Residents in the unincorporated Baldwin County community of Lillian are asking lawmakers to pass a landmark bill to protect and preserve their cultural history and land rights. However, it is unlikely to happen in this year’s legislative session.
A landmark bill amends the constitution to prohibit annexation by surrounding municipalities, subject to conditions. Bon Secour, White House Fork and Stapleton were designated as landmark districts after the legislature allowed local voters to decide in 2024.
Community members supporting a bill for Lillian say they want to preserve the community’s cultural history and don’t feel their community should be left out of that protection.
State Rep. Alan Baker (R-Brewton) said there is a lot more to annexation protection in a landmark district.
“I’ve tried to make that very clear to some of the community leaders of Lillian that, you know, still the pursuit of a landmark district is something that could be accomplished,” said Baker. “We’ll need to sort of wait and see where we land in terms of a body, the legislative delegation for Baldwin County, in regards to any parameters or policies to become more consistent with what might be in place for landmark districts going forward.“
With this session expected to be shorter, some members of the Baldwin County delegation want to pause the item to add time for more dialogue,” Baker explained.
The discussion began before the 2025 Legislative Session, but Baker said there wasn’t a legal description of the landmark district’s location. Now, they have a description, but still need to set consistent policies and parameters.
“So, there’s just a lot of complexities, uncertainties around legislation,” Baker said
A concern about passing a bill is the uncertainty it creates. If a local bill passes without any “no” votes, it goes to Baldwin County voters to decide. If there is a single “no” vote, it goes to the entire state to decide.
In fact, Baker said that when the community of Stockton became the state’s first landmark district, the referendum went before the entire state for the first time and did not pass. So, lawmakers had to go back to the drawing board the following year, reintroduce the bill and get it passed unanimously.
“Myself personally, I can’t speak for other members of the volume legislative delegation, but I’ll clearly communicate to them,” Baker told 1819 News. “I want to work to preserve their rights as a landowner and part of that is not having forced involuntary annexation.“
In the meantime, Baker said a Letter of Commitment not to support any forced or involuntary annexation is under consideration. He said that is where the local delegation left discussions at the end of last year’s session. Baker said those discussions carried over into the summer and fall.
“So with that, I think the letter of commitment was something that many felt might be a good pathway alternate round because if there are those that’s concerned more so with the no forced or involuntary annexation, then we want to make sure we communicate,” he added.
The letter would first require public input and a local vote.
While the Letter of Commitment would be easier and quicker, community members say they prefer a landmark district bill.
To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email [email protected].
Don’t miss out! Subscribe to our newsletter and get our top stories every day or become a member to gain access to exclusive content and 1819 News merch.