Well, it seems that the City of Somerset is relenting from its previously sensible position on the annexation of roadways and is climbing on the bandwagon. The cities of Burnside, Ferguson and Somerset are engaged in one of the most nonsensical and ludicrous exercises I have ever witnessed in municipal governments. You may recall that Ferguson and Burnside have been busy annexing the various roadways and lake shores which has had the effect of hemming in residents but not including them. They say that they just want to give the residents hemmed in the choice of uniting with whatever municipality has done the hemming. Or not. Heretofore Somerset had resisted this inane procedure while insisting on actually annexing residents who could either gain or lose from the action and who would presumably have something to say about it. Well, resist no longer. It appears that Somerset will relent and begin annexing roadways that it will not own and hem in people it will not serve. Go figure.
Of course, the councilors are just elated with the choice since they won't have to take a potentially unpopular decision that could affect their political future.
Mayor Girdler has previously advocated annexing an area of Pulaski County that would bring the population of the city to about 20,000 which would trigger other opportunities open to a city of that size. That made a lot of sense since the city would be offering services in return for levying taxes. A move such as this actually has some benefit to the citizens other than allowing them to be cited for traffic violations by whatever entity has annexed the roadway but has incurred no risk.
I really can't blame the City of Somerset for taking this tack. As Mayor Jones of Burnside stated, “it may appear ridiculous but it seems to be entirely legal.” This may be a paraphrase since I don't have the quote in front of me but it does carry the meaning. Mayor Girdler has been unable to get a majority of the councilors to team with him for his proposed annexation so in order to prevent Burnside and Ferguson from gobbling up every road in the county he is going to relent and gobble up a road or two himself.
I don't care who does this, it still seems a ridiculous way to do things. No matter what they say, those residents hemmed in are affected. It is just not yet. It just limits options in the future and it appears that as long as it doesn't smack them in the face that people are just OK with that. IN MY OPINION, if anything is going to be annexed it should result in some kind of benefit and cost to the affected people. What are you going to do if one of the cities annexes some little roadway next to your property? Does anyone see where this can potentially head?
Mayor Girdler insists that this is just a short hop on his journey to 20,000 but is is still a crazy way to do business. However, the city councilors are just pleased as punch since they won't have to make a decision and can appear forward looking when the election cycle rolls around. And they won't have to defend a decision. Even those who were formerly against annexation are now for it since nobody in the county will be affected and, presumably, nobody will be ticked off.
You know, this subverts the way a democratic republic is supposed to work. With our electoral system someones stands for something and someone opposes. The people vote according to which one will best meet their interests and hopes and a representative is elected. What earthly good does it do to just elect people who can put their name on a letterhead and meet with the other councilors or magistrates or Senators or Representatives. Obviously someone is thinking about annexation or the city wouldn't be eager to prevent the other cities from doing it. Is it just too much to ask for the people to be given something to express their wishes over? This is not just a local problem. It goes all the way to the halls of Congress down in DC. Government is stymied by people who are afraid to put their political futures on the line for something they believe in. Our representatives are unwilling to be unelected if the people don't like what they stand for. Can it really be true that voters are saying that they want someone who will go into office to do nothing? To take no chances?
Those of you who follow my column are no doubt aware that I have an opinion on most things. I am also aware of the characteristics of the uniqueness of opinions. Everybody has one, or they should. My opinion is that I want elected officials who can envision the future and prepare their area for that future, not one that says let's just wait and see what happens. But positions are tricky things and require fortitude since someone may actually disagree.
My take? Good grief, just stand up and make your case. Take a chance! At least we will find out what the people want.
No comments:
Post a Comment