Laserfiche WebLink
FEBRUARY 1995 <br /> <br />AMERICAN <br />PLANNING <br />ASSOCIATION <br /> <br /> Annexatio <br /> Primer <br /> for Planners <br /> By Michelle Gregory <br /> Annexation is the traditio~aal <br /> way a municipality expands its <br /> territorial limits and <br /> jurisdictional powers. Thc}ugh <br /> the practice has proliferat{d <br /> mostly over the last 50 ye/}rs, <br /> cases reached the courts as[ <br /> early as the mid-1800s, wl~en <br /> land grabs were vigorousl~ <br /> sought to develop the <br /> railroads. To many <br /> environmentalists, open si}ace <br /> advocates, property rights[ <br /> advocates, and proponent~ of <br /> self-incorporation, annexaflon <br /> constitutes blatant land <br />speculation by local ' <br />government. In fact, this h~ <br />been the motive behind m~ny <br />annexation attempts. At <br />glance, annexation does <br />appear to be a maior <br />contributor to sprawl. <br /> In most instances, <br />however, annexation is a <br />reaction to sprawl. There i~ a <br />compelling argument that <br />anyone involved in growth <br />contro! can appreciate: <br />annexation seeks to control <br />development. Though it <br />certainly does not stop <br />development for an extend, d <br />period of time, it can ensur <br /> <br />Pioneer <br />Farm area <br /> <br />Commons <br />Ford Park <br /> <br />Barton Creek <br />access area <br /> <br />~right <br /> <br /> Extreterritorlal jurisdiction: ~ <br />Cannot vote in any Austin municipal election. <br />Limited.purpoSe annexed areas: ' <br /> Can vote only in Austin City Council and charter amendment elections <br /> Full-purpose annexed area~ ("city limits"): <br /> Can vote in all city elections. <br /> <br />that development takes a sl(bwer, more guided path. Unpopular <br />as the expansion ,of city territory may be among those distrustful <br />ora municipality s intentiohs, it can be argued that, if and when <br />growth around a city's peril}hery is inevitable, it should at least <br />be orderly, serviceable, and~equitable. These three standards are <br />often most efficiently achie{~ed by the core municipality under <br />the direction of specific stat~ statutes. The challenge lies in Consent. and Contiguity <br />crafting a state statute that ~rotects, to the fullest extent In most states, annexation cannot occur without th'e consent of a <br />possible, the interests of thds.' e whose property is being annoxed.----rro, j~li.,iy of some combination of the landowners and residents of <br />The circumstances that jrecipitate annexation are numerous, th' ~°territory. This is based on the fundamental notion of self- <br />and thc process by which it,s regulated varies tremendour~_ ~.~ / 5tetetfiji~ati°n rooted in the U.S. Constitution. The only <br />state. Th~s issue of Zontng.F(.ews a,ms to acquaint the readi!i~ ' common excepuon anses ~n sztuauons where the terntory is <br />with the issues and trends ir[ annexation law today, based 9n co .mp~le_tely or almost completely surrounded by the city. Virginia <br />recent relevant cases throug~lout the country. However, a [J -~ ~ ~ ~ 2irl~ th~ana have the broadest provisions for involuntary <br /> <br />municipality should confirm that any annexation proceeding <br />complies fully with state statutes. Similarly, a landowner or <br />resident challenging an annexation proposal or petitioning for <br />annexation should consult state statutes for guidance. These <br />laws are set up to protect their interests. <br /> <br /> <br />