Town of Pleasant Prairie v. City of Kenosha
249 N.W.2d 581, 75 Wis. 2d 322, 1977 Wisc. LEXIS 1423 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An annexation ordinance is presumed valid and does not violate the rule of reason merely because the petitioning landowners were motivated by a desire for rezoning, or because the annexing city has an intent to rezone the property to meet a demonstrated, reasonable need for that type of development.
Facts:
- Robert E. and Doris P. Gangler owned a 14.8-acre parcel of agricultural land in the Town of Pleasant Prairie.
- The Ganglers wished to develop their land for industrial use, but the Town of Pleasant Prairie would not rezone the property and could not provide the necessary sewer and water services.
- The Ganglers initiated contact with the City of Kenosha and on September 4, 1973, filed a petition for direct annexation of their property and adjacent parcels, totaling 28 acres.
- The Ganglers were the only landowners to sign the petition, but their property constituted more than half the total area of the proposed annexation.
- No electors resided within the 28-acre territory proposed for annexation.
- The day after filing the annexation petition, the Ganglers petitioned the City of Kenosha to rezone most of the parcel for industrial use.
- The parcels included in the annexation petition belonged to the Ganglers, Timothy Lawler, William Kaphengst, and the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad.
- The annexed territory was contiguous to the existing city limits of Kenosha.
Procedural Posture:
- The Common Council of the City of Kenosha approved Ordinance No. 86-73, annexing the territory, on October 1, 1973.
- The Town of Pleasant Prairie filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment that the annexation was invalid.
- The action proceeded to trial in the circuit court in November 1974.
- The circuit court entered a judgment upholding the validity of the annexation.
- The Town of Pleasant Prairie, as appellant, appealed the judgment of the circuit court to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the City of Kenosha's annexation of a 28-acre parcel of land from the Town of Pleasant Prairie violate the 'rule of reason' because the landowners' primary motive was rezoning, the city lacked a reasonable need for the land, and the boundaries were drawn arbitrarily?
Opinions:
Majority - Abrahamson, J.
No, the City of Kenosha's annexation of the land does not violate the rule of reason. An annexation ordinance enjoys a presumption of validity, and the challenger bears the burden of proving it is arbitrary and capricious. The court found that none of the Town's arguments met this burden. First, landowners may seek annexation in pursuit of their own perceived best interests, and a desire to obtain a change in zoning is a legitimate motivation. Second, the City of Kenosha demonstrated a reasonable present and demonstrable future need for additional industrial land, and it is not a judicial function to weigh the competing development theories of the City and the Town. Third, in a direct annexation initiated by property owners, the petitioners have discretion in drawing boundary lines; the City Planner's assistance did not constitute undue influence, and petitioners are under no obligation to include electors who might oppose the annexation.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant judicial deference granted to municipal annexation ordinances under Wisconsin's 'rule of reason.' It clarifies that a landowner's economic self-interest, specifically the desire for more favorable zoning, is a permissible, not improper, motive for initiating annexation. The ruling also solidifies the principle that a city need only show any reasonable need for land, not an absolute or pressing necessity, making it difficult to challenge an annexation on this basis. This precedent strengthens the position of annexing municipalities and petitioning landowners against challenges from towns losing territory.
Unlock the full brief for Town of Pleasant Prairie v. City of Kenosha