Why is it the more I see and hear, the less I'm liking what's coming out of Rapid City's city hall these days?
Rapid City has been looking at the possible annexation of several parts (or the whole) of Rapid Valley for some time now.
This huge community between Rapid City and the Rapid City airport is home to several thousand people; I recall reading a story a couple of years ago that added up the numbers and found it would be one of South Dakota's top 5 towns if it were incorporated.
There were few businesses in Rapid Valley until about 5 years ago, but now, with new housing simply exploding in the Valley, several more businesses are popping up fast.
And it looks like Rapid City is licking it's chops with renewed interest.
From the Rapid City Journal:
Little progress was made Monday by the Rapid City Council regarding the possible annexation of commercial properties along S.D. Highway 44 in Rapid Valley that are outside the city limits.
Though the council rejected the idea eight months ago, Alderman Tom Johnson urged the council to reconsider its decision because of the sales tax revenue those businesses would generate for the city.
In January, the city council, minus Johnson who was unable to attend, voted against the proposal, which would have required staff to contact property owners to gauge interest in voluntary annexation. No one was proposing forced annexation.
Some are talking (of course) about what Rapid Valley would gain from being part of the city. The answer no one is talking about: nothing.
Rapid Valley already has a volunteer fire department right in the middle of it (the kind of fire dept. that serves almost every other South Dakota town), already has it's own water and sewer system, and has a sheriff's dept. substation located right in Rapid Valley. This in addition to the other services it receives from Pennington County.
So Rapid City can really offer Rapid Valley nothing except higher taxes and additional regulations. Nice deal, huh?
While some try to paint him as a naysayer, it once again seems Alderman Sam Kooiker is the only voice of consideration and reason on the council:
Alderman Sam Kooiker, the only council member to vote against more discussion, questioned how the city can make the case for annexation without the promise of providing direct services.
Kooiker said a community of interest exists between Rapid City and Rapid Valley, as well as small communities such as Black Hawk, but Rapid City should have a more productive and encompassing dialog that shows it is "truly interested in providing services and becoming a community of interest, rather than being a 15th century plunderer, where we just go ahead and take properties so we can have additional revenue for city coffers."
I like that, "15th Century plunderer." Kind of reminds me of that Capital One commercial with all the barbarians running out to pillage interest dollars, only to find they were thwarted by the low-rate Capital One card. Only in this case, the plunderers find Kooiker speaking of more than just reaping more taxes, and maybe the residents and businesses of Rapid Valley wanting more than just to be able to say, "Oooh, we're part of Rapid City now. How neat!"
I'm also reminded of the fast and seemingly forced-down-the-throat incorporation of the Summerset area west of Rapid City. That seems like a real goat-rope, and has since moments after the incorporation.
Has it ever occurred to those with the bureaucratic mindset that maybe some people would rather simply live quiet lives without the hassles of unnecessary government?
2 comments:
I totally agree with your assessment of the benefits to Rapid Valley should they be annexed by Rapid City. However, I don't agree with some of your final statements. I live in Summerset and continue to support the incorporation decision. I think alot of the negative perception that people have comes from how it was reported in the Journal. The Journal loves to publish Letters to the Editor from disgruntled people complaining about Summerset. Ever noticed that they are coming from people who don't even live in the city? Things aren't as bad or screwed up in Summerset as the Journal would have everyone believe. Why they report things this way I have no idea.
Thanks for your insights, DoubleE. It's true that we can sometimes get a distorted picture of things from the Letters to the Editor--and even news articles themselves.
I don't live in Summerset, so I don't know the situation firsthand. But I recall seeing a map of the Summerset boundaries shortly after incorporation, and the first thing that popped into my head was the term "gerrymandering." I know that term wouldn't really apply here, since gerrymandering is drawing the lines of a district for the political gain of a particular party. However, one of the most notable characteristics of gerrymandering is that boundaries are often drawn up along unseemly or unnatural lines, sometimes laughably so, to achieve a specific goal.
The map of Summerset seemed to be to be drawn up to maximize the inclusion of businesses (for tax purposes) and to minimize the inclusion of residential property (just enough to meet population requirements, while minimizing the area of service responsibility, i.e. fire, police, etc.).
In fact, I just did a search to try and find that map I saw a couple of years ago and found one on the Rapid City Journal blog site:
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/politicalblog/?p=1023
As you'll notice, it seems deliberately drawn up to exclude several housing areas and seems to hug the business areas. (And from the blog post, I'm not the only one to whom the term "gerrymandering" occurred.
It is because of this seeming attempt to maximize municipality coffers by favoring business districts over residential areas that made me think of Summerset in connection with the considered Rapid Valley annexation: Tom Johnson was pretty transparent that the chief motivation was more taxes for the city.
Post a Comment