I don’t need to do a thorough review of yesterday’s annexation meeting because Becki already did a great job providing the review.
Some thoughts:
1) Most commission members that suggested recommendations called for real annexation reform, including a vote.
2) The League, and nobody else, was allowed to provide a presentation.
– The message sent by this action is simple: the League is more
important than the citizens. I actually couldn’t believe (ok, I
could) that only the League was given time to present. The
Commission leadership will lose all legitimacy if there isn’t at least
equal time provided to organizations concerned with real
reform. There should be outrage at this insult to citizens.
– The League provided recommendations that are a sham, as
expected. They listed a lot of detailed changes trying to
give the appearance that the recommendations are substantive (they
aren’t) and that the annexation issue is real complicated (it isn’t).
They are taking detailed, fundamentally flawed minor provisions that
exist in the law and are suggesting that they become “slightly less
bad.” At the end of the day, nothing has really changed because
none of the recommendations are intended to provide meaningful
reform. This isn’t like putting lipstick on a pig. It is
more like putting lipgloss on a pig.
When going through the League’s recommendations, individuals need to ask themselves:
– Is anything the League recommending helping to eliminate or even reduce the number of forced annexations?
– Will the costs imposed on annexation victims be reduced?
– Do the recommendations help to create a voice for citizens?
– Are the costs of providing services going to be placed on municipalities as they should be?
– Are municipalities going to bear the burden of proof throughout the annexation process as they should?
– Will there be any oversight of municipalities so that they can’t continue to able to do whatever they want?
– Will municipalities be required to provide meaningful services?
The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. The status quo is being maintained.
The one substantive issue that the League tried to address is the
problem of municipalities overlooking low-income neighborhoods that
need services. Their solution is humorous.
The primary purpose of the annexation law is for municipalities to
promote sound urban growth by helping these communities that need
services. The League’s admission that these communities are
overlooked is an admission that the law fails to achieve its
purpose.
The League’s arrogance knows no bounds though. Instead of
apologizing for the failure of municipalities, the League wants
incentives for municipalities to provide services to these areas that
the municipalities are already supposed to be assisting in the first
place!
The law wasn’t passed to be a financial bailout bill for cities, even
though that’s what it has become. It was passed because
municipalities in 1959 (not 2008) were in the best position to provide
“municipal-type services” to areas that needed these services.
I have pointed
out many times: The law is inherently flawed because municipalities, on
their own without any oversight and vote, will annex areas that don’t
need services and skip areas that do need services.
Finally: Reforming the annexation law isn’t complicated, as one
legislator stated after hearing the League’s long and tedious
presentation.
It is actually quite simple.
There is nothing complicated about figuring out whether there should be
a vote and oversight. There is nothing complicated about ensuring
that meaningful services must be provided to an area.
The meeting yesterday was a mixed bag. Most Commission members
seemed to want real reform, but the lone presentation by the League
suggests that this Commission may be nothing more than a show to
appease citizens.
Odds are against real reform, but they are slightly better than before.
