Reasons to support the merger
Since the release of the Reorganization Proposal residents of White River Township and Greenwood have often said “give us one reason we should vote for this proposal.” Now Greenwood resident, retired Center Grove teacher and Reorganization Committee member Don Hanlin provides a number of reason that residents should carefully consider and then pass the proposal. We present this for your information and comment.
Dann & Jody Veldkamp
CenterGroveInc.org Editors
###
When local voters consider the plan to merge Greenwood and White River Township (WRT), they should make a decision that preserves and increases the value of our growing suburban community.
Residents of the two areas live in a community of both new subdivisions and aging subdivisions with deteriorating streets. They enjoy a rolling landscape and battle flooded streams. They travel on well-designed modern streets and outdated county roads. They reside in low-density single-family homes as well as high-density apartments. Responsibility for local services and economic development in this large sprawling community is divided between Greenwood, Bargersville, and Johnson County.
Doing nothing, the choice of many opponents of the merger, ignores this reality and allows current problems to get worse. Maintaining the status quo in WRT will only encourage both Bargersville and Greenwood to annex areas that will add to their tax base without adding to their costs. Older subdivisions in the northern portions of the township and their crumbling streets and drainage problems will then be left to county officials beholding to voters from other townships. In the long run, doing nothing will reduce the value of the entire community.
Some WRT residents want to solve these problems by creating a new city. The idea has merit; however, it would require a very high tax rate. As an alternative, several residents wanted to merge Bargersville and WRT. Town officials rejected the idea of taking in the older and aging portions of the township while attempting to annex the portions of WRT with the least problems, the most potential for growth, and valuable sanitation assets owned by Greenwood. Such “cherry picking” does make sense for Bargersville. On the other hand, it endangers the older northern WRT neighborhoods by isolating them from the growing tax base in the south.
A better alternative for both areas is to merge WRT with Greenwood. The two areas have almost equal populations and thus neither could “take over” the other and many WRT citizens already live in Greenwood. In a merged city, more than 40,000 of an estimated 88,000 residents would live in WRT.
By merging with Greenwood, WRT residents would have more control over local officials who control road funds and would receive more road revenue from the state than currently goes to the county. In addition, the city would receive more revenue generated by state cigarette and alcohol taxes which is not distributed to the county.
In a merger, Greenwood would contribute a large commercial tax base, well-organized city departments, and various municipal properties such as an airport and parks. Though WRT has no similar municipal assets to contribute, it does have significant potential for commercial growth. Furthermore, both areas have innovative leaders, good schools, economical home values, and industrious citizens.
In the short run, the rules of the merger would ensure that rebuilding aging infrastructures in one area would not drain money from similar work in the other area. In the long run, a larger tax base would benefit both WRT and Greenwood residents. Merging would facilitate economic development along key transportation corridors in both WRT and the old city of Greenwood. Creating one police department would help combat crime more effectively in areas with increasing population density as well as along the Marion-Johnson county line. Becoming the sixth largest city in the state would increase our influence in state politics.
The bitterness expressed by some opponents of the merger suggests that they not only dislike change, they really do not like our community as it is. They would prefer to go back to some version of a 1970’s community that did not include most of us. By opposing the merger, they seem to think that they can roll back the calendar and do away with the problems that go with being the sixth largest urban community in the state. However, we cannot go back. We cannot even stay where we are. Change has been the most constant characteristic of our community for half a century and will be for the next 50 years. The only thing that we can change is the way we plan for change. There really is no better alternative than merging the City of Greenwood and WRT.
Related posts (Automatically generated):
4 Responses to “Reasons to support the merger”
Mr. Hanlin: Some of the objections to the proposed merger are that it promises planning, but little else. Having seen the promises and plans for many years, and with little or no action, we’re not buying. The plan needs to be far more specific about we as WRT citizens get as Greenwood residents that we don’t get today.
For example, under the merger plan, we would get trash collection at Greenwood’s rate. Some of us already get that rate or a better one. We could get street light payments — phased in at some future date. We will get fewer police per shift, but get the honor of paying more for it. We get the honor of paying more for fire protection with Greenwood getting the benefit of WRT services.
We get to be included in a PLAN for roads and trails. Talking to our WRT brethren that already are in Greenwood, we know that street repair promises are easy, but getting council funding is difficult. We also realize we would be the lion’s share of the funding, but not the cub’s share of representation.
Many of us do not care to support Greenwood’s many litigation actions — whether opposing WRT residents, Bargersville, or whomever. We see it an unnecessary expense. Likewise, the expansion of Greenwood government wasn’t necessary for this new city. In an economic downturn, the committee adopted a “nice-to-have.”
Then there’s the Storm Water Utility which still hasn’t been consistently explained. Pat Sherman’s reply to the public is NOT what is in the plan. The $5/month says per ERU — whatever that is, as its not defined in the plan. The only way such an entity can be created is via referendum. So this is a subtle way to increase taxes with no cap, via a referendum within a referendum.
With regard to costs of self-incorporation, you are quite correct. Thanks to Greenwood & Bargersville, that option is now officially anything but viable. But how does Greenwood propose to be so much more efficient and cost-effective than every other Indiana city? Are you that cost-effective now or are some of the future costs hidden? Or are certain services not being provided? Again, if/when you or the Reorganization committee responds, please be specific.
So no, Mr. Hanlin, we don’t want to revert to the 1970s. We just don’t see the advantage of Greenwood in the 2010’s and beyond. You missed an opportunity to get our buy-in.
Comment made on January 22nd, 2010 at 8:22 amThere are certainly benefits to merging with Greenwood – or Bargersville, for that matter.
However, having watched the process and the decisions made by the WRT board, the Greenwood council, and the Greenwood mayor throughout said process, I simply do not believe that this is the best plan that could have been put before the voters.
Right now is the time to propose smarter, smaller government. This merger plan is anything but, with just about every board getting larger.
The only people I have seen advocate for the proposal are those involved in the process. That advocacy has the perception as though the only reason the plan calls for larger government is so that people who worked on the merger could be rewarded for their efforts with a seat somewhere.
Further, the merged city loses an elected clerk-treasurer for an appointed controller responsible only to the mayor. I have issues with a city of 80,000 with less people responsible to the voters.
I hope the merger committee takes a “no” vote not as “We’re against a merger, full stop” but instead as “We’re against this merger plan. Try again.”
Comment made on January 22nd, 2010 at 10:26 amWhite River Township has very good services, and a merger with either municipality would not improvethem, it would just add another layer of regulations and a lot more tax money for politicians to squander.
Comment made on January 22nd, 2010 at 7:43 pmNO MERGER !
Comment made on January 23rd, 2010 at 4:51 pmLeave a Comment