To the editor:
The subject of the Urban Growth Management Area (UGMA) is still an irritating issue with those of us residing outside of city limits.
It is still our wish to remain as county residents, not a part of any city in any way.
I will continue to assert that we as taxpaying property owners should have the final decision regarding the status of our property.
I have attended two “meet the candidates” sessions since before the general election.I went to learn specifically how candidates stand on the implementation of the UGMA.Each time we were not allowed to stand and address the candidates with direct questions. We were told to write our questions on a card.
Each time my question asked candidates if they would respect us as county residents and oppose the passage of this land-grabbing plan.Each time my question was ignored.
During a recent session, a question was presented regarding the handling of stray animals in the county. While I don’t condone bad treatment of animals, I think protection of our property warrants more attention than devoting precious time discussing what to do with stray dogs.
Each of the candidates presented themselves well in terms of pledging to represent voters and promising transparency. This sounds good. Actions will show the truth.
It is good to introduce candidates in a public forum, allowing them to state their position on issues.We as voters should be allowed to ask direct questions of the candidates. This is an important part of the political process.
I don’t want a monitor deciding whether my question is worthy of being presented to the candidates asking for our votes.If candidates aren’t presented with questions important to us, if they cannot or will not answer these questions, they should not be seeking to hold public office.
If a member of the audience becomes abusive or begins to ramble off subject, he or she would be asked to sit down.
The upcoming election, which will add two county commissioners, could be good or bad for us when it comes to the UGMA. This is why it is crucial for us as county property owners to know when candidates pledge to represent voters that we expect them to take a stance on our behalf and fight this land-grabbing effort better known as the Urban Growth Management Area.
I understand county government is urging businesses to come to our area. I understand the county and cities want to increase revenue.
More homes result in more property tax, which will be the subject of my next letter to the editor.
I am in favor of controlled growth. However, my view of controlled growth is defined as county property owners controlling the growth.
It is not at all difficult to grasp that we as county property owners do not want to be absorbed or controlled by a city in any way.
Let’s hope that the current commission along with whomever will be elected to complete a five-member county commission will honor their commitment to represent the voters including those of us opposed to the UGMA.