Column for June 26, 2008

Troy's critique of the Selma Strategic Plan Part 2

Last week, I offered the first part of my critique of Selma's Strategic Plan. Hopefully you have either obtained your own copy of the plan or have the Selma News edition from a couple of weeks ago in which the plan was published chapter by chapter.

In chapter two, it was said that feedback from visitor surveys revealed that visitors consider the small town atmosphere attractive. That is actually one of the things that drew me to live here in Selma. The downtown (call it "uptown" if you will, but a rose by any other name, well, you know the rest) is small and somewhat quaint. The town is not so large that one feels lost yet not so small or removed from the rest of civilization that it is totally inconvenient to the things and places I need, want, and go.

It was suggested that we reinvigorate the Community Watch Program. I have thought this same thing for years and would love to see effort in that direction. It was also suggested that we have regularly scheduled gatherings where citizens and town leaders can informally discuss their ideas about how to improve the town.

I will take that last part one step further. I had offered some time ago to host a community gathering whereby citizens could meet, have a beverage, and talk about town affairs just like used to be done in the pubs of colonial America. I also offered to have a regular monthly or quarterly forum, which I would be glad to record and put on the internet for all to hear. That would allow people who do not normally get to have their say at a town government meeting to come and talk informally and express their opinions. It would allow for question and answer sessions and for citizens to hear them at their leisure. I again make this offer, only in a more public setting such as this newspaper.

Another comment was that the gazebo area behind town hall could be developed into a town commons area. One use that I have pondered for that area for several years is to have a regular weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly prayer gathering. This would work well in early spring, autumn, and winter, especially. In summer, it may be wise to take such a gathering indoors. I again volunteer my time to gather with others of faith and prayer in a non partisan and non denominational setting to gather for the expressed purpose of praying for our citizens, our town, our county, our state, and our nation. If people are interested in either of these offers, then simply contact me via this newspaper, at telephone 965-9695, at PO Box 822 in Selma, or via email at troy@troylaplante.com.

Chapter two goes on to comment that the Parks and Recreation Department does an excellent job of organizing and managing events. I have to give credit where credit is due, as well. For such a small department, Joe Carter and his crew do a fine job with what they have to work with. I have seen towns with about the same population do more in terms of actual parks and programs than we do in Selma with the same or even less staff. However, these other towns also have a lot more facilities and budget with which to work. Those same towns also have a few less major events throughout the year than we do in Selma.

In terms of economy and commerce, it is true that Selma draws antique enthusiasts, since that is the theme of downtown. I can not say with total agreement as the plan has stated, that this brings a sense of unity to the downtown area. I have heard widely differing opinions from different shop owners over the years. Some are still here, others have come and gone. I will say from observation that if there was more unity, then perhaps more shop owners would join and participate actively in the Selma Development Partnership. There are a lonely few that show up each month, ergo, I am dubious as to the sense of unity claim. I myself have joined and try to attend meetings as often as I am able.

My main gripe about the concept of looking for grants for all sorts of programs and improvements in town is that if they are grants from the state or federal governments, they are tax dollars. If there are grants from private (non governmental) sources such as foundations or private industry, then I say go for it. Governmental grants are better than loans, if I have to pick the lesser of two evils. The lesser of two evils, however, is still evil. Governmental grants are essentially paid via laundered tax dollars. Loans, however, get paid back so we are taxed twice for their implementation; once for the initial funding, then for repayment.

There are so many other things upon which I have commentary, but again, I have come to the end of my column for the week. Since I doubt that the editor of this publication would like to have a full page of my commentary at any one time, I will have to continue with chapter three next week. I will be serving on jury duty that week, so I am hoping I will have the time needed with which to craft the column.