January 25, 2007

Editorial

Speak up now on annexation

As Mary White wrote in a letter to the editor two weeks ago, the decision to annex is complicated, political and permanent. Land that gets annexed doesn’t later become unannexed. New homes built don’t get unbuilt. The annexation of the Fogg farm property to Yellow Springs could potentially add about 400 new residents, or an increase of about 10 percent of our current population. If the Fogg farm land is annexed, it could have a profound effect on life in the village.

Next Monday, Jan. 29, Village Council will hold a special public meeting devoted to the Fogg farm annexation. It would be reassuring to think that Council is truly open to hearing all sides of the question, but some signs are troubling.

At Council’s last meeting, several villagers expressed concern that the Jan. 29 meeting agenda features only pro-annexation voices. These villagers requested a broader discussion of annexation’s pros and cons, including views from groups which question its benefits, such as Tecumseh Land Trust and the Smart Growth Education Task Force. However, the majority of Council chose to stick with its original agenda, stating that villagers could have the broader discussion at the Feb. 11 Smart Growth Fogg farm forum. That move took the responsibility for providing a balanced, in-depth annexation discussion off Council’s shoulders, but on Council’s shoulders is exactly where that discussion belongs.

More troubling is the cost/benefit analysis of the Fogg farm annexation by the engineering firm of Edwards and Kelcey, with input from Village staff, which presented the potential financial benefits of annexation to the Village in a confusing way. For example, in a chart labeled “Economic Impacts to the Public,” property and income tax revenues were presented as annual Village income; however, on a different page, under a different heading, the study clarified that property taxes are additional Village revenues in the first year only. That unclear presentation of important financial information seems, at best, sloppy, and, at worst, misleading.

Of more concern, information on potential costs of annexation to the Village appeared seriously understated. This oversight is especially troubling since the cost section was partially written by Village staff. The section sidestepped the question of how the addition of 400 more people would affect the Village’s already-strapped electric and water infrastructure, an increased demand that could cost millions of dollars. Serious cost/benefit studies include more specific information; more than 120 recent studies in other communities indicate that residential annexation most often leaves communities with more costs than benefits.

To the credit of Council members and Village staff, they requested feedback from the community to incorporate into the final draft of the analysis, which will be presented Monday night. And they got it. More than 20 villagers took the time and energy to read the study and submit written responses. While five villagers who responded expressed support for the Fogg farm annexation, most raised serious questions and expressed deep concerns. It is hoped that those concerns will be reflected in the study’s final draft.

Council has less than three months to make a final decision on the complicated, political and permanent issue of annexation. And Council has not yet considered how the Fogg farm annexation might impact the quality of village life, how it might endanger our town with continuing suburban sprawl. One thing is for sure: the time is now for villagers who care about the future of Yellow Springs to speak up.

—Diane Chiddister