Opinion ID: 1817476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Impact on Residents and Property Owners

Text: ¶ 60. Regarding the impact on residents and other property owners, the special chancellor found: The Court certainly sympathizes with the proposed annexation area objectors who wish to remain unincorporated, and the Court respects their apprehensions that their taxes will increase and that their land values will decrease. The proposed annexation area residents wish to remain as is, with no citified encroachment. Realistically, the area has changed, and is likely changing daily; the proposed annexation area is in a metropolitan area, and it is no longer rural, though it may seem so. It is growing and will do so whether annexed or not; annexation alone will not destroy any character already in existence, but it will plan for what is yet to be. Taxes will likely increase somewhat, but the benefit derived therefrom should exceed the cost. It is also just as probable that land values will increase rather than decrease; much of this may depend upon residents' conduct and expectations. Proposed annexation area children will not be required to change schools. Much of the impact is perceived, which is very important, but if the perceptions should turn into harsh reality, which is, hopefully, unlikely, there are other avenues of relief for proposed annexation area residents. Many objectors indicated that they simply did not like Pearl, did not want to be a part of it, and just found the idea repulsive, so to speak. The truth of the matter seems to be that no other municipality wants the proposed annexation area, and the proposed annexation area is too small and too close to Pearl to be overlooked. While the Court understands and respects the views of the proposed annexation area residents, the facts and the law applicable thereto favor Pearl in this situation. The actual economic impact on the proposed annexation area residents should be beneficial, rather than detrimental, but other avenues are open to them, if needed. ¶ 61. The Objectors' primary argument under this indicator is that annexation by Pearl will decrease their property values. Over the City's objection, Johnstone, the Objectors' expert witness in the field of regional and municipal planning, testified concerning a survey she conducted by calling eleven central Mississippi realtors and asking their opinion of the impact of annexation by Pearl on property values. Johnstone admitted that she had never before compiled such a survey and was unaware of other urban planners compiling a similar survey. Thus, the City's objection would seem to have merit, and it is apparent the Special Chancellor placed little value on the uncrossexamined hearsay opinions of the eleven realtors. ¶ 62. Further evidence of a negative economic impact would be an increase in taxes and a connection fee for sewer services. This Court has addressed the impact of higher taxes in many prior annexation cases and has consistently held that the prospect of a tax increase is insufficient to defeat annexation. In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Hattiesburg, 840 So.2d 69, 93 (Miss.2003) ( citing In re Enlargement and Extension of Municipal Boundaries of the City of Biloxi, 744 So.2d at 284). ¶ 63. Therefore, this Court is left with questionable evidence of a perceived future drop in property values, a connection fee for central sewerage collection and disposal, and the subjective revulsion expressed by approximately twenty residents of the PAA. ¶ 64. As to the property values and connection fee, we find the special chancellor was well within his discretion to determine they did not weigh heavily against the proposed annexation. As to the desires of the residents of the PAA, we again point out that the Legislature has not seen fit to allow them to vote. Unless and until it does, we must refrain from doing so, as we are powerless to grant judicially what the Legislature withholds from its statutes.