There used to be a mayor here who said: “If we could buy them for what they’re worth and sell them for what they think they’re worth, we would be millionaires.”
We think often of that comment as we watch the machinations of the Tennessee Legislature.
One day, they are theologians. The next day they profess to be health care experts. The following day they are educational experts or constitutional lawyers, and in their spare time, they flex their expertise on issues like public safety, poverty, and women’s place in society.
Sadly, the role they never play is the one of statesman and diplomat.
Instead, they use their public trust to divide us into pockets of special interest groups and then mine them for their own political self-interest. They deliver conflict rather than consensus, and they find the seams on volatile issues and enflame them for votes rather than finding positions on issues that can bring us together – not to mention that many of the issues should not be denigrated by making them political issues in the first place.
Holy Ghost
The most recent example of the latter was the move to make the Bible the official state book, apparently so it will have a page in official records of Tennessee like the state insect (firefly), the state agricultural insect (honeybee), state amphibian (cave salamander), state butterfly (zebra swallowtail), state fish 2 (bigmouth bass), state game bird (bobwhite quail), state reptile (box turtle), state stone (agate), and state wild animal (raccoon).
Surely, if the Bible can be added to this illustrious list, Christendom will be safe.
The Bible as official state book legislators haven’t made it clear if they are talking about the Catholic Bible, the Hebrew Bible, or the Protestant Bible, or what translation it will be: King James Version, American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, English Standard Version, New International Version, The Living Bible, or what is reputedly the worst translation ever published, the one by late televangelist and Christian Right leader Jerry Falwell.
Then again, there’s the Jefferson Bible, the edited version by the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, who cut and pasted together, eliminating all the miracles. Perhaps, the plan is to treat the Bible like the state song: there are 13 of those.
Help Wanted
But in the midst of recent burst of far right religious pandering, the Legislature took time away to turn its attention to pretending they are urban planners with the bill to make it much easier for areas to deannex from cities. Already, the Legislature has made it harder for cities to annex by requiring annexations to pass at referendum, but not content to block future annexations, it aims now to unwind some that have already happened.
Once again, it’s an example of the Legislature putting its thumbs on the scales to drive a decision rather than acting as an agent for conversation and discussion that could end with a more mature approach encouraging a community to come together to consider whether there is a middle ground to be reached. Of course, it’s hard to hold out much hope when even now, Senator Mark Norris and Representative Curry Todd continue their anti-urban crusade with a bill to strip Memphis of the power to vote on zoning within three miles of its borders. In the interest of fairness, if they are intent on stopping annexation and even removing some areas from cities, they should pass a bill requiring that counties should eliminate urban services to unincorporated areas (as Shelby County does). After all, it’s mostly city residents who pay for those services.
Once upon a time, the Legislature played the role of facilitator on growth and planning rather than mandating new rules and ignoring investments and decisions that cities presumed were grandfathered in. It continues a curious pattern for our Tea Party Legislature that uses about every opportunity to complain about federal government “overreach” that they never pass up a chance to use their boarding house reach to interfere in local decisionmaking.
Perhaps, other cities are like Memphis and they too need to have a serious debate and discussion about annexation and develop the first full factual context as it relates to taxes, revenues and expenditures. It’s a widespread opinion these days that aggressive annexation by Memphis that increased its land area by 55% while increasing its population by 5% was a failure, contributing to the city’s fragile financial condition and stretching services over a wider and less dense 324 square miles.
Shrinking Memphis
Here’s the tale of the tape: in 1970 Memphis, the population was 619,757, and today, within those same city limits, the population is 449,930. In other words, the equivalent of the population of Chattanooga moved out, and they did it while the land area of Memphis grew to be twice as large as Atlanta, four times larger than Baltimore, and five times larger than St. Louis. Meanwhile, the densities of these cities are on average more than two times higher than Memphis.
Memphis City Council has already sent the message that it’s not interested in more annexation, and unfortunately, its last annexations of Cordova and Windyke/Southwind were motivated more by political spite and racial politics than smart city planning or wise financial stewardship. While we may be Pollyannish, we would like to think that in a less politically charged environment, city officials would be willing to sit down with anti-annexation interests and consider if Memphis should act smarter by getting smaller.
