Baldwin County residents will soon cast their votes on three local amendments, each designed to create landmark districts and establish boundaries that shield them from potential annexation by neighboring cities.
These amendments, impacting Bon Secour, White House Fork and Stapleton, represent efforts to maintain local control over land use and preserve the character of each area.
They are listed on the sample ballot located on the Alabama Secretary of State website located here. Here's a closer look at what these amendments mean and how they could shape Baldwin County's future.
Stemming from Act 2024-256 and introduced as House Bill 343 by state Rep. Frances Holk-Jones, this amendment seeks to define the Bon Secour Landmark District and prevent nearby cities from annexing its land, except under certain conditions. Known for its coastal charm and deep history, Bon Secour would be officially marked off as a landmark district if the amendment passes, meaning nearby cities could only expand into Bon Secour if specific provisions are met.
Voting "yes" on this amendment would formally set boundaries around the Bon Secour district, limiting municipalities from annexing any part of it through local law unless it's incorporated into a new city formed after the amendment's ratification. This measure intends to preserve Bon Secour's historical and rural appeal, granting local residents more autonomy over future development.
A "no" vote indicates opposition to creating and defining the district, allowing annexation by nearby cities without additional restrictions.
If a new municipality incorporates part of Bon Secour, this amendment would not prevent such an expansion, acknowledging that incorporation and annexation can still occur with voter approval.
Residents will also decide on Local Amendment 2, introduced by Act 2024-271 through House Bill 268 from state Rep. Matt Simpson. This amendment is designed to protect White House Fork by establishing it as a landmark district, with defined boundaries aimed at preserving the community's historic and rural landscape. A "yes" vote on this amendment would set limits on annexation by surrounding cities, with exceptions for new municipalities that may arise in the future.
Approving this amendment would mean that White House Fork becomes a formally defined district, keeping surrounding cities from annexing any portion of it unless annexation meets specific requirements. Supporters argue that this protection allows White House Fork to grow at its own pace without the pressures of expanding municipalities.
A "no" vote would remove these protections, permitting surrounding cities to annex land in White House Fork without the new district boundaries.
As with Bon Secour, annexation restrictions under this amendment would not apply to newly established cities that might incorporate White House Fork, allowing for future municipal development under regulated conditions.
The third amendment, Local Amendment 3, was created through Act 2024-272, spearheaded by state Rep. Alan Baker and House Bill 306. This proposal would create the Stapleton Landmark District and define boundaries to protect the area's rural character and local governance from municipal encroachment.
Voting in favor of this amendment would officially establish the Stapleton Landmark District, clearly delineating its borders. Municipalities like Loxley and Spanish Fort would be prohibited from annexing this land unless specific conditions allow it, giving local residents a stronger voice in land use decisions.
A "no" vote would mean rejecting these boundary definitions and allowing surrounding municipalities to annex Stapleton land without added limitations.
The amendment specifies that newly formed municipalities after ratification could include parts of Stapleton, similar to the other amendments, ensuring community growth through a structured process if needed.
For further details on House Bills 268, 306 and 343, visit the Alabama Legislature’s online database at https://alison.legislature.state.al.us.
These amendments are part of a larger trend seen in Baldwin County and other parts of Alabama, where recent laws have also established landmark districts for communities such as Barnwell, Rosinton and Stockton, according to Margaret Enfinger Pace, a Baldwin County attorney who focuses on appellate, civil and family litigation, though she does not handle property law, and a member of the Alabama League of Women Voters. This approach, often regarded as a method for communities to retain local governance and resist urban sprawl, limits a city's ability to expand without voter consent and generally keeps the community's historical and rural identity intact.
"Unfortunately, there is still no definition in the Alabama Code for what a landmark district is — other than what is contained in the legislative bills themselves and Barnwell's law," Pace said.
Landmark districts are not legal entities with the authority to tax, zone or create local ordinances. Instead, these amendments offer Baldwin County residents a chance to define their communities against annexation pressures while the power to expand municipal boundaries through local referendums remains intact.
"They aren't incorporating a town," Pace said. "They don't relate to the historical registration or listing of heritage or historic sites and districts locally or nationally."
Pace also emphasized that while landmark district legislation is relatively new and untested in courts, it aligns with Alabama's constitution, which enables local governance measures through voter participation.
"Generally, municipalities could still expand their borders through referendums of local voters," Pace told Gulf Coast Media. "I don't see anything where these laws would change that process. These are newer laws, and I don't see where there's been any litigation and court interpretation of them."
In addition to the three local amendments Baldwin County voters will find on their ballots next week, Alabama voters will also decide on Statewide Amendment 1, a measure focused on school lands owned by the Franklin County School System. The Fair Ballot Commission offers a full explanation of the amendment at www.sos.alabama.gov/alabama-votes/voter/ballot-measures/statewide, but here’s a summary of what’s at stake.
Proposed by Act 2024-301, Statewide Amendment 1 was introduced by state Rep. Jamie Kiel and seeks to transfer specific lands to the Franklin County Board of Education. The lands, known as “sixteenth section” and “indemnity” lands, were designated for the support of Alabama public schools as far back as the 1800s. This amendment would officially transfer these lands from the Franklin County School System to the Franklin County Board of Education.
Voting “yes” on this amendment would mark a constitutional change allowing Franklin County more control over specific school resources, while a “no” vote would leave ownership arrangements unchanged.
