Id. See also Extension of Boundaries of City of Ridgeland, 651 So.2d at 554-56; Enlargement and Extension of Mun. Boundaries of City of Madison, 650 So.2d at 496; City of Southaven v. City of Lake Horn (In re City of Horn Lake), 630 So.2d 10, 18 (Miss. 1993). The above case law indicates that this Court refuses to set a limit on the vacant land available and has approved annexations when there has been as much as 59% usable vacant land available to an area.

Id. See also Matter of City of Horn Lake, 630 So.2d 10, 18 (Miss. 1993); Enlargement and Extension of Mun. Boundaries of City of Madison v. City of Madison, 650 So.2d 490, 496 (Miss. 1995); Extension of Boundaries of City of Ridgeland v. City of Ridgeland, 651 So.2d at 554-56. The dissent questions the chancellor's findings because he did not hold that the City develop vacant land before annexing more land.

Id. at 838 (citing City of Daytona Beach v. City of Port Orange, 165 So.2d 768, 771 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964). We were also asked to address prior jurisdiction in Matter of City of Horn Lake, 630 So.2d 10 (Miss. 1993). However, in that case we found:

The objectors assert that in an annexation case, the proponents of the annexation must, pursuant to statutory mandate, correctly describe the territory proposed to be annexed (the PPA), failing which the court is without jurisdiction to hear the annexation case. Both the objectors and the City rely on In re Confirmation ofAlteration of the Boundaries of the City of Horn Lake, 630 So.2d 10 (Miss. 1993), to support their respective positions, and as a result, it is not surprising that they impose different interpretations on what we held, or did not hold, in that case. In Horn Lake, the ordinance adopted by Horn Lake had correctly described the PPA, but the legal description of the entire city boundary as changed contained an error.

1995) (hereinafter "Ridgeland"), the evidence included expert testimony on population growth, increased new building permit activity, lack of available land to meet increasing development, and the need to expand the city's borders to exercise control over development and to provide comprehensive planning growth. Id. at 553-56; see also Columbus, 644 So.2d at 1173 (finding that Columbus needed to expand based in part on testimony from specific leaders that most developable land within Columbus had already been utilized); City of Southaven v. City of Horn Lake, 630 So.2d 10, 17-18 (Miss. 1993) (hereinafter "Southaven") (finding that Southaven needed to expand in part due to the rapid rate of growth of the city). ¶ 36.

The test for evaluating the reasonableness of a chosen path of growth is "whether an area is in a path of growth, not necessarily a City's primary path of growth." In re City of Horn Lake, 630 So.2d 10, 19 (Miss. 1993). This Court has further stated that "our law gives municipalities the discretion, based on convenience and necessity, to choose between various paths of growth by annexation."

Id. See also Extension of Boundaries of City of Ridgeland v. City of Ridgeland, 651 So.2d at 554-56; Enlargement and Extension of Mun. Boundaries of City of Madison v. City of Madison, 650 So.2d 490, 496 (Miss. 1995); Matter of City of Horn Lake, 630 So.2d 10, 18 (Miss. 1993). This Court refuses to set a limit on the vacant land available and has approved annexations when there has been as much as 59% usable vacant land available to an area.

Additionally, unlike in the City of Madison, City of Ridgeland, and City of Horn Lake cases, in which the annexations were affirmed despite high levels of usable vacant land, Canton has failed to show high growth activity. City of Jackson v. City of Madison (In re City of Madison), 650 So. 2d 490 (Miss. 1995); City of Jackson v. City of Ridgeland (In re City of Ridgeland), 651 So. 2d 548 (Miss. 1995); City of Southaven v. City of Horn Lake(In re City of Horn Lake), 630 So. 2d 10 (Miss. 1993). For example, in City of Madison, the city's expert performed a land-rate utilization study and determined that Madison would be completely built out in 13.4 years and 75 percent built out in eight to nine years.

1995) ; City of Jackson v. City of Ridgeland (In re City of Ridgeland) , 651 So. 2d 548 (Miss. 1995) ; City of Southaven v. City of Horn Lake(In re City of Horn Lake) , 630 So. 2d 10 (Miss. 1993). For example, in City of Madison , the city's expert performed a land-rate utilization study and determined that Madison would be completely built out in 13.4 years and 75 percent built out in eight to nine years.

¶ 36. In Horn Lake, 630 So.2d 10, 17–26 (Miss.1993), a planning expert testified to the city's need to expand, based on characteristics particular to the city, including topography and remaining developable land. ¶ 37.