Story comments - Reporter-Times.com/MD-Times.com

Hot topics » Martinsville High School to ... Site a Superfund priority Jail bookings - May 24, 2013

Annexation is legal, but isn’t just or fair

read more recent story comments Reader comments

ronschoolcraft
Monday, July 16, 2012: 2:05 pm
More from ronschoolcraft

Here is the full, unaltered text of my letter. Thanks.

2040 Country Club Rd.
Martinsville, IN 46151
July 14, 2012
Reporter-Times
Dear Sir:
Subject: Martinsville annexation
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

TYRANNY!

The Martinsville City Council is on the verge of approving a zoning ordinance which will have a dramatic impact on both the current city residents and those in the proposed annexation area. Regardless of the public statements that have been made by the councilmen, it appears that approval of this plan is a foregone conclusion. Therefore, once the vote has been recorded, these men will forever be remembered as tyrants.

For full disclosure, I currently own property just outside the proposed annexation area, so there will be no immediate impact on me. I am opposed to this annexation because this is simply the first step to losing my property rights and liberty � it is only a matter of time. If I don�t fight now, there will be very few allies to fight with me when they come for my property. Therefore, I will use inclusive language throughout the rest of this letter.

The definition of tyranny is as follows:

1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.

While the current city residents had the opportunity to elect these leaders, those in the proposed annexation area had no vote. Therefore, to those of us outside the current city limits, this decision is being forced on us by an unaccountable, despotic government. This government believes that it is appropriate to deprive us of our property rights and increase our taxes in order to prevent the taxes of the current city residents from going up.
The following is a quote from today�s Reporter-Times in the article titled, �Engineer: City well-being tied to township annexation�. Strangely, this article doesn�t seem to appear in the on-line edition of the paper.

The opposition to annexation is for selfish reasons, [Mr. Ross] Holloway said.
In the interview, Holloway said, �They don�t want to pay an increase in property taxes. �There is a greater good for the community. Some people are short sighted.

Thank you Mr. Holloway. Mr. Holloway has shown disdain for anyone opposed to his pet project. I tried to speak to him after the meeting last month. He turned his back on me and walked away from me twice in total disrespect. This highlights the character of Mr. Holloway. These comments also provide significant insight into the mindset of one of the most vociferous proponents of this plan. Does anyone else see the Marxist thought processes here? As most in government believe, we are selfish if we want to keep our hard earned money to do with as we see fit. The noble thing to do is to hand it over to the government because they make better decisions with our money than we do. Our founding fathers would not recognize this nation today. They would be disgusted with what we�ve become and where we are headed. In actuality Mr. Holloway, I am not short sighted. I can see clearly where your approach to government will take us. I do not want to go there.

The argument has been made many times that state law defines the process for annexation. That is true. What this city government is doing is perfectly legal. However, that does not mean that it is right or just. As an example, the oppressive taxation that King George levied on the colonies in the mid-1770�s was perfectly legal. He was the king and could enact whatever law he desired. The law in question in Indiana right now was passed by our elected officials, yes, but was likely never an issue in any election and I submit that very few people actually knew that it was enacted. Therefore, it cannot be construed as �the will of the people�. It is the will of a few power hungry state legislators.
The colonists and founders of this nation rightly judged that King George�s actions, though perfectly legal, were tyrannical. They fought a war, sacrificed their fortunes and risked their lives to create a nation where this type of tyrannical behavior would not occur. Unfortunately, history is replete with examples of tyranny within this nation. This annexation process is another example to be added to the list. This action is tyranny, by definition, because it is being forced on us by a government that is not accountable to us, is acting in a despotic fashion and arbitrarily exercising its authority with no avenue for redress. I am quite sure that King George looked at the colonists as selfish and short sighted as well, since their taxes were for the common good of the empire � especially those at home in the British Isles. The taxes paid and sacrifices made by the colonists certainly improved living conditions for those in London.

Frankly, the taxation issue is not the main issue for me. The loss of liberty and personal property rights undergirds my opposition to this issue in primary. In another article in today�s Reporter-Times, it was reported that the council agreed to add language to the ordinance to protect property use in the new areas � explicitly mentioned were the right to fire weapons and allow hunting. As I have said before, even this is an empty promise. There is nothing to stop some future council � or even this one at a future date � from striking that language from the ordinance. All it will take is for someone such as Ms. Stuttgen and her allies to complain about gun use within city limits (or dirt bike riding or chicken farming or any other life choice that she doesn�t agree with) for the process of change to start. The argument will be �Why should some parts of the city be treated any differently from another?�. Since the current city residents will still outnumber us in the new area, our lifestyle will be declared illegal. This, again, is tyranny and is not what this country was intended to be.

I wrote the following in a personal email to Mr. Eric Bowlen, the city council president:

Our way of life is under assault. I don't want to live like you do in the city. That's why I bought property in the country. Now, this council wants to impose your way of life on me and my family and force us to live like you do.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL! We have no voice in this process. We have no vote in electing the people making this decision and we have no way of holding you accountable -- until the annexation happens. Then it will be too late. The pleasure of voting you all out of office will be no consolation considering the loss of liberty that we will have suffered. When decisions like this are forced on people by an unaccountable government, the actions are rightly judged to be tyranny. This is tyranny! Do you want to be remembered as a tyrant?

The question is posed to the rest of the council as well. Do you want to act and be remembered as tyrants? Do you think that you are justified in imposing your lifestyle choices on us and eventually declaring our lifestyle choices illegal? Do you really believe that Mr. Holloway is being intellectually honest with you regarding the floodplain issue? Yes, he�s provided some carefully crafted technical arguments that rely on old maps not changing, but you�ve all seen the water flood the proposed West Business Park area. You also all know that the Federal Emergency Management Agency has made a move to change the flood maps and has only been delayed by technicalities.

It is not selfish to fight tyranny and attempt to protect our liberties.

Regards,
Ronald J. Schoolcraft

outsider
Monday, July 16, 2012: 2:59 pm
More from outsider

It was stated in the Reporter times last week that if the annexation goes through, the newly annexed land citizens will still be allowed to discharge firearms, hunt, and ride vehicles not currently allowed by state law in city limits. How can this be when State law prohibits this?

State law always overrides city law. How is the Mayor/Council going to allow this? Is this just another smoke screen like the lower insurance rates to making the annexed citizens believe their way of life will continue or be better?

ronschoolcraft
Monday, July 16, 2012: 4:42 pm
More from ronschoolcraft

I've posted my letter on-line at:

http://www.schoolcraftpowertrain.com/Documents/Annex071412.pdf

There will also be printed copies at the meeting tonight.

outsider
Monday, July 16, 2012: 9:32 pm
More from outsider

What Ron Schoolcraft stated in regards to tyranny is correct. Because the leaders think it is legal, then it must be alright. But the issue is morality, personal liberties, and most of all destroying lives of people and their property they have had, farmed, and raised cattle on for generations.

What is happening is removal of their identities and way of life they have loved, sweated over, endured weather that destroyed homes and land. But, they endured and rebuilt, now it is to come tumbling around them.

Yes, at one time bringing in additional land was needed for communities to grow, but where Martinsville is located at, this does not need to be done. Development of current city land and buildings need have to be addressed first before the destroying lives of others that had always believed to be safe where they were are living and working.

4 comments found