Trustee townhall: All negative, no solutions

(Commentary) Here are my thoughts after Tuesday night’s town hall meeting, hosted by Jay Marks the White River Township Trustee. I was pleased to see the high attendance; although more representation from younger residents in the northern part of the township would be have been a positive thing. No fault to Mr. Marks on this one, he did a great job of promoting the event through the use of portable signs throughout the township.

What really bothered me was the negative tone of the event. All we heard was what was wrong, in their opinion, with the reorganization proposal. Solutions were not part of the official presentation. Only, at the very end, after many had left, did some possible solution get suggested. And then, only after some pointed questioning by an attendee. Then Marks decided to share his experience in visiting the Atlanta, GA area and the communities there that have successfully incorporated under the public-private partnership model, an approach that allows a town of 90-thousand to have only six full time employees. Of course, this was not part of the initial presentation, which was reserved for criticizing the reorganization plan. The plan is not immune to criticism; I just think if you are going to tear something down, you should also provide a positive alternative.

I was struck by the large map that was prominently displayed as the meeting opened and then off-and-on throughout the evening. It only showed the portion of White River Township south of Stones Crossing Road. It’s interesting that the Trustee, who multiple times claimed to “represent all of White River Township,” chose a map the ignored fully half of the land area of WRT and, by my guess, 30-thousand of its residents. What did it show? It showed the area where Bargersville provides sewer service. Incidentally, the ability to provide sewer service is the key criteria that the town uses when deciding which areas to annex. It was a map of the future Bargersville! So, why were there white, un-annexed, areas on the map? Because they fall within three miles of the Greenwood city limits and they didn’t want to pick yet another fight with Greenwood. I want to be clear, while this is an opinion piece; the information stated above is factual and gathered from private and public meetings concerning the annexations. Jay, why did you not show a map of all of White River Township? I would really appreciate it if you would respond by providing a comment to this article. There may be a reason that I’m not thinking of and I’m open to hearing it.

One other thing caught my ear. Consistently, we have heard about how the fine people in the southwestern portion of the township want to join with Bargersville because the town will allow them to continue their traditional agricultural way of life. This was the primary drumbeat throughout the public hearings on the voluntary annexation: Let farmers be farmers. Now, last night, we hear the Township Accountant say that the 10-year tax relief provided to agricultural land will probably not mean much, since much of that land will be commercially developed within ten years anyway. So which is it? Is the intent of Bargersville to preserve a traditional way of life or capture some of the most valuable remaining commercial land in the township? There is nothing wrong with either option, but you can’t have it both ways.

Related posts (Automatically generated):

1. Motivation & Triangulation
2. Bargersville solicits voluntary annexations
3. School board member says resident is “completely outrageous and wrong”
4. State budget shortfalls could force real change…for the better!
5. Short term “pain” for long term gain?