Legal Actions
(Updated 1/19/02)
Legal action has now been taken in the matter of the previously mentioned annexations. Case #02CV40 has been filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County, Ohio ?– Civil Division. Excerpts of this 13 page filing read as follows:
Verified Complaint and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
This is an action for temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.... Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant City of Pickerington from performing or enforcing the unlawful inducements, which are clearly delineated below, under ten pre-annexations agreements it has executed with various developers and other individuals.
Count I
UNLAWFUL ABDICATION OF LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION THROUGH CONTRACT ZONING AND OTHERWISE
In the pre-annexation agreements challenged herein .... Defendant City has unlawfully bargained away its legislative discretion by contractually obligating itself to provide the developers and individuals listed with particular zonings, variances and other land uses deemed beneficial by those developers, in order to induce them to annex their properties to Defendant City.
These agreements were negotiated and executed before the completion of the annexation process and before the commencement of any public zoning proceedings before Defendant City.
COUNT II
DISCRIMINATORY APPLICATION OF UTILITY FEES
Defendant City is a municipality engaged in owning and/or operating a public utility and, consequently, is required to impose equally its charges, rates and fees on all those it serves and may not discriminate ....
COUNT III
UNCONSTITUTIONAL GIFTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS
In violation of Section 6, Article VIII of the Ohio Constitution, Defendant City has agreed in certain of its annexation agreements to provide the developers and individuals with gifts of public funds.
COUNT IV
Some or all of the provisions (of the pre-annexation agreements) ?– added for clarity - are unlawful and disserve the public interest by bargaining away Defendant City?’s discretion to govern through its zoning ordinances and otherwise in accordance with its constitutional duty to promote the public health, safety and general welfare.
Some or all of the provisions (of the pre-annexation agreements) ?– added for clarity - are unlawful and disserve the public interest by making any public hearings or citizen participation on these matters of public concern nothing more that a sham, as Defendant City?’s legislative discretion has been curtailed in advance by contracts with developers.
Some or all of the provisions (of the pre-annexation agreements) ?– added for clarity - are unlawful and disserve the public interest by using taxpayers dollars to subsidize developer?’s private enterprises.
By Webmaster
(Updated 1/19/02)
Legal action has now been taken in the matter of the previously mentioned annexations. Case #02CV40 has been filed in the Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County, Ohio ?– Civil Division. Excerpts of this 13 page filing read as follows:
Verified Complaint and Application for Temporary Restraining Order and for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
This is an action for temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief.... Plaintiffs request that the Court issue an order preliminarily and permanently enjoining Defendant City of Pickerington from performing or enforcing the unlawful inducements, which are clearly delineated below, under ten pre-annexations agreements it has executed with various developers and other individuals.
Count I
UNLAWFUL ABDICATION OF LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION THROUGH CONTRACT ZONING AND OTHERWISE
In the pre-annexation agreements challenged herein .... Defendant City has unlawfully bargained away its legislative discretion by contractually obligating itself to provide the developers and individuals listed with particular zonings, variances and other land uses deemed beneficial by those developers, in order to induce them to annex their properties to Defendant City.
These agreements were negotiated and executed before the completion of the annexation process and before the commencement of any public zoning proceedings before Defendant City.
COUNT II
DISCRIMINATORY APPLICATION OF UTILITY FEES
Defendant City is a municipality engaged in owning and/or operating a public utility and, consequently, is required to impose equally its charges, rates and fees on all those it serves and may not discriminate ....
COUNT III
UNCONSTITUTIONAL GIFTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS
In violation of Section 6, Article VIII of the Ohio Constitution, Defendant City has agreed in certain of its annexation agreements to provide the developers and individuals with gifts of public funds.
COUNT IV
Some or all of the provisions (of the pre-annexation agreements) ?– added for clarity - are unlawful and disserve the public interest by bargaining away Defendant City?’s discretion to govern through its zoning ordinances and otherwise in accordance with its constitutional duty to promote the public health, safety and general welfare.
Some or all of the provisions (of the pre-annexation agreements) ?– added for clarity - are unlawful and disserve the public interest by making any public hearings or citizen participation on these matters of public concern nothing more that a sham, as Defendant City?’s legislative discretion has been curtailed in advance by contracts with developers.
Some or all of the provisions (of the pre-annexation agreements) ?– added for clarity - are unlawful and disserve the public interest by using taxpayers dollars to subsidize developer?’s private enterprises.
By Webmaster
