Column for March 29, 2007

Annexation deserves fair treatment by Council

Usually, I write my columns as much as three weeks in advance. When a topic hits me, I become a scribe. Sometimes, I wait until I see something local and timely. This time, I waited and was glad I did so.

The last Selma Town Council meeting had a public hearing regarding the town's plans for involuntary annexation. Many citizens came to the meeting to express their opinions either pro or con. There were no pro arguments to be had. What bothered me greatly was that the council placed an undue restriction on time allowed for commentary. This has not been done at previous meetings, and the time limit was not equally enforced on each speaker. Only the speakers deemed "thorny" to the time keeper seemed to get the three minute rule enforced.

I have differed with Tony Tetterton on other issues, but on this issue, I believe that he should have been heard in full. As a proxy for others, he could have offered a full presentation that fully outlined the problems with the report on the annexation project. Mr. Tetterton went to the trouble of preparing a full multi-media presentation on behalf of those who are being annexed. Quite frankly, if he went through this much effort and there was a full house of people all wanting to have their collective opinions heard, this would have been entirely appropriate.

There have been long winded presentations about energy savings, how electric rates are calculated, and for slide shows made about the town. I do not belittle those projects or the information. However, if the council can take the time for these presentations, it would seem that they could take the time to discuss an issue that would affect an entire subdivision full of residents, as well as other areas just outside the town. I found the time restriction and refusal to hear the presentation unjust and hypocritical. For the meaningful and impactful things such as involuntary annexation, there is no time, but for a presentation about where to have polling places, there was time to spare in the same meeting. The simple request for the town to actually choose a polling location in a timely fashion could have been accomplished in three sentences. Instead, it took the time that a presentation from a group of potentially forcibly added citizens could have taken.

When an entire group of citizens offer to relinquish their three minutes of their rightful time to a proxy such as Mr. Tetterton so that he can speak collectively for them, I find it arrogant to deny that request. Furthermore, when there is an entire page of problems enumerated by the group about the report upon which the decision to annex will be made, then it is only prudent to listen.

I am already on record as opposing involuntary annexation except in specific cases, as I wrote a month ago in this very column. I am very much for private property rights. Unless someone is getting all the benefits of being a resident of the town such as the roads, street lighting, water, sewer, fire protection, ISO insurance ratings, and local development but not paying the supporting taxation whereas a neighbor does, then there is an inequity. When there is a whole group not benefiting from all of these things except paying the fire district tax, I believe that they have the right to stay outside the town. The fiat of five people should not decide the taxation fate of a large number of private homes.

If the town council will not allow the property owners their time to be heard in full, I will offer the time on my own internet talk show which is heard each week. More information can be found on troylaplante.com. A letter to the editor that was in last week's paper is another way of communicating the issue. Either way, the information should be heard by the town for consideration.

In the end, if there are problems and errors in the annexation report, then they need to be seriously addressed by the council and the town attorney. Private property rights need to be taken into account. In addition, those potentially affected need to be treated fairly, equally, and with respect.