'We'll be back again next year'; veto won't stop anti-annexation efforts

Gov. Mark Parkinson vetoed a bill that would have required landowner approval for annexations of more than 65 acres.

That move did not surprise the bill's sponsor.

House Majority Leader Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, who first introduced an annexation bill two years ago, said the governor is "in the pocket" of Overland Park.

"I never thought he would probably sign it," Merrick said. "He's part of the establishment."

Merrick vowed to continue his efforts, saying, "We'll be back again next year. ..."

The bill passed the House 81-31 and the Senate 32-11 on May 16. Parkinson vetoed the legislation Friday. Sen. Tim Owens, R-Overland Park, who voted against the measure, said the bill would stop development and said homestead rights are at the core of the legislation.

"The real issue in this thing is that the big property owners do not want to lose their homestead right to their entire property as opposed to the one-acre limitation if they are in the city - that's the real issue," he said. "A few large land owners are interested in doing that and basically cutting off cities, like Overland Park, where we have only one direction to grow.

"And if we can't grow, we can't expand our tax base. And if we can't expand our tax base, then the citizens of the city are certainly going to be locked in, like some other cities that we have in Johnson County, and what happens then is the property taxes for the individual citizens go up ..."

He said the Johnson County delegation was split on the issue with those from southern Johnson County more inclined to support it, especially Merrick.

"Merrick absolutely does not want to have anything to do with Overland Park annexing any of the area down there," Owens said. "He doesn't live very far from the Overland Park border and he doesn't want to be annexed either. There's no question that it's personal for him.

"From my perspective and representing my (Overland Park) district, it's a terrible, terrible bill."

Merrick said he knows there are many people who would like for him to go away and stop pushing the annexation legislation. But he vowed to continue introducing the bill until it is passed.

"We'll be back again next year...and the year after that," he said. "This old man ain't going to cut and run and this governor is not going to be governor forever.

"At some point, I'm hoping to get this through."

Overland Park Mayor Carl Gerlach said his city asked Parkinson to veto the bill. He said annexation issues should not be settled by a few property owners.

"At the current time county and city officials are elected to represent the public and determine what is best for the entire county. We're afraid (the bill) would give small groups of property owners veto power for something that is good for the entire county."

Sen. John Vratil, a Republican from land-locked Leawood, also opposed the bill.

"I did not talk to the governor about it, but I did write a letter to him advising him to veto (the legislation)," Vratil said. "I think it's a bad public policy for the state of Kansas. We have a long history in this state of encouraging cities to develop land appropriately and engage economic development for the benefit of the whole state.

"This bill would run counter to that long-standing policy because it will make it more difficult for cities to unilaterally annex land. What will happen is you will have islands of un-annexed land of 65 acres or more in a city and the county isn't going to be able to handle that; it's just going to create a real mess."

Vratil said he opposed this bill even though he is a strong supporter of individual rights and individual property rights.

"But there are occasions when the individuals' interests need to be subservient to the good of the public as a whole," he said.

Even though Lenexa is landlocked, its City Council voted to send a letter to Parkinson urging him to veto the bill.

City Administrator Eric Wade said the measure would affect the city and its residents adversely.

"You would see a great push to do more suburban-type development in the unincorporated areas at the expense of Lenexa," Wade said.

Costs involved in supporting development and services for residents in those unincorporated areas, he said, would be borne by taxpayers countywide.

In addition to that kind of subsidization, the unincorporated areas can be developed more cheaply because development standards there are not as stringent, he said.

Olathe officials also registered opposition to the measure, said Tim Dannenberg, city spokesman.

Annexation disputes in Olathe have been few, Dannenberg said, because the city always has worked to gain the approval of residents in annexation target areas before proceeding with such efforts. But the 65-acre restriction potentially limits options that the city did not want to lose, he said.

"One challenge with the bill is that it would have made the process more reliant on lawyers and the court system," Dannenberg said.

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Write comment