Forced Annexation
Recommendation
Municipalities should not force individuals living in unincorporated areas to live within the municipalities.
Background
Forced annexation, not annexation, is a serious problem in North Carolina. Individuals in unincorporated areas have no say on whether they will be annexed. To add insult to injury, these individuals, not the municipalities, often have to pay to receive services they neither need nor want.
According to the 2006 North Carolina Supreme Court case of Nolan v. City of Marvin: The primary purpose of involuntary annextion, as regulated by these statutes, is to promote 'sound urban development' through the organized extension of municipal services to fringe geographical areas. These services must provide a meaningful benefit to newly annexed property owners and residents, who are now municipal taxpayers, and must also be extended in a nondiscriminatory fashion.
The primary purpose of forced annexation has been lost. Forced annexation is not used for sound urban development. Areas that need to be annexed are not annexed, and areas that do not need to be annexed are annexed.
Why forced annexation should not be used
No vote or representation for victims of forced annexation. As of now, there is no vote or other means of challenging a forced annexation for individuals living in affected areas. This certainly needs to be changed, and in the interim, municipalities should not violate basic democratic principles of this country by engaging in forced annexation. Counties must protect these individuals who, after all, are represented by the county.
Minorities are kept out of cities (unintentionally). The negative impact on minorities is generally not caused by intentional discrimination. Instead, the effect of forced annexation has a disproportionate effect on minorities. A study conducted by the Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities examined several counties in North Carolina and found that African-Americans were being kept out of municipalities.
Another study by the UNC Center for Civil Rights found the exclusion of African-Americans from municipalities in Moore County. The study used these strong words:
While the initial exclusion of minority communities can in part be explained by history, their continued exclusion suggests something more sinister. In essence, the jagged and irregular municipal boundaries found in many Southern towns suggest that this exclusion is a new form of institutionalized segregation that has gone largely unnoticed by the general public.
Minorities are kept out of cities (possible intent). When cities can unilaterally pick and choose the people that they want in their cities, there is a possibility of discrimination. Most municipalities and their leaders will act properly, but it is important for municipal leaders and counties to ensure that discrimination is never a motive to support forced annexation.
A recent example shows that discrimination is a real concern. A Goldsboro city councilman, in a 2001 letter, wrote the following to other policymakers that seems to indicate a discriminatory motive:
A city that doesn't grow dies and because of the white flight in the schools, floods and various other reasons, Goldsboro (the city) is not growing, especially our young white families and according to the census, we might even be losing people. Thus the annexation of this area would not only add good tax base to Goldsboro, it would also help us keep our racial make up in check, which in my opinion is very important to our future.
— Letter admitted into evidence in William R. Burnette et al. v. City of Goldsboro, 05 CVS 1992 (Wayne County).
Forced annexation hurts city residents. Municipalities use forced annexation as a financial bail out. This is not just a problem for those who are being annexed, but also for the municipalities and its residents.
If an individual knows that he can always steal money from his neighbor in case of financial trouble, he will take inappropriate risks and make poor decisions. He can steal his way out of mistakes. The same problem exists for municipalities that have the power of forced annexation.
Municipalities make poor choices because they know that there is a "safety net." Forced annexation, for all practical purposes, is an admission that the city is poorly managed. Unfortunately, existing municipal residents suffer from the mistakes and poor management.
Water and droughts. When city residents already are being forced to conserve water due to droughts, they are not going to be happy when they learn that the city has to provide its limited water resources to even more people.
Addressing myths of forced annexation
The "free-rider" argument: Individuals in the county should not be allowed to vote or have any say in annexation because they enjoy city benefits without paying their fair share.
Response: This free-rider argument examines only one side of the equation and fails to take into account the incredible amount of benefits that cities receive from individuals in these areas. It is more likely that cities owe "county" residents rather than the other way around. This free-rider argument also would have us believe cities do not want visitors to their cities.
The bond rating argument: Six of North Carolina's major cities have AAA bond ratings because of forced annexation.
Response: First, there is no evidence that forced annexation is the reason for high bond ratings. No cause and effect ever has been demonstrated. Second, several other states also have numerous cities with AAA ratings, including Connecticut (seven cities) and Minnesota (five cities). Neither of these states has forced annexation. Finally, even if forced annexation did help bond ratings, the ends do not justify the means: Should North Carolina undermine democratic principles and hurt minorities because it may mean a slightly higher bond rating for some cities?
One argument made by annexation proponents is North Carolina, as opposed to Connecticut, has AAA bond ratings for its largest cities (six of the cities are in the top seven largest cities). It is unclear why smaller cities are less important than big cities. This "big city" argument, though, still does not hold up. For example, four of Minnesota's five AAA bond-rated cities are the four largest cities in the state.
|
