Tag: forced annexation

Myrtle Beach Tries Forced Annexation Again

In the words of Yogi Berra it’s “déjà vu all over again” as the City of Myrtle Beach is back with another attempt at forced annexation of businesses.

After winning the vote, but subsequently determining there were legal issues with a referendum held for the Bridgeport and Waterside Drive communities three months ago, Myrtle Beach is looking further north this time.

Last month, the city sent a letter to residents of the Magnolia North subdivision soliciting their signatures on a petition to annex into the city. It is questionable, under state law, whether the city can solicit a petition or the idea and petition to annex must be initiated by residents of an area.

Myrtle Beach City Council Halts Forced Annexation

Myrtle Beach City Council yesterday halted its attempt to annex approximately 640 acres along the U.S. 17 Bypass corridor.

The attempted annexation included two residential neighborhoods totaling approximately 44 acres. To this was added nearly 600 acres of commercial and undeveloped property attached to the residential annexation by city officials.

While 25% of registered voters in the annexation area had to sign a petition requesting annexation and later approve a referendum by majority vote, the commercial property owners had no say in the process.

Myrtle Beach City Council Forced Annexation Problems Continue

Myrtle Beach City Council was informed at its council workshop today that the forced annexation referendum results from last week’s special election would have to be voided because of a “technicality.”

According to Myrtle Beach City Attorney Tom Ellenberg, the polling took place outside of the annexation area violating state law.

What is interesting about this is that the election notice for last week’s special election referendum specifically identified the polling places and their locations that would be used several weeks before the election was held. Why wasn’t this problem caught either before or immediately after the election notice appeared?

Myrtle Beach City Council Wins Forced Annexation

Congratulations to Myrtle Beach City Council on its 56-24 victory in Tuesday’s forced annexation referendum.

When it comes to creative ways to get around the intent of the law, or to create a new one, Myrtle Beach City Council stands preeminent.

Attaching commercial property to a residential annexation referendum, a decision in which the commercial property owners had absolutely no say, was a brilliant coup.

Myrtle Beach Forced Annexation Referendum Today

The vote on whether the City of Myrtle Beach will be successful in forcing at least 12 businesses into the city limits, with accompanying city taxes, will be held today.

The forced annexation of these businesses is part of an overall annexation referendum of approximately 640 acres. The initiative started with the Bridgeport community desiring annexation into the city to, hopefully, initiate road improvements.

State law prohibits forced annexation of property into city limits. One of the reasons is the additional level of taxation the properties will experience.

However, Myrtle Beach believes it has found a loophole in state law that allows the addition of commercial and undeveloped property to annexation petitions for residential property.

More Myrtle Beach Annexation Questions Arise

The more one looks at the City of Myrtle Beach annexation petition, the more questions arise on the issues surrounding this proposed annexation.

A July 15, 2014 special election is scheduled in what the city is calling the “South Area” to vote on whether the area will be annexed into the city limits.

A 50% plus one positive vote of qualified electors within the petition area will annex the whole 640 acres or so into the city with only qualified resident electors of the area voting on the question.

Second Myrtle Beach Annexation in Pipeline

We learned this week that a second City of Myrtle Beach annexation is already in the process.

Earlier in the week, we reported about a Myrtle Beach annexation in which the city has submitted a petition for a referendum vote scheduled to be held July 15, 2014. In this one, the city has bundled together a relatively small amount, approximately 44 acres, of residential property with approximately 600 acres of commercial and undeveloped property into one annexation package.

Using an option in state law that allows 25% of voters in the proposed annexation area to petition for a referendum, the city has cut the owners of the commercial and undeveloped property included in the annexation out of the process completely. They literally have no say whether their property will be annexed into the city even though their business license fees and property taxes will rise.