I was a little surprised to see the unsigned article or editorial in a local paper questioning why the villages surrounding Candlewick will not grant the necessary permission for Candlewick Lake to vote on the incorporation question. I am certain the publication reads our blog so I will re-state some of the possible reasons here again.
We must first realize the boards in all three villages are sworn to uphold the interests of their respective village. Any possible negative ramifications for their village dictates their decision. They have been acting in the interests of their residents. They are not required to state their reasons.
#1 The pro-incorporation group itself indicates there will be a loss of funds to the villages if incorporation should be accomplished. That alone is solid grounds.
#2 Annexation of land, especially commercially viable land, could easily become a legal battle between the villages and a new city trying to expand a tax base, with all the obvious legal fees and dissension.
#3 Candlewick’s history of trying to forcibly annex two current villages about fifteen years ago shows the possible peril with a larger city on the doorstep.
#4 If incorporation were accomplished there would be a city without assets established, necessitating another vote by different voters in order to make the city viable, thus making for an unstable situation. Registered voters can establish the city but property owners must then vote whether to give the Candlewick assets to the city. If the second vote fails it could be a chaotic situation.
There were remedies mentioned in the newspaper of working with the legislators to pass a new law ending the practice of necessary permission. Two problems seem obvious in this pursuit. First the law was enacted not just for something new to legislate but because there had to have been problems or were potential problems between cities within close proximity to one another. Laws are enacted for reasons. Secondly the request to legislators would be asking them to legislate in favor of a possible municipality at the peril of three existing ones. That would not be a good move for any politician in my opinion, alienating not only the populations of the three villages by targeting them specifically but also a large number of Candlewick residents opposed to the incorporation action.
The second remedy was to replace the current Candlewick board. From the statements of those for more government that will undoubtedly be attempted. Even in the remote case that is accomplished the board is still bound by their oath to the property owners. They would be in a conflict of interest situation voting to ask for permission. Should the letter be forthcoming the villages would still have to act in the interests of their residents. This forms a complete circle.
I have written about this situation in the past and hopefully this will address the matter brought forth in the newspaper Friday, September 3.
Ken Dillenburg