Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Council Approves Gray’s Creek Annexation in First Reading at Emergency Meeting
Posted by Jackson Baker on Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 7:50 PM
- JB
- Mayor Wharton lays the case out to attentive Council members
The members of the Memphis City Council’s committee on “personnel, intergovernmental, and annexation” met in the Council’s 5th floor committee room at City Hall Monday afternoon and did what the full Council did roughly a year ago — vote unanimously to oppose an aggressive move from Nashville against its sovereign interests.
In 2011, the issue was whether an action by state government could nullify or impede the efforts by the Memphis City Schools board to surrender the MCS charter, an action which required ratification by the council. On Monday afternoon the catalyst was newly proposed legislation that would abrogate a Memorandum of Understanding between Memphis and other Shelby County governments regarding their respective annexation spheres.
In both cases, Mayor A C Wharton joined the council in stating resolute opposition to the intrusions of state government, actual or potential.
Wharton began by saying that two bills proposed by the tandem of state senator Mark Norris and state representative Curry Todd — one that would require a referendum of any population about to be annexed; another removing the Gray ‘s Creek area from Mem phis’s annexation reserve — constituted “a matter no less serious than the future and the right of the City of Memphis to grow.”
The bills had been introduced “without even the courtesy of conversation with the bull sponsors and without regard to the standing annexation agreement signed by all Shelby County mayors in 1998,” Wharton said.
The mayor said the agreement, which was made in the aftermath of the “Toy Town” controversy of 1998, “was grounded in the recognition by all that the future growth and economic well-being of each community was benefited more from an agreement which allowed and afforded each an orderly, predictable, and acceptable opportunity to grow by annexation.”
Following the mayor’s remarks, Councilman Jim Strickland formally moved that the committee approve on first reading a resolution to annex the Gray’s Creek area. Before a vote was taken, Council c conversation revolved around two themes — (1) whether annexation was a judicious move in itself ; and (2) whet her a vote for the resolution was necessary to safeguard the city’s rights vis-à-vis Nashville.
The bringer of the motion, Strickland, was among those who was concerned about the efficacy of annexation (not only of Gray’s Creek but in general). So was Shea Flinn, who expressed what he saw as the need for “sober analysis” of the issue .
The newest Council member, Lee Harris, put the issue bluntly: “How fast can Nashville move? Can we move faster?”
Council attorney Allan Wade opined that “they could probably go faster,” and Wharton acknowledged that “There’s no way to outrun Nashville. They can undo what we do.”
The meeting, though conducted in a crisis atmosphere, was not without comic relief. During a brief discussion on the matter of whether recently annexed communities had received all the benefits which they been promised, Wharton said there were very few unresolved promises and, referencing one pending matter, told Chairman Collins, as if by an afterthought, “You’re getting Zodiac Park.”
A second bit of humor greeted Council Bill Boyd’s question as to whether the Council could de-annex the area if Nashville backed down. Attorney Wade said it could.
Collins and Commissioner Myron Lowery made strong arguments for action which, as the committee chairman put it, would put “the maker of the bills” (presumably Norris, with whom he had spoken) that “the city would protect its interests. Lowery raised the issue of “racism” as something to be considered regarding the proposed bills.
After all was said and done, the committee members, including those who had raised potential objections, voted to approve the annexation resolution on first reading. A second reading will be held at the Council meeting of February 7, and there was some talk about scheduling a second reading for the next day.
At the mayor’s suggestion, the members present took a second vote that, as Wharton put it, “everybody agrees that the Council objects to both bills.” This, too, was approved unanimously.
Comments (25)
Showing 1-25 of 25
Myron Lowery playing the race card is ridiculous. Maybe he should advise AC Wharton that helping Republicans get elected to statewide office does not help Memphis. The Democratic Party in Memphis is dead because of politicians like Wharton pandering to Republican office holders like Bill Haslam, Lamar Alexander, Jim Rout, and Mark Luttrell.
Wharton will now criticize Curry Todd and Mark Norris when it makes him look popular to the citizens of Memphis. Yet for years, Wharton has been campaigning and helping elect Republicans all over Tennessee.
Wharton made this bed. He must lie in it. Nobody in Nashville cares if Myron Lowery is black. That is just an excuse for politicians not paying attention to the current events in the state.
like
dislike
I guess I'm wondering what's the hurry if the state can undo whatever action they take, as Wharton said here.
Guess will have to wait until tomorrow to find out what Norris and Todd are going to do to counter this. I'm sure they knew it was coming.
There are so many grammatical errors in this its almost unreadable. Do you guys use spell check?
I hope they realize they are annexing upper-middle class Republicans who have no problem raising nine kinds of hell over things like services that aren't rendered and such. They've also got the money to make it a mess in court...oh, and they'll be voting in city elections as well. Annexing money also tends to annex right-leaning people. I guess they figure the balance is worth it. I do find it funny that they are chasing the tax dollars right up to Fayette county. After the last administration telling folks to get the hell out if they didn't like it, the new one is dragging everyone they an get back into the fold. I guess "they" needed "them" after all.
Boondoggle, who cares how much hell they can raise? They will be treated no different than any other citizen of Memphis. If they want to go to court, let them waste their money.
Some posted about the spelling and grammer. Hell, this is a blog, not a seminar. As long as we can figure out what the poster is trying to say, it is okay..
I wonder where those people in grays creek get their utilities and water, etc from?
