What the heck are these? How & why do they happen?
What the heck are you talking about? I know I can answer this except I don’t understand the question!
Different states have different laws regarding the protocols, so most generalizations will have lots of exceptions, but I’ll give it a try.
Cities enjoy having income. Income is generated by taxes, usually on property. (Some cities in some states are allowed to have income taxes, but I have never heard of a city that did not (or, at least, could not) have property taxes.)
When a city wants to increase its tax revenue, one fairly easy way to do this is to annex adjacent land and begin taxing the property of the people living on that land. To forbid this sort of growth would mean that every town in the U.S. would be no larger than the original plat and that New York, Chicago, Houston, and L.A. would currently be made up of dozens, if not hundreds, of tiny, competing municipalities.
The state has an interest in preventing a city from simply annexing the entire rest of the state, so there are generally specific rules regarding how an annexation can occur. Usually (but not always) it includes some sort of vote by the inhabitants of the land about to be annexed. If the city can persuade the majority of the inhabitants that they will be better off with city services (at a trade-off of increased property taxes), then the vote will go to the city. If the city cannot persuade the current inhabitants, then it gets sticky. A few states allow a city to take land even over the protests of the annexed location by various means: the vote can be handled at the governmental level (so the township supervisors or the smaller city/village council can vote for the annexation without going to the people); the city can buy up land in the target area and then “vote” for its own annexation. (Think of all the ways that people can find to manipulate each other.)
As an example, the mayor of Columbus, OH got tired of ruling a dinky college town and having all the good money go to the real cities of Cincinnati and Cleveland a number of years ago, so he set out to enlarge Columbus. Most of the surrounding towns had tapped into the Columbus water and sewage years before, so he simply set the rates for “non-city” services astronomically high, then “encouraged” all the surrounding towns to vote for annexation so that they could get the preferred “city” rates.
Did you have a more specific question in mind?
Great response, Tom.
I’d add that not all annexations generate net revenue. Most residential areas, for example, cost more in city services than they pay in real estate taxes.
Sales taxes are often a big reason why municipalities annex. Car dealerships and shopping centers (for example) generate huge sale tax revenues and don’t consume much in the way of city services.
Why do property owners and voters in unincorportated areas petition for annexation? Like Tom said, city water and sewer (as well as other city services) often drive this choice. Also, developers often believe that homes in municipalities are more marketable than otherwise. Especially true if the municipality is well run, or has some snob appeal.
Why do munipalities ever allow reidential areas to annex, if they cost more than they generate? Several reasons. Sometimes, it’s the right thing to do to ensure orderly development. Other times, the developer pays for the privilege though park/school/road donations. Also, the undesireable area may srve as a bridge to a coveted tract. (Annexationed land must connect (be contiguous)to the existing town.) Finally, the village may fear the alternative. A tract of nice (albeit costly) single family homes beats a smelly factory, or an apartment complex that will clog village roads.
-Random (who has an annexation agreement on his desk that needs revision tomorrow, and who may end up giving up far too much to the public utilty which is the property owner if he doesn't get some sleep soon.)Great response, Tom.
I’d add that not all annexations generate net revenue. Most residential areas, for example, cost more in city services than they pay in real estate taxes.
Sales taxes are often a big reason why municipalities annex. Car dealerships and shopping centers (for example) generate huge sale tax revenues and don’t consume much in the way of city services.
Why do property owners and voters in unincorportated areas petition for annexation? Like Tom said, city water and sewer (as well as other city services) often drive this choice. Also, developers often believe that homes in municipalities are more marketable than otherwise. Especially true if the municipality is well run, or has some snob appeal.
Why do munipalities ever allow reidential areas to annex, if they cost more than they generate? Several reasons. Sometimes, it’s the right thing to do to ensure orderly development. Other times, the developer pays for the privilege though park/school/road donations. Also, the undesireable area may srve as a bridge to a coveted tract. (Annexationed land must connect (be contiguous)to the existing town.) Finally, the village may fear the alternative. A tract of nice (albeit costly) single family homes beats a smelly factory, or an apartment complex that will clog village roads.
-Random (who has an annexation agreement on his desk that needs revision tomorrow, and who may end up giving up far too much to the public utilty which is the property owner if he doesn't get some sleep soon.)Great response, Tom.
I’d add that not all annexations generate net revenue. Most residential areas, for example, cost more in city services than they pay in real estate taxes.
Sales taxes are often a big reason why municipalities annex. Car dealerships and shopping centers (for example) generate huge sale tax revenues and don’t consume much in the way of city services.
Why do property owners and voters in unincorportated areas petition for annexation? Like Tom said, city water and sewer (as well as other city services) often drive this choice. Also, developers often believe that homes in municipalities are more marketable than otherwise. Especially true if the municipality is well run, or has some snob appeal.
