This is in regard to the article by S.C. Morgan, page 7, July 4, 2007 edition pertaining to the decision of the City Council meeting of June 26. It mentioned that existing road and drainage conditions are not a developer’s responsibility to repair; however, as it was pointed out at the June 4 Council meeting, a subdivision will only add to existing problems.
The city does not want to put any money into a narrow street with an inadequate drainage ditch. Why? It’s the city’s problem, too. This leaves the homeowner (taxpayer) to pick up the bill on existing conditions both of which are owned and maintained by the city. This is not going to happen.
A too narrow street and a questionable drainage system are what we (all of us) pay taxes for. That’s what we have. We expect better.
When the area of interest (streets and avenues at the east end of town) was annexed into Sweet Home, the city was given $1.3 million with part of it earmarked for road improvements.
I understand it still exists in a lump sum with the interest going to the city. We may have to get a judge to review the situation and make a ruling on the use of the money if push comes to shove. I sincerely hope this can be avoided.
As for the two comments in the article, “Their preference is to have someone else fix them” and “They aren’t willing to take it on”, reminds me of an old Chinese proverb: “It is better to be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
Everyone on the city payroll is a civil servant. They work for you and for me, and they can be removed at any time. Some of them should remember this as they express a personal opinion about city business to a reporter.
I believe a local improvement district (LID) is not the answer to the problem. It is an attempt to squeeze more money from a few taxpayers. I also believe that this is called ‘selective persecution’ and, as such, is against the law. That’s the way this taxpayer views it.
Jack C. Bishop
Sweet Home