Court Opinion

ID: 9761065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:30:34.89034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:19.919475
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I must again respectfully dissent. The majority set out the correct law concerning annexations of adjacent territory by cities then promptly forgot what it said and wrote a nice sounding piece of social legislation. The law establishes five criteria, one of which must be met before land is annexed. These five classifications provide that land may be annexed if: (1) it is platted or held for sale or use as municipal lots; (2) whether platted or not, the land is held to be sold as suburban property; (3) the land furnishes the abode for a densely settled community, or represents the actual growth of the municipality beyond its legal boundary; (4) the land is needed for any proper municipal purpose such as for the extension of needed police regulation; or (5) it is valuable by reason of its adaptability for prospective municipal uses. Fifteen tracts of land were included by a single vote. The City of Little Rock provides the residences for about 160,000 people and the area to be annexed contains the residences for about 10,000. When the spokesmen for the city stated they expected to take in $2.00 in taxes from the annexed area for each $1.00 expended they revealed the true purpose of the election. Another reason given was to square up the city boundaries. The record belies this statement because after the new areas are annexed one could stand on the Coleman Dairy property near Asher and University and throw a rock into the unincorporated area. The dairy, the adjacent Worth James property and the Big Rock property extend from near Asher and University across the Fourche bottoms and Arch Street Pike and join other property crossing the old and new Pine Bluff highways into and including College Station. This property was not included in the annexed territory. Certainly College Station meets several of the criteria, yet it was not included. Obviously College Station would not bring in a lot of tax dollars yet it is platted for use as municipal lots and furnishes the abode for a densely settled community. Certainly the first three criteria are met by the property known as College Station. On the other hand tract “O” consists of about 190 acres of rugged rough uninhabitable terrain with no roads, houses, utilities or other improvements. There is one abode on the extreme northwest corner which is the only possible building site except the railroad right of way. The city thought it might be able to lend its experience if there were ever a train wreck on the railroad. How this could be done is not shown since the only access, besides the railroad, is by boat or helicopter. One can look down from Walton Heights and see the tract which mostly consists of a hillside with slopes of 45° to 50°. The city does not have money appropriated or even plans for the use of tract “O”. There is not one bit of evidence in the record that tract “O” meets any of the five criteria for annexation. This tract is not needed for any municipal purpose according to the testimony of the city’s own witnesses. The remonstrants’ testimony tended to reveal that this land is not adaptable to any municipal use now known to exist and cannot ever be developed as business or residential property. It is too rugged even for hiking trails. By no stretch of the imagination can tract “O” ever be adapted for proper city uses. The city says it could be used as a green belt — that is what it is and all it ever will be. The city already owns land for parks and recreation at two sites in sight of this tract. These tracts are so large they will not be developed in the foreseeable future. If one or more of the tracts included in the same annexation election is found to be improperly included then all must fail. Herrod v. City of North Little Rock, 260 Ark. 890, 545 S.W.2d 620 (1977). Tract “O” would clearly void this election if the law and precedent were followed. Much of the land included is used exclusively for agricultural and horticultural purposes and, according to the testimony, this is presently the highest and best use for such property. Such lands are unsuitable for annexation in accordance with Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-307.1 (Repl. 1980) and Saunders v. City of Little Rock, 262 Ark. 256,556S.W.2d874 (1977) (Saunders II). Without so stating the majority opinion has wiped out the law and precedent and part of the Constitution of Arkansas in upholding this annexation. Article 2, Sections 22 and 23 prevent annexation for the purposes of taxation only. It has long been held by this court that owners of land taken into the cities must derive some benefits or the annexation violates Article 2, Section 22 of the Constitution of Arkansas. Saunders II, supra; Parrish v. City of Russellville, 253 Ark. 1000, 490 S.W.2d 126 (1973); Town of Ouita v. Heidgen, 247 Ark. 943, 448 S.W.2d 631 (1970). Some of the land included in this annexation has been involved in annexation attempts at least since City of Little Rock v. Findley, 224 Ark. 305, 272 S.W.2d 823 (1954). Some of this same land was the obj ect of the annexation attempts in the cases of Saunders v. City of Little Rock, 257 Ark. 195, 515 S.W.2d 633 (1974) (Saunders I) and Saunders II. Those attempts were declared void by this court. The law has not been changed and some of the land has not changed and probably never will. Admittedly one of the tracts being annexed contains a large productive pecan orchard and is being put to its highest and best use even though the city hopes to condemn part of it for an airport runway and therefore believes the highest and best use may be for other purposes. The annexation statute specifically prohibits annexation of such land. The majority actually relies on Fowler v. Ratterree, 110 Ark. 8, 160 S.W. 893 (1913) in approving this tract as meeting one of the five criteria for classes of property subject to annexation. We have decided many many cases since Fowler and none of them are cited. The current law on annexation is not even mentioned in regard to tract “A”, the land containing the pecan orchard. I think it is not mentioned because it unequivocally prohibits annexation of this tract and would, standing alone, void the annexation of all these tracts. The most astonishing statement in the majority opinion is this: “The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from those in Saunders v. City of Little Rock, 262 Ark. 256, 556 S.W.2d 874 (1977), where the City sought to annex lands which contained 5,000 to 10,000 acres of mining lands.” Much of the same mining land is included in the present case. The facts in Saunders and the present case are exactly the same except that the present annexation territory has excluded a part of the mines and some of the flood plains land. Otherwise, only the names have changed. How can it be that these same lands were unsuitable for annexation in Findley, Saunders I and Saunders II, but are suitable now without change of law or the nature and use of the lands? Tract “B” contains a mining pit for which no use is planned by the city other than that it might make a good landfill (garbage dump). The pit being adjacent to the Airport Holiday Inn, such use is unlikely. The line on this tract was drawn down the middle of a street. Therefore, the sheriff will patrol one side of the street and the city the other. It is most interesting to note that this line is carefully drawn to take in only the improved parts of College Station while excluding 95% of the residential area which undisputedly is the abode for a densely settled community and is all either held for sale or platted in lots. More police protection is needed in the small excluded area than any spot in the county. Naturally this area would produce very little revenue and would demand the use of much resources. The only difference in the flood plains land here and in previous annexation attempts is that the land mass differs. Flood land included in the present case occupies hundreds of acres of land mass. The majority erroneously holds that the city has extensive plans for flood control. These so-called plans started with the United States Corps of Engineers back in the 1920’s. The city has contributed to the problems of flooding rather than helping to solve them. In any event controlling floods is not one of the reasons cities are allowed to annex. Cities are creatures of the legislature. They have neither existence nor power apart from the creator except such as may be given by the Constitution. City of Piggott v. Eblen, 236 Ark. 390, 366 S.W.2d 192 (1963). The creator has given cities the power to annex lands provided certain conditions are met. These conditions are expressly stated in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-307.1. Although the majority attempts to justify the propriety of the annexation of each tract, it does not even point out how the tracts meet the criteria. The present law is merely a codification of the law as expressed in the landmark case of Vestal v. Little Rock, 54 Ark. 321,16 S.W. 291 (1891). For almost one hundred years the Vestal principle has controlled our decisions and the Acts of the General Assembly. Now the majority has with one fell swoop obliterated all that has gone before in matters relating to municipal annexations. The opinion would be more useful and straightforward if it announced it was overruling all prior cases and declaring the annexation statute unconstitutional as well as small portions of the Constitution. It would serve no useful purpose for me to continue. To convince this court of the error of its ways would be no less a problem than trying to convince cities not to annex but to develop from within. I will conclude by saying the City of Little Rock will not need to acquire outside property for garbage dumps for many years to come.