Opinion ID: 1817476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 20

Heading: Benefits Enjoyed by the PAA because of its Proximity to the Municipality

Text: ¶ 66. After analyzing whether, because of their close proximity to Pearl, the residents of the PAA enjoy benefits without paying corresponding taxes, Special Chancellor Roberts held: This factor appears somewhat equal on a  quid pro quo  basis, because the proposed annexation area residents pay their taxes, et cetera, and they pay for whatever they purchase in Pearl, if they do. Speculatively, however, as growth and development occur, the tie between the proposed annexation area and existing Pearl is going to remain, and this factor certainly does not preclude annexation. While the proposed annexation area has far more residents than the actual objectors, it seems reasonable that a few, some, or maybe, many, do benefit already from the proximity. It is clear that those objectors who testified denied any romance of proximity, but it also seems just as clear to the Court that the several hundred who did not object may very well romance the proximity. ¶ 67. It does not appear the special chancellor placed much weight on this factor. We find little in the record to indicate, one way or the other, whether the residents of the PAA enjoy untaxed benefits from the City. The PAA is surrounded on all sides by four separate municipalities. Residents of the PAA have access to shopping in, and pay sales tax to, each of the municipalities. While the residents of the PAA clearly enjoy benefits because of their proximity to the various municipalities, we find it would be difficult from the record before us to determine which of those benefits are due to the proximity with Pearl, as opposed to Brandon, Flowood, or Jackson.