Municipal deannexation in the United States

Deannexation is the removal of an area from the boundaries of a municipality. It is the reverse of annexation, but is not limited to formerly annexed territory: even portions of a municipality's original territory may be deannexed. Deannexation may also apply to other local government entities, such as school districts.^[1]

Other terms for deannexation include disannexation, secession, detachment,^[2] disconnection,^[3] severance^[4] and exclusion.^[4] Deannexation for the purpose of creating a new municipality is sometimes called division.^[5]

The procedures and requirements for deannexation vary greatly among the states. Most states provide for some sort of deannexation procedure, and a majority of those states also allow residents to petition for deannexation. Many states specifically require some sort of judicial or administrative agency review of deannexation petitions.^[6]

Deannexations are much less common than annexations. When they occur, they are typically small-scale and involve individual properties; deannexations of entire neighborhoods are unusual.

Purposes

Deannexation may result in the formation of a new municipal corporation, ceding the affected land to another municipality, or returning it to its unincorporated condition.^[7][8] Land is often deannexed in order to switch it from one municipality to another, or in order to form a new municipality on it. For example, cities sometimes deannex land in order to rationalize strange borders created by past annexation wars.^[8] In contrast, large-scale deannexations in which the deannexed land becomes unincorporated are extremely rare.^[9]

Portions of cities may attempt to deannex from a city due to political disagreements with city leadership, as with 1990s deannexation campaigns in Staten Island and the San Fernando Valley.^[8] A great deal of deannexation research has focused specifically on the San Fernando Valley dispute.^[8]

Majority-white cities have sometimes attempted to deannex regions with large minority populations in order to preserve white voters' power. Some grassroots deannexation campaigns have likewise been initiated by majority-white areas, motivated by what Richard G. Hatcher described as "white reaction to black ascendency".^[10] African American communities impacted by a racially-motivated annexation may seek relief through deannexation, as occurred when the Brandy Creek neighborhood of Weldon, North Carolina was annexed into Roanoke Rapids for an economic development project.^[11]

Only one deannexation has ever been struck down on constitutional grounds: the Alabama legislature's deannexation of majority-Black areas from Tuskegee in 1957 in order to preserve white supremacy in the city government, which the Supreme Court invalidated in Gomillion v. Lightfoot.^[12]

Procedures

Deannexations typically involve consultations between the property owners in the area to be deannexed and the municipality.^[13] Deannexation also often involves local legislation passed by the state legislature.^[13]

From the standpoint of separation of powers, deannexation is a legislative function because it relates to municipal boundaries, which are traditionally reserved to the legislature.^[14] However, a few cases have held that courts have a equitable power to deannex land to which no municipal services are provided.^[15]

Legislatures often delegate their powers by involving courts in the process, either by providing for deannexation petitions to be brought before a court or by providing for judicial review of deannexation rulings by a municipality. Judicial discretion is, however, typically quite limited.^[16] Legislatures may also sometimes delegate the review of deannexation petitions to an administrative agency.^[17] They may also delegate the power of deannexation to municipalities directly.^[17] In all of these cases, the power to deannex must be exercised in the exact manner prescribed by the legislature or the deannexation is null and void.^[18] As of 2017^[update], 36 states provided for some sort of delegated deannexation procedure.^[19]

The procedure for such a deannexation most typically involves four steps: first, a request is made for deannexation, either by the city legislature or signed by a required percentage of property owners or residents in the affected area; second, the request is presented to a designated authority, such as a court; third, the authority reviews the request to see if it meets statutory requirements; fourth, the authority grants the requested deannexation unless the request is improper.^[6]

Laws governing resident-initiated deannexation are diverse. A 2016 study of 28 states that provide for resident-initiated deannexation found that the required level of support was variously determined by percentages of landowners, voters, or a combination of the two, and ranged from 100% of affected landowners in many states to 5% of all landowners citywide in West Virginia, while in Missouri a petition can be filed by any resident of the affected area.^[20] Eleven of the 28 states allowed petitions only when the deannexation would not create a "donut hole" inside an existing municipality.^[21] Seven allowed petitions only when the affected area had not received any public improvements, while some additional states allowed petitions only if the affected area had not received public services, or had received inadequate services.^[22] Some states limit the right to petition to areas that have not been platted, or that are used for only agricultural purposes.^[23] Petitions may be addressed to a court, to the affected municipality itself, or to the people through a referendum.^[24] In most cases the referendum is citywide. Ohio uniquely provides for a referendum in which only those qualified voters who live in the affected area may vote; this is limited to proposed deannexations of areas of 1500 acres or greater.^[25]

Frequency and effects

Deannexations are uncommon.^[26] Large-scale deannexations are even less common, as most deannexations involve only one or a few properties.^[27] Census data through 1980 indicated that the average size of a deannexation was 285 acres.^[28]

