Commentary; Posted: 4/11/07
Wyoming, not Chisago City, broke annexation promises
Don Taylor
Guest Columnist
As I drive down Highway 8, I vividly remember where each 4’ by 8’ “No Hostile Annexation” sign was located. I can even remember where many of the smaller signs were located on streets in both Wyoming Township and in Chisago City.
For a period of one year as the chair and founder of “Citizens Against Hostile Annexation,” I lived and breathed “No Hostile Annexation.”
Although the decision of the judge was disappointing, I wanted to make a positive difference in the city I was now a resident of.
I was elected to the Chisago City Council in 2005 and became mayor in 2007.
My views on hostile annexations remain the same. However, those of my counterparts in Wyoming Township have not.
We fought to keep the township out of the city; they are now fighting to bring the township into the city of Wyoming.
They use the words “merger” and “consolidation” to describe what they are doing, but label Chisago City’s actions as another “Hostile Annexation” and “a land grab.”
They also were “appalled” that township assets were included in the last two proposals Chisago City submitted at the March 16th meeting.
Townships are routinely melded into the surrounding cities as needed over a period of time. When the township is not able to survive on its own, it is then dissolved with land and assets into the surrounding cities.
The “dissolving” of Wyoming Township has been accelerated greatly by the actions of the Wyoming Town Board.
These actions have made Chisago City unable to realize the future growth it would have had under normal circumstances.
The current contested annexation case Chisago City has filed against Wyoming Township does not follow the same criteria as the previous hostile annexation.
In my quest to do the right thing, I have talked to many people that helped with the past annexation fight.
All have agreed with the view I hold on the current annexation.
I have been involved with each negotiation meeting and the drafting of all proposals presented to date. The misinformation that comes back to me is disturbing.
For example, township officials have said, “Chisago City was a no-show at a scheduled Feb. 20th meeting.” The fact is, township officials did not notify us of the correct date and time of the meeting.
Their statement that “Chisago City is callous and has no interest in assimilating township employees” is also not accurate. This was discussed at the March 16th meeting and we did express our desire to work with the township to ensure their employment.
At our first meeting with township officials, we agreed to keep the details of the negotiations confidential until an agreement was reached.
The township violated that agreement by sharing our first proposal with the press.
It was again brought up at the March 16th meeting when Proposals A and B were presented. Again, the township broke their promise by disclosing the details of these proposals to the press.
The arguments between Chisago City and Wyoming Township seem to go so far back. I’m not sure there is anyone that knows how it all started.
I would ask Wyoming Township officials to put aside their feelings on the previous “hostile annexation,” as I have had to do. Come back to the table to negotiate with the knowledge of how this “consolidation” affects everyone’s future - and let’s talk.
It is not our desire to have a judge decide where the borders will be or for either entity to end up with large legal fees.
Let’s start a new era of cooperation and work together to build strong communities that people want to be a part of.
The writer is mayor of Chisago City. Prior to the 2005 Chisago City annexation, he was a resident of Wyoming Township.
Forest Lake Times
P.O. Box 218
880 SW 15 St.
Forest Lake, MN 55025
651-464-4601
Fax 651-464-4605