Another View Of Annexation
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
The Indiana Statehouse played host recently to a rally that purported to show support for the little guy against over-reaching, ever-growing city governments from around the state.
What it really was, was a small group of freeloaders wanting someone else to pay for their over-indulgent quality of life.
Supporters of House Bill 1491, a piece of legislation that makes it more difficult for cities and towns to forcibly annex those unincorporated areas adjacent to their boundaries, say they want due process and the ability to nix any annexation plan if they can convince 50.1 percent of their neighbors it shouldn't happen. Why should they be forced to pay additional taxes that being a part of a municipality will require, they ask?
On the surface, this argument has much appeal, for I, too, am a great supporter of grass-root, democratic action. But what the supporters of HB 1491 neglect to give us is a clear view of the other side of the picture.
The opponents of annexation are, by and large, folks who have moved out of the city or to the outskirts of the city from more rural areas to be close to work and shopping and entertainment and the myriad other amenities modern urban areas offer. They want to be able to drive their cars into the city to work, shop and play, then drive them home again to their nice suburban homes free from the seamier side of urban life - the noise, the crowds, the crime.
Those close enough also want the cities to provide them sanitary sewers and a clean, reliable source of water, but under no circumstances do they want to be annexed into the municipality providing them those services.
In effect, they want the best of both worlds without having to pay for it.
They have no qualms at all about benefiting from the roads and streets and sewers and water lines cities are required to invest in to bring about the nice amenities they enjoy. But ask them to pick up their fair share for the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure they take advantage of, and you start hearing wails about the unfairness of it all.
Let's be honest with each other. There's nothing unfair about asking everyone to pick up their fair share of the costs for the necessities and luxuries we all enjoy. There is no free ride for anyone.
Mine is a minority view on the matter, however, as the 70-25 vote for passage in the Indiana House would indicate.
If a poll was taken in Kosciusko County, I'm sure the 3-to-1 margin would be closely mirrored here as well, judging from the comments heard before the vote on the Economic Development Income Tax. County residents don't want to pay extra when they see Warsaw or Winona Lake or Syracuse or Leesburg or anybody besides themselves benefiting from the proceeds of those taxes. They hold firm in that perception even when they are shown it is demonstrably false.
Well, I propose a novel idea that can be implemented by all municipalities throughout the state, and right here in this county.
The cities and towns should erect toll booths at every entrance and exit to the city limits. City residents will be issued an official resident sticker to be prominently displayed.
Any nonresident vehicle entering the city limits going to work or shopping or to a movie or any other activity made possible by the largess of the city taxpayers, would be required to pay a toll - a user fee, if you will. I think $5 would be fair.
And then, when those "non-townies" are ready to return home, the city can make them pay $5 to get out of town.
That would be fair to the city taxpayers currently being forced to subsidize the suburban deadbeats who clog the city streets, create the noise and pollution, provide the lure for the criminal element and generally destroy the quality of life we innocent and generous "townies" deserve every bit as much as the "out-of-townies" do.
And, while we're at it, the city should also cap the sewer and water lines running out to these suburban subdivisions, making them go to the expense of building their own sewage treatment facilities and water distribution systems. Then we townies won't be forced to pay the interest on general obligation bonds so they can enjoy urban amenities in their suburban oases.
Personally, I don't think that's a very good idea, because it would be an awful waste of money and time. But it would truly be the "fair" solution to the problem supporters of HB1491 are complaining about.
To them, I say, "Fine, we won't force you to pay your fair share. We'll just charge you for the increased costs you foist on us by coming to our cities, enjoying the fruits of our labors, degrading our living standards and then returning to your quaint suburban homes free from the ills you leave us with after gracing us with your presence." [[In-content Ad]]
The Indiana Statehouse played host recently to a rally that purported to show support for the little guy against over-reaching, ever-growing city governments from around the state.
What it really was, was a small group of freeloaders wanting someone else to pay for their over-indulgent quality of life.
Supporters of House Bill 1491, a piece of legislation that makes it more difficult for cities and towns to forcibly annex those unincorporated areas adjacent to their boundaries, say they want due process and the ability to nix any annexation plan if they can convince 50.1 percent of their neighbors it shouldn't happen. Why should they be forced to pay additional taxes that being a part of a municipality will require, they ask?
On the surface, this argument has much appeal, for I, too, am a great supporter of grass-root, democratic action. But what the supporters of HB 1491 neglect to give us is a clear view of the other side of the picture.
The opponents of annexation are, by and large, folks who have moved out of the city or to the outskirts of the city from more rural areas to be close to work and shopping and entertainment and the myriad other amenities modern urban areas offer. They want to be able to drive their cars into the city to work, shop and play, then drive them home again to their nice suburban homes free from the seamier side of urban life - the noise, the crowds, the crime.
Those close enough also want the cities to provide them sanitary sewers and a clean, reliable source of water, but under no circumstances do they want to be annexed into the municipality providing them those services.
In effect, they want the best of both worlds without having to pay for it.
They have no qualms at all about benefiting from the roads and streets and sewers and water lines cities are required to invest in to bring about the nice amenities they enjoy. But ask them to pick up their fair share for the construction and maintenance of the infrastructure they take advantage of, and you start hearing wails about the unfairness of it all.
Let's be honest with each other. There's nothing unfair about asking everyone to pick up their fair share of the costs for the necessities and luxuries we all enjoy. There is no free ride for anyone.
Mine is a minority view on the matter, however, as the 70-25 vote for passage in the Indiana House would indicate.
If a poll was taken in Kosciusko County, I'm sure the 3-to-1 margin would be closely mirrored here as well, judging from the comments heard before the vote on the Economic Development Income Tax. County residents don't want to pay extra when they see Warsaw or Winona Lake or Syracuse or Leesburg or anybody besides themselves benefiting from the proceeds of those taxes. They hold firm in that perception even when they are shown it is demonstrably false.
Well, I propose a novel idea that can be implemented by all municipalities throughout the state, and right here in this county.
The cities and towns should erect toll booths at every entrance and exit to the city limits. City residents will be issued an official resident sticker to be prominently displayed.
Any nonresident vehicle entering the city limits going to work or shopping or to a movie or any other activity made possible by the largess of the city taxpayers, would be required to pay a toll - a user fee, if you will. I think $5 would be fair.
And then, when those "non-townies" are ready to return home, the city can make them pay $5 to get out of town.
That would be fair to the city taxpayers currently being forced to subsidize the suburban deadbeats who clog the city streets, create the noise and pollution, provide the lure for the criminal element and generally destroy the quality of life we innocent and generous "townies" deserve every bit as much as the "out-of-townies" do.
And, while we're at it, the city should also cap the sewer and water lines running out to these suburban subdivisions, making them go to the expense of building their own sewage treatment facilities and water distribution systems. Then we townies won't be forced to pay the interest on general obligation bonds so they can enjoy urban amenities in their suburban oases.
Personally, I don't think that's a very good idea, because it would be an awful waste of money and time. But it would truly be the "fair" solution to the problem supporters of HB1491 are complaining about.
To them, I say, "Fine, we won't force you to pay your fair share. We'll just charge you for the increased costs you foist on us by coming to our cities, enjoying the fruits of our labors, degrading our living standards and then returning to your quaint suburban homes free from the ills you leave us with after gracing us with your presence." [[In-content Ad]]