City annexation: Round 3
read more recent story comments Reader comments| One Voice Thursday, May 24, 2012: 10:51 am More from One Voice  | Why don't we put it on the ballot in November and let the taxpayers and citizens vote on annexation? |
| Brian Culp Thursday, May 24, 2012: 11:00 am More from Brian Culp | To One Voice, Researching that one, but here was the answer given last night by the city: — A question was raised about putting the annexation to a referendum vote. Ochs said the law does not allow people to vote. “The legislature set up the annexation process we have to follow,” he said. Brian Culp Managing Editor |
| STANDING BYE Thursday, May 24, 2012: 11:25 am More from STANDING BYE | Still same thing...City has no clue why they are doing this...this One Horse town is dead! |
| not.again Thursday, May 24, 2012: 1:53 pm More from not.again | Still same thing...City has no clue why they are doing this...this One Horse town is dead! Failing to plan is planning to fail. The City leaders have finally made a wise strategic move to take advantage of I69 and give the City a chance to attract professional, high paying jobs to the City. The naysayers exhibit the "change averse" attitude that has held Martinsville back for too many years. As a lifelong resident, I am glad to see the City finally making some bold moves! |
| MissKitty Thursday, May 24, 2012: 1:56 pm More from MissKitty | This is poor planning at its best with a hidden agenda. I used to really like Martinsville. Sad. |
| 2 Cents Thursday, May 24, 2012: 4:58 pm More from 2 Cents | I’m going to hazard a guess that those speaking up to support this annexation do not live in the affected areas. Being forced to go several thousand dollars into a debt you cannot afford, to hook up to a sewer system you don’t need – with grinders and lift stations, no less, (a cost which will not be off-set by insurance reduction and trash pick-up), and an increase in property taxes (double or triple) and a large monthly water/sewer bill, taking money out of already strained budgets – it is so easy to come out in support when the discussion is about others and will not affect you in any adverse manner. Ask yourself if you would be willing to help pay out of your own pocket to help pay for all of these forced expenses for those who simply cannot manage it. No? That’s what I thought. |
| ronschoolcraft Thursday, May 24, 2012: 5:00 pm More from ronschoolcraft | Here's the problem that I see with all of this. The people who's land is being "grabbed" by the city did not get to vote for the people making the decisions. Therefore, the mayor and the city council have no accountability to the people most affected by this move. And those people apparently are not being listened to because the mayor and the council know what's best for us morons out here in the sticks. At the moment, the proposed new boundaries miss my property by about a half mile. I wouldn't be surprised, now that I've made my opinion known, if the boundaries don't mysteriously change to include my property. A referendum is the right answer and allow the people being affected the opportunity to be heard. It's convenient that the "law doesn't allow a vote" -- hmmm... At present, it is illegal to discharge firearms inside city limits (unless you are a police officer, then you can do about what ever you want including falsely accusing people of crimes that they didn't commit (two examples in the last year)and harassing law law abiding citizens trying to fill up their water tanks at night). If this proceeds, you will be stripping rights from people who chose to live in the country in order to be able to use firearms on their own private property. Yes, I've heard the promise that those rights will be grandfathered -- right. For how long? Not very long is my guess. Currently, I already have to go before the city council if I want to modify or add buildings to my property, even though I don't live with in city limits. The mystical buffer zone (that is blamed on the state, but manipulated masterfully by the city) rules say I have to. Again, I don't get to vote for the people who have direct jurisdiction over what I can and cannot do on my property. This is a form of soft tyranny that will eventually lead to hard tyranny. It's pretty clear that the people being "annexed" (read land grabbed) don't want to be part of the city. If they did they would have moved into town already. But, our city politicians know better than we do what is good for us. Strange coming from mostly Republicans. It's tough to tell the difference between these guys and the average Democrat. |
| turtle Thursday, May 24, 2012: 7:57 pm More from turtle | 2 cents said it perfectly. I cannot afford to make these payments. We are so stressed over these extra bills on their way it is crazy. We also have a son getting ready to have surgery. That is at least another $1500 deductible. We don't have spare money laying around. I agree, if the city is going to annex us in, then they should pick up the tab or at least split the cost with those already in the city. |
| turtle Thursday, May 24, 2012: 7:59 pm More from turtle | Thank you Ron Schoolcraft! |
| Deve Thursday, May 24, 2012: 9:22 pm More from Deve | For the first time that I can recall, the city is being proactive instead of reactive. As you look at the cities and town's in the Indianapolis Metorpolitan area, Martinsville has made no efforts to grow and develop. Annexation is a tool, if used properly, can make a community attractive to prospective businesses and potential residents. At the present time, Martinsville and Morgan County is dependent upon residential property owners to support the tax rolls. This dependency on individuals also becomes evident by us having among the highest county option income tax rates in the state. I work in Hamilton County, but live in Martinsville by choice, but this choice is becoming more and more difficult. Working in Hamilton County, I must admit that I do have some envy of the amenities that are afforded in that area, and have utilized those amenities. I am unable to tell you the last time I made a large purchase, other than my home in Martinsville or Morgan County. Even most of my smaller purchases are made outside of Morgan County, because you cannot buy quality merchandise here. Annexation will not solve all issues, and benefits will not be reaped immediately, but will set us all up for future success, if not for us, but for future generations. |
| LilaMae Thursday, May 24, 2012: 10:06 pm More from LilaMae | Deve - you hit the nail on the head....our leaders are overcome with "Envy" of other towns. Any bible reading individual knows there are countless versus that deal with this topic. My favorite....James 3:16 - For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. |
| ronschoolcraft Thursday, May 24, 2012: 10:53 pm More from ronschoolcraft | Those developments south of town that are already using city utilities make sense, to a certain extent. The areas north of town that are basically hilly, wilderness areas make no sense economically for annexation. When these areas are included, I wonder about the true motives. Why should I lose the rights to the thirty three acres that I own simply because some city engineer or councilman covets it for "the good of the city" and its economic development. You don't own the land, I do. This sounds a lot like collectivism, aka communism. This is not how this country was founded. |
| 16 comments found | |
| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next |
Add a comment
Posting comments on this web site requires you to be logged in. • Create your account• Log in to your account
» more
TABLE OF CONTENTS »
NEWS
Today
Obituaries
Local
Police
Court news
Weather
Business
Property transfers
Area salaries & stats
Education
State
Nation/World
Photo galleries
Videos
SPORTS
Sports
MD-T sports
IU sports blog
Martinsville
Mooresville
Decatur Central
Eminence
Indian Creek
Monrovia
Tabernacle Christian
Fantasy racing league
BLOGS
All blogs
Quit Smoking...Do It
Sci-Fi Sojourns
The Hoosier Scoop
Hoosier Wine Cellar
Gaming Guru
Mellenblog
