De-annexation of West Villages from North Port coming?
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 50
 
  1. #1
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Exclamation 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.

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    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.
    cannot annex without NP permission and would have to pay off over 200 million debt to NP. They will try and stack the commission and get the ok and release from debt. They want to be the new Lakewood Ranch !!!!!

  3. #3
    Unregistered
    Guest
    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

  4. #4
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    cannot annex without NP permission and would have to pay off over 200 million debt to NP. They will try and stack the commission and get the ok and release from debt. They want to be the new Lakewood Ranch !!!!!
    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?

  5. #5
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    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?
    ask the commissioners, they set the figure !!!!!! PS Tough S#!T your stuck with us like it or not. Of course you can always move to the real Venice and not the imaginary one you think you live in !!!!!! Prey tell !!!!!

  6. #6
    Unregistered
    Guest
    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

  7. #7
    Senior Member LEO Affairs Captain
    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.

  8. #8
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Lightbulb 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.

  9. #9
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    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.
    Alright Mr. Know It All...it the waterway makes it continguous...why in the world would the Court and Appellate Court rule that it wasn't? Conclusion...West Villages-1 North Port-0

  10. #10
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Alright Mr. Know It All...it the waterway makes it continguous...why in the world would the Court and Appellate Court rule that it wasn't? Conclusion...West Villages-1 North Port-0
    It has not gone to the appellate court yet. LOL

    You will lose.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •