Results 1 to 10 of 50
-
07-15-2020, 11:57 PM #1UnregisteredGuest
De-annexation of West Villages from North Port coming?
It looks like they mean business:
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/2...rom-north-port
They were initially angry (several years ago) that they were annexed by North Port and not by Venice, which drove their property values down. Now it looks like they want to be unincorporated with Sarasota County providing all municipal services to the West Villages.
-
07-17-2020, 11:33 PM #2UnregisteredGuest
-
07-18-2020, 03:45 AM #3UnregisteredGuest
Looks like when this happens NP jurisdiction about to get smaller then it already is. Unneeded traffic unit and the tank will have to be cut from the budget due to budget draw backs
-
07-18-2020, 02:48 PM #4UnregisteredGuest
The infrastructure in the West Villages was preexisting -- and was build and paid-for by the developer -- and those costs are reflected in the mortgages of each home. The City of North Port did not pay for any of the infrastructure in West Villages. Subsequently, where did this alleged 200 million in debt come from? Pray tell?
-
07-19-2020, 05:39 PM #5UnregisteredGuest
-
07-19-2020, 09:59 PM #6UnregisteredGuest
Deannexation looks very complicated -- and it looks like it favors the city, more than those who want to be deannexed. Not 100% sure though.
Deannexation effort:
https://wv4rg.org/
Florida State Statutes on deannexation (FSS 171.051???):
https://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statut...Chapter171/All
NP candidates on deannexation:
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/2...n-deannexation
Florida League of Cities notes on deannexation (p61):
https://www.flcities.com/docs/defaul...rsn=5812dbd5_0
-
07-22-2020, 01:33 AM #7
- Join Date
- Mar 2014
- Posts
- 1,283
I think the City Attorney has been tasked with providing a high level outline of what the deannexation process might look like. I am looking to understand it better.
Hopefully she will do it in fat crayon format.
-
07-22-2020, 01:28 PM #8UnregisteredGuest
Non-contiguous waterway rule
De-annexation argument: https://wv4rg.org/faq-2/
North Port Case: The fellow who says that the annexation was illegal is unaware of the waterway exception. The land must be contiguous, unless it is separated by a waterway. A city may jump over a waterway to annex non-contiguous land. In the West Villages case, the city jumped over the Myakka River to annex the non-contiguous land. Thus, the annexation is legal.
Venice Precedent: Many years ago, the City of Venice annexed undeveloped lands east of I75. County Commissioners said the annexation was illegal because the annexed land is not contiguous to the City of Venice, so the county sued the city. The court ruled that the annexation was legal because the city jumped over a waterway to annex the non-contiguous land. The court upheld the annexation.
Conclusion: West Villages will not be legally successful, if they are relying exclusively on a non-contiguous argument, due to the waterway rule.
-
08-29-2020, 12:41 AM #9UnregisteredGuest
-
08-29-2020, 05:00 PM #10UnregisteredGuest
Bookmarks