Bridges v. City of Biloxi
| Decision Date | 04 October 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 43671,43671 |
| Citation | 253 Miss. 812,178 So.2d 683 |
| Parties | Dorothy E. BRIDGES v. CITY OF BILOXI, Mississippi. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Upton Sisson, Blass & Smith, Gulfport, Forrest B. Jackson, Jackson, for appellant.
Watkins, Pyle, Edwards & Ludlam, Jackson, Charles K. Pringle, Albert Sidney Johnston, Jr., Biloxi, for appellee.
The City of Biloxi passed an ordinance defining an area adjacent to the corporate limits which it desired to annex, and describing in general terms the proposed improvements to be made in the annexed territory, the extent of such improvements, and the approximate time within which such improvements would be made. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 3374-10 (1956). Thereafter the City of Biloxi filed its petition in the Chancery Court of Harrison County, in which such municipality and the annexed territory is located, and prayed for a decree ratifying, approving and confirming the enlargement of the city limits in accordance with said ordinance. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 3374-11 (1956). After due notice numerous objections were filed, and after a full hearing, the chancellor entered a decree finding that the enlargement of the city limits was reasonable and that reasonable public and municipal services would be rendered in the annexed territory within a reasonable time. The decree approved, ratified and confirmed the proposed enlargement of the corporate limits. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 3374-13 (1956).
The City of Biloxi assumed the burden of showing that the proposed enlargement of the city limits was reasonable, in accordance with the statute. Miss.Code Ann. Sec. 3374-13 (1956). Many witnesses were offered by the City of Biloxi and by the objectors. On behalf of the City experts in the field of city planning were introduced and testified in support of the reasonableness of the ordinance, the needs of the area proposed to be annexed for sewage, street improvements and maintenance, police protection, garbage disposal, and other services, and the feasibility and reasonableness of the proposed extension. The evidence on behalf of objectors living in the area proposed to be annexed consisted largely of their testimony that they now have adequate services and are content to remain outside of the City of Biloxi.
The City of Biloxi has a long and interesting history. The first permanent white settlement in the Mississippi Valley, it was first settled in 1699 by Pierre le Moyne, Sieur d'Iberville. Since about 1840 the City of Biloxi has been a summer resort and for many years has been a year-around vacation and convention city. It is located on the east end of a peninsula lying between Back Bay of Biloxi and the Mississippi Sound.
The existing corporate limits include an area of 6,405 acres of land and water. Of this amount, forty percent is water, leaving about 3,800 acres of land. Of this amount, 3,410 acres are in the developed area, with a population of 45,000 people. The average population density of the developed area is thirteen persons per acre. There are 325 acres of vacant land within the present city limits, over one-third of which is marsh land or mud flats, leaving 244 acres of vacant land available for future expansion. Included in the present city limits is Keesler Air Force Base, a large military establishment.
The City has grown rapidly, especially during the past ten years, and further population increase is anticipated. The area proposed to be annexed lies immediately to the west of the present city limits and comprises about 4,525 acres of land, approximately 2,000 acres of which is developed with a population of 10,000. The average density of the developed area is about five persons per acre. Approximately 2,525 acres of this area is vacant land, almost all of which is suitable for development as residential subdivisions. The City of Biloxi has an adequate water system from which it services approximately one-half of the inhabitants of the area proposed to be annexed. The customers of the water system presently living outside the city limits are charged fifty percent more than the customers within the City.
The City of Biloxi cannot expand in any direction except to the west and the area proposed to be annexed is the only area into which the City can expand, being bounded by water in all other directions.
The ordinance described in general terms the proposed improvements to be made in the annexed territory. It proposed that existing streets would be improved, the City would install water lines, sewer disposal service, and street lighting where necessary and feasible; said improvements to be completed within a reasonable time not to exceed five years from the date of the ordinance. The ordinance further stated that the City would furnish immediately the annexed territory with police protection, fire protection, maintenance of existing streets, reduction in water rates to users presently served by the City of Biloxi, the right to exercise the ballot, and the right to use all other municipal facilities furnished citizens of the municipality. The ordinance also provided that garbage removal and pest control service would be furnished within six months from the effective date of the ordinance. The City offered studies by experts to show the financial structure of the City of Biloxi, the cost of municipal services, the expected amount of revenue to be received from taxes in the annexed area, the estimated cost of some of the municipal services in the annexed area, and the approximate cost of capital improvements.
We are of the opinion that the evidence fully justified the chancellor's finding that the City will be financially able to provide the services it proposes to furnish the residents of the annexed area and that the proposed annexation is feasible and reasonable.
Objectors contend that they will be denied due process and equal protection of the law under the Mississippi and United States Constitutions because their property will be subject to taxation to pay general obligation bonds issued by the City of Biloxi before the annexation ordinance was passed. This contention is not supported by reason or authority. If this were the law it would be practically impossible to annex territory to a municipality. Most municipalities have existing general obligation bonded indebtednesses which are serviced and retired from tax proceeds. The cases cited by objectors in support of this argument are not persuasive. Barnes v. Kansas City, 359 Mo. 519, 222 S.W.2d 756 (1949), 10 A.L.R.2d 553 (1950), holds that property brought into a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Extension of Boundaries of City of Jackson, Matter of, 58267
...tanks in the annexation area. We have in the past regarded this as an indicia of possible health risks. See Bridges v. City of Biloxi, 253 Miss. 812, 178 So.2d 683, 687 (1965); Extension of Boundaries of the City of Biloxi, 361 So.2d 1372, 1375 (Miss.1978); In re Extension of Boundaries of ......
-
In re Extension of Boundaries of City of Winona
...(Miss.1980); In re Extension and Enlargement of the Mun. Boundaries of the City of Biloxi, 361 So.2d at 1374; Bridges v. City of Biloxi, 253 Miss. 812, 178 So.2d 683, 685 (1965); In re City of Gulfport, 253 Miss. 738, 179 So.2d 3, 6 City of Macon, 854 So.2d at 1039-40. ¶ 39. The chancellor ......
-
Enlargement of Corporate Limits of City of Hattiesburg, Matter of
...450 So.2d 85, 89 (Miss.1984); Texas Gas Transmission Corp. v. City of Greenville, 242 So.2d at 690; Bridges v. City of Biloxi, 253 Miss. 812, 823-24, 178 So.2d 683, 687 (Miss.1965); Walker v. City of Moss Point, 252 Miss. 511, 516, 175 So.2d 173, 175 (Miss.1965); Dodd v. City of Jackson, 23......
-
In re Enlargement of Mun. Bound. of Clinton
...(Miss.1980); In re Extension and Enlargement of the Mun. Boundaries of the City of Biloxi, 361 So.2d at 1374; Bridges v. City of Biloxi, 253 Miss. 812, 178 So.2d 683, 685 (1965); In re City of Gulfport, 253 Miss. 738, 179 So.2d 3, 6 City of Macon, 854 So.2d at 1039-40. ¶ 45. We find that th......