A number of aspects regarding the Springtown annexation issue and Springtown politics are troubling to me. One would think, in a town the size of Springtown, folks could at least get along and work together well enough to make their town a better place to live, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Looking from the outside, it appears there is such a fierce, ongoing political feud going on there that Springtown doesn't stand a chance of ever improving its lot and providing any improved benefits to its residents.
Of great concern to me are actions of current mayor, Preston Barrett, setting aside council action based on his private surveys of the residents of Springtown. We heard it when he, without council action or approval, took it upon himself to withdraw the town's grant application to build a walking trail. Now, we hear it again as he allegedly, based on a private survey of the town's residents and saying 20 registered voters were opposed to it, voiced opposition to accepting five properties into the town whose owners petitioned to be a part of Springtown.
Who are these 20 registered voters opposed to the annexation petition? So far, though requested, a list has not been provided. My contention is that it is easy to say the people don't want something but it apparently is not so easy to provide the proof. And, without the proof, how can anyone believe it is really so? I would love to have that list so I can verify that a private survey did indeed take place and that there really are 20 registered voters in Springtown who voiced opposition to the annexation petition.
Related to this is another question that troubles me. I requested and received from the county clerk's office, within 24 hours, a list of registered voters in Springtown. There are 54 registered voters, including two who receive their mail in California. How does 20 amount to 51 percent of 54? My math says 20 is closer to 37 percent and definitely not a majority.
In the mayor's arguments, we've heard that he was elected to represent the people and is doing the will of the people. My question is what about the aldermen, elected to represent the people in the previous term? Were they not representing their constituents when they voted unanimously to pursue a grant to build a walking trail?
I see John Wasson -- who probably could call Springtown his home and register to vote there since he is a property and homeowner in the town but hasn't because he actually spends most of his time in California -- accused of trying to work toward having Springtown annexed into Gentry. I visited with Mr. Wasson for an hour or more and he made it clear that his goal was simply to preserve the beauty and integrity of Flint Creek, as well as the history of Springtown.
Perhaps I fail to understand, but it appears that sides have been taken and what matters most in Springtown is which side one is on. If something was initiated by the old mayor or those sympathetic to his views, it is criticized and rejected by the new mayor and those sympathetic to his views. It all leads me to the opinion that, if the walking trail, the bridge or the annexation petition were the idea or to the benefit of the new mayor and his side, it would be great. But, because it wasn't and isn't, it's rejected.
It kind of all reminds me of the Hatfields and the McCoys. The lead may not be flying, but accusations sure are. What I want to know is where is the proof? Where is the list of the majority of Springtown voters opposed to the annexation and opposed to a walking trail? Where is the engineer's report that says the Springtown bridge is unsafe? Where is the proof for criminal accusations? Where is the proof that those seeking annexation had ulterior political motives?
Randy Moll is the managing editor of the Westside Eagle Observer. He may be contacted by email at [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Editorial on 04/22/2015