Will The Real Southport Citizens Please Come Forward

Last evening's special Board of Aldermen should have been very simple. The UDO (our planning and zoning ordinance) had an error in the definition for "Planned Building Groups". This error was confirmed by the consultant who wrote that section of the UDO and it was repeated on the UDO's of 2 other towns whose ordinances he wrote. All "Planned Building Groups" must be apporved by the Planning Board, but the error in the definition of "Planned Building Groups" allowed for the interpretation that every single building,  regardless of size, was also subject to Planning Board approval. A single building is not a GROUP. This created an unnecessary process for builders whose projects are considered "permitted uses" in our UDO. The purpose of this meeting was to consider correcting this error.

Unfortunately, a small but vocal group of citizens became disruptive when it was pointed out that we already had the public hearing for this issue at the meeting on November 10. Planning board and staff comments were also heard at that meeting. We had to drop it from the November 10 agenda because the planning board had not had the required 30 days to respond to the proposal. We called the special meeting so that the comments and discussion were fresh in our minds, and we thought an expeditious decision was in order because of a project that is in progress.

After the meeting, an alderman and our Director of Planning were verbally assaulted by a local restaurant owner. Another audience member felt it was a good time to assault our ears with a rant about how this decision was taking power away from the planning board (not true since their authority remains unchanged) and giving it to the City Manager (?). Power has not been taken away from the Planning Board as they still must approve all "Planned Building Groups". Only single buildings of less than 7,000 square feet may be approved by the certified Planning Director along with other key staff members. That this would give power to the City Manager is a stretch but here's this person's rationalization: the Director of Planning is under the supervision of the City Manager, therefore the Director of Planning will make decisions and judgments based on fear of losing her job rather than her professional ethics and an oath she took to serve the citizens of Southport. In North Carolina (and all states) one must have cause to fire an employee. Disagreements are not cause enough to be terminated. This person needs to read the state statutes on employment law.

The attitude that the City Manager is taking over our city government and must be fired is being used as fuel to set ablaze every issue that comes before the Board. I sincerely hope that this is not the view of the majority of citizens in Southport. Not only is it completely based on a misrepresentation of the truth, it ignores the fact that the city is in better shape than most people realize because of our City Manager. I am proud of the professionalism of our city employees, but I fear that they cannot continue to absorb the abuse from this vocal group.

I encourage all citizens who want a city that represents all of you equally to come to the board meetings and speak out against this campaign to bring down Southport.  If you need the facts, check out the documents I'll be posting on my website (http://www.ken4alderman.com/). Some are already on the site.

We, as your representatives, need to hear from the real Southport citizens.

New Issues, New Controversies

I'm writing this at San Francisco airport as I wait for my flight home.  I love visiting my daughter here in SF, and the restaurant choices are fabulous, but living in Southport just can't be matched.  Tonight will be my first good night's sleep in a week and I can't wait to soak up the peace and quiet that is a hallmark of our little slice of heaven.

Tomorrow's board of aldermen meetings (note the plural) contain issues that many folks feel very passionately about.  The primary one is annexation.  I've been unable to update my website from here, but tomorrow AM I'll have the annexation feasibility study available along with the meeting agendas.

Annexation initiated by the city draws negative reactions from 2 camps: those who are about to be annexed and do not want to pay city taxes, and those who feel that the annexation of citizen's property without their expressed consent is unjust.  It's difficult to argue with either of those positions, and the state legislature has annexation "reform" rattling around on their agenda.  Over the course of the next month I will attempt to explain why it is important that Southport incorporate the areas under consideration and why it is a significant benefit to those who currently pay city tax.

Southport provides many services that benefit areas surrounding our current city limits, but the cost of those services is totally on the shoulders of the existing taxpayers.  Examples include police, rescue, the new fire house (improves on fire service to our district), parks & recreation (especially the new Lowe White Park), as well as the planning and inspection services that now exist for those in our ETJ (extra-territorial juristiction) but they don't pay taxes to support those departments.  Southport is also home to a number of festivals that are given considerable support by the city.  The bottom line is that those who live or operate businesses near our city limits receive those services without paying for them.

Additional city services for annexed areas include all infrastructure (water, sewer, electric) that must be in place within a few years of being annexed.  That is a considerable improvement for those using wells and septic systems.

So, why does the city want to incorporate more homes, businesses and citizens into our city limits?  Quite simply, the city badly needs a borader tax base.  If the annexation is not done, costs for city services will continue to rise and we'll be forced t either cut services and lay off employees, or raise taxes