wealthy and incorporated their neighborhood as an independent town still existant today in order to avoid that.

That's a couple of good, hard reasons -- money and better urban planning -- and some ideology. The people in the subdivision, which is called Biltmore Lake, incidentally, don't care for the good, hard reasons, and are too old, crusty, and rich to bother with ideology.

[hauntedheadnc]

I found out something by reading the news today as to why the lawyer and legislator set (the LnL's) were successful in the first place when it came to the deeply unfair water laws that now force the city to subsidize its own sprawl against its will.

To make a long story short, Asheville was a major 1920's boomtown that for a while, had a chance to rival Miami before a hurricane wiped out the Florida investors who were financing that boom. Months later, the stock market crashed and the Depression set in, and Asheville suddenly found itself with most debt per capita of any city in the nation. From "Little Miami" to "The City that Suffered Most."

For the next several decades, the city did not have enough money to bulldoze its downtown, as most other American cities were doing, much less build new infrastructure. As a result various areas of the surrounding county built their own water systems. Later, those systems were consolidated into a joint water department run by the county and city. Later still, that joint department broke up because of various and sundry political bullshit. Asheville was ceded total control of the metropolitan water district, which meant that some of its pipes and reservoirs had not been built by the city, using city dollars. As a result, the state declared that unless the city removed the old infrastructure and built it all itself, which would cost multimillions of dollars, it could not fairly say that the water system was entirely its own. Therefore, if anyone outside the city (and by anyone I mean business districts and residential subdivisions, not any old ninny in a cabin in the back of beyond) wants city water, the city must provide if the capacity to provide is there. As likely as not, that water will reach that area of the county via pipes built by the county and not the city anyway.

And so here we are. We're in a uniquely bad position because of that. If the Sullivan Act that dicates all this is upheld by the state supreme court, and an attempt to destroy the city's ability to annex passes, then the city will be paying for developers to swamp it with sprawl.

[fflint]

If one is to be fairly and legitimately taxed, one must already have representation in the taxing government.

Who in Asheville city government currently represents the best interests of the "greedy lawyer" non-residents the city wants to reclassify as "residents" against their will and then tax? Nobody, I'll bet.

[pdxtex]

involuntary annexation sounds shady unless there are alot of shared municipal services between the established city and the unincorporated area. even then, im not sure what legislative matters would also need to be taken in order to complete the annexation. doing so without any consent does not sound right however.

[hauntedheadnc]

If one is to be fairly and legitimately taxed, one must already have representation in the taxing government.

Who in Asheville city government currently represents the best interests of the "greedy lawyer" non-residents the city wants to reclassify as "residents" against their will and then tax? Nobody, I'll bet.

I'm not sure I see it the way you do, although to answer your question there is a lone conservative Republican in the city government although I'm sure he'll be booted in the next election, as his behavior is becoming increasingly erratic. However, the LnL's are neither being represented or taxed by the city as of yet. If and when they become part of the city, then they'll be both represented and taxed. It seems fair to me that there's no need to have one foot over the starting line toward representation and taxation -- it can all start at once, and the LnL's can both expect a city tax bill and can get in line behind the unwashed hippies and performance artists at the polls, in hopes of perhaps electing that retired Floridian to the city council.

Furthermore, even if the residents of Biltmore Lake don't have their foot in the door, the city does. For one, the city is providing their water, and even if the city did not build its entire water system, it is now maintaining that entire water system and will use that fact in its appeal to the state supreme court. For another, Biltmore Lake lies within the city's western extraterritorial jurisdiction. This means that, despite the fact that Biltmore Lake does not lie within the city limits as of yet, Asheville had to approve the subdivision in the first place, approve its design and density, and could have refused the whole thing if it felt like it. Biltmore Lake literally owes its existence to the city in a more substantial way than just to say it would not have come into being had the city not been there, although that's true too.

Edit: Here's more food for thought that I just dug out of the city council minutes from a meeting in October 2002, when this project was just getting off the ground. It looks like someone is not keeping up their end of the bargain...

Upon inquiry of Councilman Peterson, City Manager Westbrook said that it was his understanding that the developer will voluntary annex in the future in phases, as they did with the Biltmore Park developments. City Attorney Oast cautioned Council to not let that influence City Council’s action in this matter.