Compared to annexation, the impact of deannexation on municipal boundaries is quite small. A study covering 1950 to 1976 found that deannexations accounted for 1.4% of boundary changes.^[28] A study of Texas municipal boundary changes from 2000 to 2010 found that deannexation accounted for only 2.6% of the overall changes in municipal area during the study period.^[29]

In general, when land is deannexed from a local government, the debts of the local government do not stay with the land, unless a statute provides otherwise.^[5] Bondholders are assumed to have constructive notice that local boundaries can change.^[5]

Deannexation can bring both costs and benefits to the deannexed area. For example, for homeowners otherwise inclined to leave a city, deannexation provides the benefits of avoiding the expense of relocation and increased commuting times.^[28] For this reason, white residents of school districts with increasing African American enrollment sometimes pursue deannexation from the school district as an alternative to white flight.^[1]

By state

• In Alaska, a deannexation petition must be presented to the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, which reviews the petition and presents its findings to the Local Boundary Commission (LBC). If the LBC approves the petition, the question of deannexation may be either placed before the state legislature, which can veto it within 10 days, or put before the voters of the affected area by referendum.^[30] Deannexation petitions may be brought by residents or municipalities, or by the LCB itself.^[30]
• In California, deannexation from both cities and counties is allowed on resident initiative, but requires majority approval of the affected area and the city or county as a whole. A city council veto over deannexations, introduced in 1977, was abolished in 1997.^[31] The San Fernando Valley, the scene of deannexation efforts since the 1920s, lost a vote to separate from Los Angeles in 2002.^[32] The deannexation vote won a bare majority of 50.7% in the Valley, but failed by a wide margin in the city as a whole. Similar outcomes of a majority approval in the area seeking deannexation and majority disapproval in the county as a whole doomed seven different county deannexation campaigns in the 1970s.^[33]
• In Georgia, deannexation requires either local legislation passed by the Georgia General Assembly or consent by 100% of property owners, and by the city and county governments.^[34] In 2018, the General Assembly passed local legislation that allowed voters in a wealthy enclave of Stockbridge, Georgia to decide if they wanted to secede.^[35] The referendum failed.^[36]
• In Indiana,the Indiana Code allows disannexation petitions signed by the owners of 51% of the affected properties to be brought before a municipality's board of works.^[37] The board's decision can then be appealed and tried de novo before a trial court.^[38] The 51% threshold was introduced in the 1960s at the instance of Gary mayor Richard Hatcher during a battle over the deannexation of Glen Park; the threshold had previously been 10%.^[39] More recently the communities of Black Oak in the 1980s^[40] and Miller Beach in 2007^[41] have unsuccessfully campaigned to deannex from the city.
• In New York, deannexation from a village is governed by N.Y. Village Law § 18-1804, which requires consent by the village government and by the voters in a special election.^[42] Deannexations must be notified to the New York Secretary of State.^[43] New York has no general deannexation law for cities.^[44] Staten Island attempted to deannex from New York City in a 1993 referendum, in which 65% of State Island voters voted to secede. A bill to implement the deannexation was introduced in the State Assembly, but was blocked on the grounds that under the state's constitution, the legislature could not act on such a bill unless it was requested by New York City itself.^[45]
• In North Carolina, only the state legislature can deannex land from cities.^[46] In 1998, a portion of the town of Calabash, North Carolina, voted to deannex after the legislature allowed a referendum on the issue. The area subsequently incorporated as the town of Carolina Shores.^[47] In 2011, the legislature deannexed the neighborhood of Brandy Creek from Roanoke Rapids, having annexed the neighborhood by legislation six years earlier.^[11]
• In Wyoming, deannexation can be initiated by a resident but is at the discretion of the municipality.^[48] The county in which the deannexed property is located must be given 60 days to study the effects of a proposed disannexation, and "donut hole" deannexations are prohibited.^[49]

See also

• Urban secession, in which a city becomes independent of its surrounding political entity.

