Back in May, the Texarkana, Texas, City Council voted unanimously to take the first steps toward annexation of seven outlying areas totaling more than 1,780 acres.
That has a lot of residents of those areas upset.
On July 9 they filled the City Council chambers to speak out against the proposed annexation, saying they did not want to be part of the city and did not want or need city services and the associated fees. Nor did they want to pay additional taxes that often come with annexation. They also feared city regulations would keep them from raising livestock, selling produce at roadside stands on their properties or other common rural activities.
One man likened annexation against the property owners' will to communism, adding, "you want me to pay you to tell me what I can do with my property?"
There doesn't seem to be a lot of public support for the proposed annexation. Another meeting Wednesday was filled with residents opposed to annexation.
That brings up the question of whether it is right for the city to annex properties without broad support of the property owners? It's a common practice and annexation is way for cities to grow and broaden their tax base. But people often have their own reasons for choosing to buy and live outside the city. Annexation is not something they signed up for.
We want to know what you think. Is it right for the city to annex property against the owner's will? Or is it a necessary part of a city's growth process that reluctant property owners sometimes just have to accept?
Send your response (50 words maximum) to [email protected] by Wednesday, July 25. You can also mail your response to the Texarkana Gazette Friday Poll at P.O. Box 621, Texarkana, TX 75504 or drop it off at our office, 101 E. Broad St., Texarkana, Ark. Be sure to include your name, address and phone number. We will print as many responses as we can in next Friday's paper.
Last Week: Roe v. Wade?
Last week's question was about the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in the wake of President Donald Trump's latest nominee. Do you think it's a realistic possibility that Roe v. Wade will be overturned? Should it be? Or should abortion remain a right?
The framers of our Constitution, first recognizing God as the granter of unalienable "rights," never added a "right" to be sexually irresponsible, then abort unwanted babies that resulted. But, liberal judges of our generation place opinions they prefer above the literal truths of God's word, and the Constitution. Roe v. Wade decision was one ungodly result-authored by Justice (Harry) Blackmun, after considering the opinion of his unmarried daughter, who became pregnant with an unwanted baby.-D.H.M., Texarkana, Ark.
It sickens me that abortion is an option anyone would even consider. With so many birth control options now, I see no valid excuse for murdering an unborn child. If it has to be legal, sterilization should be a required part of the procedure-N.T., Texarkana, Texas
Roe v. Wade should be left alone. Religious right should concentrate on sins of men for awhile, as pedophile priests, preachers, coaches, and others-J.B., Texarkana, Ark.
From www.facebook.com/texarkanagazette
- I feel like it should continue to be an option. I don't think it's right, and wouldn't personally ever have one, under normal healthy conditions. But I don't care what other people do with their own bodies. I think the government should stay out of it, other than regulating standards and cleanliness. Even if it's overturned though abortions will still happen; and women will die.
- No one should be able tell another person what they can or can't do with their own bodies or what they can and can't do to what may be inside their own bodies. I am not a fan of abortion but I don't have the right to push my beliefs onto another person. That's what is wrong with this country. People are trying to push their beliefs onto other people. That's wrong.
- I have never understood the conservative position that allows the government to intrude on a woman's body. Under our constitution I don't see a legal argument sufficient to overturn Roe v. Wade
- Slim to none chance to overturn. They would have to find an error in the law of the ruling. If there was any problem it would have been brought up after all these years. If it was as easy as not agreeing with the ruling they would be changing the laws of the country more often than Trump says "fake news."
- Abortion is murder. And it should be treated as murder. A child in the womb may be dependent on the mother, but the baby is its own person. One can argue for women's rights, but no one argues for the rights of the life inside the womb. It is easy to murder silent victims.
- Parents are told by the government that they are not allowed to kill their teenager when they become disrespectful and rebellious, so a sweet little innocent baby in the womb should have the same protection.
- It won't happen with this new, so-called conservative judge appointee. He is too liberal
- I wish people would research the past where abortion was concerned and try to understand that desperate women would end up on the kitchen table of some butcher to achieve an abortion. For whatever reason or whatever desperation those women felt I feel like it should be where they have real options within the law. To make such choices is between a person and God. It is not the choice for of the United States or the general public.