[fflint]

I see both sides of the argument, but I think it better to err on the side of freedom of association by refraining from forcing unwilling non-residents to become residents and to pay higher taxes to a city in which none chose to live.

[hauntedheadnc]

I see both sides of the argument, but I think it better to err on the side of freedom of association by refraining from forcing unwilling non-residents to become residents and to pay higher taxes to a city in which none chose to live.

That I can understand, and perhaps even feel a little sorry for them. But, the subdivision was built inside the extraterritorial jurisdiction, which means it was reasonable to assume the city would annex that property anyway. The land inside the EJ already falls under city regulations and zoning anyway, but does not pay city taxes -- a little bit like Puerto Rico's relationship with the US. That, and there's always the issue of the water system.

To get away from all these specifics for a moment, I think in the end I support involuntary annexation because it's in a city's best interest and in its self-interest. Those of us in NC need only look over the line to South Carolina to see how the complete inability to annex is bad for cities. Greenville and Spartanburg are just down the mountain from us here in Asheville, and are both shrinking cities. If you looked at them strictly by their populations, they'd both measure up as medium-sized towns. Greenville's got 59,000 or so and Spartanburg has around 40,000. You'd never know that they were two of the three urban hubs of a metro region of more than 900,000 people -- nearly all of them living in exurban sprawl. Upstate South Carolina is an environmentally devestated cul-de-sac hell. Up here, and throughout North Carolina, cities have a fighting chance to avoid that.

[fflint]

So you'd take away some citizens' freedom of choice and force them to do what they insist they wish to continue avoiding, only to advance what you feel is the best (and yet diametrically-opposed) interests of the more powerful bloc?

[toddguy]

Yes. All of Franklin County and southern Delaware, western Licking, and northwest Fairfield Counties should be annexed by the city of Columbus, which would then be renamed: Columbus-the blob that ate central Ohio!:)

[seaskyfan]

It took me a while to get used to unincorporated areas when I moved out West. In Massachusetts where I'm from you are always in a city or town, and most of the "newer" towns (my hometown incorporated in 1850) were carved out of existing towns. I still prefer the New England model. It's odd to me that people will live in areas where the only folks they vote for are county officials who oversee large areas.

Most smaller towns in MA have an elected Board of Selectmen and an open town meeting (any resident can come and vote). Larger towns replace the open town meeting with an elected one, and cities have either a council/mayor or council/manager form of government.

[miketoronto]

I say merge it all :) It is stupid to act like metropolitan regions are seperate little towns and cities. Its all one city when we get down to it, and merging and working as one is better.

There are times when making one city does make to large of a land area of population to serve under one council.

But overall in North America we don't work together enough on regional issues, and sometimes merging is the only way to get things done.

Its just part of a city growing. If you look at the City of Toronto, yes we were all forced together a while ago. But before the forced merger, different areas were merging way before. Infact the area that is now the City of Toronto use to be over 13 different councils that merged together from as early as 1912, into the 1960's. The forced merger I see is just an extension of those early mergers.

[AZheat]

I say merge it all It is stupid to act like metropolitan regions are seperate little towns and cities. Its all one city when we get down to it, and merging and working as one is better.
This argument could get ridiculous when you start talking about making one metropolitan area into one city because it's grown together over many decades. It sounds like people are suggesting that the biggest city should incorporate all of the smaller cities in the area even if they've been viable cities for a century. The topic of the thread is about unincorporated areas who appear to be getting the advantage of living near a city but aren't paying their fair share. That actually makes sense but some of the posts are going beyond that idea and suggesting for example that Phoenix should take over Mesa (a city of almost a half million) and other surrounding cities because it happens to be the biggest city in the area.

[hauntedheadnc]

So you'd take away some citizens' freedom of choice and force them to do what they insist they wish to continue avoiding, only to advance what you feel is the best (and yet diametrically-opposed) interests of the more powerful bloc?

If they were outside the EJ, which by default belongs to the city anyway and can be expected to become part of the city officially at some point, if they weren't using city water, and if the developer of this neighborhood hadn't promised voluntary annexation as a way to get the thing built in the first place, I might be on their side. As it is, I'm not, and the city could use their tax dollars. They may be very powerful, but in sheer numbers, the city has enough progressives to drown their votes.

