First Amendment Rights - Joe's Letter to the Editor

In regard to annexation, the problem is the state law that allows annexation that is forced! The word “forced” in forced annexation is galling. The very concept of forcing annexation on someone indicates that they would not choose it if their expected democratic rights were available to them.

Of the fifty states in this union, forty-four of them do not allow forced annexation. In those forty-four states, annexations are only allowed when it is mutually beneficial to the municipality and the community being annexed. Interestingly, this concept has been spoken of derisively by individuals within the local governing bodies (as quoted recently in the Southern Standard). Obviously, Tennessee is one of the six that does allow forced annexation. I have emailed both my state representative and my state senator with my concerns about this very unfair law. Representative Matheny has responded; Senator Stewart has not.

A few years ago Lt. Gov. John Wilder sponsored the “small cities law” to benefit some of his friends who did not wish to be annexed. The provisions of this law were so liberal that apartment complexes incorporated in order to avoid annexation by nearby towns. Although this short lived law was ridiculously liberal, the very fact that it could pass at all indicates the contempt felt by many for the existing laws.

When annexations are proposed it is with grand expressions like “we want to control the growth” or “we have to grow”. However, when decisions are made as to whether to proceed or not, the decision appears to hinge on whether or not it will turn a profit. Purchasing the Regions Bank building, spending thousands to renovate it for occupancy, computerized water meters, renovating downtown, the geo-thermal experiment at the civic center, etc. -- perhaps all are good ideas, I don’t know. However, I do know that if you can’t afford them, they are not good ideas. And, if you spend all your money, you should not be able to cover your mistakes by simply annexing more territory for the sole purpose of taxation. In fact, if the city were serious about providing services, tax revenues generated would be absorbed in providing those services. There would be no net gain in revenues.

Again, the problem is with the law! To make the point clear, Tennessee is one of only six states that even allows one community to legally conquer another. I think this law has only been able to stay on the books because it affects relatively few people at any given time. People who live far removed from a city limits sign do not feel threatened and just don’t have a dog in the fight. People who have chosen to live within the city limits are not affected either, except that they may see annexation as a way to keep their taxes from increasing. Those who are concerned are the families who wait to see if their neighborhoods become the target of the next forced annexation.

I live in area 2 that was recently deemed unprofitable to annex, according to what was reported in the local paper. In the last six years, we have been threatened with annexation twice. The first time, despite almost 100% opposition, we were able to stop the action only after we employed an attorney to fight it in court -- despite the fact that anyone driving through our area could tell it would not be profitable to build sewer lines and roads to homes that are a quarter of a mile apart. It would almost cause you to assume that there was never any serious consideration of providing services; services that the majority of us never even wanted. I am sure; however, they were serious about collecting city property taxes.

Rolling Hills, Woodland Hills, and Hickory Hills are residential communities. Not one of them is going to be the site of a strip mall, industrial park, or other sales tax generating enterprise. What growth is going to be “controlled” in such communities? People chose to live there because they prefer moonlight to street light. If they want to build a storage building in their back yard, they have already agreed to community covenants that govern such things. They already have adequate law enforcement protection and they would rather take their trash to the convenience center than have a garbage can at the curb. How arrogant for a governing body to assert that they have the right to legislate another way for them to live!

If annexed, property taxes would increase by an estimated 75-80 percent. People who live outside the city decided to do so because they did not think the benefits of living in the city were worth the cost. The people who live inside the city, decided that they were. Both decisions should be honored.

Is there no other meaning to the word “growth” than more acreage? Is there some reason that the city needs an industrial park to compete with the one the county already has? Aren’t businesses closing rather than opening? Isn’t there a need to consolidate and strengthen rather than expand? Are we only going to compare McMinnville with Cookeville and Manchester in regards to expanding borders? Are there not other comparisons that need to be made as well – such as access to I-40 and I-24, a state university, population growth, strong industrial presence, etc.?

The problem is the law! The email addresses for our state representative and senator are as follows: sen.eric.stewart@capitol.tn.gov and rep.judd.matheny@legislature.state.tn.us . Please join me in contacting these two lawmakers in the hopes that the forced annexation law will be changed. Perhaps then, we can avoid “Groundhog Day” -- the analogy that the Southern Standard editorial chose. County residents will no longer wake up periodically to another report that once again they’re being considered for forced annexation.

Joe Moffitt