Why do munipalities ever allow reidential areas to annex, if they cost more than they generate? Several reasons. Sometimes, it’s the right thing to do to ensure orderly development. Other times, the developer pays for the privilege though park/school/road donations. Also, the undesireable area may srve as a bridge to a coveted tract. (Annexed land must connect (be contiguous)to the existing town.) Finally, the village may fear the alternative. A tract of nice (albeit costly) single family homes beats a smelly factory, or an apartment complex that will clog village roads.
-Random (who has an annexation agreement on his desk that needs revision tomorrow, and who may end up giving up far too much to the public utilty which is the property owner if he doesn't get some sleep soon.)Damn hamsters.
(BTW, see what I mean about lack of sleep? Annexationed!?)
…And to bed.
Good point. A few years ago, Mobile City, a trailer park in Rockwall County, Texas, just outside of the county seat of Rockwall voted for annexation and petitioned Rockwall to annex them. Rockwall decided that it wasn’t worth the paltry property taxes on a dozen or so trailer homes to provide those services and rejected their proposal. So, instead, Mobile City incorporated and immediately applied with the state of Texas to be a “wet” community and shortly after opened the first–and still only, IIRC–place you can buy beer and liquor in all of the County.
The entire city now consists of a dozen trailers, a beer and wine-selling convenience store, and a liquor store, all along a very short stretch of frontage road along I-30 east of Rockwall. Map.
Link:
Annexation procedures can also depend on the type of land being annexed. In Michigan, for example, a city can annex land from a township without approval of the residents. A city cannot, however, annex land from a charter township without approval by the residents. I’m not sure if other states have similar set-ups, or not.
Just adding a little to the great posts hereinbefore set forth :), “contiguous” in most states will include properties that are connected only by a road or a waterway. The most famous, IMHO, would be O’Hare Field in Chgo. It is in Chgo, but only because Daley annexed the Interstate that connects it to the city before annexing the airport.
These waterway connections can become complex. Here, where I live (in James Island, SC), the unincorporated area comprising JI decided to incorporate to prevent annexation by the City of Charleston. (I’ve been against it and would rather annex to the City, but that’s off the topic.) It did so, but by doing so it used waterways previously annexed by the City. The City challenged the annexation in court and won. Subsequently, the law was changed to allow the use of such waterways for contiguity even if in another municipality. JI again voted to incorporate as a town. Now the City is challenging the new try on the basis that the legislation was special legislation and therefore unconstitutional.
Excuse the pirating of a thread, but I wonder how people feel about the City’s contention. Granted, it was done especially for JI, but many other areas can use the statute also. I think that of itself defeats the City’s argument.
Illinois has statutes regarding municipalities of “500,000 or more inhabitants.” Of course, only Chgo is covered by those statutes. I don’t know if anyone ever challenged those statutes on the basis of special legislation, but IMHO that sounds like special legislation. There is no other municipality in Illinois that can meet that requirement and none will in the foreseeable future. Of particular, is the Board of Education of the City of Chgo. That legislation may serve a real need, as Chgo may not be adequately served by the same laws regarding the school system as the other cities.
But what about Charleston’s claim? Any comments?
North Carolina has interesting annexation laws, stemming from a 1950s State Supreme Court decision that “if an area is urban, it shall be municipal”.
No vote by the annexed citizens is required, but merely a vote by the city council. An area may be involuntarily annexed if it meets two criteria: (1) it adjoins the present city limits, and (2) it has a population of 2.1 persons per square acre. (I think that figure is right; it’s close anyway.)
San Diego, CA has the same game regarding contiguous land. Most of SD lies a couple miles north of the Mexican border, separated by the cities of National City and Chula Vista. However, this area called San Ysidro that lies on the border is part of SD, but looking at a map, it appears not to be contiguous in any way with the rest of the city. Turns out that SD actually incorporated a narrow strip of land that runs under the water of San Diego Bay that connects San Ysidro to the rest of SD.
FYI.
Another example of wacky annexation:
The Dallas City Limits include two thin land strips that extend from “proper” Dallas to the east and the northwest. The eastern strip then expands to include all of Lake Ray Hubbard in the official City Limits, although the lake is actually bounded by the communities of Rockwall, Heath, Rowlett, and Garland:
http://maps.dallascityhall.com/otherservices/lakespondstanks.pdf
(Warning! PDF above!)
IIRC, this strip actually cuts through the cities of Mesquite and/or Garland, esentially bisecting this/these community/ies. However, I can’t find a clear enough map to confirm this.
Thank you all!!! It was a General Question. Since I used to live in a small town in Ohio like 20 years ago and went back to noticed that a city next to mine annexed my town. I just wanted know why citys get or want to be annexed.
Thank you again.
Still more wacky annexation tales…
As Houston sprawled over the Texas landscape, at least two of its former suburbs refused to allow themselves to be annexed and now are completely landlocked: Bellaire and West University Place.
The main economy of these two municipalities seems to be speeding tickets… 