I guess if this goes through, the sheriff's department will have to lay off people, as they will no longer be needed, probably road crews, sanitation workers, etc.
Tim Bryson, those in glass houses...
Regarding Lowery playing the race card - sorry, he is not playing it, he is just pointing out what has already been put on the table. Norris and Todd are the ones doing everything possible to keep non-whites out of their precious suburbs. It is so obvious it's disgusting - I'm surprised they don't show up in Nashville wearing their sheets and hoods.
Tim Bryson, the contraction of "it is" is "it's." Not "its."
This is just more proof that Shelby County and the entire Memphis region is going down the drain. The disunity here is endemic and overwhelming. Living in the burbs won't help you when Fedex moves its HQ to another city and state.
I'm assuming Mr. Bryson is prepared to identify the swarm of grammatical errors he professdes to find in this piece. I'll pay him a dollar for every one he can plausibly identify. If, however, his number turns up zero, as I suspect it will, he will owe me and this column an apology.
Bull. As in "bull sponsors." There are also a couple of typos, and some punctuation one could argue against if one were a GRAMMAR NAZI. However, a true grammar nazi would know the difference between typos, punctuation, and actual grammar errors. Also between it's and its.
For decades the Democrat controlled legislature, with the support of the Memphis delegation, meddled in the local affairs of Shelby County. In 1998 they passed Public Acts 1998 Sec. 3 paragraph 1101, which made it almost impossible to fight annexation. This was done primarily to benefit Memphis. Where was the outcry from the Memphis mayor about the state's actions? They were non-existant. Now the shoe is on the other foot. The GOP has the power to protect their constituents from the corrupt Memphis governement and Memphis is all up in arms about the sky falling. The state is well within it's rights to control annexation, but because it goes against Memphis, Democrats have found their 'leave the locals alone voice.' Hypocrites!
Not wanting to get annexed by an incompetent, corrupt, inefficient City of Memphis government is racist?
Comanche Joe, my grammer might be off, but my reading isn't.
Annexation has been done for upteen years, a certain way. Why, when the majority population of Shelby County want to follow that path, should it be changed. Seems to me that this is a voting scheme that is contrary to the voting rights act; a blatant attempt to dilute the political power of the minority of the state of Tennessee.
I suggest that you and others google the voting rights act and read it carefully. Hell, it even gives you examples of unacceptable voting schemes. You will find the one that Norris is trying to use in there.
Read it!
Comanche Joe, I forgot to say, it is called the dual voting scheme.
Thanks for the info, Comanche. I'm not from around here, so I didn't know anything about the Public Acts of 1998. This makes me believe that Norris and Todd will actually be able to change things for the people in Gray's Creek, as well as the rest of the county.
OTP, the dual city/county vote for government consolidation was legal and the results have been officially recorded.
What in the heck does Norris and Todd stopping the annexation of Gray's Creek have to do with voting rights, anyway?
The problem with this legislation is that it is a combination of being punitive (because Norris et al generally despise Memphis and the MCS charter surrender) and has more to do with the forming of MSDs or even an SSD, than it has to do with the "will of the people" or "self determination" or any other catch phrase they want to attach to it. My guess is that it is in relation to communities and SSDs being contiguous with each other, therefore the need to keep Memphis from blocking the northeastern 'burbs from the southeastern ones. Just an educated guess.
G W Carver, I see that you still don't do any research. The dual voting scheme is having two separate votes by different entities, in which, each entity must approve separately.
If the voters of suburban shelby county are given a chance to vote separately, with each one having veto power over the majority, that is unconstitutional and violates the one man-one vote doctrine and violates the voting rights act.
Also, the dual vote lawsuit filed as a result of the Memphis-Shelby County consolidation is still alive. It is in the court of Judge S. Thomas Anderson. He would not dismiss the suit because he said that it will come up again.
So, changing the annexation rules to require dual voting, involving all suburban cities and Memphis will dilute the voting power of Memphians, minorities in the state, however the majority in Shelby County, thus depriving that minority from being able to politically control the government.
I know it sounds fishy to you, but, I didn't write these laws, I just follow them.
OTP, the government consolidation vote was a dual vote by the county outside of Memphis and Memphis. The county prevailed by voting 85% against consolidation. Proof of this lies in the fact that the governments aren't consolidated. Those are the facts. Memphis sues about everything, so they probably have lawsuits piled up gathering dust all over wherever the 9th Circuit Court is located.
There is no plan calling for a dual vote for annexation in the new legislation. I don't know where you got that. The target area would get to vote whether or not they wish to be annexed. Of course, that would mean the boundaries of Memphis would be frozen forever. I can't envision a situation in which an area would vote "yes" to be taken over by Memphis.
Wow, check it out. It sounds to me like Mark Norris is saying he doesn't think the two bills will pass muster with the attorney general, and he told that to the house members who brought him the bills:
http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2012/…
It would be nice if the cooler heads prevailed on the annexation issue. Memphis probably doesn't need to annex that area for many years (if ever). But if Nashville tries to make it an impossibility, they have to protect the long term rights and interests of the city. JUst as the smaller cities should reserve the right to run their own MSDs. This kind of war is very damaging for the area, and frankly the bifurcation and negative BS is tiresome. If I can get out of here like I hope, it will be a relief to move to an area without this level of disunity and infighting.
Top Commenters
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
