Dear editor:
A tumultuous month it was (March madness maybe?). Much of the tumult resulted from the city's effort to annex certain areas that adjoin the city. Some of the resistance to annexation was genuine, but mostly it was politics inspired by the usual suspects (tea party, GGGG and others in the county that hate the city). A minor subplot, ostensibly involving free speech, was more about the efforts of the aforementioned hoping to become local TV celebs.
Some dramatic results of the turmoil and hullabaloo included:
The Arkansas Supreme Court ruling in favor of the city on annexation. The Arkansas Supreme ruled against the annexation lawsuit filed by some residents of area B. Earlier it had dismissed appeals from Enclaves C and D (a tea partyer was one of the plaintiffs). Apparently to limit losses, one area B plaintiff asked the city to allow their (the plaintiff's) lawsuit to be withdrawn. The city declined (figuring that that appeal will also be struck down).
The shocking board decision to withdraw annexation of Enclaves C and D. As one board member commented, "we listened to and heard the feelings and voices of the noncity residents opposed to annexation." This dramatic "180 degree" change on annexation was evidence that the board did listen, even to opposing views. It showed that they were not intransigent in their positions and that the board does have the best interests of the city and its citizens at heart.
The resignation of the mayor. After the board's surprise decision to withdraw their annexation ordnance, it meant that the "anti-annexationists" actually won their battle against the city. But evidently that victory wasn't enough for the mayor, who demanded that the "aginers" be allowed to speak during the televised portion of the board meeting. The board overruled the mayor. This rebuke, along with once again being the only "nay" in another 6-1 vote board vote, was apparently too much. The mayor submitted her resignation several days later.
Regarding the subplot mentioned above, some city residents can't understand why noncity residents have a right "to speak" on TV during a city meeting about city issues. The board graciously allows them to drone on during the nontelevised comment period. Also, as a county resident, it's interesting that the county's affairs must be problem-free. This allows the gaggle of good-advice-givers in the county to focus their attention on the city.
In reality, that visceral gripe from the county, that irritant under their saddle is actually a burr. Worse though, that burr is filled with water whose supply is controlled by the city.
Gary Grogan
Hot Springs
Editorial on 04/18/2017