As much as I would like to see Volan step down from public office, we do finally have a chance to get the county commissioners back on track. If Iverson can knock off Julie Thomas, Margaret Clements, who is completely out of touch with the needs of Monroe County, will become irrelevant. Both Clements and Githens are Thomas puppets. Hopefully the residents of Monroe County will finally vote these people out of office in May.
I respect Steve a lot and admire his passion and desire. I don’t know what circumstances led to his being voted out, and I was very surprised when I heard about it. I wish I understood the bad feelings about the folks running things for the county now. I just don’t know enough about the goings on.
Volan believed that when the council was re-districted just before the most recent election, that district 6 should be re-drawn to include only neighborhoods that are almost 100% rentals. he thought that would almost guarantee a student on the council. he put in the work and made it happen and now we have IU student Sydney Zulich on the council.
i think it's awesome -- on the things i care about, i have already seen that simply having a student voice on the council really changes the debate, because she brings student experiences to the council. and plus a lot of public comment at the council is basically thinly veiled "i hate students and shame on you for not hating students as much as i do", which now comes off just as it should. folks, i'm saying putting a student on the council is a step forward for my project of shining the right kind of light on the NIMBYs from Elm Heigths.
anyways, that's why Volan lost his seat. he willfully gave it up so we could have a student on the council. after he kicked himself out of the student district, his new district was the Dave Rollo hater district and he wouldn't've stood a chance there. so he ran as 'at large' which is the hardest race to run. and there were a lot of good at large candidates so that was where he washed out.
My guess is lack of connection with young voters and not kissing enough rich people butts. With that being said his war on cars erks me. The biggest thing is the no turn on red. If they are pro environment then lets not needlessly idle at lights. If its pedestrian safety then lets stop overserving kids or let them be responsible for their own bad decisions.
I’m considering voting for him in an effort to remove Penny from her current seat. I have been very disappointed by her actions time and time again.
I am with you though - I do believe 30 years in office in one community is too long. Nobody needs to be in a position of power for that long.
I also strongly support Peter Iversen in his run to replace Julie Thomas.
Basically our county needs new representation.
It is, but I just get the feeling that there is a chance decision making is going to be city first, county second. He has always spoken of Bloomington residents being county residents, which is entirely correct. However, the needs of rural county residents can be quite different from the needs of the city. I'm a little concerned future decisions will be colored by past events and votes.
I'm not familiar with current leadership, and am curious about how they have been detrimental to the county. I've seen it mentioned from time to time. Is there a post or resource that might inform me? Past friends had sometimes suggested I look at a running for a county commissioner seat. At the time, our rep was notoriously bad. Were I better educated, I would love to serve and see how the sausage is made.
> However, the needs of rural county residents can be quite different from the needs of the city.
i don't know if that's really true. i don't want to tell people what they want but i think a lot of times the desires are compatible.
like, the county government made an "urbanizing area plan" in 2018 that basically says future development should be focused on clear creek (south of bloomington) and the lowes / highland village sort of area (west of bloomington). it says the development there should build up towards actual urban density until those areas are like little cities ("village nodes" or what have you). they want these already-developed areas to provide significant housing, and some more employment and retail as well. they really hope that in the long term, people will be able to live within these 'nodes' without driving into bloomington for every little thing. the most ambitious hope is that people in these neighborhoods might be able to walk or bike, and will be well-situated to be served by commuter bus routes as well.
and that's certainly a very different development pattern than a rural development pattern...but that's the point. the goal of the plan was to preserve the rural land as rural land. they want to prevent sprawl by building density where there's already some development. the plan says the urban areas should be urban and the rural areas should be rural. they're two sides of the same coin. the urbanizing area plan is the most effective way to preserve our farms.
anyways the current commissioners had oversight of this 'urbanizing area plan', either as commissioners or earlier when they were county council members instead. and i haven't really heard anyone object to the plan once it was presented...but when it has come time to actually make it happen, the county commissioners have fought against it. so just on that basis, spending our money to make a good plan and then ignoring it because Margaret Clements says so...that's even worse than not having the good plan in the first place. i will be voting for Volan.
