Court Opinion

ID: 9846918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:50:27.634771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:57.140882
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice.
I concur in the result but do not share the inference of the main opinion in this case that the annexation of the disconnected area was simply to create a source of revenue. To so imply suggests that if the disconnected area were included within the town, the town officials would not furnish services such as fire and police protection, water, sanitation and the like, which in turn suggests that such officials are acting in bad faith. For aught we know the very reason why all of the services mentioned in the main opinion are not readily available is because of the lack of assurance that the town would receive the revenues that the subject area would produce were it certain it would be annexed to the town. If a new territory can demand the services of a community before it is charged with a duty to help support it, annexation would be difficult or impossible.
I concur in the result only because I believe there is evidence to sustain the trial court as far as the present and foreseeable future is concerned. I could not subscribe to any theory that would make our present decision binding on the future. I think the question of annexation of this territory is a fluctuating one. If drainage, habitation, construction and many other factors call for changed scenery on a quickly changing stage, this decision should be no deterrent to annexation if and when it can be shown that it is only fair that the territory share in the burdens of a growing community in whose midst or close proximity it finds itself.