Options exist in city annex proposal
read more recent story comments Reader comments| GregBader Friday, July 6, 2012: 9:04 am More from GregBader  | None of them did their job. They should have come to the people FIRST and said, "we need ideas and we think annexation will help, what are your thoughts". But no, the hired outside consultants to ram this down our throats and are now rushing to pass it before the anti-annexation momentum grows too large. Mr. Mayor, you did not respond to some previous questions: WHat part of the Indiana code controls how fast you have to vote on an issue? WHat part of the code controls how many meeting you have before you vote on an issue? Your lack of response tells me that despite what you say, there is NOTHING in the code that you cite there is. You are just saying these things to rush the vote. Please educate me. |
| The Mayor Friday, July 6, 2012: 9:14 am More from The Mayor | To Mark McDaniel: Whoa Mark! Your comments make interesting fuel for the ones who are so unhappy. Regarding the outcome of such a mailing and vote...I CAN NOT MAKE A PLEDGE TO ENFORCE "EITHER" OUTCOME...BECAUSE I DON'T VOTE AND I CAN NOT MAKE SUCH AN OBLIGATORY DECISION. You know that to be a fact. Now, if you're asking if the Council would abide by such a vote...I will pass your question along to them. And, I agree with NOBODYIMPORTANT....on any matter to be decided upon, often it is very difficult to put away your personal feelings/opinions and do what you feel is best for the entire situation. And, NO, I'm not just refering to the proposed annexation. And, yes, annexation would effect all residents of Martinsville in different ways...whether we agree or disagree on that matter. And, No, I have not totally made up my mind....I'm still seeking answers to certain questions that I feel are important to the entire populace. But, I'm sure I'll receive some more good solid advice (telling me how wrong I am) after posting this. |
| GregBader Friday, July 6, 2012: 9:22 am More from GregBader | A question for the Honorable Mayor You say: 1)I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THE RESIDENTS COULD VOTE ON. I WAS WRONG! However, I did not discover that the Indiana Statutes will not allow a "Referendum" or vote by the residents on Annexation, until we were well into considering it. (your $200/hr lawyers did not tell you???) Mr. Mayor, with all due respect, this is simply rubbish and BS mixed together. There is NO STATUTE that disallows a referendum. IF there is, please cite it. Why do you continually cover up? 2) Now, I was asked by one of the remonstrators..."why would I not want to conduct a non-binding referendum?" The simple reason is Statutes do not provide for such. Mr. Mayor, FYI, if there is no statue regarding referendums then it MEANS that you CAN have one. DUH! You can do what you want. You are the Mayor. You can spend $100K of someone else money on consultants and there is no statute covering that. Explain your logic to me on that one. I'll make it hillbilly simple. For example, if there is no law that says "citizens cannot fry an egg on the roof of their car when it is hot outside" that means a citizen can fry all the eggs they want to on their car. IF there is no law that says that referendums are illegal, and cannot be done, then they CAN BE DONE! Tell me the Statutes! What say you? |
| Danny Stewart Friday, July 6, 2012: 11:32 am More from Danny Stewart | By the way observing, elighten me on your hypocricy. Just make sure you look in the mirror first little man. |
| tlh Friday, July 6, 2012: 3:15 pm More from tlh | To Mark McDaniel, Thank you for the compliment of thinking that I am writing under the handle of, “To The Point” for I agree almost unequivocally with their posts. As you can see my handle is TLH and you can read my past posts to see I have been singing the same song for a long time, “Get involved!”. As for your question “Are you off your meds?” I laughed as I am sure you thought you were funny. I don’t need chemicals to enjoy life PTL! I am confident that at this point trying to explain what I get out of these “meetings where you can’t even speak!” would be a waste of time because at this point you can’t ‘hear’ for all your own bellowing. Those wanting to talk and ask questions were given 4, no, 5 meetings to do so. The law only required 1 (ONE)! It was the administrations choice to give more and I have asked them repeatedly why they are taking more of this kind of abuse. At regular council meetings our current Mayor asks if there are comments or questions about things on the meeting agenda and that has not been the case of past administrators. I for one enjoy the fact that this group truly has our best interests in mind when making decisions. Because of the sunshine law our councilmen can only communicate with each other as a group in front of the public so if you count the meeting on July 2 that makes 6 times you have had the opportunity to gather more information. I am a cheerleader of sorts, for this City because I love this community and am very proud of the current administration’s efforts to improve our infrastructure. This administration’s attitude can increase the possibility of future generations having a functioning working environment to call home. I think that will be a wonderful thing for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. I