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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

Originally Posted by the pope

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

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]

Originally Posted by seaskyfan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.