Saturday, December 10, 2005

Clarification on Waivers From Remonstrance

I personally find waivers that would prevent a property owner from making a remonstrance un-American. It is always your right to speak against a government that works to oppress you. Period. It disturbs me that a government would work to insert such language into a sewer agreement and then try to apply it as a blanket over any issue, such as the Town of Fishers is doing in its attempt to forcibly annex the Geist area in Hamilton County.

The main article in today's Noblesville Daily Times addresses this issue. Reporter William Fouts leads the article thusly:
Those opposed to Fishers' plan to annex communities along Geist Reservoir may have a legal right to remonstrate against the proposal even if their properties are subject to sewer waivers.

According Steve Griesemer, a Geist resident and attorney acting as legal liaison for the Masthead community, certain conditions must be met for a waiver to be valid.

“The sewer waivers have to be registered or recorded with the county recorders office and appear in the chain of title for the respective home or structure,” Griesemer said. “And they also have to be recorded prior to the builders connecting to the sewer system, and a developer cannot execute a sewer waiver after he has already passed off title. In other words, after he has sold the house to the first purchaser.”

These conditions would make the vast majority of properties in Geist waiver-proof. And yet, Fishers was counting on these waivers to preclude more than 40% of properties, rendering the remonstrance process impossible.

Just another of the all-Republican Town Council's many miscalculations. I can't wait to have at these clowns in the 2007 elections.

1 comment:

GadFlier said...

Evidently, it appears that others of a more professional legal bent also agree that a waver imposed post hoc may very well be "unenforceable" to use the appropriate term of art. This was also my contention--a waver imposed after title has been transferred (more elegant than how I had been saying it) is invalid. I'm glad to see that it is not only philosophically but may also be legally invalid.