Dear Editor,

This week, in a controversial debate concerning annexation and property owner rights, I took a strong position opposing House Bill 2029. In short, the bill sought to protect property owner rights by mandating that any city wishing to annex territory must notify property owners of their intentions, and subsequently hold an election in which those affected would determine whether or not the annexation would proceed.

The bill is a continuation of a debate that’s been brought before the legislature for the past six years. In addition, this year’s version included the major provisions set forth in at least three other bills which have previously been brought before the legislature—and defeated in each instance.

As my lifelong voting record will clearly demonstrate, I am an ardent supporter of our most basic liberties and individual freedoms. For the entirety of my career I have staked my political identity and relevance to these most critical and enduring principles.

In response to comments I’ve received from both constituents and colleagues concerning my opposition to this particular measure, I want to make a few points about this piece of legislation perfectly clear. I fear my reluctance to support a measure rife with both constitutional and technical hurdles may be misinterpreted as a departure from my commitment to defending my constituents’ land and property rights, which is simply untrue.

I was unable to vote for this legislation for several reasons. The first of which is the fact that while the bill gives notice of an annexation proposal to property owners, the right to vote is reserved only for registered voters. If a citizen chooses not to register to vote under the language included in HB 2029 they are subject to annexation with absolutely no defense.

In addition, tenants, renters, and lessees, if registered to vote, are given more property rights than the actual property owners. If passed in current form the bill would mean landowners could have acquired land, leased it to another individual, and lost the entire investment if the tenant simply registered to vote and cast a ballot in favor of annexation. The bill is also not clear in determining the consequences of a tie vote or election in which no votes are cast.

Finally, because of a last minute floor amendment, the bill only affects 3 counties in Kansas: Johnson, Sedgwick, and Shawnee. As a result, it is non-uniform in its treatment of cities. If the cities affected simply “charter out” using the Constitutional Home Rule the bill is legally useless, and accomplishes nothing.

I assure you I will be the first to defend the property rights of an individual being predatorily abused by irresponsible city governments. However, the reality is that currently this is simply not happening, and passing an ill-equipped piece of well intentioned legislation will in fact cause more harm than it seeks to avoid.

I look forward to pursuing a plausible agreement balancing landowner rights and responsible city planning. I think there are many portions of HB 2029 that accomplish important goals. However, until the debate reaches a point at which these concerns are properly addressed we’re passing hollow legislation that will entangle landowners and cities in protracted legal battles, and at the end of the day provide no tangible protection to our citizens.

Rep. Arlen Siegfreid
Speaker Pro Tem

Rep. Siegfreid represents the 15th District which includes parts of the city of Olathe and Olathe Township in Johnson County. He has served in the legislature since 2003 and in addition to serving as Speaker Pro Tem, serves on the Tax and Health and Human Services committees.