Showing posts with label Governance annexation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Governance annexation. Show all posts

Monday, August 1, 2011

Want2Dish Donnamarie Needle: MT. AIRY RESIDENTS GET STUCK WITH THE BILL


MT. AIRY RESIDENTS GET STUCK WITH THE BILL


The I-70 annexation was once again the topic of discussion at the Mount Airy Town Council meeting on July 11. The mayor recently negotiated a plan for the $22,000 bill owed to the town by the I-70 petitioners to be split between the town and the petitioners.

Councilwoman Wendi Peters and Councilman David Blais were the two votes against the agreement to split the bill between the two parties. After a lengthy review of documents obtained through the recent Public Information Act request (and primarily between one council member and one of the representatives of the south I-70 annexation dating back to August of 2009) council members uncovered that the I-70 petitioners understood it would cost approximately $25,000 to execute the annexation.

These petitioners admittance that they had full knowledge and were in complete understanding of what the annexation costs would be, therefore both council members believe the petitioners should be responsible for the full bill.

http://frederick.want2dish.com/articles/1245/business/county_city/2011/07/18/mt_airy_residents_get_stuck_with_the_bill


*****
Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: http://www.kevindayhoff.net/ Kevin Dayhoff Art: http://www.kevindayhoffart.com/
My http://www.explorecarroll.com/ columns appear in the copy of the Baltimore Sunday Sun that is distributed in Carroll County: https://subscribe.baltsun.com/Circulation/

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Angie Cochrun Gazette: Mount Airy settles $11,000 bill with residents for failed annexation attempt


http://www.gazette.net/article/20110714/NEWS/707129951/1099/1099/mount-airy-settles-11000-bill-with-residents-for-failed-annexation&template=gazette


Mount Airy settles $11,000 bill with residents for failed annexation attempt

Town and petitioners will split $22,000

http://www.gazette.net/article/20110714/NEWS/707129951/1099/1099/mount-airy-settles-11000-bill-with-residents-for-failed-annexation&template=gazette
After months of discussion and debate, Mount Airy will soon be paid roughly $11,000 for a roughly $22,000 bill issued in December 2010 to a group of petitioners living in a 600 acre area south of Interstate 70 and east of Md. Route 70 who had a failed annexation bid into the town.
The payment is the result of negotiations between the town and petitioners which wrapped up the first week of July.
“There were some legal issues we wanted to make sure were ironed out to protect us,” said Mayor Pat Rockinberg at the Town Council meeting Monday night.
The agreement states the bill is split 50/50 and will be paid in 120 days.
The petitioners asked the town to annex their property in September 2009, in part, to prevent Carroll County from rezoning the land for commercial development. After the annexation was not successful, a $22,444 charge to the 197 residents living in the 600 acres south of Interstate 70 and east of Md. Route 27 has been the center of discussion and controversy since it was billed by the town for costs related to the request...  http://www.gazette.net/article/20110714/NEWS/707129951/1099/1099/mount-airy-settles-11000-bill-with-residents-for-failed-annexation&template=gazette

*****
Kevin Dayhoff Soundtrack: http://www.kevindayhoff.net/ Kevin Dayhoff Art: http://www.kevindayhoffart.com/
My http://www.explorecarroll.com/ columns appear in the copy of the Baltimore Sunday Sun that is distributed in Carroll County: https://subscribe.baltsun.com/Circulation/

Thursday, October 6, 2005

Urban sprawl is no good for all, but don't ignore the legal realities


Urban sprawl is no good for all, but don't ignore the legal realities

10/05/05 By Kevin E. Dayhoff

Recent articles and letters in local publications regarding water allocation, land use and municipal annexation are well intentioned - but clearly indicate a basic lack of understanding of the laws and past court decisions that govern these activities.

That's understandable, because since the early 1950s these areas of law in Maryland have be-come complex by bizarre, byzantine proportions.

In reality, many public officials don't understand the labyrinth of land use law, or they would be more careful about posturing in front of a public that is understandably clamoring for relief. Many pronouncements and promises are great for applause and votes, but woefully short on being legally possible.

In the end, often there is little a public official can do, retroactively, about water or property rights assigned to a property by a legal process put in place decades ago - unless they opt to spend valuable taxpayer dollars (losing) in court.

The next time anyone considers criticizing the City of Westminster about water allocation, bear in mind that you are preaching to the choir. Westminster painfully understands that it must find more water.

Also, understand that you are criticizing the wrong branch of government. For the most part, allocating Westminster's water was taken out of the hands of local officials, by the courts, almost 40 years ago.

In 1964, the city purchased the water system from a private company, which had historically provided water outside the city limits.

In 1966, the Maryland Court of Appeal (Bair v. Mayor and Council of Westminster, 221 P.2d 642 1966) declared the water system a "public utility" as opposed to a "municipal water supply" and made a ruling that forces the city to provide water to any property near any existing water line or "reasonably within its range of performance" - whether or not that property is annexed or in the city limits.

The 1966 Westminster water case is unique and is still used as national precedent. (In fact, it was used as recently as 1995 in a case before the Florida Supreme Court.) Attempting to overturn it may very well not be a wise use of taxpayer dollars.

As far as future land use, growth and development in Carroll County, planning needs to take place long before the housing development is in the public hearing stage or the subject of a costly moratorium.

A discussion needs to take place long before the business of a farm has been rendered unprofitable.

The debate needs to occur before a property owner has been awarded certain legal development rights - which can take the form of a legally enforceable contract, or in any event usually involves at least an implied contract between government and a property owner.

Sadly, the reactionary conversation - often involving unpleasant public hearings, uninformed conspiracy theories, political spinelessness and personal attacks - distorts and polarizes the collective discourse to such an extent that it renders many citizens skeptical about any discussion over growth and development.

The reality is this: You cannot take away a person's property rights or void a legal contract by plebiscite, politics or screaming mob.

That's just one of the reasons it is important that folks attend the community Grassroots Gatherings (http://www.carrollpathways.org/) that are scheduled for residents to get involved in the Carroll County Comprehensive Plan. Go, and ask questions. Many of Carroll County's public servants are the brightest land-use experts in the state.

We may not be able to do much about past land use contracts and court decisions, but the future is up to us. For the sake of that future, a majority of Carroll County residents long for a sober, clearly-worded, intelligent and nonpolitical explanation of farm profitability and the legal issues involving development and growth.

If we don't have that discussion now, our environmental future and the future of our green Carroll County way of life will be history.

Kevin Dayhoff may reached at kevindayhoff AT gmail.com or visit him at www.westminstermarylandonline.net


Kevin Dayhoff: www.westgov.net Westminster Maryland Online www.westminstermarylandonline.net http://kevindayhoffwestgov-net.blogspot.com/