StopNCAnnexation Public Hearing Update

FYI.... UNC-TV will be airing a segment about the Public Hearing on annexation!

The story will air Sunday, June 17th @ 1:00 pm.

The show is called Legislative Review.
I think that UNC-TV airs on cable tv across North Carolina.

Check your local listings

****************************************

The Public Hearing was very interesting.

The turnout of citizens was close to 175.
The citizens attending outnumbered the city lobbyists more than 2 to 1.

It was more likely 3:1.

The people who spoke at the hearing did a VERY good job. Many stories detailing abuses of the law, and the citizens affected, highlighted the problems. Very little repetition, just real stories that should make the representatives realize that they need to do something about it.
Everyone was quite professional and respectful. No one brought signs or did anything else disruptive or rowdy. We followed the rules.

Contrary to what was reported in the News & Observer article the following day, the people DID NOT hiss and boo and every Mayor and suit speaking for the cities.
One speaker did get that treatment, and his name is Ellis Hankins, Director of the NCLM.
NO ONE tried to "shout him down". Shame on the N & O.

The League of Municipalities rallied some Mayors and other city officials to show up and get on the list of speakers. They had a briefing at the NCLM office right before the hearing and walked down to the hearing.

Contrary to the rules prohibiting signs in the Legislative Building,the NCLM passed out white baseball hats to the city boosters that said "We love our Cities and Towns" across the front. They sat there wearing them until the Chair told them that they had to take them off.

Signs are not allowed in the building and they knew that.
They made themselves look ridiculous from the start.

Everyone was told to try not to repeat the same stuff over and over, but that is exactly what every City speaker did. They all said the same thing as if they were reading from a script.

Some of them were League officials and paid lobbyists. I don't know why the legislators would allow paid lobbyists to speak at a public hearing.

The citizens were respectful of all the speakers no matter how outrageous the were the things the city boosters said. All except for Ellis Hankins, the Director of the League.
He was one of the final few speakers and shortly after he started speaking, the audience started with low hissing and then some subdued boo-ing. Mr. Hankins wrapped up his comments quickly after that.

Rep Luebke made it clear in the opening remarks that he thought the annexation laws were wonderful. He stated that if the issue were studied, he didn't want the committee to even consider changing forced annexation. Not an encouraging start to the discussion.

In a post hearing TV interview, Rep. Luebke appeared to have a change of heart to some extent. He told the News 14 reporter that he wanted to see someone from the public that is opposed to the annexation laws included in the study committee.

We still don't know if they will even approve the study yet, and if they do, who will have input. We are still a long way from getting any real reform of the law. The study Bill still has to go to the house floor and win approval.
Keep the letters and phone calls to legislators flowing to Raleigh!

Check the StopNCAnnexation website for links to the news reports and keep checking back for updates on the progress of the study.

Thank you for the continued support of the SNCA effort for reform and thanks for all the action taken by everyone!
This issue is clearly going to have to be an issue in the '07 November election.
Only YOU can make that happen.

Cathy Heath
Ron Thoreson
StopNCAnnexation

"It's all about YOU!"

Public Hearing on Forced Annexation!

The General Assembly House Rules Committee is holding aPublic Hearing on Annexation on Wednesday, June 13th!

WE NEED A BIG CROWD TO ATTEND!

You don't have to speak, but we need to overflow the auditorium!House Bill 86 has been rewritten as a Study Commission Bill.

The legislators are looking for evidence that this Study needs to be done!
This Study and any good results depend on whether we show up in large numbers!

Those wishing to present comments must either send an email request to:
Joyce Harris (Rep. Luebke) <Luebkela@ncleg.net>

OR mail your request to:

Rep. Paul Luebke
NC House of Representatives
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 529
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925

You will have 2 minutes to present your points and you must provide the Rules Committee with a written copy of your comments.

You may also submit your brief written comments to Rep. Luebke's office.

************************************************************

From: Dot Crocker (House Rules)
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 2:32 PM
To: Rosa Kelley (Rep. Thomas); Rep. Charles C. Thomas; Ann Jordan (Rep. Goforth); Rep. D. Bruce Goforth
Subject: Public Hearing for Rules Committee -5-13-07 - Proposed Committee Substitute for HB 86

NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
2007-2008 SESSION
The House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House will hold a Public Hearing

Day & Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Time: 5:00-7:00 p.m.

