« Environment - Recent stories | Main | Indiana Law - Indiana's flood maps reportedly outdated »

Monday, November 15, 2004

Indiana Law - Critics question state annexation laws

A story in the Indianapolis Star today about Carmel's proposed annexation plans also gives a broader look at the current Indiana law concerning annexation, and raises the question of whether a spot fix to meet the Carmel issue is warranted vs. whether a long history of such situation-specific "fixes" has made the current law unworkable. Some quotes:

While Carmel is expected tonight to give its final approval of annexations in southwest Clay and Home Place, property owners across Hamilton County have cried for changing state law to give them more say-so. At least two state legislators say they are ready to push for change. "There are a number of legislators acknowledging we have a problem and the time for change is probably now," said state Sen. Jeff Drozda, R-Westfield. "They're concerned about the aggressiveness Carmel has taken and say Carmel is giving other cities a bad name because of their confrontational perspective. That troubles them greatly."

At least one expert, however, says the state needs sweeping reform, not piecemeal tinkering, if it wants sound annexation rules.

Drozda and state Rep. David Orentlicher, D-Indianapolis, back making the fight easier for property owners opposed to an annexation.

The most common way to stop an annexation is to gather signatures from 65 percent of the property owners in the annexation area. That requirement used to be a simple majority, 51 percent, and Drozda and Orentlicher want to reinstate that number. * * *

Even better than dropping the requirement to 51 percent would be to require a referendum, Drozda and [Westfield council President Teresa Otis] Skelton say.

"To me, it's more fair if you put something to a referendum, because it's just no fair for people to have to go out and raise money, organize people and collect signatures," Drozda said. "A referendum is easier to involve everyone, and it just makes sense."

[Westfield Town Manager Jerry] Rosenberger said he would never support a referendum. Neither would [Carmel Mayor Jim] Brainard or Carmel City Council President Ron Carter. * * *

Whatever the outcome of Drozda and Orentlicher's efforts at the Statehouse, a couple of local legislators lobbying for their individual causes won't improve the law, says Michael Shaver, an annexation expert with Wabash Scientific. His company advises cities on planning and land-use issues, and Shaver has served as a consultant for several communities across the state. He said the laws needs a complete overhaul.

"This statute has been repeatedly butchered by the legislature, and it has degenerated into a series of special interests legislation -- similar to what Drozda and Orentlicher want," Shaver said. "When the only motivation is political expediency, then it is self-defeating in the end."

Shaver said the law was last changed to accommodate an annexation dispute in Fort Wayne. He said poorly written laws have led to a growing number of annexation feuds between cities and towns.

In addition to the Carmel-Westfield fight, similar tiffs have occurred between Greenwood and Bargersville south of Indianapolis and between Muncie and Yorktown. In all cases, the cities -- Carmel, Greenwood and Muncie -- have used state law to keep neighboring towns from expanding. Shaver said Indiana law should treat cities and towns equally.

"The reason I think this is such a mess is because the legislature has treated it as a political football as opposed to a critically important part of the future of our state," Shaver said. "That has led directly to these kinds of brawls we're having between municipalities when we could have achieved orderly growth."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 15, 2004 01:12 PM
Posted to Indiana Law