Annexation agreement missing language

For many years, Baldwin residents have been concerned about their property being annexed by Princeton. In my opinion, those concerns are largely unfounded. Princeton officials have stated that they have not and currently have no intention of annexing any property unless requested by the property owner.
For as many years, the city of Princeton and the town of Baldwin have engaged in discussions regarding a more formal agreement. Early last fall, then Mayor Riddle delivered another draft agreement to Baldwin Chairman Swanson. If he has not already done so, Swanson will very soon deliver to the city the Baldwin response. The agreement intention is merely to formalize a process should a Baldwin property owner request annexation.
Like with any negotiations, simply continuing to discuss is good. Even better is reaching a mutually fair agreement. What is troubling in the latest draft is one phrase that has gone missing, either accidently or intentionally.
I have publicly brought this missing phrase to the attention of the Baldwin Town Board, but it remains missing.
Previous drafts required property owner requests for annexation to be adjacent to city property.
The current draft allows any parcel in Baldwin to be annexed if requested by the property owner. The town of Baldwin could not object. Any one of our neighbors could potentially request annexation with the condition the city zone their property for a business, such as an off-road motorcycle race track. I am not suggesting the current city officials would consider such an action but what about future city councils?
More of a concern is why the Baldwin Town Board has chosen not to add the missing phrase back into their response. What could possibly cause such reluctance?

Chuck Nagle
Baldwin

up arrow