Laserfiche WebLink
F <br />APR 10 1984 BOOK 56 PAGE 680 <br />Mr. Hamner stressed that his problem is out of town <br />owners who buy the land, develop it, and run - he felt the <br />people who should vote to hold the election should be legal <br />residents of the county. He did not want some corporate <br />board member who happens to own some property in Indian <br />River County dictating what happens to the property around <br />him. <br />Attorney Brandenburg noted that in other words, Mr. <br />Hamner's concern is that the absentee owner has a say as to <br />whether or not the property is voted on, although he cannot <br />vote. Unfortunately, that is the way the Statute was set up <br />by the State legislature. There have been efforts to change <br />the annexations procedures for years now, and actually there <br />is an effort by the Municipal League of Cities to loosen up <br />the requirements and do away with the need for a referendum <br />altogether. <br />Commissioner Lyons stated that Mr. Hamner has to a <br />certain extent convinced him to consider making a change in <br />this situation. The fact that the absentee owners can bring <br />about the election even though they have nothing to do with <br />it, bothered him. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Lyons, <br />SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, for the <br />Board to reconsider their previous action <br />in sending in the consent card. <br />Commissioner Bird reaffirmed that at the time we felt <br />we were taking a neutral position and that was the way to <br />let the democratic process work, but with the additional <br />information presented, it seems that we inadvertently did <br />place some of our people in a bad situation. He stressed <br />that he hates to go back on his word with the City, but in <br />light of the changing situation and additional information, <br />8 <br />