Omaha is trying to annex Elkhorn, a small city that has essentially become a suburb. Their city council just voted 7-0 to annex Elkhorn. This might not be a problem, except that the people of Elkhorn don't want to be annexed. I can understand that. As a citizen, I wouldn't want to give my money to a government in exchange for less representation. It just seems wrong that a city can invade a neighboring city.
To research this, I took a peak at the Omaha World Herald. They get my appreciation and respect for having their newspaper on line, available without registering or a subscription. They have had great coverage of this issue (and it seems to have been pretty balanced coverage as well).
My first question was "Why does Omaha want to annex Elkhorn?" I assumed the answer was to get their money and get more power for the Omaha government. With that answer, I asked "What reasons are they using to justify the land grab?" This opinion piece answered that question nicely.
Reasons to invade a neighboring city (as parsed from the opinion piece in the Omaha World Herald):
- Not being able to grow, limits the resources that it can use to "sustain its core". "A sprouting tree cannot maintain its health if the trunk is allowed to rot."
- The main city is the only reason that people want to live in the 'burb, so you owe us the money that you make on those people.
- Maintaining the "core" city is in everyone's interest.
- The suburb my annex other smaller 'burbs and take those away from the main city, too.
So, maybe 1 and 3 are the same but I think that those are the most persuasive of the arguments. If you bind a city, what happens to it. Does it die, as the article I've sited suggests? Yep. That's why Chicago is just an empty wasteland. I would give more counter examples but I don't know that much about cities other than Cleveland which is dieing because it hasn't yet moved out of the industrial revolution economy. The underlying idea behind reasons 1 and 3 is that they are unable to effectively use what they have, so they need to go get more.
Reason number 2 is basically envy. If Omaha could provide suitable housing and decent schools, those new people would move into the city rather than in the suburbs. It just seems like the Omaha government wants to have all the benefits of running a major city without any of the drawbacks.
Finally, reason number 4 is almost laughable. What I have gathered (which could be wrong), is that Elkhorn is only trying to annex smaller towns BECAUSE Omaha is trying to annex it. If they can get their population up to 10,000 people (currently ~8,000), then any annexing would have to go to a popular vote in their city. In essence allowing the people the right to choose which government they want without Omaha strong arming them.
I've seen a couple places where it was pointed out that Elkhorn is trying to annex other communities, trying to point out the hypocrisy. Here is a nice cartoon. But it is sort of like attacking a pacifist and crying foul when they fight to defend themselves.
It's not over though. Two law suits have been filed to stop the annexation (described in this article). The arguments of the suit brought by the city of Elkhorn are as follows (cribbed from the article above):
- The city council meeting where the vote took place was illegal since not enough notice was given.
- (This is my favorite.) The cities don't have a common border. They are 1.4 miles apart.
- Elkhorn started their annexing first (a defensive move to try to block the announced plans to annex Elkhorn), so those should be resolved first before Omaha's annex attempt takes effect.
The other law suit, brought on behalf of two citizens, is basically a procedural issue that causes the people of Elkhorn not to be able to vote in the Omaha spring elections (even though they would be a part of Omaha). That one bores me. But the city of Elkhorn suit is much more fun.
I love that the cities don't touch. 1.4 miles is a good stretch of land. I don't know who controls that land but maybe Omaha should have gone about their power grab in a reasonable order.
I just think the whole thing stinks. Apparently, in Nebraska it is lawful for a large city to take control of all the little cities they want (as long as they are in the same county, of course).
Let's take a moment and move this issue on to a grander scale. Let's say this was the European Union. Would it be okay if Belgium to annex Luxemburg without the people's consent just because Luxemburg is so small? What about if Belgium was growing stagnant and the only reason people live in Luxemburg is to be near Belgium? No, that would basically be an act of war. But it is somehow okay for cities to eat other cities.
That's basically it but I wanted to add this little tidbit. The reason I heard about this was a friend in the area mentioned it to me. He said that he learned about it by listening to the local liberal radio. I don't know why this would be a liberal vs conservative issue. I'm just reporting the facts... er... the hearsay.
The radio people have been making fun of the Elkhorn people because the radio guys think that the reason they don't want to be a part of Omaha is because their racist and don't want black people moving into their town. First off, I don't understand how race is even an issue in this but it doesn't surprise me that liberals are bringing it up. Second, I don't see how being part of Omaha on paper changes the demographics of who lives in Elkhorn. Let's say they are racist bastards, why would they think that annexation cause ethnic people to move in? It doesn't make sense. I think this is just a case of trying to smear people on the other side of an issue. (On a side note, have you ever noted that both conservatives and liberals think that the other side is anti-Semitic?)
Oh, I almost forgot. If you feel strongly about this issue, you can contact the mayor of Omaha, Mayor Fahey with the following contact information. I already have.
mfahey@ci.omaha.ne.us
1819 Farnam St
Suite 300
Omaha NE 68183
Please post comments if you have something to add... either side of the debate.
mwz
216
No comments:
Post a Comment