Rector v. City of Bowling Green
| Decision Date | 19 October 1979 |
| Citation | 594 S.W.2d 891 |
| Parties | Charles RECTOR et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF BOWLING GREEN, Kentucky, A Municipal Corporation of the Second Class, Appellee. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Philip I. Huddleston, Huddleston Brothers, Gleitz & Duncan, Bowling Green, for appellants.
Whayne C. Priest, Jr., English, Lucas, Priest & Owsley, Bowling Green, for appellee.
Before WHITE, GUDGEL and HAYES, JJ.
This appeal is from a judgment entered December 28, 1978, in which the Warren Circuit Court approved an annexation ordinance issued by the City of Bowling Green.
On February 7, 1978, the Board of Commissioners of Bowling Green enacted an ordinance proposing to annex approximately 2,505 acres north of the City's present boundary. Located within the 2,505 acres are about 650 persons, of whom no more than 213 are registered voters; several small industries; and two substantial industrial plants, Airtemp Division of Fedders Corporation and the Bada Company. During the calendar year next preceding the proposed annexation (1977), the average number of employees was 481 at Airtemp and 79 at Bada.
Following the enactment of the annexation ordinance, a suit challenging it was filed in the Warren Circuit Court. The judgment of that court approved annexation, holding that such constituted "normal expansion" of the City, that appellants had no standing under KRS 81.280, and that, having stipulated that they could prove no manifest injury, appellants also could not seek relief under KRS 81.140.
We affirm the holding of the lower court.
The issue presented is whether appellants have standing under KRS 81.280 and, if so, whether manifest injury to landowners within the area proposed for annexation must be pleaded and proved by them.
KRS 81.140 covers municipal annexation procedures for second-class cities together with remonstration guidelines should objections be launched. Under this statute the protest method to be followed is determined by the percentage of freeholders joined in suit. Thus, an industry, economically powerful as it may be, would nevertheless stand with the voice of only one freeholder among the hundreds or thousands of individual freeholders in that district. Furthermore, should the industry be operating on leased rather than purchased premises, even that voice would be lost, for it is recognized that a tenancy at will, from year to year, or at sufferance is a mere chattel interest, not a freehold one. 28 Am.Jur.2d Estates § 56 (1966).
Realizing the unfavorable balance against industry, the legislature enacted KRS 81.280. It states:
(1) The general assembly, recognizing that the general welfare and prosperity of the commonwealth of Kentucky is very greatly dependent upon continued industrial development and expansion; and, further recognizing that reasonable assurances of fair treatment will greatly increase industrial development and expansion in Kentucky, it hereby is declared to be the public policy of the commonwealth of Kentucky to encourage the location of new industries and the expansion of existing industries in Kentucky by prohibiting unfair and unreasonable annexation by municipal corporations of industries now or hereafter located in unincorporated areas. However, it is not the intent of the general assembly to prohibit, restrict or hamper normal expansion of municipal boundaries if such normal development and expansion extends to and embraces such industrial properties.
(2) No unincorporated territory in which is located an industrial plant or plants shall be annexed by any municipality unless such territory is embraced within a broad, comprehensive plan of annexation. The territory to be annexed shall be contiguous to the boundary line or lines of such municipality, and the territory or area to be annexed shall be both compact and contiguous. The number of registered voters duly qualified to vote in the territory proposed to be annexed shall equal or exceed fifty per cent (50%) of the average number of persons employed by industrial plants within such territory during the next preceding calendar year, the number of such registered voters to be determined by taking the total of such voters from the last closed registration books in the county clerk's office.
(3) Nothing herein shall be construed as prohibiting any municipality from annexing any industrial plant or plants or its properties if the duly authorized representatives of such industrial plant or plants consent to or request such action.
(4) Any person or persons within the area...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Lebanon v. Goodin
...Ridings v. City ofOwensboro, 383 S.W.2d 510 (Ky. 1964); Griffin v. City of Robards, 990 S.W.2d 634 (Ky. 1999); Rector v. City of Bowling Green, 594 S.W.2d 891 (Ky. App. 1979). One such statutory mandate is set forth in KRS 81A.410, which provides:(1) Except as provided in KRS 67C.111(3), a ......
-
Lawson v. Office of the Attorney Gen. & Jack Conway, 2012–SC–000201–DG.
...Court of Appeals could raise on its own motion). And we applied the concept, although again without the phrase, in Rector v. City of Bowling Green, 594 S.W.2d 891 (Ky.1979) (holding that non-industrial property owners did not have standing under the asserted statute to challenge an annexati......
-
City of Erlanger v. American Isowall Corp.
...industry as provided by KRS 81.280(3) must be obtained in order to validly annex such an area. This court, in Rector v. City of Bowling Green, Ky.App., 594 S.W.2d 891 (1980), announced that if an annexation plan were arbitrary and not within normal expansion, the industry had the option to ......