Court Opinion

ID: 9696586
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:52:01.047651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:23.786727
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
Eighty-four acres of the land involved in the annexation here is concededly used as agricultural land and has never been used as anything but agricultural land. The majority opinion now determines that because that land may be intended for future nonagricultural use, it is therefore no longer agricultural land, but instead is urban in character. The possibility, or even probability, that agricultural land may become urban in the future does not alter its present character.
In addition, the majority opinion simply states that a country club “is clearly urban in character.” Historically, country clubs were so named because they were located in the country. While obviously a country club is not agricultural land, neither is its land necessarily urban or rural. It might be said to be neutral in character and would be subject to classification in accordance with the land surrounding it. Some country clubs are obviously urban, but others are equally obviously rural. In the present case virtually all the land to the west and north, and even some to the south of the country club here, is still unplatted agricultural land. For purposes of annexation a country club is characterized by its use of land and buildings, not by its membership.
In my view the case of Wagner v. City of Omaha, 156 Neb. 163, 55 N.W.2d 490 (1952), is controlling, and it has not been overruled. In that case the total number of acres and the percentage which was unplatted agricultural land are almost identical to *8those in the present case, but the urban residential portion of the proposed annexation and the proportion of such land to agricultural were much greater than they are here.
In Wagner this court held that the purpose of the statute was to prevent annexation by a metropolitan city of agricultural areas which are rural in character. The court concluded that the city did not have authority to extend its boundary to unplatted agricultural lands, rural in character, and that it was not for the court to determine what portions of an area might properly be annexed because the drawing of boundary lines is a legislative act. This court said: “In view of the foregoing we have come to the conclusion that the city, by including these agricultural lands which are rural in character in the area sought to be annexed, exceeded the authority granted it by section 14-117, R.S. 1943. Since we have no authority to revise the boundary line of the city, as extended by the ordinance, we find that its doing so makes, the entire ordinance invalid. ’ ’ Id. at 170, 55 N.W.2d at 495.
I can find no reasonable distinction between the case at bar and Wagner. I would reverse.