This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Carlsbad City Council adopted Ordinance 93-16, annexing approximately 141 acres of land into the City of Carlsbad. The annexation included a 23-acre strip of land owned by the Plaintiffs, which connected the Forrest Property, owned by the Intervenors, to the City limits. The Plaintiffs opposed the annexation, arguing that their land, used for agricultural purposes, would not benefit from the annexation and that the annexation served no municipal purpose other than to create contiguity for the Forrest Property (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Eddy County: Granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Carlsbad, finding that the annexed tract was contiguous to the City as a matter of law (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiffs-Appellants: Argued that the annexation was improper because the Forrest Property was not contiguous to the City limits and that the inclusion of their land as a "shoestring" connection was a subterfuge to satisfy statutory contiguity requirements. They also contended that the annexation provided no economic, commercial, or aesthetic benefits to their land and was not likely to advance any governmental functions of the City (paras 3, 6-7).
- Defendants-Appellees (City of Carlsbad): Asserted that the annexed tract, including the Plaintiffs' land, was contiguous to the City as defined by law. They relied on a land surveyor's affidavit stating that the annexed area shared a common boundary with the City for at least 930.30 feet (para 3).
- Intervenors-Appellees: Supported the annexation, as it allowed their Forrest Property to be incorporated into the City (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Whether the annexed territory, including the Plaintiffs' land, was contiguous to the City of Carlsbad as required by NMSA 1978, Section 3-7-17(A) (para 3).
- Whether the judiciary should review the political and economic implications of annexation decisions made under the petition process (paras 6-8).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the annexed tract was contiguous to the City as a matter of law (para 15).
Reasons
Per Black J. (Alarid J. concurring):
The Court emphasized that annexation by petition is a political process, and judicial review is limited to determining whether the annexation complies with statutory requirements and constitutional validity. The Court found that the annexed tract, including the Plaintiffs' land, met the statutory definition of contiguity, as it shared a common boundary with the City. The Plaintiffs' arguments regarding the economic and political implications of the annexation were deemed irrelevant to the legal determination of contiguity. The Court deferred to the legislative discretion of the City Council, noting that the judiciary should not second-guess the wisdom or policy of annexation decisions (paras 4-15).
Hartz J., dissenting:
Hartz J. dissented, arguing that the contiguity requirement cannot be satisfied through a sham or subterfuge. He contended that the inclusion of the Plaintiffs' land as a narrow "shoestring" connection was a subterfuge to create contiguity for the Forrest Property. Hartz J. criticized the majority for failing to address this issue and maintained that the annexation violated the statutory requirement of contiguity. He also rejected the majority's view that judicial review of annexation decisions is limited to constitutional issues, asserting that courts must enforce statutory requirements (paras 18-35).