Georgia lawmakers want to make it easier for some residents to secede from the cities they live in.
The proposal, sponsored by Rep. Brad Thomas (R-Holly Springs), would lower the bar for de-annexing an area from a city’s limits, giving residents more recourse when they’re dissatisfied with their city services. But some warn that the bill could be destabilizing for city finances across the state.
The measure comes in the wake of metro Atlanta residents voting to create several new cities over the last two decades — often over the objections of many of their neighbors.
“The continuing mantra is that people join a city because they want better services,” Thomas said. “What happens when they’re not getting the better services? ... What recourse do they have to hold their elected officials and the city accountable?”
Currently, residents can petition the county to de-annex their parcels if they have 100% approval from the affected property owners. If the county approves, it petitions the city on the residents’ behalf. City officials can choose to deny or approve the request.
Under House Bill 374, residents could use the same method, but the city would not have veto powers unless it can show how de-annexing would be “detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents and property owners of the area to be de-annexed,” the bill says.
Residents could also use a new method — 60% of the residents in a given area can petition the city to place a question on the ballot and allow them to vote on whether to de-annex, Thomas said. If the city objects, city and county officials would form an arbitration panel to determine whether the de-annexation would harm those in the proposed area.
The process is similar to how cities annex properties today, Thomas said.
The petitioned areas must be on the edge of the city’s boundaries to prevent the creation of unincorporated islands, which can cause problems delivering services like police and fire protection when crossing jurisdictions.
The changes would have widespread implications for cities across metro Atlanta. In the new city of Mableton, residents have been pushing to stay in unincorporated Cobb County, since the city was first approved by voters in November.
State Rep. David Wilkerson (D-Powder Springs) plans to introduce legislation to de-annex certain areas in Mableton under a process granted to the General Assembly, but he said it still needs to be easier for residents across the state to become unincorporated.
“Right now, there is no easy way for people to get out unless the Legislature does it,” Wilkerson said. “And this is basically gonna put it back on the local communities.”
Christie Lynn, a Mableton resident, said any push to make it easier to do so is “a step in the right direction.”
“The bar to be removed from a city is currently too high,” said Lynn, who has advocated for local control to de-annex from the city. “It’s harder to get out of a city than into one — that’s not fair.”
At the state Capitol Tuesday, lobbyists for the Georgia Municipal Association said the bill would take too much power away from city officials who need to be able to veto changes to their city boundaries. Rusi Patel, the association’s legal counsel, said making de-annexation easier could pose “a threat to the stability of cities.”
“How is the city supposed to plan and budget if they are constantly receiving petitions for people to leave?” Patel said.
One major concern for cities: They rely on tax revenue from residents and businesses to pay off their debt, so an exodus of taxable property could harm municipal credit ratings across the state. When Eagle’s Landing attempted to leave the city of Stockbridge and form a city of its own, a municipal bond issuer in 2018 sued to block the election. The effort was later defeated by voters.
Thomas said bond debt is addressed in the bill — the de-annexed property would form a special tax district to continue paying for existing bonds. But Patel said the bill does not address other forms of debt cities take on, which could leave cities in a tough legal position.
Moreover, to stop a de-annexation, a city would have to show harm to those trying to leave; the process doesn’t consider the impact on those who continue to live there.
“De-annexations have to be evaluated by both the city and the county,” Jim Thornton, legislative policy director for the Georgia Municipal Association, said to lawmakers at the committee hearing. “This essentially gives the city a very limited role in opposing de-annexation.”
It is unclear how the changes would affect those looking to de-annex from the city of Atlanta to form their own Buckhead City. Todd Edwards with the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia said the bill’s restriction against creating unincorporated islands would make it very difficult for that to happen because Buckhead is so far into Atlanta’s boundaries.
“As far as ACCG is concerned, this has nothing to do with Buckhead,” he said.
ACCG supports the bill because it “levels the playing field” by making the process fairer for counties, which currently have little say in a city’s decision to annex unincorporated areas. It’s also fairer for property owners who wish to leave a city, Edwards said.
“The cities and other groups always argue that annexation is a fundamental property right, the right to self-determination,” Edwards said. “So why should it not be for de-annexation?”
About the Author