Location: Legislative Auditorium

Comments: Pursuant to House Rule 29.1, the chair of the House Rules Committee announces a public hearing to consider a Proposed Committee Substitute for HB 86, Study Municipal Annexation. Persons desiring to appear and be heard shall submit their requests by Tuesday, June 12, to Representative Paul Luebke, Room 529, Legislative Office Building. Also, persons who wish to submit a brief written statement of testimony without oral presentation may, by Tuesday, June 12, submit these statements to Representative Paul Luebke.

The views of interested parties will be heard concerning a PROPOSED COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL 86 – AN ACT TO DIRECT THE LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COMMISSION TO STUDY MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION.
Sponsors: Representatives Thomas and Goforth.;
Representative Owens, Chair

I hereby certify this notice was filed by the rules clerk at the following offices at 2:15 o’clock p.m. on June 05, 2007.

X Principal Clerk

X Reading Clerk - House Chamber
Dot Crocker (Rules Clerk)

***********************************************************
New 14 report on the Bill and Study
read it HERE and view the video

Annexation Reform Update - Public Hearing!

There has been an interesting development in the effort to reform the NC Annexation Laws!!

This 2007 Legislative Session saw 17 Bills introduced to reform forced annexation statewide.

There were six local Bills introduced, and Rep Faison introduced a Bill to reverse a forced annexation by the Town of Carrboro.

Every one of the House Bills were sent to the Rules Committee. This is a committee that has been used in the past to kill Bills by never discussing them or moving them forward.
The introduced Bills have to pass on the floor of the House or the Senate before the "crossover date" which was extended to May 24th of this year. Exceptions to this are Study Bills or Bills that require financing decisions. None of the reform Bills moved forward from the House Rules Committee before the crossover.

But the reform effort has many legislators working this year to get something done.

AND the effort has YOU!!
And YOU have been talking to the Legislators in larger numbers than ever before.
Your voice makes a difference!

A difference in the General Assembly AND the media.

The news reports on the issue have been much better this year. The newspaper articles are reporting on the views of the property owners more than before.
The Rally in Raleigh made FRONT PAGE NEWS in the News & Observer!
Articles about forced annexation are showing up in more newspapers and TV news reports across NC than ever before telling OUR side of the story.

Now for the REALLY GOOD NEWS !

An annexation reform Bill was passed out of the Rules Committee on Wednesday, May 30th!!

It was not on the schedule for the Rules Committee and it was past the crossover date. But the effort to reform annexation is moving forward!

AND

There will be a PUBLIC HEARING on the annexation issue at the General Assembly in Raleigh.

The Public Hearing is scheduled for June 13th at 5:00 pm.
at the Legislative Building Auditorium on the third floor!

WE NEED AS MANY PEOPLE AS WE CAN TO SHOW UP FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING!
Even if you do not intend to comment, put this on your calendar and BE THERE for the hearing.

This Public Hearing is going to set the stage for the Study Committee that will be formed to look at what needs to be changed in NC Annexation Law.

Please check the StopNCAnnexation website for more information on the Public Hearing and the Study Committee. It is going to take continued input from as many people as possible to make sure that the results of the Study Committee are what the people want_
_NOT what the NCLM WANTS!
Thank you for taking the time to make your voice heard on this issue!

And don't forget to make forced annexation an issue to your County Commissioners also!

Cathy Heath
Ron Thoreson
http://www.stopncannexation.com

Annexation Legislation Update

On Wednesday, March 14th, one annexation reform Bill was discussed by the House Local Government I Committee.
The Bill was Rep. Trudy Walend's local Bill, HB 315, 'Polk Annexation'.

This Bill would prohibit any municipality located in a neighboring County from extending ETJ into or annexing land in Polk Co.
Lake Lure in Rutherford Co. is close enough to perhaps attempt this.

Rep. Walend presented her Bill to the Committee and answered questions from Committee members. She did an excellent job of addressing any concerns that were raised about the Bill, and concerns were definitely raised.

