Dublin Core
Title
Box 8, Folder 22, Document 25
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD
ATTORNEY AT LAW
STANDARD FEDERAL SAVINGS BLDG.
ATLANTA, GA.
MAYOR EMERITUS : April 20, 1967
cITY OF ATLANTA
Mr. Earl Landers
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia
Dear Earl:
As you know, there is an area immediately adjacent to the Atlanta city limits
in the Sandy Springs area, which has always voted for annexation to Atlanta.
One of the Plan of Improvement Acts provided that if a land lot had sufficient
people and sufficient taxable values, that it could be annexed by a petition to
the Superior Court.
The County Attorney (who, incidentally, has always been a bitter opponent of
the Plan of Improvement) has indicated that possibly this act was rendered invalid
by a Home Rule Act later passed by the Legislature.
I notice that the Supereme Court of Georgia in the case of Lee versus the
City of Jesup, has held that the Home Rule Act of 1965 does not provide the sole
method for annexation, but that the General Assembly still has power to do so by
special act. This would indicate that the method set forth in the Plan of
Improvement Act of 1951 would still be valid,
If the City would be willing to encourage the people in this land lot, IL
believe they would get up such a petition. If it were successful and if the
Court upheld it, this would mean that you could annex selective contiguous areas
of desirable citizens by direct court action instead of being browbeaten and
treated as we were when the last annexation referendum was authorized by the
legislative delegation.
It would also start a trend, which in my opinion, would induce the balance of
Sandy Springs to come in.
The Legal Department might also look into the question as to whether or not
this method would be valid in the case of land in another county. North Atlanta
is contiguous to Atlanta. I live a few hundred feet from it, and many of my
neighbors would like to come into the City.
Yours sincerely,
-
by, f
3 LA f< XK i) de
U Ved “We
1 ihe L/
WILLIAM B, HARTSFAELD
WBH/bjc
ATTORNEY AT LAW
STANDARD FEDERAL SAVINGS BLDG.
ATLANTA, GA.
MAYOR EMERITUS : April 20, 1967
cITY OF ATLANTA
Mr. Earl Landers
City Hall
Atlanta, Georgia
Dear Earl:
As you know, there is an area immediately adjacent to the Atlanta city limits
in the Sandy Springs area, which has always voted for annexation to Atlanta.
One of the Plan of Improvement Acts provided that if a land lot had sufficient
people and sufficient taxable values, that it could be annexed by a petition to
the Superior Court.
The County Attorney (who, incidentally, has always been a bitter opponent of
the Plan of Improvement) has indicated that possibly this act was rendered invalid
by a Home Rule Act later passed by the Legislature.
I notice that the Supereme Court of Georgia in the case of Lee versus the
City of Jesup, has held that the Home Rule Act of 1965 does not provide the sole
method for annexation, but that the General Assembly still has power to do so by
special act. This would indicate that the method set forth in the Plan of
Improvement Act of 1951 would still be valid,
If the City would be willing to encourage the people in this land lot, IL
believe they would get up such a petition. If it were successful and if the
Court upheld it, this would mean that you could annex selective contiguous areas
of desirable citizens by direct court action instead of being browbeaten and
treated as we were when the last annexation referendum was authorized by the
legislative delegation.
It would also start a trend, which in my opinion, would induce the balance of
Sandy Springs to come in.
The Legal Department might also look into the question as to whether or not
this method would be valid in the case of land in another county. North Atlanta
is contiguous to Atlanta. I live a few hundred feet from it, and many of my
neighbors would like to come into the City.
Yours sincerely,
-
by, f
3 LA f< XK i) de
U Ved “We
1 ihe L/
WILLIAM B, HARTSFAELD
WBH/bjc
Comments