Annexation Vote to Go

The on-again off-again referendum over whether or not Clinton shall annex property adjacent to I-75 in the Bethel community will go forward, following Chancellor William Lantrip’s ruling yesterday.

At the last County Commission meeting, Commissioners approved a new “master settlement agreement,” wherein the County would share in the portion of tax revenues that would ordinarily be allocated to Clinton. A couple of years ago, Clinton had offered such a settlement, but the County’s rejection and continuation of legal action resulted in a major retail developer walking away from the deal.

Recent statements by Clinton officials indicate that the city is no longer willing to cut a deal.  The five-year moratorium on annexation in the growth plan has expired, and there seems to be little reason for Clinton to deal.  After years of litigation, who could blame them?

The News Sentinel reports on views from lawyers on both sides:

Yeager on Monday argued that Clinton couldn’t have it both ways; that the city can’t seek annexation both by growth plan changes and by a referendum.

“There’s no pressing need for a referendum before Clinton votes on growth plan amendments,” Yeager said.

Clinton’s attorney, Dick Jessee, countered by saying the urban growth plan’s five-year moratorium on annexation by referendum has ended, and Clinton can legally follow that route.

The interesting part of the story, however, is found in Commissioner David Bolling’s blog:

A motion was made to file the injunction, it tied and thus failed, and I actually thought that progress had won the day. That was, of course, before Doug Haun realized that he was confused and had voted wrong in his opposition to the injunction. Now, I respect Commissioner Haun, and normally would have believed that someone could honestly vote wrong by mistake. However, when I see Rex Lynch point at someone across the room and say “I need to see you outside”, which he did to Doug, and then see Doug come back in moments later wanting to change his vote, I don’t see a simple mistake, I see a shady political maneuver.

Sigh.  Three and a half more years, unless something really interesting happens in between.

How much more might we accomplish if the County actually worked with the cities for growth, rather than posturing on turf?

8 Responses to “Annexation Vote to Go”

  1. on 28 Nov 2006 at 6:59 pm mushroomcloud

    Yes and it looks like the Clinton City Government will get away with violating the signed 5 year annexiation of land agreement.

    I noticed a copy at the Court House with the Map of Anderson County and the signed signatures of Anderson County, Oliver Springs, Lake City, Clinton and Oak Ridge
    What a sad commentary of it leadership.

    I noticed the Deceased Mayor of Oliver Springs name.

    I oft wonder if we are more corrupt now than then…….are we better off now —who do you trust.

  2. on 28 Nov 2006 at 7:16 pm David Bolling

    MC,

    The five year period has expired. Clinton has yet to annex that land, so how have they violated the 5 year agreement?

    The law clearly states that after this period, a city can annex outside their UGB by referendum, which is what they are in the process of doing. Just because the county chooses to fight a loosing legal battle, doesn’t mean that any law is being broken.

    The reason that the deceased Mayor’s name is on the map is because he was Mayor when the Committee last met. Obviously, any future changes would reflect the signatures of any new elected officials.

    Where is the corruption that you mentioned?

  3. on 28 Nov 2006 at 9:27 pm Punk HP

    The corruption is in Mushroom Cloud’s head. SHHH…..they might be listening!!

  4. on 29 Nov 2006 at 11:23 am mushroomcloud

    David Bolling,

    Sorry, but the lawsuit was started well before the 5 year period had expired—-So why don’t we have a forgiveness law and let all murders out of jail.

    There is a reason why the Oliver Springs Mayor’s name is still on the Map because it actually shows what these leaders where signing onto as an annixiation agreement.

    This is why people have so little faith in their elected politicians. Its always alright to break the law; as long as, it benefits you or rich friend.

    It’s ashamed that as soon as a politician gets elected; he somehow forgets who he actually represents and many they sign onto things that they are not familiar but they plow the furrow straight through a thistle patch.

  5. on 29 Nov 2006 at 4:18 pm Netmom

    MC, the lawsuit began before the expiration of the five year ban, which halted the referendum and annexation. Clinton tried to negotiate with the County to amend the growth plan (as is allowed under the law), but the County refused.

    Now, they want the same sweet deal they were offered two years ago, but it’s too late. The five-year ban has expired, the referendum was held and 100% of the affected citizens voted to be annexed. End of story.

    The annexation will broaden the tax base — more revenue without a tax increase. You should love it. Why the sour attitude?

  6. on 29 Nov 2006 at 7:15 pm David Bolling

    MC,

    I challenge you to show me, with facts, where Clinton broke the law.

    They wanted to annex outside of the UGB, and every entity but the County agreed, yet Anderson County halted them for five years. That time period is up, and the county has no legal leg to stand on what so ever. Netmom is exactly right that Anderson County needs to stop this pointless taxpayer funded lawsuit, and get out of the way.

  7. on 29 Nov 2006 at 9:40 pm Jacket

    NM,

    “Why the sour attitude.” Come on NM, it is MC. There doesn’t have to be a reason. He is probably afraid someone may profit from the annexation and this will cause HIS taxes to increase. ROFLMAO.

    Good luck with the annexation.

  8. on 30 Nov 2006 at 12:01 pm mushroomcloud

    When I sign a legal document stating that I will abide by signed document then you should not have to play smoke and mirrors. I certainly hope you do as good job as past commissioners but people lose sight of right and wrong. It was apparent that even Dave Bolling did not know everything that transpired in the revote for the Bethel Community. And I am still shocked for I was told 2 weeks before the election that no one would vote against annexiation. And thought that there would be at least maybe 3 votes.

Trackback this Post | Feed on comments to this Post

Leave a Reply