Rep. Walend expressed some surprise at the somewhat last minute opposition voiced about the Bill because she had already discussed the Bill with two other area Representatives and they both had indicated that they were not opposed to the action she was taking.

The front row of spectators sitting in on the meeting was filled with several employees of the NC League of Municipalities and their supporters, including a representative from the NC Metropolitan Coalition, a representative from the NC Association of County Commissioners.
Also sitting with them were representatives for NC Schools.

The Polk Annexation Bill was not the only Bill of concern to the League and friends at this meeting. They were also there to voice issues they had with a Bill introduced by Rep. Cleveland that would tighten up the requirements for governmental bodies regarding notification of special meetings. (HB311) It's a good Bill that would bring much needed reform to meetings notification.
The NCLM had something to say about the problems they had with tighter requirements.

The League lobbyists did not comment about the Polk Annexation Bill. They didn't have to.
Besides the fact that all Legislators know full well that "the League opposes these Bills" when it comes to any that might limit the power enjoyed by cities today, it was my impression that a few of the Legislators on the Committee were doing the talking for them.

The three that expressed the negative comments and concerns were Linda Coleman, Pryor Gibson, and Van Braxton. Rep. Coleman did her best to find problems with limiting ETJ and annexation across County lines and Rep. Gibson was worried about making the Lake Lure Council angry. Rep. Coleman and Braxton raised the spector of how passing a local Bill would start a precedent for other Counties to do the same thing.

Rep. Walend had researched this legislation very well and she quickly responded to that concern by pointing out that there were already other Counties that had this limitation in place. It would not be breaking any new ground to pass this Bill for Polk.

This Bill is far from being passed though. The Committee decided to take no vote on the Bill at that meeting. They decided to have some Committee members work with Rep. Walend on amending the Bill to try and address some of the concerns.

Citizens are going to HAVE to make themselves heard in Raleigh about these annexation reform Bills. With all of the changes that have taken place in the Legislature due to the scandals involving the former leadership, this year is the citizen's opportunity to speak up for change.

There are numerous Annexation Bills that are calling for reform, and they are not being acted upon as quickly as the equally numerous Bills that have been submitted to extend the boundaries of many North Carolina cities. The annexation Bills that expand the cities are sailing through without a problem.

If the Annexation Reform Bills are ever going to get anywhere in the Legislature, this is the year that many, many letters and calls from citizens all across NC just might get some results.

Another way to make the voice for reform heard in Raleigh would be to make plans to clear your schedule for May 9th this year and come to Raleigh to be part of the Citizen Rally for Reform.
This will be a daytime rally. Details will be posted to the website as the date gets closer.

"Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man."-- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824)

More Legislation Introduced

There have been three more Bills introduced to the House since my last update.

• *HB 104 Dollar, Boylan and Brown (Primary Sponsors) - ANNEXATION REFERENDUM.


• *HB 87 Thomas and Goforth (Primary Sponsors) Blackwood, Blust, Boylan, Faison, Pate, Starnes, and Walend- ANNEXATION REFERENDUM.


• HB 86 Thomas and Goforth (Primary Sponsors) Walend - BUNCOMBE ANNEXATION REFERENDUM.

Newly elected Representatives Charles Thomas and Joe Boylan have hit the ground running on introducing Bills to reform the forced annexation laws of NC and Rep. Larry Brown has been a real champion of this issue this year.

On behalf of all of the citizens of NC who are strongly opposed to this undemocratic and highly abused practice, _THANK YOU!

On the Senate side, there have been no Bills introduced yet, but they are coming, I've been assured. And there will be more Bills from our Representatives in the House.

In this last year, there have been a growing number of County Commissioners who are making their voice and opinion heard regarding the involuntary annexation laws. Resolutions have been passed calling for moratoriums and studies of involuntary annexation.
These County Commissioners are acting independently of the NCACC and taking a stand against the practice on behalf of their REAL consituents, the County residents.

Encourage your County Commissioners to adopt Resolutions like this and ask them to speak to the State Legislators about reforming the law.

There is a deadline for filing Bills sometime in the beginning of March.

Now is the time for YOU, as a citizen, to call, write and phone your legislators (and County Commissioners) and ask for reform of forced annexation.
Your help and encouragement is needed to get these Bills out of Committee and considered on the floor of the Assembly.
Contact information can be easily found on the homepage of the StopNCAnnexation website.

