« Ind. Law - More on the ABA's proposed death penalty moratorium | Main | Ind. Law - Indiana Supreme Court reaffirms employment at will doctrine »
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Ind. Law- Still more on: Senate is urged to change annexation law
Bill Ruthhart of the Indianapolis Star reports today in a story headlined "Senate panel rejects freeze on annexations." Some quotes:
A Senate committee dealt a blow to annexation opponents Wednesday, voting against a freeze on communities' ability to expand boundaries without the permission of property owners.Lesley Stedman Weidenbener of the Louisville Courier Journal also has a report today. Some quotes:Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, asked for a moratorium so state legislators could form a special study committee to overhaul Indiana's annexation law.
Involuntary annexations, those conducted without the permission of property owners, have been the source of standoffs between property owners and municipalities across the state.
In fast-growing Hamilton County, three high-profile annexation fights have dominated the headlines, and two are pending in court.
Property owners in those areas, who fear that annexation will mean higher taxes, have pushed for changes in state law that they say would give landowners a better chance of fighting municipalities.
Because the issue is so complex, Gard asked the Senate Local Government and Elections Committee to form an interim legislative study committee to perform a "complete rewrite" of the state's annexation laws.
The committee voted 5-4 to reject that request, citing concerns that a statewide freeze could harm economic development efforts in cities and towns. * * *
Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, asked for a moratorium so state legislators could form a special study committee to overhaul Indiana's annexation law.
Involuntary annexations, those conducted without the permission of property owners, have been the source of standoffs between property owners and municipalities across the state.
In fast-growing Hamilton County, three high-profile annexation fights have dominated the headlines, and two are pending in court.
Property owners in those areas, who fear that annexation will mean higher taxes, have pushed for changes in state law that they say would give landowners a better chance of fighting municipalities.
Because the issue is so complex, Gard asked the Senate Local Government and Elections Committee to form an interim legislative study committee to perform a "complete rewrite" of the state's annexation laws.
The committee voted 5-4 to reject that request, citing concerns that a statewide freeze could harm economic development efforts in cities and towns.
A Senate committee narrowly defeated two bills yesterday that would have granted more rights to property owners who are fighting annexations by nearby cities and towns.For background, start with this ILB entry from Feb. 18th.Opponents said the bills would stunt city growth and economic development, and punish all cities for problems caused by a few.
The defeats are a blow to opponents of Jeffersonville's proposal to annex about 3,660 households, as well as those trying to block similar efforts by other cities.
They had hoped the bills would give them a better chance of getting their fights into court and forcing cities to pay their legal fees if the property owners prevailed.
But Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, said "the deck was stacked" against the legislation because too many of the senators on the Local Government and Elections Committee are from larger communities and back their mayors' abilities to expand their cities.
"I'm disappointed," Gard said. "If we could get these bills before the Senate, there would be a different outcome."
The committee voted 5-4 against:
Senate Bill 112, which would have required a city to pay the attorneys' fees for homeowners who defeat an annexation attempt in court.
SB 161, which would have reduced the number of signatures needed to challenge an annexation in court from 65 percent of the affected landowners to 51 percent. * * *
Current law could prevent opponents of the Jeffersonville plan from even taking the issue to court, where a judge would decide whether the annexation is appropriate.
That's because more than 35 percent of property owners in the proposed area have waivers on their deeds that prevent them from opposing annexation. So even if every other property owner was willing to sign a petition opposing it, that wouldn't be enough to meet the 65 percent threshold.
[Vanessa Smith, president of Citizens Against Annexation, the group fighting the Jeffersonville annexation proposal,] said the waivers were signed by developers in exchange for receiving city sewer service for their subdivisions, a practice that is common statewide. The waivers passed on to the buyers of the homes.
SB 161 could have lowered the threshold to 51 percent -- if the bill had passed and become effective before the Jeffersonville City Council adopted its annexation ordinance. That process is expected to begin next month. * * *
Sen. Tom Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, said a moratorium would threaten economic development because cities sometimes need to push through annexations to make services available to proposed plants.
And Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend, said he might support a study of annexation as long as there was no moratorium.
"I regret there are some hostile situations," he said. "But a moratorium paints too broad a brush."
Gard said she will try to resurrect some of the proposals before the session ends in late April.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 22, 2007 08:19 AM
Posted to Indiana Law