What a mess.
While they went to the same Oct. 22 city commission meeting as I and many of you did – the one about annexation – it seems some of my neighbors walked away with a completely different understanding of the City of Decatur’s process for addressing the expansion of its borders.
Yesterday, one of my neighbors called me to say that several residents representing the pro-annexation side had dropped by her house hoping to get her signature. They assured her that their petition was not to give a nod to annexation itself; rather, it was only to request a vote on annexation. Since then, I’ve heard from or about four neighbors who had the same experience. Sign their petition, they've been told, and you’ll send the issue to a vote next year.
Now we have some residents of Springdale Heights, in Area B-1, who might have thought they had plenty of time to make up their mind about annexation by simply signing this group’s papers. But the movement is now. The City of Decatur wants to know now whether or not to move forward with a costly referendum in 2013.
So, what we have in Springdale Heights, intentionally or otherwise, is a failure to communicate the proper intent of the petitions. One simply is for annexation; another is against annexation. If the COD only wanted to know how many among us want to vote later on the issue, certainly one petition would have sufficed (or, a simple show of hands at that Oct. 22 meeting).
As should be expected, the breakdown in communication has its defenders. Generally speaking, the argument is made that nothing has been misrepresented, but clear fear – that the city will remove Area B-1 from consideration for annexation if it is not put to a vote – accompanies it.
One pro-annexation neighbor put it this way after I, admittedly, questioned the group's intent: “If there isn't a majority support for annexation in our neighborhood, then neighbors won't have an opportunity to vote next year, because if C.O.D decides to pursue annexation, they would take our neighborhood out of the area of consideration, as they have no interest in pursuing our neighborhood if there isn't majority interest in being annexed.”
Another pro-annexation neighbor stated, “If someone is on the fence now, they could sign yes, and not lock themselves out of an option later. This doesn’t set anything in stone.”
But that’s not the process the City intended, and the process is now compromised. One can only hope the City doesn’t suggest a vote is needed, after all, to clear up the confusion. What a slap in the face to my anti-annexation neighbors that would be; they'd never trust the City again, even if as residents. Plus, I have seen their stack of signatures, both impressive and correctly obtained.
So, how is this resolved? The deadline for turning in the petitions is today, so I’m challenging City Manager Peggy Merriss to have her staff take a couple of hours out of the next several weeks to verify signatures on the pro-annexation petitions for Area B-1. Did those residents intend to approve annexation now, or were they only interested in buying time to decide?
As another neighbor (who is against annexation) said, “No one made this issue up. It has happened and it is NOT good. Either by accident or intent, it reflects poorly on the efforts of the pro camp who I believe are perfectly honest people who would like to be assured ALL their efforts are above board.”
I can only repeat Molly’s call to the Mayor and Ms. Merriss to demonstrate their good character and uphold the principles of fairness and transparency to which I’m sure they subscribe and verify the signatures for Area B1.
I am always amazed at what folks think is OK to write in a post, and usually that poster hides behind a fake name. Let's be a little more polite to our neighbors, even if you do not physically live near them. Why not engage Molly is a debate on what she is posting about rather than throwing insults? Molly, I think you should run for office. I applaud you yet again for posting about this issue and for clarification I already live in CoD. It is clear to me that you merely want a fair approach to annexation and my guess is you would move on with whatever outcome came out fairly. Please keep up the effort, you are doing the right thing for the right reasons.
Imagine if a few pro-annexers got with a few anti-annexers, and they canvassed the neighborhood together with BOTH petitions and said, "We have two petitions here: one is in favor of annexation, and one is against annexation. Please sign which one you prefer to sign and we'll turn in both petitions." And lo, it came to pass that the petitions were turned in, blessed by both groups as representative of the neighbors' voices. Would you have had a problem with that approach?
Molly, If someone is in favor of annexation, of course they will try to present their case when looking for signatures. Since I am in favor of annexation, why would I lobby or work for the other side's cause? This is the exact same as you are attempting do with your web site and petition.
If an overwhelming number of people are seen by the City to be favoring annexation, the City could very well bypass a vote and head straight to the state legislature for approval. Now, do you think THAT would be fair to those who only signed the pro-annexation petition when it was (mis)represented as only allowing them more time to think about it? Please, stop denying the misrepresentation happened. Too many people were clearly -- emphatically -- told to disregard the header on the petition, that it was only to send the issue to a vote. They are real people; neighbors. One of them signed it under that pretense, it was turned in with others, and had it not been for yet another person calling me to verify the city's use of those petitions, we could very well be on our way to annexation -- even with a majority AGAINST IT! All because of the sad strategy by a few. I have run out of lights to shine on this. I'll hope the city manager does the right thing by verifying those signatures.