Annexation stands clear in city race
I attended the Salisbury City Council candidates forum Wednesday evening, and I must commend the accuracy of the summary of what candidates had to say which appeared in Thursday’s Post.
All Rowan County residents living outside of the Salisbury city limits need to heed the opinion given by candidate Maggie Blackwell concerning annexation. Ms. Blackwell stated that she doesn’t believe in taxation without representation but “might vote for an area to be annexed to provide the city with needed revenues.”
In a private phone conversation several weeks ago Ms. Blackwell told me that she did not like the idea of forced annexation and hoped that Salisbury could find all the “revenue streams” it needed through the sale of water-sewer services as well as fiber optic services. She added, however, that she reserved the right to vote for an annexation if “additional revenue streams” were needed.
At least she’s not a hypocrite. She doesn’t give us the usual propaganda about bringing needed services to an annexed area. She tells it like it is. If Salisbury needs our money, then she will vote to annex us! She is probably the first City Council candidate in the history of this state to be that honest about the real purpose of annexations.
Ms. Blackwell is a charming lady with an outstanding record as a community activist. She is an enthusiastic and vibrant campaigner. I, however, do not want to see her in a position to enthusiastically and vibrantly reach into my wallet to pay for Salisbury’s financial problems.
Candidates Charles Black, Carl Dangerfield, Blake Jarman, Benjamin Johnson and William Peoples all stated without equivocation that they would never support a forced annexation. All Salisbury voters need to keep these people in mind and go to the polls to vote on Nov. 3.
ó Carl Eagle
Neel Estates
Animal lovers?
Yesterday was a great day for some differentially oriented people. There was a big rally for the homosexual, bisexual, transsexual, asexual, cross dressers,transgendered, etc. They want to get married. The president gave them his blessings, at least to the degree required to maintain their continued political support.
These demonstrators totally ignored the quadapodaphiles among us. What about these citizens choosing not to discriminate as to the number of feet on their significant other? Quadpodaphobia is rampant! Quadpodaphiles are treated bestially. They are forced to be sheepish and not react when the wool is pulled over their eyes, resisting the impulse to say baaaa to such insults. These folks are in stable relationships that can stand firmly on all four feet.
As we continue to expand the definition of marriage in our society, let’s be inclusive. Homophobia is no longer the problem. Now we must stamp out quadpodaphobia. CHANGE? YES WE CAN!
ó Joe Roberts
Salisbury