Court Opinion

ID: 9683739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:36:10.52108+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:50.056929
License: Public Domain

HYDE, C. J.
(concurring) I doubt that res judicata can be applied to the situation in this case. In State ex inf. Taylor ex rel. Kansas City v. North Kansas City, 360 Mo. 374, 228 S. W. (2d) 762, we could not hold the annexation invalid unless we found it clearly unreasonable, which means unreasonable as a matter of law. If it was reasonable either way (fairly debatable) that was enough to uphold it after the voters had decided in favor of it. (State ex inf. Mallett ex rel. Womack v. City of Joplin, 332 Mo. 1193, 62 S. W. (2d) 393.) It is true that we said (in State ex inf. Taylor v. North Kansas City) the annexation was reasonable, but, in my opinion, this did not mean we were ruling that only annexation would be reasonable. I think it meant that either annexation or refusal to annex would have been reasonable, because that was the real question before us in that case. In other words, to decide that case, we were not required to' hold that the annexation was conclusively reasonable (reasonable as a matter of law) but only that it was not conclusively unreasonable. Therefore, I think we should determine the' question of the reasonableness of the present [346] de-annexation proposal upon the facts that now exist with reference to'it.
The question of the reasonableness of a proposed annexation or detachment of territory is always one for the Court upon all the facts of the case. (State ex inf. Major v. Kansas City, 233 Mo. 162, 134 S. W. 1007 and cases cited.) Certainly detachment of territory requires different circumstances from annexation. The essential facts *1219to justify annexation are expansion and.growth of the area, due to the influence of the city, and the necessity to provide room for future growth. Thus it would seem that detachment would usually require a showing of just the opposite conditions, namely: failure to grow and decrease in population, business and industry, leaving an area of no immediate or prospective use for the purposes of the city and its people. Cases, which have approved detachment of territory, usually are based on such a showing or other special conditions making the land of no real use to the city. (See Annotation 62 A. L. R. 1029-1043; see also 2 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations 333, Sec. 7.27.) No such showing is or could be made in this case. Therefore, 'I concur in the result reached herein on the ground that it would now be unreasonable to detach this area from Kansas City when it showed an increase of 4000 population and 1000 homes during the period (of about 2-1/2 years) while the validity of the annexation was under consideration, in State ex inf. Taylor v. North Kansas City, supra, prior to its final submission in this Court, and when this growth has continued by 241 building permits for dwelling units being issued during the first 10 months of 1950; and because this development, which obviously appears from the record to be due to Kansas City, and the improvements which Kansas City has made and has contracted to make in the area (which includes its airport and waterworks) demonstrate that it is now becoming, or in the near future will become, an essential part of Kansas City; that is essential to its future growth and welfare.
In ease of a proposed annexation that is clearly shown to be unreasonable, I believe it might even be proper to enjoin the election. (For a case holding an annexation unreasonable see Stoltman v. City of Clayton, 205 Mo. App. 568, 226 S. W. 315.) Likewise, I think it would be proper in a declaratory judgment action in a case of deannexation, when we find such action unreasonable, to order a declaration that such a proposition should not be submitted.
Therefore, I concur in reversing the judgment and remanding the cause with directions to enter a judgment declaring that the City is not required to submit the proposed charter amendment for deannexation.
Ellison and Dalton, JJ., concur; Conkling, Jconcurs in paragraphs 2 and 3.