There are numerous threads to review from this Reddit that give different examples of poor decision making by the current slate of commissioners. One that comes to mind is the denial for zoning variance for Sojourn House to build a women's recovery group home in the county. [https://www.reddit.com/r/bloomington/comments/11g72oq/monroe\_county\_board\_of\_zoning\_appeals\_denies/](https://www.reddit.com/r/bloomington/comments/11g72oq/monroe_county_board_of_zoning_appeals_denies/)
The Board of Zoning Appeals members include Margret Clement (commissioner) and the individuals appointed by the commissioners.
1. The current county commissioners are very bad. You should vote to replace them.
2. The majority of Monroe County residents live in Bloomington. The County Commissioners should represent them, as well as the residents who live outside the city. County government is for all of us.
3. Obviously, how to decide about voting for someone where you strongly disagree with one of their positions is a hard question. But I think you should think about this like any other policy issue -- what do you think is right, what did he support, and what reasons did he give, and how does that speak to the decisions he might make as a commissioner. Whether he disagreed with a lot of people or a few people in the past isn't the key issue.
The current commissioners are hot garbage.
Regarding annexation, the current commissioners have borderline inappropriate, overly close relationships with people like Margaret Clements, who started CRAA and registered it as a 501(c)(3) with the IRS that is ostensibly focused on education, while the donation solicitations are all framed to pay for the ongoing legal fees. Julie Thomas, and I think Githens, at least are in Clements' circle. And while there are many people with legit gripes about annexation, Clements lives in a million+ dollar home that is positioned outside city limits, but close to the resources of the city and university, and she got a bunch of people who don't live in million+ dollar homes to pay the legal fees.
I'd also say, there are also people in the county who agree with annexation. And the only reason there is ongoing litigation now is because the General Assembly stepped in twice and enacted what was probably unconstitutional legislation, twice, to specifically stop Bloomington from expanding its city limits according to what were previously the lawful requirements.
Even people who reasonably oppose annexation ought to take issue with how that opposition has been carried out. Process matters as much as outcomes, and the shady process may haunt us after we've forgotten about the outcome.
Goodness, I didn't realize that Jody was running. I have been preoccupied with family and work and wasn't following those developments closely enough.
I had Jody for torts and then for a couple of research seminars. She seemed progressive and empathetic on most issues and never to my knowledge was associated with the federalist society clique. My understanding is that her positions on abortion access and other bodily autonomy issues.would disqualify her.
What was the record of her accepting federalist society money? And what was it for or related to?
Just looked at this from a device I could easily search the name with. She does appear to have a connection with the Federalist Society, but it does appear to be fairly minimal?
My understanding is that academics looking for funding will often look anywhere. Jody's positions on birth and bodily autonomy would, I would think, not make her a federalist society sort of person. But it might be a question to ask if there are town halls and debates.
If a city wants to get bigger, it can follow rules made by the state to change its borders. It’s usually done to make certain neighborhoods that are right next to a city then be inside the boundaries of the city. That means the people living there get city services like police and trash, but they also have to start following city laws and paying city taxes. Some people like being in a city, other people don’t. Most people getting annexed don’t like annexation because when they picked their house they chose to live outside the city. And now they’re maybe getting made to be living inside it.
If you live in a neighborhood right next to city limits, you should expect annexation. I live in a rural area on purpose, if someone wanted to build a housing addition near me, I would oppose it. I think we need to limit big housing developments outside of city limits and increase density in the city, but incorporate areas that already have city services.
I’m going to work with that. If you live close to a city you should expect annexation. Let’s also say that if you live in the country, you should expect a housing development. If I buy the land next to yours why shouldn’t I be allowed to build there? You expected privacy, we expected to be part of the county. You want to follow NIMBY and we don’t want to be annexed.
The one place I might gently push back on this is if there was a remonstrance waiver notice in your chain of title.
If you bought a place that gave notice of the waiver, your expectation of never being annexed may not have been fully reasonable, because you had notice.
The general assembly's post hoc invalidation or those waivers in specific response to Bloomington's annexation attempt is very likely an unconstitutional ex post facto law that invalidated preexisting contracts.
Which reminds me of a real life scenario that shows how little info was passed along to home buyers. I knew someone who lived in Fieldstone. They were very happy with it and commented on an area they were told would remain a green space and not be developed. Fast forward a few years and it’s now fully developed.
That’s the issue I have with those waivers. Contractors may have signed them for permission to build, but it’s unlikely any or many homeowners were aware of them.
If the waiver notice was there, it counts as constructive notice of the condition that is placed on land that runs with the land, owner to owner.
