It's true that Anderson is not alone in wanting to remain separate from the city to the south. Residents turned out in force to show their disapproval of the annexation at a City Council meeting earlier this month. There are too many unanswered questions for the city to proceed with annexing Lochland, said Cathy Phillips, who spoke at the July 10 meeting. Phillips said she thinks the primary motive for the city's pursuit of Lochland is revenue. Residents also have cited the ongoing negotiations between the schools, the pending lawsuit, the services that the city won't be able to provide and the haste with which the city is moving toward annexation as reasons to halt the annexation process.
Many residents are concerned about the legality of the annexation.
That issue has been raised repeatedly during the last year. At the past two City Council meetings, lawyer and Lochland resident Mark Beck has asked the city to discontinue the Lochland annexation until a pending lawsuit about the annexation of land that puts Lochland in range for annexation is cleared up. But it is the city's position that there is no pending lawsuit, said Dan Lindstrom, a Kearney lawyer representing the city. In November 1999, Dr. George and Colleen Adam filed a lawsuit challenging the annexation of their 119-acre cattle operation, mainly on the grounds that the property was not urban or suburban in character and was not contiguous with city boundaries. The Adam and Kohl property, located east of U.S. Highway 281 and north of 42nd Street, makes Lochland adjacent with city boundaries and in range for annexation into the city.