news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

NEWS

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

City moves to annex McLeansville residents

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

(Updated 8:04 am)

By Amanda Lehmert
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO — Welcome to Greensboro. Almost.

In a 5-4 vote, the City Council voted to annex 151 acres in McLeansville into the city against the wishes of dozens of residents.

Council members Trudy Wade, Mary Rakestraw, Yvonne Johnson and Mike Barber voted no. Wade asked that the annexation be delayed for one year.

Since the annexation did not receive six affirmative votes, it will get a second reading at the April 21 council meeting. If the annexation gets five affirmative votes for a second time, it will become official.

The annexation affects the Millstream and Laurel Park subdivisions.

In 2008, the City Council delayed annexing the subdivisions for one year, after residents complained that they had not been informed they would be annexed when they bought their homes. At the time, residents argued that it was not a good financial time to annex new residents.

On Tuesday night, resident after resident appealed to the City Council to delay or deny the annexation, arguing that neighbors could not afford the city taxes.

Residents handed city officials a request to formally withdraw the annexation request, which had been made by the developer of the neighborhood.

However, City Attorney Terry Wood said the residents had no authority to withdraw the request.

Some residents said they were concerned the city would not live up to its end of the bargain and provide city services such as police protection and other amenities.

“We have no community center within 12 miles. There are no bus routes within seven miles,” said resident Jim Penrod. “There are no city parks for our children.”

Neighbors said several homes in the area have gone into foreclosure and some residents have not been able to afford the homeowners association dues.

“This is going to make my family suffer,” said resident Charles Alexander, the father of five children. “We will not have the same standard of living if you impose this proposed annexation on my family.”

The economic concerns swayed some council members. Wade asked the council to further delay the annexation.

“I think it’s the wrong time to do it. The city is having its own financial, shall I say, challenges in order to meet the budget this year,” she said. “I don’t think we can take on the financial burden.”

But other council members said it was unfair to delay bringing new residents into the city when other newly annexed residents did not get the same kind of consideration.

Councilman Zack Matheny said he was willing to make sure those residents got the new services they are due.

“That is a challenge that I am willing to accept,” Matheny said.

Contact Amanda Lehmert at 373-7075 or amanda.lehmert@news-record.com

News and notes from the council

No masks allowed

The council turned down a request to allow a group to hold a masked demonstration to protest some actions by the Church of Scientology. A young man, who would not give his name to the council, asked for special permission to hold such a protest over what he called the organization’s aggressive actions. City Attorney Terry Wood said the state law banning masked demonstrations in public rights of way provides for some exemptions, but he did not believe the protest request would qualify.

More police

The council put its seal of approval on a federal stimulus grant application that would pay for up to 30 new police officers. If Greensboro receives the grant, it would fund the new positions for three years. By submitting the grant, the city agrees to pay for the officers four years from now, at an estimated cost of $1.35 million.

Pay raise

Bob Morgan will get a $1,250 a month boost on top of his $149,912 annual salary while he acts as interim city manager. Morgan stepped in as the city’s top employee after the City Council fired the former manager last month.

What do you think?

1 comment(s)

Read other visitors' comments.

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please notify us.

AnonAnon

April 10, 2009 - 4:12 am EDT

In regards to the Anonymous member attempting to have permission to wear their masks.

The statute in question is NC Statute 14-12.11, section 5 (located here: http://law.onecle.com/north-carolina/14-criminal-law/14-12.11.html)

The group Anonymous does actually qualify and meet the requirements of this Statute. They are an international organization in which they hold monthly Global Protests against the illegal and dangerous activities of Scientology. For instance, Fair Game. Fair Game is a policy, in which Scientology, STRICTLY enforces. According to a Policy Letter on Suppressive Persons (critics of Scientology, also known as SP);
"ENEMY — SP Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed"

This is Fair Game. Any outspoken critic, like the gentleman who spoke in front of the City Council, is harassed by Scientology. They have been known to hire Private Investigators, assault, and threaten or sue these critics. Scientology is a real threat to the city of Greensboro and Anonymous is stepping up to show the citizens that a cult is in the area.

On March 15th, 2009, Anonymous held their first protest in Greensboro. At the protest, two citizens stopped by to speak with the peaceful protesters. Upon their arrival, a local Scientologist came out of their "Church" (known as an Org) and took photos of the faces of these two men, and then photographed their license plate. It is for reasons like this that Anonymous, while raising public awareness, MUST be allowed to wear their standard Guy Fawkes masks (google search "Guy Fawkes Mask" or "V for Vendetta mask" to see what it looks like).

The bottom line here is the City Council did not reject the plea of Anonymous based on them not qualifying for the exemption. They didn't even know what the exemption was, as the City Attorney, Terry Wood defined it to the Council as "...(a)nd it speaks of organizations and societies that going through things like ceremonies and uh...uh...indoctrinations and rituals are allowed..you folks could allow them to wear a mask in a public right of way during a protest. I've looked at this. I...uh...I..we've been bouncing emails back and fourth for two or three days and I just don't think they fall into that expection, but I'll leave that up to you folks. But they have had uh they have had protests where they haven't worn masks.."

The Council, according to Councilwoman Goldie Wells "I've heard your reason for wearing a mask but I would be a little hesitant about voting for it because I'm thinking that State Law is probably because of the Klan and uh...if we allow you to do it, the Klan will probably put their hoods back on too, and that probably won't be a good thing.
" and reinforced by Mayor Johnson " I don't think it fails because we're not concerned about you say. What I think Councilwoman Wells put it very well, we would open the opportunity for groups that aren't peaceful like you.", did not reject Anonymous based on the law itself, nor did they reject it based on any factual evidence. They rejected it out of an assumption of "Imminent Lawlessness", assuming that if Anonymous wore a mask, the KKK would ride through town again.

If they had actually read the exemption in question, they would know that, for the Klan to actually be able to do the same thing, they also would have to go to City Council and get special permission. If the Council had a problem with that, they could reject the Klan, but not Anonymous based on the thought of the Klan. The KKK's masks were that of Intimidation. Anonymous' masks are that of protection from retaliation.

For more information on who anonymous is, what they do, information on Scientology, or why we protest in general, please visit the following links:
http://www.whyweprotest.net
http://www.xenu.net
http://www.whyaretheydead.net
Google "Fair Game", "Lisa McPherson" and "Operation Freakout"

Please, citizens of Greensboro, read into this subject. It is vital that the city know they are dealing with a dangerous, criminal organization in their city. Do more research than the Council did. Write to your local Councilperson and let them know that it's time this city stop living in the past, that they recognize the dangers that are present, and they allow the civil rights of an organization looking out for the good of the City. Email your representative and tell them to reconsider their decision, for the good of the City of Greensboro.

Thank you.
Anonymous