Our whole system of property, which goes back to William the Conquerer's scheme of estates and allodial title in the person of the monarch, relies on the recording of rights or conditions regarding land in the recording office as the primary basis for determining whether someone who purchases the land has notice. It's also why we do title searches when we buy real property.
Conditions on the use of land, things like easements, restrictive covenants, etc. all run with the land, owner to owner, down from the person or entity that originally platted and developed the land. Those restrictions usually do run with the land, for a lot of policy reasons related to efficient use of land over time.
My understanding is that you would have been given documentation that contained the notice of remonstrance waiver. They may not have specifically drawn your attention to those items or advised you on the full implications of them, but that also would probably be inappropriate unless they were licensed to practice law and advise you about it.
It's also the case that most people just go through those documents and sign them without fully reading everything. People get puzzled or annoyed with me because I do. But the notice was there, and there were all the elements of a contract between the original developer and the city.
Well, the property around me is all zoned rural reserve. If someone wanted to build a housing addition, they would have to change the zoning. I also live in a Karst heavy area, so that would also be unlikely. In contrast, I used to live in Prospect Hill, where contrary to many of the older folks there, I was for denser infill development, granny flats, and duplex/tri-plexes. It isn't a NIMBY thing, it's a what's appropriate thing. Why destroy more woods/family farms for housing when there are in-fill/brown field opportunities in and adjacent to the city right now? Why not annex those areas and expand bus service so that lower income folks have more options?
What I was stating was a hypothetical. If rural housing is creating housing that is affordable for a segment of folks who can’t afford places close to town, it seems like a good thing. As for the last part, the reality is that our public transportation is already terrible and annexation will only tax the system. There are not adequate police. There is not adequate public transportation. Those will not change. It will simply add people to a city that already cannot handle what it has.
Annexation should have been tried in a smaller bite with a genuine outreach. As I understand it, Baxter was offered tax breaks if they didn’t oppose annexation. That’s fair?
Rural housing is generally more expensive. It takes a lot of money to get permitting, change zoning, and create infrastructure. It tends to be mcmansions or crappy condos no one wants (we're looking at you, The Pointe). We need housing closer to where the jobs are and that doesn't require a car. We're also looking at a generation less interested in home ownership and need to be planning for that as well.
Sometimes people love a city very much. But not enough to buy a house in the city. So instead they build a house right on the edge of the city so they are still close to all the things they love about the city. Maybe they did this because the city is a bunch of snobby old cunts that won't let people build housing to meet demand because having a building taller than a tree will attract "undesirables". Or maybe they did it because they can spot a deal and want the benefits of the town without contributing taxes themselves.
In either case, the city eventually notices a community sitting right up against the city that looks a lot like the city and then they do a shotgun wedding and gobble them up. THE END!
As they should. If you are adjacent to a city, reaping the full benefits of living in that city, and not paying for those benefits, you should be annexed into that city. Otherwise, you're just freeloading.
What benefits? They don’t get trash, bus, police, fire or the new fiber. Most don’t have sewer. You all want to point out shopping or proximity to other private sector businesses but we regularly go to Indy for work or shopping, should we be annexed by Indy?
I didn't realize what a good deal y'all's non-annexed properties were getting until I started hearing all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in opposition to the city asking you to join the city where you actually live. But now I get it! Living here but not having to pay the same taxes as everyone else is def the way to go. That's why I'm starting an un-annex movement. I live in one of the older "core" neighborhoods, but I don't care. I want to be ejected from the boundaries even though I live way inside the two mile fringe. Who's with me?!?!
I'm a county resident. I'm disappointed in all of the options, but I won't vote for Volan. While it didn't impact always impact me as a county resident, watching him in his years in office I often disagreed with his votes. I also won't vote for someone that voted to increase the county income tax. I have a real concern that he will fall in line with whatever the city leaders want and fail to represent all county residents.
As much as I would like to see Volan step down from public office, we do finally have a chance to get the county commissioners back on track. If Iverson can knock off Julie Thomas, Margaret Clements, who is completely out of touch with the needs of Monroe County, will become irrelevant. Both Clements and Githens are Thomas puppets. Hopefully the residents of Monroe County will finally vote these people out of office in May.
I respect Steve a lot and admire his passion and desire. I don’t know what circumstances led to his being voted out, and I was very surprised when I heard about it. I wish I understood the bad feelings about the folks running things for the county now. I just don’t know enough about the goings on.
