Carmel's Fixation with Annexation

If a city wishes to annex an adjacent area, it can initiate a process called annexation.  Current Indiana law places a tremendous burden on citizens who live in that area if they oppose annexation.  Citizens must prove that at least 65% of parcel owners are in opposition (through a process called remonstrance); otherwise the annexation will occur.   Remonstrance not only entails collecting signatures from property owners.  A significant commitment of time is also required of remonstrance organizers.  More importantly, there are tremendous financial burdens placed on private citizens to pay for legal representation during the laborious and extensive legal process.   Since the officials who initiate an annexation are not elected by the citizen's potentially impacted, remonstrators have little choice but to organize (and spend) to fend off the unsolicited/unwanted action.  To read a paper published by Indiana University's School of Public and Environmental Affairs on the issues with annexation law in the State of Indiana, click the following button:

Consider the table below which presents the essential services which citizens would receive under both scenarios:

Why would the city of Carmel pursue annexation of Southwest Clay and other unincorporated areas?  Perhaps part of the reason is that the assessed value of all of the parcels which comprise Southwest Clay is approximately $1.6B which would generate a significant tax revenue stream for the City of Carmel.   Carmel has ambitious plans and a laundry list of projects for which City Bonds have been issued:

Source:  City of Carmel

Why would Southwest Clay residents wish to be annexed?  Few believe that Southwest Clay residents will see improvements in essential services if annexed by the City of Carmel.  Consider the table in the Pros and Cons Section above.  Will the services received by the City of Carmel be improved and if so, is it worth a significant tax increase?  Consider the table of capital projects listed above.  Much of the spending is focused on downtown Carmel, rather than the outlying areas that have been annexed over time.  Others say that if annexed, residents of Southwest Clay can then vote for school board (which is in error since Southwest Clay residents can vote for school board).

Carmel's unique approach to annex Southwest Clay is an interesting one.  Carmel tried to take full advantage of the fact that they provide zoning and planning services to the area through a joinder agreement with Clay Township. Years ago when developers first started investing in the area, they had to secure the requisite permits and approvals from local regulatory authorities.  With future annexation plans in mind, the City of Carmel placed conditions on zoning approval for these developments; forcing  developers to include an article in the Covenants and Restrictions for each neighborhood.  This article essentially causes property owners to waive their  right to remonstrate against annexation by the City of Carmel.  This in essence attempts to silence the voice of residents; however, it was struck down by Judge William Hughes in his decision dated May 23, 2006.  It also appears to be inconsistent with Mayor Brainard's promise which he made back in 1998 with respect to not imposing annexation on residents who do not wish to be annexed.