LILLIAN — This community in southeast Baldwin County will attempt to join a sister community in north Baldwin next year in becoming “landmark districts.”

“We’re going to try and get it on the November 2012 ballot as an amendment to the Alabama State Constitution,” said Bob Donnenwirth recently in speaking of the landmark district designation. Donnenwirth is president of the Lillian Preservation Committee.

According to Donnenwirth, the Lillian Preservation Committee has been discussing the landmark district matter for a year and a half, and discussions have centered on a subject that has long been a concern of residents in this unincorporated community. Donnenwirth refers to it as “adverse annexations.”

Lillian as a landmark district would, by law, prevent a municipality from forcibly annexing property within the community, Donnenwirth said.

Should the Lillian community get the landmark district designation it would involve no new taxes, no government involvement, and the designation would not hinder incorporation efforts in the future, Donnenwirth said.

The attempt to protect and maintain community identity is what drove Stockton to get its landmark district measure on the ballot in 2010, Donnenwirth said. As he notes, however, the Stockton proposal was one of three local measures on the 2010 ballot, and two of those measures involved county issues such as the “rain” tax in connection with storm water management. County voters went through and voted no on everything, Donnenwirth said.

Now, Stockton is gearing up to try again in 2012, and Lillian is ready to follow in their footsteps. Donnenwirth said the Lillian Preservation Committee has been talking recently with Lynn Hastie Bozone, one of the Stockton residents spearheading that community’s attempt to get the designation.

Concerning Stockton, Donnenwirth said it is his understanding that there was some mayoral opposition to Stockton’s attempt to get the landmark district designation in 2010.

In reference to Lillian’s plan to get the same designation, Elberta mayor Marvin Williams said, “We don’t have a problem with anything that goes on in Lillian.”

Anything that goes on outside of Elberta’s Planning and Zoning district isn’t the town’s business, Williams said. Yet, he has an opinion on the Lillian proposal regarding the landmark district.

“I think what Lillian should do is incorporate,” he said, noting that would allay fears regarding annexations and the like.

Over the years, Elberta, along with Orange Beach, have been perceived as potential annexation threats by those living in Lillian.

“They (Lillian) want all of us to pick up the slack for them,” Williams said, citing specifically the issue of law enforcement in the unincorporated community.

“You’ve got to put the horse in front (of the cart),” he said, a reference to incorporation solving some of Lillian’s problems and concerns.

Asked if he recalls any serious talk about Elberta annexing the Lillian area, Williams said no; that when Orange Beach annexed across the bay some years back, Elberta decided to annex in the Miflin area as opposed to the Lillian area. Williams said he does recall a joke he made at his business before he became mayor. The joke was that Elberta should annex the Lillian area and create the “biggest town east of the Mississippi River with the least population.” He wonders today if the joke was somehow taken seriously by some in Lillian.

According to Donnenwirth, the Lillian Preservation Committee will be working with state legislators to have the landmark district proposal on the November 2012 ballot. In a letter Donnenwirth has sent out as president of the Lillian Preservation Committee, he notes there is no downside to the proposal. The positive aspects of it, however, are threefold in Donnenwirth’s estimation. He said the landmark district designation would create peace of mind for residents with annexation fears; give more recognition to the community; and help with the “healing process” in the community as a result of hard feelings by some who have favored incorporation.

The proposed boundaries of the landmark district would be as follows: North boundary: Sunset Drive; West boundary: County Road 91 south to Carrier Drive and west to Soldiers Creek. The district would also entail all areas east of Soldiers Creek and east of County Road 91 to Perdido Bay.