We’ve been writing for six years about the idea that Memphis should consider becoming a “shrinking city,” and it’s high time for a serious analysis of whether it would help the city’s fiscal health and what the legal ramifications of deannexing some areas of Memphis might be. Today, there are lots of questions, very few answers, and even less solid information about the impact of annexations.
Unfortunately, that’s not the kind of conversation that the Tennessee Legislature tried to jump start. Instead, it moves a deannexation bill based more on the politics of the moment than evaluating what’s in the long-term best interests of the state.
Politics Rather Than Smart Policies
There’s little doubt that the residents of Southwind/Windyke would be first in line to use the deannexation bill if it passes, and because it makes more sense for City of Memphis to forego annexations and even consider relinquishing previously annexed land, it creates an interesting mind puzzle. On one hand, we believe annexation has not been a boon to City of Memphis, but on the other hand, we question the wisdom of the current Legislature’s headlong rush to undercut the power of Tennessee cities without any substantive research about the impact on the urban areas that pay most of the bills for state government.
The deannexation bill calls for a referendum to be held if only 10 percent of the registered voters in an area petition to be deannexed. It is reported that the law only allows an entire area that was annexed at one time to petition for the referendum, and in addition, the deannexation cannot leave the city with a “doughnut hole” (an unincorporated area within a city – like the Bridgewater area in Memphis).
While the bill is aimed at Southwind/Windyke and Cordova, it’s not clear if it could also apply to Hickory Hill, Memphis annexation areas that abut Germantown and Bartlett, and even Raleigh and Frayser.
It was not too many years ago that the Tennessee Legislature was actually a force for better growth planning and fairness in Tennessee. It was in the wake of the controversial “tiny towns” legislation that (in keeping with the thinking of the times) threatened to ring cities like Memphis and with small suburban enclaves that choked off the city’s growth and revenues.
Wanted: Real Planning
From that controversy, the Legislature created Chapter 1101 in 1998, requiring every county (except Nashville-Davidson County because it was consolidated) to engage all of its governments, utilities, educational systems, and private citizens in a countywide planning process to establish growth boundaries – urban growth, planned growth, and rural areas. In addition, the Legislature ordered each county to establish the Joint Economic and Community Development Board, a permanent board charged with fostering communication and cooperation on economic and community development issues.
The idea was that every county would develop and adopt a 20-year growth plan: 1) urban growth boundaries contained the corporate limits of a city and the adjoining territory where growth was expected (so it was a target for annexation); 2) planned growth areas which were compact areas outside cities and couldn’t be annexed without clearing special hurdles; and 3) rural areas, which are areas set aside for agriculture, recreation, forest, wildlife, and other low density uses.
Unfortunately, in Shelby County, it never worked like it was supposed to, because the cities were only interested in carving up the county into “annexation reserve areas” for each of the cities and to avoid future legal battles over land. Contrary to smart thinking at the time, essentially the entire county ended up as an urban growth area and Shelby County sidestepped the opportunity to develop the kind of deep financial analysis to challenge the conventional thinking of the day and consider new options. Instead, the operating principle was that annexation is good for cities and therefore, it should be pursued aggressively.
With that done, everyone went back to business as usual. The Joint Economic and Community Development Board was created, but its responsibilities were perfunctory and the process largely became a “check the box” exercise.
A Meaningful State Role
We say all this to make a modest suggestion for the Tennessee Legislature: why not require the convening of the Joint Economic and Community Development Board with the sole purpose of assessing, analyzing, and predicting the future of annexation, the potential of deannexation in improving City of Memphis’ fiscal health, and the impact of annexation/deannexation on the smaller municipalities in Shelby County? Why not use this Board as it was intended – to encourage better planning and urban thinking?
Rather than reacting to the visceral – and often, over-the-top – rhetoric by some of the anti-Memphis, anti-annexation crusaders in places like Cordova, state legislators could contribute to cooling the emotions and encouraging the kind of serious, mature discussion that could lead to a more reasoned approach to these volatile issues.
If all systems fail, then, the Legislature could step in, but faced with its future involvement, there would be added impetus for progress.
The de-annexation bill needs to be defeated. The main drivers in Shelby County are in South Cordova, the last part of Cordova to be annexed. This is a small but affluent area of less than 5,000 out of approximately 90,000 in the greater Cordova area. Most of Cordova has been in the City for a long time and the city has invested heavily in this part of Memphis. To have a piecemeal breakup of an area that is very much urbanized would be chaotic and disruptive as voters may be swayed by the siren song of lower taxes.