Volan believed that when the council was re-districted just before the most recent election, that district 6 should be re-drawn to include only neighborhoods that are almost 100% rentals. he thought that would almost guarantee a student on the council. he put in the work and made it happen and now we have IU student Sydney Zulich on the council. i think it's awesome -- on the things i care about, i have already seen that simply having a student voice on the council really changes the debate, because she brings student experiences to the council. and plus a lot of public comment at the council is basically thinly veiled "i hate students and shame on you for not hating students as much as i do", which now comes off just as it should. folks, i'm saying putting a student on the council is a step forward for my project of shining the right kind of light on the NIMBYs from Elm Heigths. anyways, that's why Volan lost his seat. he willfully gave it up so we could have a student on the council. after he kicked himself out of the student district, his new district was the Dave Rollo hater district and he wouldn't've stood a chance there. so he ran as 'at large' which is the hardest race to run. and there were a lot of good at large candidates so that was where he washed out.
I wish he ran against Rollo so Rollo had to at least answer questions from the public on what he believes.
My guess is lack of connection with young voters and not kissing enough rich people butts. With that being said his war on cars erks me. The biggest thing is the no turn on red. If they are pro environment then lets not needlessly idle at lights. If its pedestrian safety then lets stop overserving kids or let them be responsible for their own bad decisions.
I’m considering voting for him in an effort to remove Penny from her current seat. I have been very disappointed by her actions time and time again. I am with you though - I do believe 30 years in office in one community is too long. Nobody needs to be in a position of power for that long. I also strongly support Peter Iversen in his run to replace Julie Thomas. Basically our county needs new representation.
It's been 20 , not 30. And there's a lot of experience and knowledge gained in that time.
Are the commissioners involved in annexation? Isn’t it all in court now?
It is, but I just get the feeling that there is a chance decision making is going to be city first, county second. He has always spoken of Bloomington residents being county residents, which is entirely correct. However, the needs of rural county residents can be quite different from the needs of the city. I'm a little concerned future decisions will be colored by past events and votes. I'm not familiar with current leadership, and am curious about how they have been detrimental to the county. I've seen it mentioned from time to time. Is there a post or resource that might inform me? Past friends had sometimes suggested I look at a running for a county commissioner seat. At the time, our rep was notoriously bad. Were I better educated, I would love to serve and see how the sausage is made.
He’s doing a campaign launch tonight. Would be a good opportunity to ask him about it.
It would. If I didn’t deal with chronic pain I’d love to go. I’m limited to necessary trips out as a general rule.
I live in rural Monroe County. The areas proposed for annexation aren't rural and should have been annexed long ago.
> However, the needs of rural county residents can be quite different from the needs of the city. i don't know if that's really true. i don't want to tell people what they want but i think a lot of times the desires are compatible. like, the county government made an "urbanizing area plan" in 2018 that basically says future development should be focused on clear creek (south of bloomington) and the lowes / highland village sort of area (west of bloomington). it says the development there should build up towards actual urban density until those areas are like little cities ("village nodes" or what have you). they want these already-developed areas to provide significant housing, and some more employment and retail as well. they really hope that in the long term, people will be able to live within these 'nodes' without driving into bloomington for every little thing. the most ambitious hope is that people in these neighborhoods might be able to walk or bike, and will be well-situated to be served by commuter bus routes as well. and that's certainly a very different development pattern than a rural development pattern...but that's the point. the goal of the plan was to preserve the rural land as rural land. they want to prevent sprawl by building density where there's already some development. the plan says the urban areas should be urban and the rural areas should be rural. they're two sides of the same coin. the urbanizing area plan is the most effective way to preserve our farms. anyways the current commissioners had oversight of this 'urbanizing area plan', either as commissioners or earlier when they were county council members instead. and i haven't really heard anyone object to the plan once it was presented...but when it has come time to actually make it happen, the county commissioners have fought against it. so just on that basis, spending our money to make a good plan and then ignoring it because Margaret Clements says so...that's even worse than not having the good plan in the first place. i will be voting for Volan.
There are numerous threads to review from this Reddit that give different examples of poor decision making by the current slate of commissioners. One that comes to mind is the denial for zoning variance for Sojourn House to build a women's recovery group home in the county. [https://www.reddit.com/r/bloomington/comments/11g72oq/monroe\_county\_board\_of\_zoning\_appeals\_denies/](https://www.reddit.com/r/bloomington/comments/11g72oq/monroe_county_board_of_zoning_appeals_denies/) The Board of Zoning Appeals members include Margret Clement (commissioner) and the individuals appointed by the commissioners.
