07.31.08
Joint City - County Planning Board Troubles
This week’s copy of the Dillon Tribune carries an article about the ongoing troubles for the Joint City - County Plnning Board. The article does a good job of laying out the primary issues but there are a few issues I would like to explore that weren’t mentioned in the article.
City Control of the Donut
One of the strongest driving factors behind the Joint City - County Planning Board is the 1 - 5 mile donut surrounding Dillon. In a nutshell, the City wants (at the very least) to have a say in how that area is developed and the County is uncomfortable giving up control of that area to the City (as well as the legal issues involved in doing that). To make matters worse, many of the County Property Owners in that area are VERY uncomfortable with the idea that the City of Dillon has any say in their area.
A joint study group was commissioned to do a study of development in the area and they reported back to both the Dillon City Council and to the County. At the time, all involved said that the information was useful and the City pursued the idea of a joint planning board shortly following that report.
Now, it appears that the City wasn’t happy about that study group. Lynn Westad - a member of the Dillon Planning Board and one of the members of the Joint Study Group - is quoted in the paper -
Board Member Lynn Westad said she sat on the joint city/county task force that met for almost a year, and it didn’t accomplish anything. “The City didn’t get anything”, she said.
That seems to be the primary issue for the City - they aren’t getting what they want.
City Planning Board President and Dillon City Councilman, Mike Riley is much more direct in his comments -
Riley said, “The city of Dillon wants to control the area around the city. We need hard, concrete information, not a ‘vision’”.
He goes on to say -
“We are saying over and over and over and over and over and over again that we’re concerned, we’re concerned… The next thing a rattlesnake does when it is ignored is strike.”
While the last quote sounds like a threat, it is a toothless one. It has been testified in Council Meetings that the City has no authority in the contested areas many times - in fact, that is the basis of the City’s concern. It wants authority.
What the County Property Owners want -
There are many issues here that were reported to the City Council when the Joint Task force made their presentation but the issues boiled down to two primary ones - Zoning and Trust.
The comments reported in the Joint Task force presentation surrounded the distrust of the property owners of the donut in the City of Dillon’s ability or desire to consider their wishs when setting zoning in that area. There were also a number of comments made about the way the City of Dillon goes about their business. I have personally received two emails from residents of that area asking questions about how the City has been handling the Malesich/Warner situation.
How this situation can be resolved (or IF it can be resolved) remains to be seen. Mr. Riley’s comments were unfortunate (as they will play on the fears of the people living in the contested areas) but he has expressed considerable frustration with the situation when reporting to the City Council.
Personally, I think threats are a bad idea to convince someone to work with you. We will see if it works for the City of Dillon
Moorcat
Klipper said,
August 4, 2008 at 10:56 am
I for one am going to this meeting on the 6th from 4-6 p.m. As far as I am concerned the city is the city and the county is the county and we don’t need a grey area called a buffer zone. You would need to continue a buffer zone and where who it all end. Oh, I know in the city. Malesich during his speech at the election debates already said he wanted to get rid of the urban sprawl and annex it all into the city starting with the east side.He also stated if we weren’t with him we were against him and we needed to get out and leave. I want nothing to do with living in the city. That is an appalling thought. I certainly hope others out here remember his words and stand up.
Moorcat said,
August 4, 2008 at 12:16 pm
My understanding is that there are a lot of people that have expressed concern about the way the city is dealing with the “buffer zone”. The County has recieved many comments to that fact.
One thing that has a lot of people concerned is the way the City goes about annexation. They annex in certain areas (the road they annexed recently is a good example) and then use the “wholely surrounded” clause in the law to force annex others. It seems that Malesich is of the opinion that ANY annexation is good - regardless of whether the people want annexed - and he doesn;t give a damn about what it is doing to those annexed. Until there is some common ground reached between the City (and the way that things are done) and those living in the County, this will continue to be a problem.
I am glad that you are planning on being there. The only way that things change is to get those interested involved. One voice (even one as… determined… as mine) is not going to get it done. It will take many voices raised before the Powers that Be even begin to listen…
Moorcat