Homeowners want to protect their property from being taxed for public services that may not be provided. If a city annexes a subdivision, residents want their streets cleaned, sidewalks built and sewage and water services.
On the other hand, municipalities need to expand to take in more tax revenue and provide services to new homes and businesses. That's why Indiana's process allows voluntary, involuntary or super-voluntary annexations. In a super-voluntary procedure, 100 percent of the residents initiate a petition for annexation.
But Indiana law has long seemed to favor the city, town or government body that wants to annex land into its boundaries. Generally, the only way to challenge an annexation has been through a remonstrance process or filing a court appeal. The process is sticky.
For example, Lapel and Anderson duked it out in 2013 while trying to grab land along Interstate 69. Anderson backed down but Lapel adopted an ordinance annexing 57 acres. The move was fought by Anderson. The Indiana Court of Appeals eventually ruled for Lapel, which involved a super-voluntary annexation.
Ingalls has also gone through such battles, notably with the Madison County Commissioners when the small town annexed strips of land.
Along the way, remonstrators generally learn the basic rules in fighting annexation. A petition must be signed by 51 percent of the landowners, or by the owners of 75 percent of the assessed value of the area in the proposed annexation. That's a tough task for residents opposed to being annexed.
The Indiana General Assembly may be taking care of that.
An amendment was recently added to Senate Bill 330 that puts a tougher burden on cities and towns seeking annexations.
It proposes a solid threshold for defeating annexation at 65 percent of the property owners. Reach that number and the annexation would be dead.
SB 330 would stipulate that any annexation filed after June 30 would have to receive signed consent from 51 percent of landowners or owners of more than 75 percent of the assessed land value before it could move forward.
And if remonstrators go to court, and win, the municipality would have to pick up residents' attorney fees, up to $50,000.
The amendment is a proper start to giving landowners more say in receiving government services, and where their property taxes should go.
Under this proposal, cities would be forced to reach out to those living in proposed areas of annexation. Government leaders would have to be transparent in explaining why they need to take in more land. And leaders would have to assure residents that services will be provided, not a vague promise that sidewalks or clean streets could be around the corner.
The amendment would mean that government needs to have a reason, and prove it, before gobbling up precious land and tax dollars.