Weatherford doesn’t need to grow west

Viewpoints

March 30, 2007

Bonnie Wingo, Guest Columnist

Anonymous The Weatherford Democrat Fri Mar 30, 2007, 03:13 PM CDT

On March 27, 2007, I attended a meeting of the Weatherford City Council where the annexation of the area west of the city limits was on the agenda. The reason given was to regulate new development and promote orderly growth.

The annexation plan supposedly offers several opportunities for public input, but that input appears to have no effect. We had “opportunity” that evening to speak, ... with no answers to our questions.

Answers were promised in the future, but a second and final reading is to be held April 10, 2007.

Input from the property owners is just that, it has no force or persuasion on the city, basically it’s all over but the shouting.

Any future meetings are to negotiate provision of services. Services we do not need nor want.

As property owners, we have no vote for, or against the annexation, no real say in whether or not we are annexed. The City of Weatherford is doing this against our will, disregarding our opposition.

Put it to a vote of the ones affected before the decision is made. This is suppose to be a Democracy, I personally see nothing Democratic about this annexation or the process used to do it.

After hearing how much the tax base for the proposed annexation area will benefit them, I believe it is the intention of the city leaders to finance the proposed loop around Weatherford with the windfall they will receive. Their own literature has a statement referring to the city’s share of Texas Department of Transportation pass through toll projects and a tax increase up to $.50 or $100. of valuation.

This annexation pretty well covers the west loop area. I do understand that the loop will cost more than the taxes will bring in, but it will reduce the city’s share.

Not one person attending the meeting among the property owners spoke on behalf of the annexation, but many spoke against it.

The general consensus is that we do not need or desire city services. Most of the properties are small landowners with livestock production which will be adversely affected by this annexation. We moved to the “country” to get out of the city. This annexation will completely erode our way of life and freedom to use our land as we see fit in order to make a living for our families.

Just on our road we have several “ropers” who have practice arenas with calves that would now be illegal due to size/acreage regulations. This is their livelihood and practice is essential in order for them to perform their craft.

The Sheriff’s Posse will also be annexed, which will make them subject to the noise ordinance as well as city regulations, and any city “gathering” regulations. This will most certainly affect the rodeos and dances.

No one from the Posse spoke to the meeting, does this mean they agree with the annexation?

As small livestock producers and farmers, we usually have to clear out the excess vegetation at least once a year, burning those accumulations will now be illegal.

The city states that we will receive police and fire protection with this annexation. Due to Sheriff Fowler, we have more than adequate coverage, and the Greenwood Fire Department does an excellent job. We already pay for those services with our county taxes, so why do we need the city services?

We don’t.

Supposedly, road maintenance will be a plus for annexation. My road in Precinct 2 is better than the majority of the city streets. Trash pickup will be cheaper, but not enough to offset the tax increase we will have to bear.

I do understand the concept of orderly growth, but I know the city is not considering us as they push forth this annexation, with no representation from the owners who are affected.

Show us what you can offer and let us decide.

Text Only

The Air Force Academy recently graduated their first openly gay cadets. What does this signify?

Viewpoints

Search Results