Print
Comment
Rate
City's proposed takeover of private property troubling
We were more than a little troubled by city council's passing a pre-annexation agreement that may allow 115 acres west of Benson owned by San Pedro Partners LLC and Harlan Trust to become part of the city.
Forty-three of those 115 acres are critical to San Pedro Partners as the site of a sewer system for a proposed development. We don't have a problem with annexing property into the city, especially when property owners want it. But in this case, the problem is that the private property rights of one Matthew McDonald are taking a beating.
McDonald has 10 acres surrounded by the land that may be annexed. He does not want to sell to San Pedro Partners, who have already tried to buy his land, nor does he want to be part of the city of Benson. But if an actual annexation agreement follows this pre-agreement, that is exactly what will happen.
We don't understand why McDonald should pay the price of San Pedro Partners' failing to do their homework.
This whole mess started after San Pedro bought 305 acres to develop. How they are going to develop it remains something of a mystery.
Details were in short supply at last week's City Council meeting. The original 305 acres were annexed into the city.
Having purchased the property, San Pedro Partners subsequently was told by an engineer that they could not build a sewer system to serve the 305 acres because of uphill slopes. That is the sort of basic information we would assume a developer would have before purchasing land. Nevertheless, San Pedro purchased another 43 acres in the county for the sewer plant.
But they needed to get that land into the city of Benson as well.
In order to do that, they had to get 50 percent of the property owners around them to agree to annexation. Harlan Trust and Mahlon MacKenzie agreed. McDonald did not. But with the 50 percent in agreement, the city can exercise its right of eminent domain.
McDonald correctly points out that if he suddenly finds himself in the city, he will be under a whole new set of more restrictive codes with higher taxes and little benefit to him.
The other annoying thing about this pre-annexation is this is the second time this year that San Pedro Partners has tried to get the city to exercise eminent domain.
In January, they wanted the city to take over part of the McEnery property near Gas City because they were having trouble with access to the property. Another issue you might assume they had investigated before purchase.
We are all for progress and development, but not at the expense of residents who have been here for years, and not because a developer failed to get all his ducks in a row. We hope when actual annexation comes before the city, they ask a lot more questions and have more consideration for the little guy. At the very least, we hope McDonald can be grandfathered in without having to conform to the more restrictive city codes.
Forty-three of those 115 acres are critical to San Pedro Partners as the site of a sewer system for a proposed development. We don't have a problem with annexing property into the city, especially when property owners want it. But in this case, the problem is that the private property rights of one Matthew McDonald are taking a beating.
McDonald has 10 acres surrounded by the land that may be annexed. He does not want to sell to San Pedro Partners, who have already tried to buy his land, nor does he want to be part of the city of Benson. But if an actual annexation agreement follows this pre-agreement, that is exactly what will happen.
We don't understand why McDonald should pay the price of San Pedro Partners' failing to do their homework.
This whole mess started after San Pedro bought 305 acres to develop. How they are going to develop it remains something of a mystery.
Details were in short supply at last week's City Council meeting. The original 305 acres were annexed into the city.
Having purchased the property, San Pedro Partners subsequently was told by an engineer that they could not build a sewer system to serve the 305 acres because of uphill slopes. That is the sort of basic information we would assume a developer would have before purchasing land. Nevertheless, San Pedro purchased another 43 acres in the county for the sewer plant.
But they needed to get that land into the city of Benson as well.
In order to do that, they had to get 50 percent of the property owners around them to agree to annexation. Harlan Trust and Mahlon MacKenzie agreed. McDonald did not. But with the 50 percent in agreement, the city can exercise its right of eminent domain.
McDonald correctly points out that if he suddenly finds himself in the city, he will be under a whole new set of more restrictive codes with higher taxes and little benefit to him.
The other annoying thing about this pre-annexation is this is the second time this year that San Pedro Partners has tried to get the city to exercise eminent domain.
In January, they wanted the city to take over part of the McEnery property near Gas City because they were having trouble with access to the property. Another issue you might assume they had investigated before purchase.
We are all for progress and development, but not at the expense of residents who have been here for years, and not because a developer failed to get all his ducks in a row. We hope when actual annexation comes before the city, they ask a lot more questions and have more consideration for the little guy. At the very least, we hope McDonald can be grandfathered in without having to conform to the more restrictive city codes.
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of bensonnews-sun.com.
JW wrote on May 7, 2009 8:18 AM:
" If Benson does annex this property I expect they will follow past practices. Large developers will be assisted by the city. They will be furnished city utilities and service. The city will bow to their every need and they most likely be given tax and building permit advantages. The Mayor and other grinning locals will be on hand for every photo opportunity. But the small property owner being annexed will not be furnished city utilities. The small owner will again be ignored. They will pay unwanted and unneeded city fees and taxes without receiving benefits.
In the past the city has furnished city utilities to select county residences while ignoring utilities for city properties nearby. Why? Because they need to cross some county properties to install utilities to newly annexed developers tracts. Properties that have been within the city limits for decades were again left wanting.
Why should San Pedro Partners do their homework. Benson’s history makes them believe the city will roll over for whatever the realtors and developers want. No property should be annexed into the city until all existing property within the city limits are furnished city utilities. These people are paying city taxes and fees.
Realtor, Mahlon MacKenzie wants his property annexed in this deal. You think he may end up being the listing agent for San Pedro Partners? "
In the past the city has furnished city utilities to select county residences while ignoring utilities for city properties nearby. Why? Because they need to cross some county properties to install utilities to newly annexed developers tracts. Properties that have been within the city limits for decades were again left wanting.
