City of Birmingham v. Wilkinson
Decision Date | 02 October 1987 |
Citation | 516 So.2d 585 |
Parties | CITY OF BIRMINGHAM v. T.J. WILKINSON, et al. T.J. WILKINSON, et al. v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, et al. 85-1160, 85-1262. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James K. Baker, City Atty., and John P. Carlton and David J. Vann of Carlton, Vann & Stichweh, Birmingham, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Carl E. Johnson and Burgin H. Kent of Bishop, Colvin & Johnson, Birmingham, and William A. Short, Jr. and J.H. McEniry III of McEniry, McEniry & McEniry, Bessemer, for appellees/cross-appellants.
These consolidated appeals are from a judgment declaring null and void an August 13, 1985, annexation election called for by the City of Birmingham, and they involve a question of the validity of the so-called "corridor" principle. We reverse and remand.
Pursuant to §§ 11-42-40 through -88, Code of 1975, Birmingham passed a resolution calling for an annexation election to annex certain unincorporated territory in western Jefferson County. This resolution, as later amended, along with a map of the territory proposed to be annexed, was filed with the probate court, which ordered the election to be held on August 13, 1985. Prior to the election, certain residents of, and property owners in, the proposed annexation area (individual appellees/cross-appellants) filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, in which they sought a declaration concerning the constitutionality of §§ 11-42-40 through -88. They also sought to enjoin the holding of the annexation election to be held on August 13, 1985, and to enjoin the certification of the election results. Both Birmingham and a judge of the probate court of Jefferson County were named as defendants (appellants/cross-appellees). The circuit court refused to enjoin the holding of the election, but it did issue an order enjoining the probate judge from certifying the results. A majority of the qualified voters in the proposed territory voted for the annexation in the election. Subsequently, both the City of Hueytown and the Jefferson County Board of Education were allowed to intervene as plaintiffs in the action.
Following a two-day, non-jury trial, the court entered a lengthy order declaring the election null and void. In its order, the trial court succinctly described the property Birmingham sought to annex. None of the parties takes issue with the correctness of this description, nor with any of the factual findings made by the trial judge. The order reads, as follows:
The trial court further held, inter alia:
(1) That Code of 1975, § 11-42-73(b), was unconstitutional in that it provided that residents of an annexation area which is tax exempt cannot vote in city elections, at least as long as the residential area remains tax exempt, citing Harper v. Virginia State Board of Electors, 383 U.S. 663, 86 S.Ct. 1079, 16 L.Ed.2d 169 (1966), in support of its holding. It, however, found this invalid section to be severable from the other valid sections of the Act ( §§ 11-42-40 through -88);
(2) That Birmingham had abused its discretion when it sought to combine two dissimilar areas in the annexation election territory by using a "corridor." The court reasoned:
The court recognized that:
"Birmingham has long desired to annex the Birmingport area for industrial development, which is a legitimate municipal purpose and one which, according to the feasibility study conducted by the Birmingham Regional Planning Commission should provide jobs and increased land values in the area."
The trial court further found that this design "was based upon Birmingham's apprehension that an election of Port Birmingham would fail and its anticipation that one which combined both areas (the Dolomite area having a 66-to-1 voting superiority) would succeed," and that Birmingham's real purpose was to insure the success of the election. It held:
The Court also found that Birmingham had eliminated some areas because of expressed opposition to annexation, and the court held that this action was constitutionally impermissible. The Court stated:
(3) That a certain agreement between Birmingham and two coal mining companies (Drummond Coal Company and Alabama By-Products Corporation) was illegal:
In light of the above findings, the circuit court declared the August 13, 1985, election null and void and ordered the probate judge of Jefferson County not to certify the results. These appeals followed.
In its appeal, Birmingham raises four issues, three having to do with the trial court's finding that Birmingham abused its discretion, thereby violating (1) the rule of reasonableness and (2) the constitutional rights of the interested, yet excluded, voters in determining the boundaries of this annexation election. The fourth issue concerns the correctness of the trial court's holding...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fort Morgan Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Gulf Shores, 1101440.
...of property, or corridors, so long as the corridor did not consist solely of a public right-of-way. See, e.g., City of Birmingham v. Wilkinson, 516 So.2d 585 (Ala.1987), and City of Dothan v. Board of Comm'rs of Dale Cnty., 295 Ala. 131, 324 So.2d 772 (1975). The FMCA, however, argues that ......
-
City of Birmingham v. City of Vestavia Hills
...8 in accordance with § 11-42-20 et seq.; and by "tax exempt elections," 9 in accordance with § 11-42-40 et seq. City of Birmingham v. Wilkinson, 516 So.2d 585, 590 (Ala.1987); City of Leeds v. Town of Moody, 294 Ala. 496, 500, 319 So.2d 242, 245 (1975). By these laws, the legislature has au......
-
Ex parte City of Birmingham
...cannot substitute its judgment for that of a municipality, absent proof of unfair dealing, fraud, or bad faith. City of Birmingham v. Wilkinson, 516 So.2d 585 (Ala.1987); Bentley v. County Comm'n for Russell County, 264 Ala. 106, 84 So.2d 490, 493 (1955); Van Antwerp v. Board of Comm'rs of ......
-
City of Madison v. City of Huntsville
...Commission, 295 Ala. 131, 324 So.2d 772 (1975); City of Fultondale v. City of Birmingham, 507 So.2d 489 (Ala.1987); City of Birmingham v. Wilkinson, 516 So.2d 585 (Ala.1987); City of Prichard v. City of Saraland, 536 So.2d 1386 (Ala.1988); City of Birmingham v. Blount County, 533 So.2d 534 ......