References

1. Evans, Andrea E. (May 2007). "Changing Faces: Suburban School Response to Demographic Change". Education and Urban Society. 39 (3): 340. doi:10.1177/0013124506297961.
2. Christensen, Terry; Hogen-Esch, Tom (2006). Local Politics: A Practical Guide to Governing at the Grassroots: A Practical Guide to Governing at the Grassroots (2nd ed.). M.E. Sharpe. p. 95. ISBN 9780765614407.
3. Bushnell, Darcy S. (1990). "Deannexation: A Proposed Statute". New Mexico Law Review. 20: 714.
4. Reynolds, Osborne M., Jr. (2019). "§ 12.8 "Disannexation," "De-Annexation," or "Severance"". Local Government Law (5th ed.). West Academic Publishing. p. 241. ISBN 978-1640208025.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. Reynolds 2019, p. 243.
6. Reynolds 2019, p. 242.
7. Smith 2018, pp. 3–4.
8. Christensen & Hogen-Esch 2006, p. 96.
9. The PFM Group (January 2017). "City of Memphis, TN: Deannexation Framework and Analysis" (PDF). Retrieved 2023-05-28.
10. Hatcher, Richard G. (November 1969). "The Black Role in Urban Politics". Current History. 57 (339): 288.
11. Dorosin, Mark (2021). "The Battle of Brandy Creek: How One Black Community Fought Annexation, Tax Revaluation, and Displacement". South Carolina Law Review. 72: 833.
12. McCrary, Peyton (2014). "The Interaction of Policy and Law: How the Courts Came to Treat Annexations under the Voting Rights Act". The Journal of Policy History. 26 (4). doi:10.1017/S0898030614000219.
13. Smith, Russel M. (2018). "Introduction to Municipal Incorporation in the USA". Municipal Incorporation Activity in the United States. Springer. p. 4. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-72188-0_1. ISBN 978-3-319-72188-0.
14. Bushnell 1990, p. 715.
15. Reynolds 2019, p. 241 n.110.
16. Bushnell 1990, p. 719.
17. Bushnell 1990, p. 720.
18. Bushnell 1990, pp. 719–720.
19. The PFM Group 2017, p. 6.
20. Hodge, Elisha D. (2016-08-22). "An Overview of Resident-Initiated Deannexation". Municipal Technical Advisory Service. pp. 5–8. Retrieved 2023-05-27.
21. Hodge 2016, p. 13.
22. Hodge 2016, p. 14.
23. Hodge 2016, p. 15.
24. Hodge 2016, p. 24-27.
25. Hodge 2016, p. 30.
26. Christensen & Hogen-Esch 2006, p. 51.
27. Marcal, Leah; Svorny, Shirley (September 2000). "Support for Municipal Detachment: Evidence from a Recent Survey of Los Angeles Voters" (PDF). Urban Affairs Review. 36 (1): 96. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
28. Garasky, Steven; Haurin, Donald R. (1997). "Tiebout Revisited: Redrawing Jurisdictional Boundaries". Journal of Urban Economics. 42: 367. doi:10.1006/juec.1996.2028.
29. Zhang, Pengju; Nguyen-Hoang, Phuong; Chen, Na (2022-06-21). "The impact of home rule on municipal boundary and fiscal expansion: Evidence from Texas". Journal of Regional Science. doi:10.1111/jors.12610.
30. "Detachment From City Government". Local Government Reference Desk. Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. 2018-10-02. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
31. Hogen-Esch, Tom; Saiz, Martin (November 2001). "An Anatomy of Defeat: Why San Fernando Valley Failed to Secede From Los Angeles". California Policy Issues: 50–51.
32. Hogen-Esch & Saiz 2001, p. 47.
33. Hogen-Esch & Saiz 2001, p. 41.
34. Olson, Peter R. "Annexation In Georgia: Legal And Practical Considerations". Jenkins, Bowen and Walker, P.C. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
35. "Recent Legislation: Georgia Authorizes the Creation of the City of Eagle's Landing" (PDF). Harvard Law Review. 132: 2410. 2019.
36. Stafford, Leon (2018-11-06). "Eagle's Landing secession attempt from Stockbridge defeated by voters". Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
37. "Ind. Code § 36-4-3-17". Casetext. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
38. "Ind. Code § 36-4-3-18". Casetext. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
39. "Hatcher's Fight to Keep Suburb in Gary Said 'Racial'". Journal and Courier. Lafayette, Indiana. 1969-03-20. p. 5 – via Newspapers.com.
40. "Black Oak's blunder". The Times. Hammond, Indiana. 1987-08-23. p. A-14 – via Newspapers.com.
41. Bowean, Lolly (2007-08-27). "Divorcing Gary is hard to do". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
42. "N.Y. Village Law § 18-1804". Retrieved 2023-05-28.
43. "List of State Annexation Reporting Laws" (PDF). United States Census Bureau. 2022-12-12. p. 33. Retrieved 2023-05-25.
44. "Municipal Boundary Changes and Growth Planning in Tennessee" (PDF). Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. November 2013. p. 51. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
45. McFadden, Robert D. (1994-03-05). "'Home Rule' Factor May Block S.I. Secession". The New York Times. Retrieved 2023-05-28.
46. Dorosin 2021, p. 830.
47. Bowen, Shannan (September 17, 2008). "Carolina Shores celebrates 10-year split from Calabash". Star-News. Wilmington, North Carolina. Retrieved November 12, 2012.
48. "WY Stat § 15-1-421 (2013)". Wyoming Statutes. Retrieved 2023-05-28 – via justia.com.
49. "Deannexation: Concerns About Initiation and Effects". Tennessee Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations. Retrieved 2023-05-28.