I will be watching the House and Senate calendar and posting updates on any new Bills that are introduced.
Keep checking back here because there are more Bills to come.

Cathy Heath

Annexation Legislation Update

IT'S TIME to ACT - Writing, Calling, and Visiting Our Legislators!!!

'Storm the Gates' with calls, personal visits, and letters calling for Annexation Reform!

The 2007 session of the General Assembly opened on January 24th and this past week some Bills have been introduced that attempt to reform the laws on forced annexation.

Three Bills have been introduced and I will give a brief explanation about what the Bill's are asking for and what they would accomplish.



HB32-Suspend Involuntary Annexation

This Bill would freeze any Forced Annexations that are still in process by a Municipality.
It also sets up a Blue Ribbon Committee to once again, study the Involuntary Annexation Laws. This Committee is appointed by the leaders of the House and the Senate and the Committee members are all legislators.

Last year's Study Bill introduced by Nelson Dollar put non-legislative people who oppose forced annexation at the table as participants in the discussion. With this Bill, there is no guarantee that ANYONE on the Committee is opposed to forced annexation or could knowledgably argue against it.

HB56-Annexation Service

This Bill would protect any property owners who have Water & Sewer services that are supplied by a City, County, or Sanitary District Authority, and Fire & Safety services contracted under a HOA, from being forcibly annexed.
It does not protect property owners who are currently using their own private water and waste treatment, or community service, and that is a lot of people.
Planned Communities and Homeowner Association neighborhoods that are currently served by government supplied Water & Sewer become exempt from ever being annexed, but this Bill leaves many individual property owners who have private systems still at risk!
While the passage of the Bill would be helpful to many people, it falls far short of equal protection for all property owners and does not restore to all NC property owners the right to decide whether to become part of a city or not.

HB60-Moore Annexation Referendum

This Bill is a Local Bill that restores the right to decide and gives voting rights on annexation to the property owners in Moore Co.
There are other areas around NC that, in the past, have successfully gotten local legislation passed to provide the right to vote on annexation. We sincerely hope for better success for them than the property owners living around Kernersville had in 2004 in getting this legislation passed.

Needless to say, SNCA and it's supporters are still asking (should I say DEMANDING!) and waiting for legislation that would provide this same right to decide to EVERYONE equally across the State of North Carolina.

With every hurdle, and every special interest, that tries to stand in the way of getting good reform legislation passed, it is CRITICAL that the General Assembly hear from the thousands of citizens that want (or DEMAND) that their unalienable right to have a vote on annexation be restored _ to EVERY CITIZEN OF NC.

We've been updating the website with tools and information to help you to reach the legislators with an effective argument against forced annexation.
Please check it out: www.stopncannexation.com

You might also want to read what the League is saying about the Bills.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what the NCLM is saying about the 2007 Bills:

Anti-annexation bills introduced


Rep. Larry Brown of Forsyth County has introduced HB 32 – Suspend Involuntary Annexations to prohibit cities and towns from beginning or continuing any city-initiated annexations until a legislative study commission submits a report to the 2009 General Assembly. The commission would study whether current statutes provide adequate protection to property owners.

HB 56 – Annexation Service (Reps. Larry Brown, Joe Boylan and Bill Faison) would prohibit city-initiated annexation of any area that already receives substantial urban services, defined as water and sewer provided by a municipality, county, sanitary district, water and sewer authority or other unit of government; and fire and police protection and road maintenance provided by an association with a governing board elected by its membership (services can be provided directly by the association or by contract).

HB 60 – Moore Annexation Referendum (Rep. Joe Boylan) making annexations in Moore County subject to a referendum upon petition of 10 percent of the voters in the proposed annexation area.

The League opposes all of these bills, although we do not oppose additional study of the issue.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another item on the League of Municipalities Legislative Agenda is their goal to remove the County Commissioners, once and for all, from having any say over whether cities can expand their enforcement of ordinances beyond their city limits by extending Extra Territorial Jurisdiction over unincorporated property owners up to three miles outside of the city boundaries.

