I will simply copy over my reply from the news article on this issue.

The impression has gotten out to some this was a new annexation. Totally false.

------------------------

I was dealing with the statement opposed to annexation complete. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Now, on Scarbrough. The property was annexed in 2007, before I was on Council. So, the property has already been annexed for two years.

Further, this is not the first adjustment to the annexation. There was one last last year. Yes, adjustment, not initial annexation.

This was a second adjustment. It removes a ten foot strip of property from the annexation and returns it to the county.

The 2007 annexation is in court and ultimately I believe it will stand. Every decision so far has been in its favor.

Further, even we we denied this step one the 2007 annexation would still be in force and the ten feet would be kept in the property. This reduced the size of the annexation.

Even if somehow the court, in the last steps, overturned the 2007 annexation we would not be at Step 2 in the current annexation and that is where we could say no to bringing it in.

Would we be sued if we said no? Yes. Would we lose, let me just say they have been doing road work on McDuff, thus have established a 5th amendment defense to keep the annexation.

Bottom line here is if you don't like this annexation talk to those who voted for it in 2007. We have 3 sitting on Council.

Personally, I was against it in 2007, but now on Council I have to deal with the legal realities.

I hope that clears this up.

So, Skeptic, I was paying attention then and before as regards all the issues and legalities behind this issue.

Don Haddix
PTC Councilman
Post 1
donhaddix.com