In this specific instance, I'm more than supportive of the city. In general, I'm finding that involuntary annexation just isn't the norm. The cities that are allowed it don't have layers of parasitic unincorporated suburbs snapping at their teats, but on the other hand, sometimes cities that are allowed to annex involuntarily find themselves boxed in by squabbling municipalities. As I mentioned before, two communities are talking of incorporation around Asheville, and being walled in by self-centered, competing government entities is a large part of why Atlanta and other megasprawling regions are the nightmarish mess that they are.

I support involuntary annexation as a way for cities to protect themselves and as a means to protect the environment. The more land a progressive city like mine has under its control, the higher the standards it can require, and the more land it can preserve as parkland if it has the money and so chooses. I'm not sure that I see any freedoms being threatened, when the people outside the city limits are under its regulations anyway and when theyr'e using its water, and drive on city streets every day that even the tourists pay more to maintain than they do. That, and when when they are annexed, they have as much right to vote and sit in on city council meetings as anyone else.

I see this as the LnL's at Biltmore Lake trying to have their cake and eat it too, which really is just too bad for them, as far as I'm concerned. Like you though, I do wonder what might happen if the city made it a policy to lap up the conservatives at its fringes. Over time, that might change the balance of power in the city, but that won't happen any time soon.

[hauntedheadnc]

I say merge it all :) It is stupid to act like metropolitan regions are seperate little towns and cities. Its all one city when we get down to it, and merging and working as one is better.

In cases where the city already covers most of the county, that's a splendid idea, and frankly I have no idea why Charlotte and Mecklenburg County are still seperate government entities, as there's next to nothing left for Mecklenburg County to govern -- it's almost completely taken up by Charlotte. In the case of my city though, that would be a disastrous idea because the city is quite small when compared to the county. As a seperate entity, the city can look out for its own interests.

[fflint]

Beware the elimination of small enclaves of refuseniks at the edges of larger cities. Let me explain why I see forced annexation as a bad idea, by analogy to a situation in which you might be more sympathetic to the community that deliberately chose not to be annexed.

West Hollywood is the gay section of greater Los Angeles not by some accident, but precisely because it was until 1984 unincorporated LA County--and never LA city. Rather than being under the oppressive iron grip of the violent, anti-gay LAPD and the right-wing city government, West Hollywood businesses and residents lived relatively freely, with a civilized governance and a professional sheriff's patrol. It was not illegal, defacto, for gays to gather and be served in bars and restaurants in WeHo the way it was, defacto, until 1969 in Los Angeles city--a year in which over 1,000 gays were arrested by LAPD for various (and mostly trumped-up) charges, often in highly-publicized sweeps.

Gays chose to live, work and play in WeHo precisely because it was outside the city limits of LA, even though it was in fact surrounded on three sides by LA and subject to the same department of water and power as LA.

If Los Angeles had annexed West Hollywood, there would have been no place for gays and liberals to escape the right-wing oppression that marked most of the 20th century in LA. Fortunately, that never happened--and in 1984 West Hollywood incorporated as its own city. Any general argument you make regarding Asheville forced annexation could have been made to justify LA forcibly annexing West Hollywood. And my arguments in this thread have all been made with the West Hollywood situation in mind as well as what you've written about Biltmore Lake.

Obviously, this is a generalized analogy and the details vary significantly--the conservatives who wish to avoid being swallowed up in a liberal city, and the political disenfranchisement that will entail via forced annexation, won't face arrest like gays would have under forced annexation to LA. Yet the salience of individuals' right to choose their own place of residence for personal reasons is big enough to encompass both scenarios.

You may absolutely detest the people who live just outside Asheville, deride them, insist they shouldn't be able to choose their residency, and give not one whit for the reasons they avoided moving into Asheville and still want to remain non-residents. But you should give a damn, and consider very carefully the precedent set by what you advocate not just on those people, but by many other kinds of people as well, now and in the future. Small enclaves of refuseniks just outside city limits? I'm all for them.

