comments

The most eloquent and expressive cheerleader for the "WHATEVER BILLY WANTS" team tonight was Mr. Espino. He spoke of the 2.3 million net gain that might be realized by annexation, IF you believe the Corradino Groups numbers that were compiled in 2008, when property values and taxes everywhere were considerably higher. Is it not true that those numbers do NOT include the mitigation fees of 386k, that would have to be taken off the top? Mr. Espino also made a pertinent observation when he said that, sure, their taxes will be tripled but they require very little in services so we wont be spending any more on them. We are going to be TRIPLING their taxes and NOT giving them ANYTHING for it? WHO would agree to such a deal? There was NO discusion of the possible pollution issues out there, OR the mitigation fees to be negotiated, OR the zoning restrictions by Mr. Espino. It is possible perhaps he forgot, just like the pamphlet did. There WERE time constraints, to be sure, but it is hoped he will address those issues in much more depth in the near future. Dr. Mel P. Johnson

pollution concerns

The Council still has no idea of the finances required to support annexation. I have yet to see even one page in an agenda package showing an actual pollution report for the annexation area. I would very much like to see one with a date indicating when the inspection was done, cleanup required, responsible party and future cleanup requirements. I am afraid that without this type of info we are being subjected to a bunch of slick used car salesmen marketing their agendas without a lemon law to protect us. And while a little flier will paint a rosy picture, there are no hard financial facts to back it up.
The reason the poster hasnt seen ANY proof regarding the possible pollution problems in the proposed annexation areas is because THERE ARENT ANY. Dotson has asked Gym TWICE to have a DERM representative come and address the Council without success. One million-dollar+ cleanup will wipe out any profits we may get from annexation. They admit to having 27 sites open currently but have NOT said the County will be responsible for any further needed cleanups! And there is nobody saying that those 27 sites are ALL the pollution there is. EPA says the Miami Drum site is pretty well taken care of but doesnt address other possible (probable?) pollution sites. To NOT address these issues and just HOPE we wont get hit with a big cleanup is BAD BUSINESS for the Springs. Until this and the other issues about mitigation fees, zoning, and the FEC properties are examined and resolved in our favor, I could not, in good conscience, vote for this. IF these issues WERE to be addressed and resolved in our favor, I would be for it. DR. Mel P. Johnson