would think you and your family would want the same too. To quote you Mark, “Unfortunately you are one of the only three stooges the City can find to defend their actions so we will probably hear more of your “dribble”. Not to mention that you don’t even live in the annexed area.” The City didn’t “find” me nor does it employ me. I defend our Mayor and our Councilmen because they have been verbally attacked personally by emotionally overwrought and uninformed people like yourself who insist that these folks will gain financially in their own pocket. That just is NOT possible and you are smart enough to know that. As for my ‘dribble’ let me wind up by saying, you are right I don’t even live in the annexed area, I live in City limits and have been paying for those outside of it to benefit from water and sewer for some time. I feel that it is the right thing to do, GROW! I also think all who gain should share the cost. That’s what families and communities do; share. I look forward to sharing with this community at Artiefest Aug 13th weekend and hope to See Ya There on the Square! Tina Chafey |
| nobodyimportant Friday, July 6, 2012: 5:37 pm More from nobodyimportant | Greg, I don't think there is any doubt that a referendum vote COULD be taken in this case. The question is whether or not it would be a binding referendum. That is, if it is not binding, it may not change anything. Down the road, if this goes farther, those opposed might want to consider appealing the decision. I refer you to: IC 36-4-3-11 Remonstrances; filing; determination of signatures; hearing Sec. 11. (a) Except as provided in section 5.1(i) of this chapter and subsections (d) and (e), whenever territory is annexed by a municipality under this chapter, the annexation may be appealed by filing with the circuit or superior court of a county in which the annexed territory is located a written remonstrance signed by: (1) at least sixty-five percent (65%) of the owners of land in the annexed territory; or (2) the owners of more than seventy-five percent (75%) in assessed valuation of the land in the annexed territory. The remonstrance must be filed within ninety (90) days after the publication of the annexation ordinance under section 7 of this chapter, must be accompanied by a copy of that ordinance, and must state the reason why the annexation should not take place. (b) On receipt of the remonstrance, the court shall determine whether the remonstrance has the necessary signatures. In determining the total number of landowners of the annexed territory and whether signers of the remonstrance are landowners, the names appearing on the tax duplicate for that territory constitute prima facie evidence of ownership. Only one (1) person having an interest in each single property, as evidenced by the tax duplicate, is considered a landowner for purposes of this section. (c) If the court determines that the remonstrance is sufficient, it shall fix a time, within sixty (60) days of its determination, for a hearing on the remonstrance. Notice of the proceedings, in the form of a summons, shall be served on the annexing municipality. The municipality is the defendant in the cause and shall appear and answer. (d) If an annexation is initiated by property owners under section 5.1 of this chapter and all property owners within the area to be annexed petition the municipality to be annexed, a remonstrance to the annexation may not be filed under this section. (e) This subsection applies if: (1) the territory to be annexed consists of not more than one hundred (100) parcels; and (2) eighty percent (80%) of the boundary of the territory proposed to be annexed is contiguous to the municipality. An annexation may be appealed by filing with the circuit or superior court of a county in which the annexed territory is located a written remonstrance signed by at least seventy-five percent (75%) of the owners of land in the annexed territory as determined under subsection (b). |
| MarkMcDaniel Friday, July 6, 2012: 5:40 pm More from MarkMcDaniel | Tina, I'll take your word and apologize to you for accusing you of the post in question. It won't happen again. |
| GregBader Saturday, July 7, 2012: 8:53 am More from GregBader | I noticed that the mayor is unable to answer my questions about the Indiana Code that he cites as guiding the actions of he and the council. Mr. Mayor, please respond. |
| nobodyimportant Saturday, July 7, 2012: 10:22 am More from nobodyimportant | Greg, I won't speak for the Mayor. You might want to educate yourself on the issue with the article below. It was done in 1998, but I don't think the laws pertaining to annexation have changed. http://www.iacir.spea.iupui.edu/publications/fullreport.pdf |
| 45 comments found | |
| Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
Add a comment
Posting comments on this web site requires you to be logged in. • Create your account• Log in to your account
» more
TABLE OF CONTENTS »
NEWS
Today
Obituaries
Local
Police
Court news
Weather
Business
Property transfers
Area salaries & stats
Education
State
Nation/World
Photo galleries
Videos
SPORTS
Sports
MD-T sports
IU sports blog
Martinsville
Mooresville
Decatur Central
Eminence
Indian Creek
Monrovia
Tabernacle Christian
Fantasy racing league
BLOGS
All blogs
Quit Smoking...Do It
Sci-Fi Sojourns
The Hoosier Scoop
Hoosier Wine Cellar
Gaming Guru
Mellenblog