[Boris2k7]

A Canadian example to look at in this case is Calgary (and Winnipeg). Calgary's model is that of a UniCity, based on the McNally Royal Commission of 1956... which if you Google comes up with a number of results...

http://www.calgary.ca/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_2_775_203_0_43/http%3B/content.calgary.ca/CCA/City+Hall/Municipal+Government/Office+of+the+Aldermen/Ward+Offices/Ward+14/Newsletters/Archives/2003+Newsletters/Ward+14+Newsletter+March+2003.htm

Calgary's Municipal Development Plan (MDP) identifies the importance of UniCity in managing The City's long-term growth. It is City Council policy to "continue to protect and manage Calgary's long-term growth requirements within the UniCity framework".

The UniCity form of municipal government means all urban development is under one municipal council as opposed to a multiplicity of local governments (i.e., a metropolitan form of government). In a practical sense, UniCity means that a single municipal council has the responsibility for all decisions relating to growth and change in, and relationships between, the downtown, the inner city, and suburbs both old and new. The advantages of UniCity over the metropolitan form of government are the equity of service provision, standards and taxation, reduced fragmentation of municipal services and the efficiency of administration including seamless planning and development, and the protection of long term growth corridors.

The Royal Commission on Metropolitan Development of Edmonton and Calgary, or the McNally Report – 1956, has long been viewed as the definitive argument for UniCity. Its premise is that urban development is most efficiently and fairly achieved under one municipal government.

The Calgary Metropolitan area in 1956 consisted of Calgary, a city of approximately 170,000 people with a strong economy and a well-balanced tax base consisting of residential, commercial and industrial development, along with a number of surrounding towns and hamlets with a population of approximately 14,000 people. These dormitory communities had only a singular tax base consisting primarily of unserviced residential development and the result was that a "tax poverty" was thought to exist since their tax base could not support the provision of municipal services to the same standards as Calgary. These areas were thought to be inextricably tied to Calgary as one "economic and social unit" yet the level of services and development were far behind Calgary. It followed that given this economic and social union, the most efficient, effective and fair government would be that under one municipal authority in order to level the disparity.


There were short-term costs to Calgary through the need to provide municipal services to these areas, but were thought to be acceptable to avoid the health menace of relatively contiguous unserviced urban residential development along with the unacceptable social disparities existing at that time.

The McNally principles reflect four interrelated themes:

1) In one metropolitan economic and social unit, tax base equity is important.

2) Where any business tax base is occurring just outside an urban municipality, the tax base generated from this development should accrue to the same municipality that provides educational and other municipal services to the workers and their families.

3) Urban municipalities are entitled to growing space, so they need to expand into rural areas.

4) Where areas adjacent to a city take on urban characteristics, these areas are best planned and governed by one municipality.

Problems occur (tax inequity, health and environmental issues, and cumbersome governance) when these spheres mix or overlap by way of multiple jurisdictions.

For the past 45 years, Calgary has supported the McNally principles and UniCity model for growth management. It provides for the most efficient growth process and equitable service provision, ensuring the revenues and costs of that growth accrue to the same municipality. Moreover, it is instrumental in dampening urban sprawl – haphazard, very low density, and disconnected urban development. Calgary's periodic annexations of land for long-term growth are fundamental to UniCity. By protecting lands for growth, and by planning and budgeting urban infrastructure in step with that growth, The "UniCity" of Calgary can remain a steward of land in the region.

Overally, the model has worked very well for us. Now we are a city of over 1 million in a metropolitan area of around 1.1 million. The only problem is that the Regional Planning Commissions in Alberta were dismantled by the Provincial Government in 1995 as a cost-cutting method, which has made it much harder to deal with surrounding municipalities. The first annexation since the 1990's has been, for the most part, approved but still faces a few hurdles. And that took several years to approve. All we really had to do was threaten to cut off their water and they changed their minds... (this is VERY significant in Alberta because the Province has not granted new water licenses in years, so municipalities in our CMA have no choice but to deal with the City) :)

[hauntedheadnc]

...Obviously, this is a generalized analogy and the details vary significantly--the conservatives who wish to avoid being swallowed up in a liberal city, and the political disenfranchisement that will entail via forced annexation, won't face arrest like gays would have under forced annexation to LA. Yet the salience of individuals' right to choose their own place of residence for personal reasons is big enough to encompass both scenarios.