Added to the confusion is a large retail and business presence which is not supposed to be affected by de-annexation. Would police patrol Germantown Parkway and leave adjacent neighborhoods alone? Would the City Fire stations close in Cordova and faraway Fire stations serve the commercial interests of Cordova? Would the established parks and Community Center, built by the City, close?
If this bill passes, then most of my community may suffer in the long-run to satisfy the desires of a shortsighted and selfish interests.
Anon, nothing will change from a citizen service standpoint if de-annexation occurs, just as little changed for those services when annexation happened. Prior to annexation, South Cordova residents were covered for police, fire, and ambulance services by Shelby County Sheriff and Shelby County Fire.
A July 2012 Commercial Appeal article reported that MPD is supplying the area with the same number of officers SCSD did. Ambulance and fire response times are very similar (within seconds of each other). SCSD and MPD also have mutual aid agreements, so the closest officer responds first. If MPD is near your de-annexed area, he will respond. Similarly, if SCSD is near a Memphis area, it will respond. There will be no loss of police, fire, or ambulance service.
I don’t know that this article can claim that a legislature requiring referenda for annexation is not “acting as an agent for conversation and discussion.” Referenda do just that! They require each side to present its case and to conduct this discussion. Creative citizens and government representatives offer solutions to the public for approval.
I don’t think that annexation needs to be something that is shoved down residents’ throats. The people will ultimately decide, one way or the other. If we don’t let them vote on it, they will vote with their feet and leave us with sparsely populated areas with blighted buildings, no investment, and no tax base.
The problem is precisely because nothing will change that the other side of the coin is that if these areas want to deannex or never want to be annexed, county government should quit providing an urban level of services to them. It turns the philosophy behind service delivery on its head. When people move to rural or unincorporated areas, there is no guarantee that they will get urban services. If they want urban services, they belong in a city.
The county’s urban services are largely paid for by Memphians. The Shelby County decision to provide urban services was perhaps the greatest misjudgement in public policy in the past 25 years and the results can be seen in the fragile state of City of Memphis finances and in the sprawl that drove up taxes for everyone in this county.
Referenda are guns to the head (an analogy the Legislature would no doubt love). We’re talking about a mature discussion about public policy that sets the course of this community for decades.
Skippy, You cite County services being just as good as City services but I suspect the numbers are massaged by anti-Memphis advocates. A few years ago, the Memphis Jewish Home, which is in South Cordova, specifically asked to be annexed so they would have better services. In any case, I had just as soon that South Cordova go back to unincorporated but feel like you all are shoving de-annexation down the throats of the rest of us who have been in the City for a long time and are satisfied with City services. I think we all know that referenda are often slanted towards a small number of voters with an agenda and money to back them.
To add to SCM, Mayor Luttrell (a Cordova resident) said that if Cordova goes back to unincorporated, they may have to increase county taxes to pay for additional services. In other words, the whole County might have to pay to accommodate one community
It’s been a long-held custom that counties in the US provide police coverage to all citizens within its borders. Other services (water, fire protection, ambulance, etc) are very commonly provided by counties for larger metro areas. In these areas, cities represent the smaller service units and counties represent the larger service units. I don’t think current or past trends in Shelby County TN turn anything on its head. Indeed, the notion that the entire county outside of the borders of Memphis should not be allowed to have police, fire, ambulance, water, or garbage services is quite backwards.
If Memphis wants to gain residents, it can’t go the route of force. Forcing folks to live in Memphis by denying them services if they live outside the city only ensures that fewer people live in the city. They would leave for greener pastures — and your article indicates they did just that.
I hear a lot of talk about Memphis services: services this and services that. We’re not in the 1940s anymore. People have more options on where to live and they aren’t forced to live in cramped cities or endure conditions they don’t desire just so they can get off of well water. Perhaps the problem is that Memphis hasn’t figured out how to compete for residents in the modern age. We see successful cities across the country that have figured this out. They know their vaunted services don’t mean much anymore — they’ve gotten so common that a city’s value isn’t in services anymore.
If services are what Memphis is hanging its hat on, it’s already lost the battle.
