Ah, Looks like the Press-Register reads the comments posted here on WKRG!  A news article was published this morning in the Press-Register and they took me up on my challenge and talked to people in Mobile Terrace.  Well, I also talked to people in Mobile Terrace and got some pretty interesting notes myself.
First, this area is very depressed and many poor people live in Mobile Terrace.  Yes, they desperately needed help.  Yes, a couple of streets are getting paved and FINALLY the City Police are doing the job they should have done with this area was in the Police Jurisdication a year prior to the annexation.
No—there is NO PARK yet.  The City is still looking for a place to put it.  NO - the drainage is still a problem (City will get a loan for this).  NO - the $5 Million Police/Fire station is not built yet (City will get a loan for this)
Now, calculate the increased sales tax revenue, minus the approx $3 Million the City did spend.  Where did the other $7 million go?

I wish the media would go in and do a poll in the Mobile Terrance neighborhood—ask those people how things are NOW post-annexation.  How’s their drainage?  Are the hookers and druggies still on the street—has the “increased” police patrols helped their problems (if they are in fact getting more patrols)?  How’s that park coming along that they were promised?  Do they know the status of the multi-million dollar police & fire station that was promised by the City to be built within 18 months at the Airport property?  Let’s see—can you say TRAILERS?  Yep, the police dept is still in trailers at the airport!

How are the residents of Mobile Terrance coming along getting their properties up to City standards?  How do they feel about their Council person—is she doing a good job for them?  Do they wish they could vote for someone else for the position—oh yea, that’s right—they can’t vote in a municipal election for another 4 more years LOL!!

I picked up on that “forced to vote” comment too and it struck me as one of the craziest things I ever heard come out of a politicians mouth.  People have gone to war over the right to vote and many of them died to protect that very intrinsic aspect of freedom.  And, this guy doesn’t want to “force” the opposition to vote about something as basic as property rights!
. Incredible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Mayor said, “People who want to be in the city then we want to give them the opportunity to vote. People who don’t want to be in the city, why would we force them to vote.“

WHAT??? FORCE THEM TO VOTE??  How about just give them the RIGHT to VOTE?  They are just as much a part of the community as King’s Branch.  That is what everyone is asking for…. just the RIGHT TO VOTE.

The strange thing about all of this is that the law does not clearly give the owners of property precedence in the decision making about annexation.  Theoretically, a person could own multiple investment properties in the county and his renters would decide if his property would be in the county or in the city.  That could and would wreck a person’s whole investment strategy.
. Of course, the investor would immediately try to pass along the increased expenses to his renters, but it would almost be a certainty that there would be a shuffle in tenants that could prove to be costly.

The Alabama Code dealing with annexation is so convoluted that only an expert could sift through the jargon and pull out the pertinent sections.  But, it looks like each land owner should have a voice in one way or another.
. Section 11-42-62
Separately owned lands may be embraced in single resolution or notice.
. Land owned by any number of separate and distinct owners may be embraced in the same resolution passed by the board or governing body of the city, and notice or citation by publication may be given to all owners by the mayor in one notice, but each owner shall have the right of contest as provided in this article as to any land owned by him.
. (Code 1907, §1095; Code 1923, §1789; Code 1940, T. 37, §158.)

I think it is a state law, with federal guidance, that insists a municipality of over 6,000 inhabitants will provide police coverage for 3 miles outside its limits.
. “The police jurisdiction in cities having six thousand or more inhabitants shall cover all adjoining territory within three miles of the corporate limits, and in cities having less than six thousand inhabitants, and in towns, such police jurisdiction shall extend also to the adjoining territory within a mile and a half of the corporate limits of such city or town.“
**************
The city doesn’t have much choice in the matter, but they do collect revenue from the area.  People shouldn’t have the idea this is some type of benevolent activity the city is doing for the poor old county people.  Far from it…...

BamaBob wrote:  “a city can not grab large amounts of open land unless there are at least two qualified voters for every so many acres.“

From what I am reading, there must be 2 registered voters living on the quarter of a quarter section (40 acres) or part thereof that the city takes.  These sections and quarters are set in stone… so, if they just take 1 lot on the north side and 1 lot on the south side of Moffett Road, well, within that 1/4 of a 1/4 section there should be 2 registered voters there first of all.  Well, I know for a fact that there are NOT 2 REGISTERED VOTERS living on the 1/4 of a 1/4 section of the area where they are taking the WalMart….
The City of Mobile has done a great job in making sure that they eliminated all of the registered voters that they possibly could all the way down the Moffett Road corridor to the MONEY BAG called the Semmes Walmart.
So I would also love to get an expert’s opinion on this as well. That would also make the 2007 vote invalid?

Yes BamaBob—businesses within the 3 mile jurisdiction are paying 1/2 of the business license.  From what I understand, the business license tax is based on the $$ amount of sales.  So, you can imagine how much stores such as the Semmes Walmart is paying….  oh, in addition to the 2% premium sales tax the customers pay.

That is why I keep preaching for Mobile to pull back into its own city limits and STOP providing police and fire within the 3 mile jurisdiction.  They keep complaining that the people and businesses living within the 3 mile jurisdiction are getting a free ride—but we’re not!  They also are complaining that they are spending SO MUCH OF THE CITY’S TAX DOLLARS providing services in the 3 mile jurisdiction.  Well, prove it—I’d love to see how much they are collecting in tax $$$ and how much it is costing them to provide the inadequate services they are supposedly providing. 
If they were truely “loosing money” on the deal, do you think they would be doing it?

Alabama Code; Section 11-51-91
. Licenses for business, etc., conducted outside corporate limits of municipality.
. Any municipality may fix and collect licenses for any business, trade, or profession done within the police jurisdiction of such municipality but outside the corporate limits thereof; provided, that the amount of such licenses shall not be more than one half the amount charged and collected as a license for like business, trade, or profession done within the corporate limits of such municipality, fees and penalties excluded; and provided further, that the total amount of such licenses shall not be in an amount greater than the cost of services provided by the municipality within the police jurisdiction.
*************
Who is supposedly getting this free ride talked about by Fred R. and some commenting here on this subject?