CHANGE MY LOCATION
Local
Multimedia News
Seven file suit against Aberdeen over annexation
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: Aberdeen, Md.
The seven plaintiffs in the case allege that the city is violating the “will of the voters,” according to the lawsuit, by accepting a second annexation petition from the Wetlands Aberdeen Group, the group that petitioned the city last year to annex more than 500 acres into the city.
The Aberdeen City Council approved the original annexation request, triggering a backlash in which residents opposed to the annexation succeeded in getting the issue put to a referendum vote in December. Voters rejected the annexation.
However, in September, while the referendum was still pending, the Wetlands Aberdeen Group submitted another annexation request.
“To consider a second, similar annexation request shows complete disregard for the referendum process,” Karen Heavey, one of the plaintiffs, said in a written statement Thursday.
“Anybody can petition for an annexation,” said City Council President Mike Hiob. “It’s outlined in our charter.”
Calling the lawsuit “frivolous,” Hiob expressed frustration upon hearing of the lawsuit.
“Some of these [plaintiffs] are the same people that call us out any time we inadvertently violate the charter. Now they are asking us to directly violate the charter, and incur perhaps a bigger lawsuit. What do they want us to do?” he said.
The second annexation petition differs from the first in excluding the neighborhood of Locksley Manor, where many residents had vocally opposed the annexation.
But by excluding Locksley Manor, the petition creates an illegal “enclave” that would be “surrounded by the city of Aberdeen,” the lawsuit charges.
“It’s the same annexation; they just chopped out the opposition,” said Bobbie Randles, a Locksley Manor resident and another plaintiff in the suit.
Hiob said that the new Wetlands petition has not come before the Aberdeen Planning and Zoning Commission, which would be the first step in the process.
mplum@baltimoreexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
9:42 PM MST on Wed., Aug. 22, 2007 re: "Aberdeen panel to outline annexation plan"
Report as inappropriate
10:56 AM MST on Sat., Jun. 23, 2007
re: "Aberdeen panel to outline annexation plan"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
That comment about Stephen Wright, CPA is inappropriate. As a result of two (2) different jury verdicts, and more than 5 weeks of trial, Mr. Wright was awarded $ 2.1 Million dollar verdict against Buck T. Roberts and Harford County Airport for damages related to defamation such as been printed by the Examiner blog.
89 agree | 108 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Does the annexation have anything to do with the airport on Aldino Road? It is interesting that Stephen Wright, CPA (SMW) writes a check out of his client, Harford County Airport Owners Group, Inc. (HCAOG) in 1993. He signs Fred Simmons name on the check. That is against the law in Maryland for a certified public accountant to write a check out of the checkbook of a client in Maryland. The Attorney General of Maryland should be asked that. The Harford County Airport Owners Group, Inc. puts their faith in Fred Simmons, President of the board of directors in 1992 and 1993 for the HCAOG and SMW to help them turn the airport finances around. But what did SMW do for the airport? He takes the HCAOG checkbook and writes a check to himself. How can Fred Simmons and SMW help the city of Aberdeen finances when they could not help the Harford County Airport Owners Group, Inc. ? You reap what you sow. You guys smeared youselves. It is all in the court records in the case-SMW vs. HCAOG.
118 agree | 105 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree