Texas-side officials talk about land annex votes
Some council members say city’s interests outweighed those of the landowners
Whether to annex land into Texarkana, Texas, came down to weighing those directly affected against the interests of the whole city, officials said after their votes.
Following Monday’s much-anticipated votes on annexing seven territories adjacent to the city limits, Mayor Bob Bruggeman and the City Council explained their decisions. Some spoke about the difficulty of their choices, which came after many residents of the land in question expressed strong opposition to annexation during two public hearings and a communications campaign.
The council was divided on the annexations, with two members voting no across the board, two others consistently voting yes and the remaining two voting yes with one exception. In the three cases when Bruggeman had to cast a deciding vote, he voted no to annexing one area and yes to two others. One of the seven votes was postponed at the request of Ward 1 Council Member Jean Matlock, who said she wanted to discuss the possibility of annexing only a portion of the area in question.
The public outcry persuaded Ward 4 Council Member Christie Alcorn and Ward 6’s Josh Davis, both of whom consistently voted no on annexation, they said in separate interviews.
“After two hearings, I don’t know how many phone calls, text messages, emails, person-to-person contacts I had, I heard the voice of the people that were being affected by the annexation.
“And after so many voiced their concerns in the affected areas and expressed their opposition, I felt because of those reasons such as the burden on their finances, the fear of losing their homes, changing and altering their way of life, possibly having to sell or being able to not evenen keep up
their property or afford it, I felt compelled and was led by their voices to vote against it,” Alcorn said.
Careful to note he was not criticizing any other members’ votes, Davis too said the effects on those in annexed areas were decisive for him.
“We gained a lot of feedback from the people that would be affected, and I honestly could not sit here and tell you that that did not have an impact on me, listening and visiting with, speaking to these people that would be negatively affected by an annexation. It goes without saying that the hardships, both financially and the amount of stress that they’ve been under, that was taken into great consideration when I cast my no votes on it,” Davis said, adding that the process worked the way it was supposed to.
“This has been a long process, but I truly believe in the process that we did. As far as the nature of transparency is concerned, I believe that the city was transparent in everything. Having the public hearings, I think they served their purpose. It allowed me to get the feedback from people that were going to be affected,” he said.
Matlock and Ward 2’s Mary Hart cited economic development as their reason for consistently voting yes to annexation. Hart abstained from one vote, explaining afterward that she did not have a map of the area in question, called Study Area 2, and could not remember which it was.
“I’m surprised by some of the votes, but I respect the right of all the members of the council. I think that the progress that we’re planning for is for the future, and a lot of us are not even going to be around when the future comes. It’s going to be for grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
“A lot of our younger people, if it’s not enough progress here and jobs and infrastructure and the newer-jobs that are out there, if there’s not space for it, if there’s not a way to plug into it, we’ll lose our youth more in the future. So we need to be ready for what they can have, with innovations for them to be able to have nice salaries and good jobs and stay in their home town and keep growing it,” Hart said.
Matlock said annexation’s benefit to the city outweighed its negatives.
“Most of the areas we want to annex, I thought it would be good for the city. I was torn because I knew it was going to be a financial— won’t call it a burden—but I know those people have to put out additional money to do the water lines and everything, but I think it will benefit the city,” Matlock said.
Ward 3’s Betty Williams and Ward 5’s Bill Harp mixed their votes, both voting no on one area only. Williams said she voted against annexing Study Area 1, a territory adjacent to the Pleasant Grove neighborhood that contains a long segment of Gin Road, after visiting there.
“That was the only area that I was able to drive through, the only one I knew well enough that I felt comfortable, you know, driving through it and seeing all the different types of properties, the big lots, the trees, everything, and it just seemed so idyllic that I just identified with the people. It’s not that I didn’t identify with the other areas, the other Pleasant Grove areas, it’s just that I didn’t get to see them. So that was why I voted the way I did on that No. 1 area,” Williams said, adding that the decision was a hard one. “Doing what is best for the city in the long run is different sometimes than identifying with the people and their needs and their feelings, and until you’ve been in a position like-type this, you really don’t know how difficult it can be,” she said. Williams was open about annexation providing needed tax revenues, referring to planned improvements at Texarkana Regional Airport and ongoing contract negotiations between the city and the firefighters union. “I know it’s going to be more needed tax dollars, because we’ve got this firemen’s union issue here. That’s quite expensive. We’ve got other issues that we’ve got before us, the airport, all this kind of stuff. And I I know we need the money, and I think it’s going to help, but at what cost? There’s going to be a lot of people that don’t like us, but anyway, sometimes you have to go ahead and do what’s right for the whole city,” she said. Harp said he looked at each of the proposed annexations individually, with long-term economic benefit in mind. “What I was filtering everything through was the long-term economic benefit to the entire city. I think our University Avenue/Pleasant Grove Road is going to be a key corridor in the next 15 to 20 years. You’ve got A&M-Texarkana on the north end. On the south end, you’ve got the proposed development of Wadley coming in out there behind Lone Star steakhouse where Gander Mountain used to be. So I thought it was right for us to be in control of development of those areas moving forward. “Some of the other areas I did not vote for. I did not see what the benefit was for the city to move in and annex those territories. I tried to look at each thing objectively on a case-by-case basis,” Harp said.
Bruggeman also said he considered each of the proposals separately.
“I basically reviewed each area individually, as far as potential, projected growth areas and that sort of thing. Looking into those, they’re kind of spread out in different geographical areas, and so I just reviewed them individually … based on potential growth areas in the city,” he said.
The differences of opinion among council members show what a tough decision they faced, Bruggeman said.
“It’s something that’s a very difficult task, and we had the public hearings to gain input from those who were in these particular affected areas, and that input was certainly appreciated during the process, but it’s a very important matter that we had before our council, and as you can see based on the votes that were cast by the council members, it wasn’t one-sided in either direction. I mean, there were different opinions as far as based on the votes that were cast, so it wasn’t something that was pre-planned or anything like that,” he said.
Bruggeman expressed his gratitude to everyone involved.
“I certainly appreciate that the staff of the city did a lot of work in regards to this area. A lot of time was devoted by council members, as well as by the community at hand,” he said. “So I just appreciate everyone’s efforts and patience as we move throughout this particular process.”