The County Commissioners are the last representative voice for the people living outside of, but near, a city. The Cities, through the League, want to take your voice and vote away from you, yet again. Write, call, and visit YOUR County Commissioners and let them know that the Cities and the NCLM are trying to do this. Some of them don't even know about this. They need to hear from you about it.

It is highly doubtful that the NC Association of County Commissioners will take a stand against the League of Municipalities on the ETJ issue. They are probably bartering with the League for support on the Medicaid issue.

Encourage your County Commissioners to oppose any legislation that would give the cities this expansion of unchecked power by speaking to them directly.
Encourage them to also pass Resolutions against Forced Annexation similar to those passed by Buncombe Co, Forsyth Co, Wayne Co, Hoke Co, and Moore Co.

Ask the County Commissioners that pass resolutions to take those resolutions to their local State Legislators, asking the Legislators to support reform of annexation and get Bills that are introduced PASSED INTO LAW.

We will be watching the General Assembly all Session and reporting to you on Bills introduced and any action taken on Annexation Bills. We will continue to encourage you to be the best lobbyists that any issue can have, the voting citizens speaking out.

Remember also that the League of Municipalities is holding their annual Town Hall Day on May 9th this year.
SNCA will be coordinating another Citizen Rally in Raleigh to counter this lobbying effort by the League of Municipalities. Please add this to your calendar and make plans to attend. Spread the word and encourage others to attend.

In 2005, the League had 400 attend the Town Hall Day.
STOPNCANNEXATION had 100 people come to the Rally in Raleigh and successfully got the attention of the Legislators and the media.

In 2006, the League pushed hard to increase their attendance and had 600 attend.
The STOPNCANNEXATION Rally brought around 100 people to Raleigh and once again had a successful presence and impact on the legislators.

This year is a critical year to get the message to the Legislators that we are seriously demanding reform of annexation and want our right to a vote on annexation restored.
The Legislators need to see a huge crowd of people at their doorstep in Raleigh this year.
Let's all commit to MAKING SOME NOISE in Raleigh this year!!

Thank you,

C Heath _ www.StopNCAnnexation.com

Municipal Annexation, _ why should you care?

When most people are shopping for a home, annexation and how it might affect them is not usually what they think about. The choice of the home does often include a decision about whether the property is in the city or outside of it, but......
Why should you care about annexation?

North Carolina's Statute regarding Annexation include giving cities the power to annex property owners into the city without their consent. When the cities exercise this power, it is usually over the strong objections of the victims.
Often their biggest objection is that they are given no choice.

The property owners that are the target of forced annexation have never voted for the elected officials who are making this unilateral decision about their land and their expenses.
NC Law, as it has been since 1959, gives these property owners no voice in the decision, no standing to negotiate, or power to veto it.
This situation gives the cities no incentive at all to negotiate fair or equitable terms for becoming city residents.
These property owners are often forced to abandon perfectly good septic tanks and wells and pay very high fees and assessments to be hooked up to municipal services.
They are forced to abandon the private businesses that they contracted with for services, and are instead forced to "buy" government services.

A recent annexation by Carrboro caused the affected homeowners to be faced with a bill from the County Water & Sewer Authority of around $24,000. That would be in addition to the private contractor fees to eliminate their private infrastructure and run new lines to the government services, along with the increased property taxes and other city fees.
These were older stable neighborhoods, where many of the homeowners are retired and on fixed incomes. Their lives and financial stability are turned upside down.
This is often the case in forced annexations.
There is no real negotiation with the city to share the costs of forced annexation.
The victims of forced annexation are powerless in this exercise of authority

Unincorporated homeowners hire private business to serve their needs and are satisfied with volunteer fire services and County Sheriff's patrols. They're satisfied with asking LESS from the government in supplying their needs. They're less of a burden on their fellow taxpayers and they helped sustain private industry. Much of their taxes paid end up subsidizing cities.
Yet the proponents of forced annexation call them "free riders"! A dressed up way to demonize them as "freeloaders"!
The annexation victims have paid their County, State and Federal Taxes and have helped contribute to the welfare of all of their neighbors, including the cities. I think it would be safe to venture that cities are given more grants and subsidies from their taxes paid than any other unit of government.
If the truth were examined, it is probably not the unincorporated landowners who are the "free riders" in the equation at all.