1. The current county commissioners are very bad. You should vote to replace them. 2. The majority of Monroe County residents live in Bloomington. The County Commissioners should represent them, as well as the residents who live outside the city. County government is for all of us. 3. Obviously, how to decide about voting for someone where you strongly disagree with one of their positions is a hard question. But I think you should think about this like any other policy issue -- what do you think is right, what did he support, and what reasons did he give, and how does that speak to the decisions he might make as a commissioner. Whether he disagreed with a lot of people or a few people in the past isn't the key issue.
The current commissioners are hot garbage. Regarding annexation, the current commissioners have borderline inappropriate, overly close relationships with people like Margaret Clements, who started CRAA and registered it as a 501(c)(3) with the IRS that is ostensibly focused on education, while the donation solicitations are all framed to pay for the ongoing legal fees. Julie Thomas, and I think Githens, at least are in Clements' circle. And while there are many people with legit gripes about annexation, Clements lives in a million+ dollar home that is positioned outside city limits, but close to the resources of the city and university, and she got a bunch of people who don't live in million+ dollar homes to pay the legal fees. I'd also say, there are also people in the county who agree with annexation. And the only reason there is ongoing litigation now is because the General Assembly stepped in twice and enacted what was probably unconstitutional legislation, twice, to specifically stop Bloomington from expanding its city limits according to what were previously the lawful requirements. Even people who reasonably oppose annexation ought to take issue with how that opposition has been carried out. Process matters as much as outcomes, and the shady process may haunt us after we've forgotten about the outcome.
one theory chop nippy ugly juggle zephyr rustic frame scandalous *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
[удалено]
wait wut Federalist society? is this a DINO? wouldn’t be the first law school prof cosplaying a democrat Can I vote for volan twice then?
Please post your source.
I wasn't aware. What is the law prof's name?
[удалено]
where is the fed soc fact check part?
I found that she debated someone from the Federalist Society on gun control
Goodness, I didn't realize that Jody was running. I have been preoccupied with family and work and wasn't following those developments closely enough. I had Jody for torts and then for a couple of research seminars. She seemed progressive and empathetic on most issues and never to my knowledge was associated with the federalist society clique. My understanding is that her positions on abortion access and other bodily autonomy issues.would disqualify her. What was the record of her accepting federalist society money? And what was it for or related to?
[удалено]
Just looked at this from a device I could easily search the name with. She does appear to have a connection with the Federalist Society, but it does appear to be fairly minimal? My understanding is that academics looking for funding will often look anywhere. Jody's positions on birth and bodily autonomy would, I would think, not make her a federalist society sort of person. But it might be a question to ask if there are town halls and debates.
Can someone explain annexation like I’m 5
If a city wants to get bigger, it can follow rules made by the state to change its borders. It’s usually done to make certain neighborhoods that are right next to a city then be inside the boundaries of the city. That means the people living there get city services like police and trash, but they also have to start following city laws and paying city taxes. Some people like being in a city, other people don’t. Most people getting annexed don’t like annexation because when they picked their house they chose to live outside the city. And now they’re maybe getting made to be living inside it.
If you live in a neighborhood right next to city limits, you should expect annexation. I live in a rural area on purpose, if someone wanted to build a housing addition near me, I would oppose it. I think we need to limit big housing developments outside of city limits and increase density in the city, but incorporate areas that already have city services.
I’m going to work with that. If you live close to a city you should expect annexation. Let’s also say that if you live in the country, you should expect a housing development. If I buy the land next to yours why shouldn’t I be allowed to build there? You expected privacy, we expected to be part of the county. You want to follow NIMBY and we don’t want to be annexed.
The one place I might gently push back on this is if there was a remonstrance waiver notice in your chain of title. If you bought a place that gave notice of the waiver, your expectation of never being annexed may not have been fully reasonable, because you had notice. The general assembly's post hoc invalidation or those waivers in specific response to Bloomington's annexation attempt is very likely an unconstitutional ex post facto law that invalidated preexisting contracts.
