Pro-involuntary annexation arguments appear to be more philosophical than practical

by Barbara Hunter
published January 30, 2007 12:15 am

My column “Annexation is all about the money — more for government, less for citizenry,” (AC-T, Jan. 16), produced a torrent of e-mails beyond anything from prior columns. And what e-mails they were: furious, outraged, filled with anger over the battles they have had to wage to keep the hands of adjacent cities out of their pockets.

(Before I continue, I need to correct a mistake: Annexation, with its attendant tax increases, cannot commence until the challenges have been exhausted.)

One person spoke about having moved twice out of town, only to be forcibly annexed again. Others reported tax increases so large (sometimes more than double the previous rate) that they may be forced to sell their homes. Many described the months and years of lawsuits, with their accompanying legal fees, in the hope — usually futile — of preventing annexations with nothing to offer them but tax bills.

As I read these e-mails, a picture of involuntary annexation emerged.

I was reminded of a giant octopus reaching its tentacles in search of the most filling meal to devour.

Too extreme?

Consider the following.

An underlying theme of the annexing cities and towns is that the people in the surrounding areas use the services of the central city but don’t pay for them.

Let’s examine this and some other claims of the pro-involuntary annexation champions. Following are verbatim quotes from the North Carolina League of Municipalities, each with an English translation courtesy of your humble columnist:

“(B)ecause of annexation, North Carolina’s central cities are dominant job centers; ... experience dynamic economic growth.” No evidence is offered that the same areas, in the absence of involuntary annexation, would have less dominant job centers or would experience less economic growth. On the contrary, the increased taxation produced by the annexation may have had the opposite effect.

“North Carolina’s cities annex new (populous) subdivisions; zero-elastic cities cannot.” This is merely a tautology. The term “elastic” means that the city is allowed to annex involuntarily, whereas “zero-elastic” means that the city is not allowed to do this. Most important, there is no reason whatever to assume that an area consisting of a city and its suburbs will be less prosperous than a city with no suburbs because they have been absorbed into the city.

“Overall, half of all jobs in North Carolina are located in the state’s 21 central cities.” This point is a non sequitur, for it is true in state after state, whether or not the workers themselves are city residents.

“Citizens (of an area being annexed) receive municipal services, typically police, fire, parks and recreation, streets, street lighting, garbage collection, recycling, planning and zoning, often access to water and sewer.” Except when they don’t. By the very nature of involuntary annexation decisions, newly annexed areas usually have every amenity its people want; otherwise, they wouldn’t be attractive to the annexing city.

“Annexation ... helps keep property tax rates lower.” Obviously. If you add to your tax base by grabbing prosperous adjacent areas, you can fund more programs with the additional revenue.

“North Carolina leads the nation in AAA bond-rated cities.” No surprise. The ability to separate people from their hard-earned dollars through involuntary annexation makes municipal debt easier to acquire. The result may be either beneficial or detrimental, depending on the decisions of the municipalities. If anything, the lure of easy credit, as with private finances, can lead to short-sighted or even foolhardy expenditures.

“Annexation opponents don’t want a vote; they want a veto.” No, it’s the annexing cities that want, and in fact demand, a veto.

Except in extremely rare instances, annexing cities get exactly what they want, even if a majority (or, for that matter, everyone) of the annexed population objects.
“NC municipal officials are fiscally conservative.” Really? Take a look at some of the “projects” currently proposed, as reported by our own newspaper.

“North Carolina became a great state by moving forward and not letting a few people veto progress for everyone else.”

Last year, North Carolina was one of 10 states whose credit rating had been put into the “negative outlook’’ category (as reported by Moody’s and by Standard & Poors), one step above “downgraded,’’ although the rating was upgraded again in the most recent ratings report. This may be considered “moving forward’’ by some, but not everyone will agree.

“Changing North Carolina’s annexation laws will cost city and county taxpayers millions of extra dollars for higher bond interest rates.”

On the other hand, it might introduce more fiscal responsibility when the enticement of ever-expanding revenue sources is mitigated.

My next column will deal with more of the pro-annexation arguments, as well as some suggestions for dealing with the municipal octopus.

Barbara Hunter taught chemistry at Hofstra University among other career stops. Most recently, she was an application specialist in the IT department of a large law firm. She lives in Black Mountain. Her columns appear on alternate Tuesdays and she can be reached at brhunter@aol.com.