Over the past year, a proposal by a development group to have the zoning changed on a 155-acre parcel of land which fronts on the Farmer’s Turnpike (County Road 438), just north and east of the Lecompton interchange of the Kansas Turnpike, has wended its way through both Douglas County and Lawrence officialdom. I have watched this proposal with some interest because the parcel at issue is about two miles from my home, far enough not to directly affect me but close enough to be of some interest.

The developers first sought to get permission to develop the land from Douglas County, but overwhelming opposition to this plan by neighbors brought a negative response from the County Commission. Defeated in this forum, the developers and their lawyers decided to do an end run around the county and attempt to get permission to develop the parcel by having the city of Lawrence annex the property in what is known as an “island” annexation.

This type of annexation is unusual because the parcel is not contiguous to the city and the city would not be required to provide services to the parcel. The developers propose to create a “distribution center” or related facility on the land, but have not specified particular potential tenants or uses.

So far, Lawrence’s official bodies seem strongly in favor of the annexation. Why shouldn’t they be? It increases the city’s tax revenues without any costs or disturbance to city residents. Those fall entirely on the county and the neighbors. As a resident of “rural Douglas County,” I want to say that I’m really getting tired of the city of Lawrence treating the rest of the county like poor relations.

In principle, I’m not opposed to the developers’ proposed project, if it is done correctly. But my problem is that the city of Lawrence seems perfectly willing to annex a piece of land outside its service area, outside its planning strategy and without serious consideration of the potential problems of water supply, road maintenance, noise, environmental damage and the destruction of an agricultural and rural residential environment.

There were valid reasons why the county didn’t give the developers the go-ahead to develop the land. It is true that the proposed use now is somewhat different, but why don’t the developers go back to the county with their new proposal rather than seek a way around the county and county residents as they seem to be doing?

I’ve lived in rural Douglas County for 14 years. One of the things I like best about living in the country is that country people, by and large, make good neighbors. I must say the way in which the developers and the city officials have been handling the developers’ new proposals don’t encourage me to think that they have this same sense of neighborliness. As Joni Mitchell once sang: “pave paradise and put up a parking lot.” Well, not without a fight.