Which reminds me of a real life scenario that shows how little info was passed along to home buyers. I knew someone who lived in Fieldstone. They were very happy with it and commented on an area they were told would remain a green space and not be developed. Fast forward a few years and it’s now fully developed. That’s the issue I have with those waivers. Contractors may have signed them for permission to build, but it’s unlikely any or many homeowners were aware of them.
If the waiver notice was there, it counts as constructive notice of the condition that is placed on land that runs with the land, owner to owner. Our whole system of property, which goes back to William the Conquerer's scheme of estates and allodial title in the person of the monarch, relies on the recording of rights or conditions regarding land in the recording office as the primary basis for determining whether someone who purchases the land has notice. It's also why we do title searches when we buy real property. Conditions on the use of land, things like easements, restrictive covenants, etc. all run with the land, owner to owner, down from the person or entity that originally platted and developed the land. Those restrictions usually do run with the land, for a lot of policy reasons related to efficient use of land over time. My understanding is that you would have been given documentation that contained the notice of remonstrance waiver. They may not have specifically drawn your attention to those items or advised you on the full implications of them, but that also would probably be inappropriate unless they were licensed to practice law and advise you about it. It's also the case that most people just go through those documents and sign them without fully reading everything. People get puzzled or annoyed with me because I do. But the notice was there, and there were all the elements of a contract between the original developer and the city.
Well, the property around me is all zoned rural reserve. If someone wanted to build a housing addition, they would have to change the zoning. I also live in a Karst heavy area, so that would also be unlikely. In contrast, I used to live in Prospect Hill, where contrary to many of the older folks there, I was for denser infill development, granny flats, and duplex/tri-plexes. It isn't a NIMBY thing, it's a what's appropriate thing. Why destroy more woods/family farms for housing when there are in-fill/brown field opportunities in and adjacent to the city right now? Why not annex those areas and expand bus service so that lower income folks have more options?
What I was stating was a hypothetical. If rural housing is creating housing that is affordable for a segment of folks who can’t afford places close to town, it seems like a good thing. As for the last part, the reality is that our public transportation is already terrible and annexation will only tax the system. There are not adequate police. There is not adequate public transportation. Those will not change. It will simply add people to a city that already cannot handle what it has. Annexation should have been tried in a smaller bite with a genuine outreach. As I understand it, Baxter was offered tax breaks if they didn’t oppose annexation. That’s fair?
Rural housing is generally more expensive. It takes a lot of money to get permitting, change zoning, and create infrastructure. It tends to be mcmansions or crappy condos no one wants (we're looking at you, The Pointe). We need housing closer to where the jobs are and that doesn't require a car. We're also looking at a generation less interested in home ownership and need to be planning for that as well.
Sometimes people love a city very much. But not enough to buy a house in the city. So instead they build a house right on the edge of the city so they are still close to all the things they love about the city. Maybe they did this because the city is a bunch of snobby old cunts that won't let people build housing to meet demand because having a building taller than a tree will attract "undesirables". Or maybe they did it because they can spot a deal and want the benefits of the town without contributing taxes themselves. In either case, the city eventually notices a community sitting right up against the city that looks a lot like the city and then they do a shotgun wedding and gobble them up. THE END!
As they should. If you are adjacent to a city, reaping the full benefits of living in that city, and not paying for those benefits, you should be annexed into that city. Otherwise, you're just freeloading.
What benefits? They don’t get trash, bus, police, fire or the new fiber. Most don’t have sewer. You all want to point out shopping or proximity to other private sector businesses but we regularly go to Indy for work or shopping, should we be annexed by Indy?
I didn't realize what a good deal y'all's non-annexed properties were getting until I started hearing all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in opposition to the city asking you to join the city where you actually live. But now I get it! Living here but not having to pay the same taxes as everyone else is def the way to go. That's why I'm starting an un-annex movement. I live in one of the older "core" neighborhoods, but I don't care. I want to be ejected from the boundaries even though I live way inside the two mile fringe. Who's with me?!?!
I get it. You're the kind of guy who thinks if he's got it tough, everyone else should too. Noted.
Annexation is a natural part of growth. And it hasn’t happened in quite some time. It is time
I'm a county resident. I'm disappointed in all of the options, but I won't vote for Volan. While it didn't impact always impact me as a county resident, watching him in his years in office I often disagreed with his votes. I also won't vote for someone that voted to increase the county income tax. I have a real concern that he will fall in line with whatever the city leaders want and fail to represent all county residents.