In response to Brookhaven annexation objectors’ motion for arehearing in the case, attorneys for the city say the state SupremeCourt decision should be upheld and there is no reason to revisitthe matter.

The brief, prepared by special counsel to the city Jerry L.Mills and City Attorney Joe Fernald, asserts, in effect, that theobjectors’ reason for seeking a rehearing are redundant and overlysensitive.

“They can’t overcome the overwhelming weight of evidence,” Fernaldsaid. “I don’t see where there’s any basis, evidence, fact, (or)any other need to support reconsideration.”

In addition to asking the original opinion be removed for rudeness,Citizens Against Annexation argued that the annexation area wasunreasonable based on the path of growth, leap frog development,police protection, and health hazards caused by sewage and wastedisposal issues. The city’s response, though, says those argumentshave been heard before.

“The argument made by the movants amounts to little more than arehashing of the argument made in this regard in their principalbrief,” the document said.

The brief goes on to discuss how the court had found the city hadmet its burden of proof with regard to the reasonableness of theproposed annexation area.

The request for rehearing filed by the CAA contends a vast amountof the annexation area is rural and would not develop in areasonable time frame. Fernald indicated that past city progresscontradicts that assertion.

“A hundred and fifty yards from where the First United MethodistChurch is now was farmland 40 years ago,” said Fernald. “It’sprogress, and that’s the way progress goes.”

The CAA had argued that certain ordinances did not apply to some ofthe residents of the proposed annexation area who lived on largertracts of land and farmed on that property. But Fernald said thecity is addressing many of those issues already.

“The municipality has made exceptions as to burning, clearingtimber, and allowed some limited hunting privileges,” saidFernald.

City officials are also quick to point out how the residents of theannexation area have long been dependent on the city for theirprimary needs as far as business and commerce.

“But for this town, those people wouldn’t be here,” said Fernald.”If this town didn’t exist, the nearest Wal-Mart Supercenter wouldbe in McComb. That’s just the tip of the iceberg. The city providesservices for the area surrounding the city, and it needs to expandin order to grow.”

The CAA had also argued that the original ruling was rude andshould be withdrawn on the idea that it was disrespectful to thecitizens in the annexation area. Objectors took exception to theirbeing referred to as a NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) organization.

The city’s brief addressed the issue.

“Smoke screens removed, these objectors don’t want to pay taxes,”the brief said.

Fernald has said in the past that he was surprised at how fast thestate Supreme Court had returned the opinion on the annexation,saying that he was of the same belief other city officials heldthat the opinion wouldn’t come through until October. He saidgenerally when an opinion is returned so quickly, it is becausethere is overwhelming reason to rule that way.

“I don’t think there’s ever been one that’s come back this fast,”he said.