Why is Springtown keeping folks out?

Can a town keep people out because of differing political views? It sounds pretty un-American, doesn't it. Yet, that appears to be what is taking place in Springtown. Though the majority of the town council approved a voluntary annexation petition for five properties to be added to the town, resulting in population growth and an increase in the town's voter and tax base, the mayor, his councilwoman wife and another council member have voted and vetoed to keep the petitioners out.

Though John Wasson and other petitioners have indicated merging or annexing into Gentry was not a part of their plan in requesting annexation, the mayor has said that merging with Gentry is the ultimate goal and will likely result in a loss of local control over the future of Springtown and could threaten individual property rights.

What becomes readily apparent at town meetings, both from statements of the mayor and council members and from those in the audience, is the division in the town and the animosity between residents on different sides of the issues facing the small town. That, in itself, might be enough to keep some folks from wishing to be a part of the town. And one would have to be pretty naive not to see through the arguments regarding what is or is not in the best long-term interest of the town -- unless, of course, the definition of town is changed to be speaking of specific property owners.

If the mayor's statements, both oral and written, are true and accurate, it makes clear that the reason the recent voluntary annexation petition was denied by the town through the nay votes of two council members and the mayor's veto hinges on the political views or perceived political views of those requesting annexation. The mayor explained that accepting their neighbors into the town would not be in the best long-term interest of the town because, he says, their ultimate goal is to move the town closer to annexation to Gentry, which could result in a loss of local control over Springtown's destiny and, perhaps more importantly, the possibility of landowners losing property or privacy to an effort to preserve Flint Creek and the spring at its source.

I understand the fears of the mayor and his wife but don't agree about their perceived threat of the town being annexed into Gentry. I haven't heard of any interest on the part of Gentry citizens or its council to merge with or annex in Springtown. And, if the new residents were looking to be a part of Gentry, why didn't they get together with other landowners further west and request to be annexed into Gentry? And, besides, the best way to keep Gentry from eventually being at Springtown's doorstep, just across Flint Creek, is to annex lands into Springtown so they cannot eventually be taken in by Gentry. And that, too, would be the best way to control the destiny of the town and creek.

But, even if the mayor was right and John Wasson and his "cohorts" believed that Gentry and Springtown should one day merge, is that a legitimate reason to block their acceptance into Springtown? Is that any different than taking actions to keep out those of different religious views or even of different ethnic or racial backgrounds? Could cities or towns with conservative political views keep out those of a more liberal mindset? Or, could states which are predominately of one political party deny access to those of other political parties? (Well, I guess the two major parties already do that to keep third parties off the ballot.)

I was especially disturbed by the discussion of bringing high-quality citizens into the town and Terri Glenn's questioning of whether the petitioners met the definition of high-quality citizens. Does it make people of lower-quality if their political views or long-term goals are different than your own?

If this is how we determine who can and cannot be a part of a city or town, I should be worried. My views probably are not the same as the majority, and my long-term goals are likely different than most. I may find myself rejected and kicked out. And, if I started my own town and only let in people who shared my political views, it would be a very small town. My wife might even have to live across the road.

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 07/22/2015