It’s my understanding that the only areas eligible for de-annexation are those that were annexed by ordinance after 1998. 1998 marked the passage of Chapter 1101 which set forth new annexation procedures (since amended) and drew the boundaries for annexation reserve areas in all of Shelby County. Those areas annexed by the Council before that time would not be eligible. All of the court challenges were finalized after 2000, but it’s the date of official annexation that seems to count. I could be mistaken about interpreting the law, but if it is so then only South Cordova is eligible.
Remember Hickory Hill and Cordova were annexed under Dick Hackett and they were the biggest annexations Memphis (and the State in terms of Hickory Hill) had ever done. All the other areas that have concerns were annexed under previous mayors or Willie Herenton.
Just my 2 cents.
You’re missing the point about services. It’s not about which services are provide – it’s about level of services. Law enforcement is a county obligation, and the question is about the level of service. The philosophy of growth and planning has been that if residents are to receive urban services, they need to become part of a city. If they don’t want that, they can continue to receive a lower level of services. Unfortunately, Shelby County got into the business of urban services which drove up county property taxes and encouraged the mass out-migration of people out of Memphis. Memphians have been forced to pay for services and infrastructure that duplicates what they already have. City of Memphis should never have extended sewers and made these areas pay for them. People can always live whereever they want to live, but they should be willing to pay the costs of doing it.
Just for the record, the city’s services in all of the urban services is better than Shelby County’s.
Louise: helpful 2 cents. Thanks.
I guess I don’t see the level of services as being static. The level of service changes as the composition of the county changes. I don’t think anyone would expect one of TN’s most populous counties to provide the same service level as a county of a much lower population. Urban counties all across the country provide city-levels of service in unincorporated areas. Cities can choose to use the county services or provide their own.
Just as Memphis noticed when it choose to provide its own schooling instead of using the County services, providing your own services comes at an added cost. But, this is the choice of the city and its residents.
I think this goes back to the interconnected nature of our economy in Shelby County. Just as the County and surrounding communities benefit from Memphis economic activity, Memphis benefits from a healthy County and suburbs. Having city-level services in urbanized areas of Shelby County helps to attract people who work and spend money in Memphis. County residents also pay for garbage services themselves, pay their water bills themselves, and pay for fire protection themselves. Memphis chose to go to a tax-funded system. Can’t blame others for Memphis’ choice. Without growth of these outlying areas, Memphis would have certainly lost something.
Memphis chose to create its own services, duplicative of the county services. You can’t be upset about paying more for willingly duplicating services. That decision’s on Memphis, not the County.
No, the level of services is supposed to be either urban or rural. It’s not about the size of a county – it’s about smart planning. And urban counties don’t always provide urban level services. That’s why there are so many cities around the larger city in so many areas. They are there to provide urban services because the county doesn’t. As we say, if people move to an unincorporated area and want urban services, they should move into a city.
It is the choice of the city and its residents. But why does the rest of the county have to pay for a higher level of services wanted by people outside Memphis and the municipalities?
Memphis and all taxpayers of Shelby County have lost more because of sprawl and the urban services than they can ever gain – it drove the county tax rate to one of the highest in Tennessee and much higher than Memphis’ and it drove the county debt to almost $2 billion. We write later this week about annexation, sprawl, etc. Stay tuned.
Memphis didn’t chose to create its own services duplicative of county services. It was the other way around. The county had a volunteer fire department, it had no ambulance service, etc. County services traditionally are schools, justice, elections, and health.
City outfall sewer extension into Cordova required developers to sign legal document supporting annexation by petition of the then ‘landowners’
did it not?
Does anybody see deannexation of anywhere passing this Memphis city council?
Nobody else can incorporate in the County under the 1101 laws-and won’t it be interesting if the 1101 Land Snatch Committee has to reconvene soon to discuss ‘things’?
Stay tuned…
The Gray’s Creek agreement required developer fees, but they didn’t come close to covering all of the costs because Shelby County Government promised to fund some blight mitigation programs inside the City of Memphis. That obligation was never fully fulfilled.
This City Council shows a lot of interest in deannexing land. We’re not sure about the tone of the new Council, but the Commercial Appeal series on the causes of the city’s financial problems makes the unequivocal point that annexing too much land is a big part of the city’s problems. Hopefully, every one in public leadership is reading.
We’re not ruling out that this crazy Legislature won’t make it easier to incorporate.
As you say, stay tuned.