We do not know how many people are in favor of the city of Columbus’ plans to annex two areas south and east of the current city limits, but we are aware of only four – Ethel Stewart, Joseph Mickens, Pierre Beard and Stephen Jones.

Those four hold considerable power, though, since they represent a majority of the city council, which has stubbornly held the line for annexation in the face of criticism both within the current boundaries of the city and in the areas subject to annexation.

The possibility of annexation began two years ago when Vice Mayor and Ward 2 Councilman Joseph Mickens and Ward 5 Councilman Stephen Jones invited the Golden Triangle Planning and Development District to a Columbus City Council work session. GTPDD representatives pitched a joint annexation-redistricting package that looked at taking in the two areas.

Opposition emerged almost immediately, with a group of residents organizing a social media campaign to fight the plans. Data provided by the Golden Triangle Development LINK show this annexation plan would worsen the city’s economic demographics, driving down rates of home ownership, median income, per capita income and household disposable income while driving the poverty rate up.

There is no metric that indicates annexing these areas is beneficial to the city.

By now it should be clear that the annexation is a politically-motivated effort by these four council members. We are not aware of any meaningful popular support for annexation outside council chambers. The Lowndes County Board of Supervisors has hired an attorney to fight the effort, and District 5 Supervisor Leroy Brooks has been publicly critical of it in a letter to The Dispatch editor.

That is why we were encouraged by Tuesday’s council meeting, during which it appears one of the four may be looking for an exit strategy for what has become an increasingly unpopular and expensive proposition.

Jones told The Dispatch Wednesday that he might be open to changing his mind if the county would agree to pay for services provided by the city fire department when it answers calls in the proposed annexation areas, something that has happened 12 times in the past two years.

Board of Supervisors president Trip Hairston balked at the payment idea, noting the city fire department and county’s volunteer fire department have long worked under a mutual aid agreement. But he did say supervisors are willing to listen to any ideas that might put a stop to the annexation plans.

We don’t know what will transpire, but it does appear that Jones, who has announced his plans to run for mayor, is open to negotiation. That’s the first time there has been any discernible crack in the council’s pro-annexation bloc.

Meanwhile, the city’s initial estimated cost of annexation – $80,000 – has been thrown “out the window” as the city has geared up in its legal fight with the county. At some point, the price of poker may be high enough to put the squeeze on the council.

It seems to us, some sort of perceived concession by the county would allow the council – or at least mayoral candidate Jones – to save face.

Jones’ vote is pivotal, since a change of heart would deadlock the council at 3-3, leaving Mayor Keith Gaskin to break the tie. Gaskin is on the record multiple times as being opposed to this annexation.

Our position has been clear from the start: Annexation benefits neither current citizens nor those who would become citizens under the plan.

So we welcome any overtures between the city and the county that would kill these annexation plans.

For the first time in two years, that appears to be at least a possibility.

The Dispatch Editorial Board is made up of publisher Peter Imes, columnist Slim Smith, managing editor Zack Plair and senior newsroom staff.

READER FAVORITES

• 

  Roses and Thorns: 6-20-26

  By Dispatch Editorial Board • 2 days ago