Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowArguments are set for 1 p.m. Sept. 18 in the City of Carmel v. Certain Home Place Annexation Territory. The appellate court had decided last year to put the case on hold until ruling came down from the justices; that happened June 27 with the potentially landmark decision in City of Carmel, Indiana v. Certain Southwest Clay Township Annexation Territory Landowners http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06270701rts.pdf, 29S00-0608-CV-300.
Carmel City Council voted to annex both areas in November 2004, but residents in the two areas challenged the annexations in court. Hamilton Superior Judge William Hughes ruled against Carmel in both cases and, on appeal, one has turned in favor of the city so far. Municipalities across the state have been watching this issue for guidance.
In Home Place, Judge Hughes ruled against Carmel because he did not believe the city showed how it could afford to annex the 1.6-square mile area centered at 106th Street and College Avenue.
Now, both sides will shape arguments on that ruling, which held municipalities wanting to annex property can settle with landowners and, for the first time ever, interpreted the difference between signing a remonstrance and opposing an annexation.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.