Status: H. 3253 was passed out of the House Special Laws Subcommitee on January 13th, 2009 and will be considered by the House Judiciary Committee during the coming year.
What is the issue?
As municipalities grow and land just outside municipal boundaries takes on urban uses, it becomes necessary to take make that land part of the municipality and provide it with urban services. It is these two principles, efficient delivery of municipal services and organized growth patterns that should drive municipal annexations. Unfortunately, ambitious developers and municipalities have used annexation to grab large parcels of rural land for high density development far from urban services. These tactics create urban sprawl, inconsistent land uses, and higher taxes for everyone.
How would it affect South Carolina?
Currently, only the State Attorney General may intervene and contest a 100% annexation proposal. No other person or entity has the ability to contest an annexation where a single property owner “density shops” his land to the highest bidding municipality. Furthermore, when municipalities engage in “shoestring annexations”, many of which are prohibited by current law, citizens and entities that are truly impacted do not have the legal right to challenge the municipality. These harmful annexations promote sprawling, unplanned development, place a burden on municipal and county taxpayers by requiring new municipal services to areas that may not be offered in the most efficient manner.
What can you do about it?
Contact your representative and tell them that you support H. 3253 which includes all the League’s priorities for fixing our antiquated annexation laws. A primary cause of these imprudent annexations is the current State of the Municipal Annexation Code in South Carolina. We are working with the public and other interested stakeholders to reform the code to insure affected parties can challenge bad annexations and appropriate annexations clearly stand on their own merit. Annexation reform is one of the most important land use issues in South Carolina today.
- If we win municipalities and their citizens will have notice of the costs and benefits of an annexation before it occurs. Shoestring annexations will be curtailed as the existing prohibition on shoestring easements will be enforceable. The
- Very few people who are affected by an annexation proposal have the authority to challenge it. Besides the Attorney General, the only people who can challenge the annexation are owners of the property being annexed. Therefore, there is little protection for citizens and governmental bodies that are economically impacted by poor annexation decisions. A developer and a municipality can work together to undermine planning efforts of an entire community and use taxpayer dollars to subsidize the development a property that falls outside of the areas that have already been identified for future development.
Inappropriate and harmful annexations continue to place an undue burden on taxpayers, undermine local and regional planning efforts, and threaten South Carolina’s unique quality of life. Next year the League will continue to advocate for six reforms of our state’s outdated annexation laws. We hope to expand statutory standing; improve public notice requirements; limit harmful “shoestring annexations” of remote properties and annexations that are not consistent with local comprehensive land use plans, and finally require annexing municipalities to hold public hearings and publish a “plan of services” prior to approval of any annexation proposal.
As municipalities grow and land just outside municipal boundaries takes on urban uses, it becomes necessary to take make that land part of the municipality and provide it with urban services. It is these two principles, efficient delivery of municipal services and organized growth patterns that should drive municipal annexations.
Related Articles
TestRelated Link
Related Links
Related FileTest File
