HomeMy WebLinkAboutSOUTH TAFT HILL 7TH ANNEXATION & ZONING - 38-02 - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (5)March 3, 2003
A -C �F
Q D
FNT Pt,6
Regarding proposed Ordinance No. 031, 2003, Amending the Zoning District Map of the NA///VG
City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in South
Taft Hill Seventh Annexation:
We, the undersigned, James K. and Jeannine A. Kline, residing at 2226 Moffett Drive, in the
Teffl Acres Subdivision, do hereby go on record that we do NOT at this point in time support the
annexation of this property by the City of Fort Collins. Our reasons follow:
• There has not been recent written notice given of either of the first or second readings of this
ordinance to residents of the proposed annexation. Whatever usual notice may have been
posted to the general public has not been sufficient to notify those directly affected.
• This annexation is not in any way mandated or required by law. Given this fact, we believe
there must be documented need and/or advantage to the majority of all parties concerned
before this annexation is allowed to take place. Once this need/and or advantage is real to
both the City and the affected residents, there will be a minority of dissent to the proposal;
currently, the majority of residents affected by the annexation have expressed their
unequivocal objection to the annexation.
• Previous hearings have determined that there actually is negative economic impact to both
the City and the residents of the affected area. Once their properties are annexed, residents
will be required to pay city taxes for major purchases, higher property taxes, and storm and
drainage fees, which could be substantial given the acreage involved with many of the
properties. The majority of residents do not feel at this time that the benefits of annexation
are worth the extra taxes we will be paying.
• There is a "Catch 22" in this political process: As county residents, we are not represented by
the City Council, nor have any political clout, since county residents cannot vote for city
representatives. Yet, the decision to annex our properties is being made by city
representatives who are not beholding to our interests or views. Given the higher taxes we
will be paying, this constitutes "taxation without representation."
• We feel that the City has not given sufficient reason for the annexation, beyond the fact that
the State allows the City to annex enclaved properties under these circumstances. This moves
us to question, What ARE the City's real motives? What DO they know that we don't? What
is up the City's sleeve that next will be forced down our throats? If no such ulterior motives
exist, then why the drive to approve the annexation in light of such opposition?
We therefore request that this proposal either be denied until such a time as the annexation is
amenable to the majority of those involved OR that the ordinance be tabled pending further
investigation of both the City's and the residents' interests. Furthermore, should further
investigations, hearings, or meetings be planned, we request that all residents affected by the
annexation be notified in writing in a timely manner of the schedules of ALL such actions.
� A./i'L/j U�17.Q. J Ct • /`�K.(.t'l2 