You may absolutely detest the people who live just outside Asheville, deride them, insist they shouldn't be able to choose their residency, and give not one whit for the reasons they avoided moving into Asheville and still want to remain non-residents. But you should give a damn, and consider very carefully the precedent set by what you advocate not just on those people, but by many other kinds of people as well, now and in the future. Small enclaves of refuseniks just outside city limits? I'm all for them.

I definitely do see your point, and as I mentioned when I started this thread, my reasons for supporting involuntary annexation were more idealogical than anything else, although in the course of researching in order to reply in this thread, I've found several more concrete reasons for it in this particular case. I don't know how it will work out in the end, but with the appeal of the water law on its way, if that goes through, the city will probably drop the annexation and just jack their water rates way up. This was standard policy before the law was passed -- the city would provide water outside its boundaries (as it had since annexed most of the county-built systems over the years anyway), but it would cost you, almost as a punishment for daring to sprawl. Seems a fair compromise to me, and I hope the city prevails in their appeal. It would be easier than having to deal with this, and easier than having the entire structure of the state annexation laws collapse because the LnL's don't want their taxes to go up.

At the moment I suppose we'll just have to see how things play out in time. Annexation is always a topic people feel strongly about. There are still some oldtimers in West Asheville who loathe the city for annexing their town and that happened going on 80 years ago.

Coincidentally, what are the laws regarding annexation in California?

[toddguy]

Small enclaves of refuseniks just outside city limits

If faced with an imminent consolidation(like Indianapolis did)..couldn't the small enclaves then incorporate(as West Hollywood eventually did) to avoid being swallowed up? I know in(IIRC Marion) county where Indy is there are a few small towns surrounded by the city/county government..places like Beech Grove..and I think Lawrence(again IIRC).

[fflint]

I don't know much about the mechanics of annexation in California. Millions of Californians live outside any city's limits, most of them in the urban areas of Los Angeles and Sacramento.

We have a state agency called LAFCO that oversees proposals for a given area's secession from a city, incorporation into an existing city, and incorporation into a new city. Its procedures and requirements take years to satisfy, and require a popular vote--in the area that would change its municipal status, and, if applicable, in the larger area as well. Voters in both areas must approve the proposed change or it cannot take effect.

The San Fernando Valley voted to secede from LA city, but the voters of LA city outside the SFV rejected secession and so it could not take effect. For your area, that would mean Biltmore Lake would vote and Asheville would vote, and when the voters in Biltmore Lake voted against being annexed, that would be that.

[hauntedheadnc]

Thanks for the info, fflint.

[fflint]

^I should direct you to some authority on that stuff, but I don't have one handy, sorry. I hope someone who knows more about this issue can correct any misimpressions I might have, because I don't want to give you bad information. I come to my impression about the issue through my own personal exposure to the San Fernando Valley secession movement. I lived in the Valley briefly and then, later, West Los Angeles.

[miketoronto]

One thing I want to bring up is that merging places into city government does not always mean these outter areas have to pay to operate services in the city or pay for the poor, etc.

In Toronto's case, the Metro gov was started because the suburbs on average were poorer then the inner city and downtown, and they wanted to equal out funding by having inner Toronto pay for new sewers, etc in the suburbs.

So sometimes its the central city that is used to pay for the suburbs.

I think its different in the USA though. I don't think Canadian cities have unincorporated areas outside of the cities. Even suburbs are always town or city governments, and the taxes are pretty similar, etc.

[Wheelingman04]

Small enclaves of refuseniks just outside city limits

If faced with an imminent consolidation(like Indianapolis did)..couldn't the small enclaves then incorporate(as West Hollywood eventually did) to avoid being swallowed up? I know in(IIRC Marion) county where Indy is there are a few small towns surrounded by the city/county government..places like Beech Grove..and I think Lawrence(again IIRC).

Southport, Homecroft, Cumberland and Speedway also didn't join the city of Indianapolis when it and Marion County merged.

[toddguy]

Southport, Homecroft, Cumberland and Speedway also didn't join the city of Indianapolis when it and Marion County merged.

Thanks..I knew I had missed some. I wish Franklin county and Columbus would have a merger like Marion county/Indy did.

[Wheelingman04]

^ Me too.:)