“Are you for the merger?”
Wednesday’candidate forum allowed voters to ask any question they desired. One Center Grove resident asked township and county candidates “are you or the merger? Let’s see a show of hands.” No one raised their hand, however three candidates spoke directly to the issue at that time. Others presented their views later in the evening as more questions on the reorganization were raised.
NOTE: If you read this morning’s paper you didn’t get an accurate depiction of the event. The paper stated “A single candidate later talked about the benefits a merger would have.” You will see in this video three candidates addressed the issue when the question was asked, Kenneth Marshall, Anita Knowles and Mark Messick.
View the video of the question about the reorganization CLICK HERE. Did the candidates dodge the issue? You watch, you decide, and please comment below.
Related posts (Automatically generated):
7 Responses to ““Are you for the merger?””
I’m for a good merger plan.
Right now, WRT and Greenwood do not have a good merger plan.
Comment made on April 29th, 2010 at 11:09 pmIn viewing this video there comes to mind a question. The question was asked, “Are you for the Merger and if so raise your hand”. No one raised their hand. I spoke about being unfairly “pegged” about being for the merger and later explained to the lady that asked that I am not for the merger, why and do not like being mischaracterized by the sitting Township Trustee.
Comment made on April 30th, 2010 at 10:49 pmMy question, If you will not say explicitly NO to the merger and refuse to say yes I am for the merger, then does that mean you are for the mmerger? We have a bit of a conundrum here. If you will not say that you are unconditionally against the merger no matter what, then this must be a signal that you are for the merger. Hmmm, how does one get out of that box? Maybe the Daily Journal could do an article on such perplexity that the sitting Trustee simplified to suit himself.
Mr. Marshall: The facts about the current merger plan are in. The plan is available for public viewing in a number of places, including this website. The question IS very simple: Do you support this plan, as in will you vote to approve it, as stated, at an election? If you cannot answer this question, then how can you claim to be qualified to serve as a public official? While I do not care for the single-issue politics of the PRAY slate, at least I know where they stand. The reorganization issue IS the most important issue of this campaign.
No one has yet committed to put the reorg on the ballot for November any more than it was supposed to be on the May ballot. The voters of this township realize a backroom deal when they see one – and they see a whopper.
Remember, the reorg plan is in a final state – it calls for super-Greenwood representation; a new tax rate for WRT with NO guarantees of services, just promises of plans; a stormwater utility that can only be approved by referendum with uncapped taxing authority; and incorporates Mayor Henderson’s Greenwood government plan.
Think carefully as you speak again, Mr. Marshall. We’re listening, and we’re watching.
Comment made on May 1st, 2010 at 11:45 amSo is the merger vote tomorrow or is it going to be in November?
Comment made on May 3rd, 2010 at 1:05 pmI agree with Mr. Murphy that the future of WRT is the biggest issue we should face in November – as long as we actually VOTE ON IT.
I am very disappointed with how muddled this process has become. The first approach of presenting the Greenwood merger proposal in public forums was someone in the open, however I only know of a handful of individuals along with myself that actually reviewed it. I believe the problem is that folks who actually showed up to learn about it didn’t like what or how it was being pitched. The decision to retreat to the November election was a political calculation and a side effect of the whole movement (that once was semi-public) has gone virtually silent to date.
Meanwhile, the Bargersville proposal(s) was/were basically shunned by the now ousted WRT board, and essentially shelved with a degree of success. That really shouldn’t have happened, as they are and will be the neighbors of the unincorporated area and should have been better represented in the whole process.
Joe – you’re right. A good merger plan would go a long way, but I haven’t seen it yet and until it makes good business sense for everyone I will oppose it. In the meantime talks of incorporation should continue, the public needs to be readdressed, and Bargersville needs to be included in future planning. The only folks that are benefitting from this are the attorneys and consultants involved!
Comment made on May 12th, 2010 at 12:13 pmI wish people would stop harping on the Bargersville merger proposal of many months ago. The fact is that Bargersville’s proposal was late, and inadequate…it only applied to a small portion of WRT…and so was a non-starter. Bargersville demonstrated NO interest in the project until Greenwood submitted a study proposal to the WRT board. The WRT board did the only thing it could do, it accepted the Greenwood proposal to STUDY the idea of a merger.
And as concerns the comment above about consultants and attorneys benefiting from the planning, that is completely false. All the folks who devoted many,many hours to the STUDY did so voluntarily and without pay…they were true civic servants. I’m willing to bet that they devoted more time and energy in one meeting than the complainers on this website have in total to examining the proposal.
I was not one of those who was engaged in the STUDY, but I did attend many meetings to hear about what the recommendations were. To their credit, those volunteers and Greenwood’s Council LISTENED to those who had concerns and have been modifying the STUDY to reflect many of them…..so we can ALL have a plan to vote upon in November. I can only hope WRT residents will actually READ the STUDY and RECOMMENDATIONS before entering the voting booth so they can make an INFORMED decision instead of an emotional one.
Comment made on May 28th, 2010 at 9:30 pmI couldn’t agree more about the folks who have volunteered, and I have personnally thanked many of them face to face for their time and hard work. My comment was simply directed to the folks who ARE getting paid throughout this process.
Comment made on June 3rd, 2010 at 3:28 pmLeave a Comment