Should a city be able to annex

without the consent of those being annexed?

I for one call shenanigans. A lot of people move just outside city limits to avoid the extra taxes, and then get annexed and have to pay the taxes but often don't receive city services beyond the emergency forces.

No. But wouldn't that annexation take revenue away from another city? The other city just takes it in the butt?

There are a lot of unincorporated areas around a lot of the larger cities in these parts. These are what are being annexed, a few at a time.

You answered your own question. They move just outside for lower taxes but have every intention of using the city infrastructure in the same way as before.

You know most of those probably work in the city which means they do use city taxes while at work. They should pay their share.

Tax evasion of any sort is hardly commendable. What these people do is noncriminal tax evasion. If they manage to get away with it then so be it. If they're busted or compelled to pay then they should pay.

The next city over. Knoxville is where all the jobs are at, people come to Oak Ridge to sleep.

But they would still be paying county property taxes, so there is no tax evasion. What the cities are doing is wrong.

It's not because their emergency services, fire, and police protect those people as well while they are in the city.

Edit: Also road maintenance.

Says who? There are some parts of the country where counties take on most of those responsibilities, not cities.

Road maintenance is also something that can be delegated to counties. If you're talking about direct upkeep of the cities roads, that is why we have sales taxes and tolls.

Some doesn't mean all....

And neither does it mean that in this instance the city is the one paying for the services of the unincorporated towns.

they can do whatever the **** they want.

hell, you are lucky if they don't declare "imminent domain" three times like barney fife and take your shit for the hell of it.

go ahead, **** with them and see if somehow your town does not all of a sudden need a water pumping station and the address where it absolutely has to be built is your living room.

And since you're no expert on the city finances your post means little. Nonetheless, my initial comment was a general statement as to why cities charge tax. So maybe you should have considered that before jumping all over my post.

I don't need to be an expert on finances to tell you any of the things I've just mentioned. In fact, finances have little to do with local government charters and the fact that not every area in this country is governed the same way.

Don't talk to me if you aren't ready to back up your statements.

Yeah everything out here is county. Can't call the police, have to call the Sheriff. Can't call 911, have to call the (volunteer) fire department (though 911 will put you through to them). County water, no sewer, no street lights, no garbage pickup, etc.

That's what I figured. It was the same way in North Dakota, unless you lived within the city limits.

So I don't see how it's right or fair for a city to annex a piece of property.