Annexation: the judges rule

At some point after the Anderson County Commission meeting on Monday (where the commission voted NOT to drop the lawsuit against Clinton), local officials received the ruling from three administrative law judges who heard the dispute between Clinton and the County over a parcel of land adjacent to I-75.

The Sentinel report includes this statement:

If the county and its cities don’t buy into the judges’ proposal, the matter would go before another panel of jurists. Those new judges would have the power to adopt a growth plan without local input.

County officials have thus far proven quite stubborn in their insistence on keeping the matter tied up in court; at this point, the options appear to be to either give in, or send it to another panel of judges who are under no obligation to consider local input at all.

A couple of years back when the two were still trying to mediate, Clinton presented a rather generous revenue-sharing agreement (even though the County would benefit through property and sales taxes from any development anyway), but the County turned it down. Now, it seems like Rex Lynch wants to go back to the trough:

Clinton’s offer to split sales tax revenue with the county has been taken off the table as far as [City Manager Steve] Jones is concerned, he said Tuesday. The final say-so on that issue, he added, rests with City Council.

“I would hope that the city would be willing to share a portion of that (sales tax revenue) with the county,” Anderson County Mayor Rex Lynch said Tuesday.

If the Clinton City Council is smart (and I think they are), they’d add up their legal costs for the past two years, along with the lost tax revenue from a large commercial developer who walked out when the suit was filed, and ask themselves if the shread of goodwill is worth what they’ve already lost.

Then, adding injury to insult, remember the damage done to Clinton (and Oak Ridge, and Lake City, and Oliver Springs) when the County superseded the sales tax last May, and throw that in, too.

Seems to me it’s time to let the County take their loss and think about how they might work more cooperatively with their cities in the future. Remember, we’re part of Anderson County, too.

3 Responses to “Annexation: the judges rule”

  1. on 18 Oct 2006 at 1:01 pm AT

    Is it all politics, or just the stuff around here, that makes folks so petty and childish over this kinda stuff?

  2. on 19 Oct 2006 at 7:37 am AnotherAtomicCitizen

    You have a hot button issue with statements like county commission waiting for judges. I could not agree with you more on this topic. The constituency of county government is slowly being exposed as rotten, but too many people are missing it.

    Oak Ridge has a problem with outside perception, but we do not have a problem detecting corrupt people in public. I have to believe this atmosphere of looking at people for who they are is a trait left behind by the original Atomic supporters. Some citizens are restrained, but we need to get vocal about our government and the people who support it, good and bad

    It makes no sense crowding judges into small courtrooms built for one all in the name to annex property to raise revenue, yet they tell us it is for security. How secure is moving all your eggs into one basket? This move can only worsen the mindset of Rex about Clinton, but no sign of that. In fact he seems to welcome the idea. I bet another cosmetic tuck or tax coffer lippo-suction is to be ordered soon for next summer. Something really stinks in Clinton right now, and I cannot help to point to the sex fiend Beauchamp. If I were a judge and forced to schedule my cases around another judge, you bet there is a penis pump in the deal.

    I believe that most of these people marginally elected to hold office is bad.

    If, as you say, the good people of school boards do not seek election into larger political fields, then with the track record of ORS why haven’t they? It seems to be a solid record that is bullet proof.

  3. on 19 Oct 2006 at 8:14 am Netmom

    AAC, I’m not sure I follow your train of thought here. The issue of courtroom security (from a previous post) is about local judges and moving a courtroom from Oak Ridge to the County Courthouse; the three administrative law judges who ruled on the annexation issue are in Nashville.

    Annexation and moving the Div. II Sessions Court are two separate things, with the common thread being the County’s refusal to work cooperatively with its cities.

    Why haven’t former Oak Ridge School Board members sought other offices? I don’t know… you’d have to ask them.

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post

Leave a Reply