Why should San Pedro Partners do their homework. Benson’s history makes them believe the city will roll over for whatever the realtors and developers want. No property should be annexed into the city until all existing property within the city limits are furnished city utilities. These people are paying city taxes and fees.
Realtor, Mahlon MacKenzie wants his property annexed in this deal. You think he may end up being the listing agent for San Pedro Partners? "
wow wrote on May 7, 2009 10:51 AM:
" I think Dianne Tipton should stay away from McDonald; she is always on the losing side. I hope McDonald gets fair treatment and is not a proxy for knuckle head agendas "
JV wrote on May 7, 2009 1:43 PM:
" I posted on the last article but I don't think was approved... ANYHOW:
Can you say conflict of interest Mayor Fenn. He should not be allowed to vote on this matter. Fenn Homes, Fenn Properties.... All on the ACC website. "
Can you say conflict of interest Mayor Fenn. He should not be allowed to vote on this matter. Fenn Homes, Fenn Properties.... All on the ACC website. "
David P. wrote on May 10, 2009 2:17 PM:
" Wow wrote that Dianne Tipton is always on the losing side. It is the Benson taxpayers who are on the losing side. Tipton and others warned this would happen. Benson rewarded her foresight by recalling her. McDonald will get fair treatment only when this conspiracy against the taxpayers of Benson is voted down. Follow the money and it points right back to out of town developers and a small hand full of greedy locals who want the Benson taxpayers to foot their bills. "
Concerned wrote on May 11, 2009 12:42 PM:
" Be careful when talking about other people's motivations. The other property owners in the area may not necessarily want to have their properties annexed. They may, they may not.
I hope everyone involved will act fairly and rightly. "
I hope everyone involved will act fairly and rightly. "
Dianne Tipton wrote on May 11, 2009 1:37 PM:
" Winning and loosing is all subjective. I have always been on the wining side. I thank God for that. The only losers here are the Benson residents. Are you one JV?
Dianne Tipton "
Dianne Tipton "
JV wrote on May 13, 2009 8:51 AM:
" Seems... Unforunately yes. Thinking about relinqushing my voting rights.
I won't need them.
I sent a mass email to the city council and seems odd that I wouldn't get a single response as of today. All I ask for is a response. Ignoring it just makes me assume the council members do not care about citizen's opinions. "
I won't need them.
I sent a mass email to the city council and seems odd that I wouldn't get a single response as of today. All I ask for is a response. Ignoring it just makes me assume the council members do not care about citizen's opinions. "
Dianne Tipton wrote on May 16, 2009 8:57 AM:
" Dear JV,
Sometimes council members forget who they serve. I never forgot that.
I garuntee that I would have responded to your letter.
I am glad that you took the time to write to and that you made the effort to be heard. I am truly sorry that you never got a response.
You and I may not agree but I am glad that you care. Please don't give up. We need people who care enough to act on what they believe. We don't have to always agree.
Dianne Tipton "
Sometimes council members forget who they serve. I never forgot that.
I garuntee that I would have responded to your letter.
I am glad that you took the time to write to and that you made the effort to be heard. I am truly sorry that you never got a response.
You and I may not agree but I am glad that you care. Please don't give up. We need people who care enough to act on what they believe. We don't have to always agree.
Dianne Tipton "
JV wrote on May 18, 2009 1:58 PM:
" Dianne,
Be aware.... There are no sides in politics. "All for one?" never mind. "Everyone for themselves".
I will never, in words, "give up". Most of us so called citizens believe things to be true and just and little articles like this make us think twice. Give me a sense of uneasiness on how my community is doing.
Fenn should see his position as one of pride not opportunity and it doesn't seem he does. I could be wrong but till it is addressed by Fenn personally (directly or indirectly) I have no choice to assume the worst.
I would like life to be simple as possible. Our little town is upside down with Fenn, Saugee, you, etc... arguing back and forth. The job of the council is to act in the best nature of the city and I cannot say that I believe it has as of late.
Doesn't this apply to even past council members? "
Be aware.... There are no sides in politics. "All for one?" never mind. "Everyone for themselves".
I will never, in words, "give up". Most of us so called citizens believe things to be true and just and little articles like this make us think twice. Give me a sense of uneasiness on how my community is doing.
Fenn should see his position as one of pride not opportunity and it doesn't seem he does. I could be wrong but till it is addressed by Fenn personally (directly or indirectly) I have no choice to assume the worst.
I would like life to be simple as possible. Our little town is upside down with Fenn, Saugee, you, etc... arguing back and forth. The job of the council is to act in the best nature of the city and I cannot say that I believe it has as of late.
Doesn't this apply to even past council members? "
Dianne Tipton wrote on May 7, 2009 12:43 AM:
Since Mayor Fenn is a developer and this pre annexation agreement that may go into effect contains verbiage that will benefit the developers greatly, do you think Fenn should be participating in the discussions and the voting. Or is that a conflict of interest. It could greatly affect Fenns bottom line.
Item #14 in the agreement is equally concerning.
Were you so blinded by Mayor Fenn that you couldn't see the forest for the trees. Why are you so concerned about the little guy now.
I will fight with Mr. McDonald. This is a case of a hostile take over of his property. You'd better believe this is only a test case.
It is such a shame because your paper could have done so much to help the little guy before but you chose not to. Too little too late Jane "