Annexing urban growth areas into cities could be one objective of planning, but planning alone won’t get it done.
The state’s Growth Management Act sets up conditions which make it seem inevitable over the long term that cities will annex the urban growth areas adjacent to their boundaries.
Inevitability isn’t the same as requiring annexations, as is clear from the fact that cities generally cannot annex areas unless the landowners and residents want to be annexed.
One could call this need for consent to annexation a flaw in the whole planning scheme, if one cared not a whit for the concept that governments gain their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Or we could recognize that planning must accommodate the citizens’ right to decide whether being annexed into a city would be in their best interests.
As things now stand, Kitsap County and the cities are supposed to make plans that “facilitate” annexations of urban growth areas.
The trouble is that it isn’t the absence of plans that makes annexations difficult for all but commercial property where few residents live.
The obstacle is the higher tax burden imposed by cities on their residents compared to the taxes paid by people living in unincorporated areas.
Unless a city can offer something people want in exchange for paying a few hundred dollars a year in higher taxes, annexations of residential areas would probably be resisted in most instances.
Commercial property appears to present a different situation, as indicated by the efforts to annex the Bethel Corridor into the City of Port Orchard.
Landowners along Bethel Road are once again in the process of gathering signatures on a petition to annex their land into the city.
Since one high-value holdout during the last effort has apparently completed a permitting process with the county and could now annex into the city without starting from square one, it seems likely that the petition will be signed by owners of land constituting at least 60 percent of the assessed value in the area.
The few residential property owners who would be swept into the city can refuse to sign, but they cannot prevent the annexation if enough high-value property owners sign the petition.
If the city follows through on the stated intention to dedicate a significant part of the revenue generated by the area to developing the roadway serving the commercial property, those who want annexation will probably benefit from it.
The additional taxes paid to the city after annexation may seem worth it when there is a benefit to be gained.
While the petition method of annexation doesn’t require unanimity, it does at least require the consent of landowners who would be paying most of the additional taxes imposed by the city.
How could the county and cities include in their plans anything that would make residential areas that are already developed easier to annex?
Whatever efficiencies were to be gained by developing those areas at a higher population density have already been gained, yet both the cities and the county typically claim an inability to provide the level of service they say the residents want.
The Growth Management Act may cause even higher density development where possible in these areas, but is there any density that removes the justification for higher city taxes compared to county taxes?
If there isn’t, then what planning could conceivably remove the obstacle that results from the cities’ higher taxes?
The county has what appears to be an obvious motivation to pass the costs of services to the cities in an effort to match its remaining revenues to the costs of serving people who don’t live in the densely populated areas.
What can motivate the cities, when their higher taxes still wouldn’t satisfy their desired level of spending?
Maybe someone can come up with a way to reduce the taxes cities impose on their residents, so that there is a clear advantage to annexation; but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Bob Meadows is a Port Orchard resident.