The proponents of forced annexation have "talking points" that they give to city officials to repeat when confronted by anyone who questions this power to forcibly annex. It's pure Madison Ave PR spin with little substance.

*The problem of "free riders" (?)

If there are "free riders" to be dealt with, criticism for this state of affairs should be laid at the feet of the municipal governments that make this claim, NOT the property owners living outside of municipal boundaries.

It is in socialist style governments and communes that "free riders" can exist and become a problem, not in a government of individual freedom and responsibility.
It is the shared "public", not the "private", that creates the "tragedy of the commons".

It is the cities themselves that are creating problems by spending tax revenue on "public amenities" that the government shouldn't even be venturing into, like sports venues and recreational and entertainment facilities.
Without the constraints of the market, local governments get into financial red ink with these things. Forced annexation becomes the way to continue subsidizing losing ventures.

* "Orderly growth and sound urban development" ?

Perhaps some Legislators in 1959 came to believe that involuntary annexation would serve that purpose, but as anyone who looks at the way most NC cities are growing, it is hard to see evidence of orderly growth or very much of what many feel is sound development resulting from the cities exercising this power.
Instead, City boundaries are gerrymandered to suit the greed and ambitions of inner city bureaucrats and some developers.
High tax neighborhoods that neither need nor want the services from the cities are annexed against their will while struggling communities in need of urban services are ignored and annexed around. Combined with Extra Territorial Jurisdiction cities have power over landowners while giving them no rights. Whole communities are put into a regulatory limbo that violates American principles. Thousands of people in NC are governed without a vote.
See: Cedar Grove Institute for Sustainable Communities

As the cities go unchecked in their power to add new taxpayers and customers for themselves, the roads and schools and water and sewer systems are strained to their limits and beyond. It doesn’t make sense to force households to abandon perfectly good private waste systems and wells and add them to the demand on the municipal water and sewer systems and the health of our rivers.

Forced annexation is used to manipulate racial demographics, as documented by the Cedar Grove Center for Sustainable Communities, and admitted to in court by a Council member in Goldsboro. Goldsboro is a city that needs DOJ preclearance before annexing, yet evidently, not much has changed.
Forced annexation is "dressed up" with other excuses so it can continue.
Proponents like to point to Richmond VA as a failed city due to not having the power to annex, yet Richmond forfeited the right to annex when they tried to use annexation to recapture white voters into the city.
The Richmond case went on for nearly a decade and is chronicled in the book
"Politics of Annexation Oligarchic Power in a Southern City".

Proponents of IA include the NCLM, a lobbying organization for the municipalities, which is funded by tax revenue, claiming exemption from open records laws, while steering policy behind the scenes for municipal powers that harm property owners.
The NCLM, with the help of the National League of Cities, put protection of the power to forcibly annex and regulate property use as a top priority.
These two organizations were actively supporting and involved in the New London Development Corporation/City of New London, against Suzette Kelo and others, in the Supreme Court case that outraged the nation.
They do not apologize for their actions and have clearly established that they are enemies of property rights.
The credibility of the League should be suspect at best when they put forward their defense of forced annexation.

What else do the proponents say about forced annexation?

* "Efficiency of services"?

The Director of the NCLM says "Expanding the existing infrastructure, like water and sewer, rather than building new systems, benefits the majority of taxpayers."

Studies that have been done by and for both sides of this debate do not back that statement up.
The purported reasoning behind this statement is that it is more efficient to have one very large system of infrastructure to serve everyone rather than multiple small units serving citizens.

Can you think of a case where government or government services that have grown larger have proven to be more efficient or less costly?
Ask the Cary taxpayers about their sewer bills.
Many studies have been done on whether regionalization results in greater efficiency for services or representation. Several studies concluded that there was little to no evidence to support this claim. One study found that sewage treatment plants peaked in efficiency at around 10,000 customers. Water treatment systems peaked at 125,000 customers.

