Mike ‘da career killa’ Donila posted this on Screams From The Porch today. It seems that Knox County Mayor Tim Burchett is opposed to annexations.
How about the February 24, 2005 Halls Shopper story below: (Bold print is emphasis by BrianHornback.Com)
CHR Looks at Annexation Bills
Annexation will be a hot topic in the Tennessee General Assembly with at least 10 bills pending to make it easier or harder for cities to annex property against the owner’s will.
Citizens for Home Rule (CHR) is strongly advocating passage of Senate Bill 25 to restore the property owner’s right to trial by jury in annexation lawsuits. S.B. 25 is sponsored by Bill Ketron (R-Murfreesboro). Its House companion is H.B. 804, sponsored by five Knox County Republicans: Frank Niceley, Stacey Campfield, Bill Dunn, Harry Brooks and Parkey Strader.
CHR is opposed to five bills, all introduced by Sen. Tim Burchett at the behest of the city of Knoxville:
SB 764 (HB 2042 by Joe Armstrong) sets conditions under which a city may annex land outside its urban growth boundary.
SB 765 (HB 1913 by Harry Tindell) doubles the burden of proof on property owners trying to defeat annexation.
SB 1236 (HB 1236 by Tindell) identical to SB 765. CHR attorney David Buuck said one bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee while the other was referred to the State and Local Government Committee. The double introduction gives sponsors two chances to move the bills onto the floor.
SB 1323 (HB 1912 by Tindell) toughens the burden of proof for property owners fighting annexation (owner must prove the annexation is “unreasonable.”) SB 1558 (HB 1914 by Tindell) makes it easier to annex “bound parcels,” property bordered on all sides by the corporate limits of the city. Buuck called this the “Disc Exchange” bill, seeking to overturn a ruling against the city by Chancellor Daryl Fansler – the only annexation case that has gone to trial in several years.
Citizens for Home Rule board members were briefed Feb. 22 by Buuck, who had just returned from Nashville. The deadline to introduce bills has passed.
CHR identified four bills which they support, although did not originate:
SB 288 by Raymond Finney (HB 237 by Campfield) requires notification to property owners before their land can be annexed.
SB 1587 by Mark Norris (HB 408 by Charles Sargent) prevents one city from annexing into another city’s urban growth area.
SB 1583 by Norris (HB 403 by Sargent) requires mayor to mayor notification before annexation; the bill also requires the city to provide a real schedule for implementation of a plan of services to annexed areas.
SB 1968 by Norris (HB 2058 by U. Jones) requires notification to all emergency service providers prior to annexation.
CHR is a citizens group which advocates for property rights and against unwanted annexation.
Copyright 2005 Shopper Publications Inc.
Of course that story was published a few days after this CHR Press Release of February 17, 2005 below. Where Burchett pledged that his bills were DOA and that he was bottling them up (a legislative tactic, I suppose)
Citizens for Home Rule, Inc. (CHR), the Knox County-based anti-annexation group, announced today that it has received assurances from the sponsor of 5 annexation bills that it opposes that the bills are “going nowhere” in the current Legislature. John A. Emison, the organization’s President, said he has received assurances from Sen. Tim Burchett, the bills’ sponsor that they will not be considered by the state Senate.
“Sen. Tim Burchett called me to pledge that the 5 bills CHR opposes are dead on arrival. As the sponsor of the bills Sen. Burchett explained that he is in a unique position to bottle them up in the Senate. He gave me his word,” Emison said. “And believe me, we appreciate that effort. It’s good news for every homeowner, every business, every property owner in the state.”
Background: the 5 bills include SB764, SB765, SB1236, SB1323, and SB1558. Among other things, the bills would double the burden of proof that a homeowner or property owner would have to prove in suits blocking forced annexation, and would allow cities to annex outside their Urban Grown Boundary.
So, was Burchett for annexations before he is now against annexations? Kinda like the internet tax? Kinda like the James White Parkway extension?
Drew Hornback’s AdvoCare Site
As a representative and senator, Burchett often introduced bills for his constituents, because he felt he had an obligation to do so in representing them. He did this even when he felt the bills’ chances of passing were slim. I believe this is also why he introduced such a large number of bills.