Stricter annexation law in towns’ best interests

To the editor:

In response to the article about the new annexation law, I wonder if Indiana’s outlying town and city leaders ever pay attention to the success story right before our eyes.

Annexation used to be the act of taking in more land because development is going to happen. Today it’s all about taking in the land, hoping that a dream or vision for something to happen might happen sometime in the future, which could mean 30 years or more down the road.

What makes our leaders think the only way development can occur is if we sprawl by taking in more land?

Indianapolis has gotten great reviews and is admired by the entire country for doing just the opposite. Indianapolis is not expanding; they are condensing new development into what they already have, and it’s all those things within walking distance that are being admired by the entire country.

It’s not just sports and/or event attractions but rather new and renovated homes and condos as well that are attracting attention. Both the papers and news media talk about it all the time, and those who have been making this all happen are very proud of what they are doing, and they should be.

Sprawl usually gets the attention while leaving behind a decaying inner-city area. Why do we do that?

Why are we making it so easy for towns to expand, sprawl or annex property when we should be making it more difficult. Building within the current boundaries seems like the smart thing to do.

Dave Huff