National Association of Industrial & Office Properties; "Financing Regional Infrastructure"
Dept. of Urban & Regional Planning; Univ. of Illinois _ "Government Policy & Urban Sprawl"

The debate over the most efficient size of government has proponents on both sides.
Which do you find logical when it comes to government?
One side says that the larger government consolidates services into one provider with more customers and the end result should be cheaper and more efficient. Ignored are the limitations of economies of scale.
While living in Philadelphia, the evidence I saw did not prove the claim of larger being efficient.
The other side states that smaller units of government are closer to their constituents and are responsive to the community. Multiple small units can customize services to the needs and desires of a particular segment. Multiplicity and flexibility expands the choices and options about where to live and what people want to support in "amenities". Competition for "customers" keeps cities efficient and innovative.

Does it keeps the cities “economically balanced” or maintain cities as job centers?

The proponents seem to be playing a shell game with statistics in this claim.
If the cities "capture" higher income taxpayers outside of the city, it doesn't actually change the income of those who live in the city. It just makes the average look better on paper.

If the cities reach out and "capture" employers that chose to locate outside of the city, it doesn't change that fact that they are still outside of the central city. But the city can claim to be a "job center" on paper.

This is manipulation of numbers having no real meaning or substantive change for the citizens inside or outside of the city. City residents are affected by forced annexation because they often have to provide the upfront capital costs for forced annexation and sometimes subsidize part of the cost of extending unneeded services to established areas.

Forced annexation allows cities to "balance revenue distribution"

Think about what this is actually saying and admitting.
This claim is often made along side of the claim that if cities are not permitted to expand geographically they will fail and deteriorate. Is this argument logical?

The proponents are admitting that in order to stay alive, they must be allowed to reach out continuously to "capture" more taxpayers and revenue to "distribute" money from the outskirts to the center. Proponents thmselves use the word "capture" when they advocate this idea.
Often, the city is trying to finance amenities that the "captured" have little interest in or don't need.

All cities will reach a limit of outward growth sooner or later. Are they doomed to fail then? If this is true, should we allow cities to reach enormous proportions and then deal with the inevitable failure?

Wouldn't it be far better to limit the size of cities to smaller, less costly failures?
Or is the real problem found in a failure to manage municipal finances in a responsible manner?

Is forced annexation enabling cities to be fiscally irresponsible? Rather like someone with a stolen credit card? Are the city officials being enabled to view their surrounding neighbors like a "money tree" in their back yard?

*Forced Annexation Maintains a High Bond Rating ?

Think about what this is saying!!
It's no wonder though, that the proponents claim that forced annexation keeps the cities bond ratings high. When a bond issuer can see that a city can just reach out and add more taxpayers at will to pay the debts, of course this would make these cities look like less of a credit risk Does that make it the right thing to do?
Imagine how good your credit rating would be if you could claim as many of your neighbors assets as you wanted as future revenue that can be tapped at will.

Isn't it enough for the cities to be able to annex willing landowners to increase their tax base?
Is it necessary for cities have the power to annex unwilling landowners also?

Hundreds of homes that were affordable before annexation suddenly become unaffordable at the whim of the nearby city. Then the city officials wring their hands about the lack of affordable housing in their municipality, created most likely by their own policy decisions.
People have always been able to buy more for their money in land and home outside of cities and this has been a benefit to families with limited resources. It has meant the difference between renting and buying, between private access to land where their children can play instead of cramped quarters and unsecure public spaces for their children. The cities should not be allowed to take this opportunity, that is part of the American Dream, away from people.

Neighborhoods that are targeted for forced annexation are often older established neighborhoods. There may have been a time when many housholds outside of cities had no indoor plumbing or electricity, but those days are behind us for the most part. Old and new technology has made it possible to live far from cities and be self sufficient while enjoying a very modern lifestyle. Dependence on city living for modernity or even jobs is evidently becoming obsolete.
The justification for extending municipal services is narrowing down to being simply a way to support higher and higher densities. The very thing that people move from the cities to get away from.

The worst abuse of the power to annex at the cities discretion is the fact that the neighborhoods that cities seem to want are the ones that don't need the "urban services".
The neighborhoods that the cities annex around are often the ones that do need the services.
Too often agressive forced annexation is used to wage border wars with neighboring cities.
This is abuse of power.

It's all about the money and power. It's about the power and money.
Not what the cities can do for the property owners.
It's what the city wants to force the property owners to do for it.

As long as municipalities have the power to make city residents out of unwilling landowners by force, every homebuyer needs to care about annexation.