Published: July 14, 2008 11:11 pm            

Cuts may doom anti-annexation efforts

Petition math may not work for westsiders

A key leader in the remonstance against Kokomo’s annexation plans said changes by the city council may have left “no path” for a petition to succeed.

David Schulte, a spokesman for Citizens Against the Annexation Plan, Inc., indicated removing a large area from the proposed West Side Annexation has changed the remonstrance scenario.

During a meeting at Chapel Hill Christian Church Monday, about 150 remonstrators gathered to hear the latest on the fight against Kokomo Mayor Greg Goodnight’s plan.

The news on their planned remonstrance petition wasn’t what those present wanted to hear.

According to Schulte, the Kokomo Common Council is planning to remove 1,108 parcels of land from Goodnight’s original proposal.

Almost all of those properties are west of Malfalfa Road (300 West), and none of the properties are on city sewers.

Perhaps most importantly, none of the properties are covered under a remonstrance waiver, Schulte told the audience.

Members of a council committee announced their proposed amendment to Goodnight’s proposal last week, saying the city’s original plan went too far west, among other reasons given.

But by taking out areas where the most vocal opposition to the remonstrance has formed, the council could significantly lower the number of people able to sign a petition against the plan.

Schulte said his group has created a database to aid in the remonstrance process. By crunching the numbers for the original West Side plan, it was determined the remonstrators might need signatures from 83 percent of the property owners who are eligible to sign.

That number assumes no signatures could be obtained from all of the homes in foreclosure, or from the homes covered by a remonstrance waiver, Schulte said.

With all of the foreclosures and waivers factored out, 83 percent of the remaining property owners would have to sign, in order for the remonstrance petition to meet the threshhold established by state law, he explained.

That law allows a petition process to stop a proposed annexation if 65 percent of the eligible property owners in a targeted annexation area sign the petition.

But if council removes the areas west of Malfalfa, the equation changes, he said, and the matter would probably have to be settled through a lengthy court battle.

“The council wants to lop off 1,108 parcels, and none have waivers,” Schulte said. “If [council does] that, there is no path to 65 percent, based on our information.”

Vows to fight on

“If [council] goes through with this, there is no path [through a petition],” Schulte continued. “That means [the fight] has to be through legal means.”

Citizens Against the Plan president Ralph Reddersdorf is one of the property owners who would be spared annexation if the council adopts the committee’s recommendation and amends the West Side plan.

Reddersdorf is also in charge of all the money raised to pay Indianapolis attorney John Price in the legal battle against the city.

Despite the fact Reddersdorf might not be annexed, he asked everyone whose property is included in the city’s original West Side plan to continue to fund the anti-annexation fight.

“We want you to know the West Side remains committed and united,” Reddersdorf said Monday. “Don’t believe any rumors we’re throwing anyone under the bus.”

State Sen. Jim Buck, R-Kokomo, was also at the meeting, urging those who may be excluded from annexation to consider the future. Property owners may be left out of this year’s annexation, he said, but they’ll be more vulnerable to future annexations the closer they are to the new city limits.

Buck’s neighborhood, Brookshire, is one of the areas likely to be taken out of the annexation plans Wednesday.

“The West Side Annexation was so large, and then they reduce the numbers so drastically,” he said. “It’s gratifying to me, but I have to ask why.”

Schulte called the decision by the city council committee to remove the far west side areas “unacceptable.”

“If the council members planned it that way [to foil the attempt to get 65 percent], then that was dirty pool,” he said. “If it was something they did unknowing, that’s inexcusable.”

Council president Mike Kennedy, D-At Large, said the committee never considered the numbers involved for the planned petition drive.

“We tried to look at the properties furthest from the existing [city limits], where it would be expensive to bring the infrastructure out that far,” Kennedy said after Monday’s city council meeting.

Told of Schulte’s comments at the Chapel Hill meeting the same evening, Kennedy said the property owners can always ask council to stay in the proposed annexation.

“They can come Wednesday and tell us they want to be a part of it,” Kennedy said. “I’ll listen to what they have to say.”

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.