SkyscraperCity Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Yuma 135-square-mile annexation bid ripped

Associated Press
Apr. 16, 2006 12:00 AM

YUMA - The mayor of Wellton and farmers in Dome Valley are among those opposing a massive annexation by Yuma that would extend the city nearly 20 miles to the east.

The 135-square-mile annexation Yuma officials may formally approve Wednesday is needed to give the city room to grow, city officials said, and the land is owned by the federal government.

But farmers say the reach of the annexation is much too great, and they accuse the city of bypassing rules for holding public meetings and giving notice to those affected.

"The city says no private land is included," Dome Valley farmer Patty Ware said during a recent meeting with other area farmers. "But some of my land is in the area, and I know of others."

Ware said no one from the city asked her before including part of her farm in the annexation, and she had to fight to get a legal description that showed it was.

Only a small part of Ware's farm is inside the proposed Yuma boundaries, but the annexation would leave it bordered on three sides by Yuma.

Ray Hancock, board president of the Wellton-Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District, said he wants the vote delayed. The district has been trying for years to buy the federal land and expects to complete the deal in July, but Hancock worries that the Yuma effort could derail the process.

"What's so bad is that they're pushing it so fast," Hancock said.

"I don't understand the rush," farmer Doug Mellon said. "Are they afraid Wellton will annex if they don't?"

Yuma's bid would extend the city boundaries miles beyond the Gila Mountains and across Arizona 95 into an area near Wellton.

Yuma Mayor Larry Nelson said the annexation area is needed for growth.

"We have no choice, it's the only place we've got to grow, and (Wellton)'s got wherever they want to go east," he said.


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0416yuma0416.html

boy these cities just keep adding massive chuncks of land so they can sprawl even more. There needs to be some kind of law to stop this stuff
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
They could go up, but nope, suburban sprawl is needed for "real" growth.

One question, will these folks be under emiinent domain or does the city that they are currently in(not Yuma) the ones who are legally allowed to do so? Or does eminenet domain give power to the federal government to seize local privately owned land, too?
 

·
Live and Let Live
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
I suspect the most growth will occur by way of retirees? Why not concentrate of condo-style developments that require little or no landscape maintenence and maybe gear recreation to suit their needs. I would seek to make the existing city the best that it can be before swallowing up the surrounding areas....which does nothing but perpetuate the half-assed development approach that seems to permeate in those parts.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top