First Posted: 8/27/2009
If they are not tax-paying citizens of Fairmont, then they do not deserve to have the services that tax-paying citizens have at the same rate. There is no liability for them. If the town is so inclined to provide these services, let them jump on the annexation bandwagon again. Afterall, it is common for the town to annex areas that have no desire to be annexed, that don’t need the services (or the costs associated with being “in-town”), or that haven’t truly been provided any service. I know of an area that had county water (town water was not available, nor could the town take over the county on that issue), homes already had their own septic systems, and God forbid, had more gunpower that the town, but were forced to be annexed. They gained nothing but an additional (and I might add ridiculous) (tax) bill. Now, if Fairmont forces those who do not want to be annexed into the town to be taken in, under the ruse that services are being provided, I do not see any way that it makes sense to spend town revenue (and yes, regardless of grants, it is spending dollars paid by the people who must suffr being in the town limits) on those who do not share in the burden of the tax. That is representation without taxation, and that is not the CHANGE that is being pushed on the American people. The very thought of another hand-out is ludicrious. This motion merits a close look at those that propose it, as well as those that support it. That look should come in the form of a vote in the next election. Kudos to Mr. Sealey–he is merely echoing the sentiments of the tax-paying citizens of this poor town. And any time you hear the g word (grant), be assured you can smell a rat with a hole in his pocket–looking for a refill!
If you do not participate in the tax process, then you cannot expect to have the same services as those that do. I suggest that the proponents of this issue fund the project–out of their own pockets–NOT out of the pockets of the current citizens!