Part 3: Gerrymandering of 39N
When you compare the 39N Conservancy District boundary map to the City of La Porte annexation map you immediately notice some irregularities. The city excluded many parcels and residential homes that have been hooked up to the 39N water and sewer system for years. The city also included many parcels in the annexation area that have never been hooked up to 39N’s water system. Why did the city draw the map to exclude some 39N customers and yet include non-customers on 39N?
This is the latest map of the 39N Conservancy District service area. Notice the subdivision in the NW corner was left completely off the city’s annexation map.
Here is the City of La Porte’s annexation map for you to compare to the 39N district’s map.
Notice at the bottom of this image, there is an oval that says 8.48 miles. That is the distance of the dashed line around this map’s perimeter. The measurement starts just South of Praxair and follows the border all the way to the furthest South point of the map. The area in pink is the territory the City of La Porte is annexing. Also, notice the City didn’t go beyond the Toll Road except to include Hi-Point Business Park, which hosts the Hampton Inn.
Why didn’t the city include other properties North of the Toll Road that are clearly on the 39N water system? We asked that question back on April 22, 2023, before the City had meetings with 39N residents. The Mayor and City planner both said they couldn’t include that property because of the State’s 1/8 rule. That was a lie, and we’ll explain why.
Here is the State’s 1/8 rule:
Universal Citation: IN Code § 36-4-3-1.5 (2022)
Sec. 1.5. (a) For purposes of this chapter, territory sought to be annexed may be considered “contiguous” only if at least one-eighth (1/8) of the aggregate external boundaries of the territory coincides with the boundaries of the annexing municipality.
In layman’s terms and how to calculate, you measure the length of the contiguous city boundary to the annexation area, and the perimeter of the annexation area can’t be more than 7 times that distance. So, a 1-mile contiguous boundary can’t have more than a 7-mile perimeter (external boundary).
So, how long is the contiguous boundary of the 39N annexation area? See map below:
Measuring from the Southern start of the annexation area to the furthest North property in the city domain, the contiguous border measures approximately 1.3 miles long. Meaning the left side of that measuring line is already city property, the right side the annexation area.
So (1.3 x 8) – 1.3 = 9.1 miles. That’s the largest external boundary the city can annex. The perimeter of the City’s annexation map measures approximately 8.48 miles so at first glance it appears the city might be correct, it can’t add much more external perimeter, right? They have to stay under 9.1 miles and are already at 8.5 miles.
But, what if the perimeter didn’t include all those cutouts and was more horizontal and vertical?
Citizens Against Annexation put that question to the test and here is the result.
Without all the gerrymandering of the external boundary around certain properties, the city could have included that NW subdivision, a big part of another subdivision (Cha-Mar), more homes on 300 North, and more homes on the South side of Severs Road and been under 7 miles (6.89 miles)! An external boundary a whopping 1-1/2 miles shorter, picking up almost 100 more parcels and about 50 more high-value homes.
So why did the City leave all this property on the table? They could have grabbed all this and more and still been under the 1/8 rule. Something isn’t adding up with the Mayor and City Planner’s story.
Let’s take an educated guess because the city won’t tell us the truth.
Knock on some doors in those excluded areas, and you’ll quickly realize why the city mapped them all out. The large majority of residents in those areas oppose the city annexation. When the city created its annexation plan, it knew it had to get more than 51% of parcel owners to sign waivers. Leaving in these areas where much less than 50%, maybe less than 10%, support annexation would have made city annexation impossible.
The City mandated the May 31, 2023 deadline and had less than 51% of property owners even after mapping out most of its opposition. The Mayor had to cut a deal with Hi-Point Business Park owner who signed 9 parcels on June 2, 2023 or the annexation was dead. The Mayor went past his own deadline to keep it alive.
The annexation area mostly includes parcels by industries, commercial businesses and private developers concerned about making money. Most of the residential properties that voted for annexation live in an HOA area, thinking they can reduce their HOA fees as the City takes over services currently provided by their HOA. Very few residential homes outside the HOA area signed for annexation.
The city was wise to map out its opposition, gerrymandering the annexation opposition, but it should quit saying the majority on 39N supports annexation; nothing could be further from the truth.