.MzQ5Mg.MzQ5Mg

WILLIAM B. HARTSFIELD ATTORNEY AT LAW STANDARD FEDERAL SAVINGS BLDG. AUANTA, GA. April 20, 1967 MAYOR EMERITUS CITY OF ATLANTA Mr . Earl Landers City Hall Atlanta, Georgia Dear Earl: As you know, there is an area immediately a djacent to the Atlanta city limits in the Sandy Springs area, which has always voted for annexation to Atlanta. One of the Plan of Improvement Acts prov ided that if a land lot had sufficient people and sufficient taxable values, that i t could be annexed by a petition t o t he Superior Court. The County Attorney (who,incidentally, has alway s been a bitter opponent of the Plan of Improvement) has indicated that possib ly this act was rendered invalid by a Home Rule Act later passed by the Legislature . I notice that the Supereme Court of Georgia in the case of Lee versus the City of Jesup, has hel d that the Home Rule Act of 1965 does not provide the sole method for annexation , but that the General As sembly still has power to do so by special act. This would indicate that the method set forth in the Plan of Improvement Act of 1951 would still be val id. If the City would be willing to encourage the people in this land lot, I believe they would get up such a petition. If it were successful and if the Court upheld it, this would mean that you could annex selective contiguous areas of desirable citizens by direct court action instead of being browbeaten and treated as we were when the last annexation referendum was authorized by the legislative delegation. It would also start a trend, which in Sandy Springs to come in. my opinion, would induce the balance of The Legal Department might also look into the question as to whether or not this method would be valid in the case of land in another county. North Atlanta is contiguous to At lanta. I live a few hundred feet from it, and many of my neighbors would like to come into the City. Yours sincerely, 1~~frAM 17~4 B. HARTsdELD WBH/bjc �