We would like to respectfully respond to the March 1 Post article titled “Salisbury seeks annexation supporters.”
In this article, Mayor Susan Kluttz and N.C. League of Municipalities Director S. Ellis Hankins contend that the citizens involved in the involuntary annexation are being “very vocal.” What we are doing is defending our rights, which we feel are being violated by the city of Salisbury. We are not demanding any of the services to which the article is referring. We have the highest level of services now with the Sheriff’s Office, Locke Volunteer Fire Department, having our own wells and our own septic systems and having excellent garbage pickup services.
Regarding their comment “and residents have enjoyed the proximity to Salisbury with no shared economic responsibilities for many years,” we must respond that most of us shop in the stores and supermarkets in Salisbury, we go to restaurants in Salisbury and attend and support the arts in Salisbury. Our money is being spent in the city.
Just what “economic responsibilities” are they referring to since we have no need of any of the city’s services?
The one thing that has not been addressed in either this article nor others written on the subject of this proposed annexation is the financial impact that this annexation is going to have on many of the citizens in this area, especially those like us on fixed incomes. The burden of annexation will be most difficult.
ó Hubert Bradley Jr. and Sally Aiosa-Bradley
Neel Estates