It’s something that happily married couples have usually figured out and figured out sooner rather than later.
For instance, they go to the ballet on Friday night to make her happy and then the monster truck rally on Saturday night to make him happy.
No, he doesn’t really want to go to the ballet. No, she doesn’t really want to go to the monster truck rally. For the sake of harmony though, each does something that they don’t exactly want to do in order to get something that they want.
Compromise is also something that most divorced couples probably never did figure out resulting in pretty much everybody involved losing because no one ever wins in a divorce, except maybe the lawyers.
Is this an over simplification? Sure, but it makes a point. Sometimes you have to do some things that you don’t really want to do or everybody loses, like in a divorce.
A good case in point is the current lawsuit that the cities of Corbin and London are involved in regarding London’s attempted annexation of property off Exit 29 in the southern Laurel County/north Corbin area.
Last year London passed an ordinance to annex part of the area, which has sat largely under developed for years because it isn’t in either city limits. Therefore, alcohol can’t be sold at any business built there, such as restaurants.
Corbin sued arguing in part that London was attempting to annex over the top of water and sewer lines, which were paid for by the City Utilities Commission in Corbin.
Since the lawsuit was filed, the Kentucky General Assembly has finally fixed a 1930s era law that prevented Corbin from being able to annex into Laurel County.
The Exit 29 area is Corbin in everything but being part of the official city limits. Homes and businesses there have a Corbin address. The Exit 29 signs say it is Corbin.
If you want a true test on which city this property belongs in, consider that homes and businesses in this area have a Corbin prefix on their phone numbers, and it is long distance to call London from the Exit 29 area.
Let’s play this lawsuit out to its logical conclusion, and see how the non-compromised version of this scenario works out.
In the coming months, a Laurel circuit judge will likely issue a ruling in the case.
Then the losing party will probably appeal sending the case to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which probably won’t issue a ruling for about 18 months or so. Then the losing party there will probably appeal the case to the Kentucky Supreme Court where it will sit for another 18 – 24 months before we have a decision.
All the while property at Exit 29 will sit there waiting to be developed with neither city collecting any tax revenue from it, and by the time all is said and done both sides will have spent out about $250,000 each of taxpayer money on attorney fees.
At this point, the cities of Corbin and London need to work out a compromise regarding the Exit 29 area.
There is a pretty easy one to be had too, provided both sides would be willing to pinch their noses, swallow their pride, and just do it.
London agrees to withdraw its annexation ordinance clearing the way for Corbin to annex land in the Exit 29 area, which Corbin should have been able to annex decades ago.
Corbin then agrees to give London 10 percent of the property tax revenue and 10 percent of payroll tax revenue that it receives from property it annexes in southern Laurel County for the next 10 years.
It’s a resolution that nobody will like, but it’s a resolution where everybody gets something positive.
Property owners off Exit 29 benefit by having their property annexed into Corbin opening it up for development, if they so choose.
Corbin wins by growing its city boundaries, and receiving additional tax revenue for an area that its police and fire department will service.
London wins because its gets a nice chunk of revenue that it has to do nothing for, and that it can spend on anything it wants, such as new sidewalks, new parks, or new playground equipment thereby improving the quality of life for London residents.
Taxpayers in Corbin and London both win by not having to spend $500,000 on attorney fees.
The only losers in this compromise scenario are the high-priced lawyers, which in and of itself, is a win in my book.