Before turning loose of 2016 entirely, there’s at least one more thing to say about the November election. I’d like to revisit the election for county commission.
This website brought to you in part by the following sponsor:
Voters chose Wayne Uthe over Carl Carder. What I have to say is nothing for or against either. As an experienced MoDOT retiree, Carl served Daviess County well in the duties involving roads and bridges. No doubt Wayne will likewise do his best moving forward. It is worrisome to me, however, if this election outcome is interpreted as a referendum on the question of countywide vs. township form of government.
This topic has not been clearly debated.
Clearly, as a candidate, Carl voiced opinion for change to countywide government. At least one of the most astute political minds residing here advised Carl against resuming the topic in public. Carl, instead, did so anyway which, to my way of thinking, defines a position which transcends politics.
The issue goes much deeper than just who won. The question remains: Do we as voters really know what we’re choosing?
There is no champion for countywide government. We’re fragmented. Various needs across the county are addressed by special road districts; centers of population have little motivation for anything beyond status quo. We’re apathetic and (re-)structured to remain so.
Serious discussions about countywide vs. township government come few and far between. What Carl tried to initiate last fall was perhaps the most focused attempt to elevate the topic into public discourse in decades.
Ironically, it’s not Carl’s near solitary voice that haunts me about the topic so much as the calm and polite words from State Rep. J. Eggleston.
You may recall our state rep was unopposed in last November’s election. He didn’t have to attend the public meeting hosted last October by Daviess County Farm Bureau — and he sure wasn’t campaigning on behalf of any other candidate. He was the last candidate to speak, and he talked more about what was going on in neighboring DeKalb County, where he resides, rather than Daviess County.
His point? Countywide vs. township government is not just about roads and bridges.
Think wind turbines. You can’t ignore the changing landscape as you travel west on Highway 36. Some landowners who like the rental paychecks say “No problem.” But evidently a majority of folks in Clinton County directed their elected officials to impose rules that essentially regulated the turbines to be located elsewhere.
Some out-of-state company originally targeted 97 wind turbines for Clinton County, according to Rep. Eggleston. But Clinton County, a countywide organization, did its due diligence with public hearings on every subject (setbacks, noise levels, property values, wildlife, etc.) The wind turbine company was told to go elsewhere, which it did — just a short distance away to DeKalb County.
Clinton County is organized countywide; DeKalb County is township. The lesson is not about wind turbines. It’s about local control, of self determination. Township organization defies effective, consistent control and practical enforcement.
If wind turbines don’t tilt your interest, try dumping yards. Already, there exists at least one acreage in our county accepting building construction debris from neighboring towns outside this county. Unless you happen to be a nearby neighbor, maybe you don’t care. But once started, where does this stop?
I find another aspect about township government troubling. It divides us. As our population continues to drift away, the problems we face increasingly require more collective effort and cooperation. But our approach continues the model of times past, assuming a vigor and diversity justified and sustained by growth.
It’s the feel good approach. But, sorry, that’s not exactly the economic truth I’ve experienced during my entire adult life living here.
And so, another new year is about to unfold as I sit here pondering the past. There is absolutely no thought about reviving public discussion on countywide government among elected officials here to my knowledge. But the thing about truth is that truths just don’t go away, even if ignored.
Here’s one observation. Talk about countywide government to longtime residents here and before long you’ll hear a litany of the past: poor decisions, bad communication, improper supervision, lousy financial planning, all contributing to bad roads. Worse, the countywide attempt (nearly 6 decades ago!) left townships financially in shambles when voters chose to revert back to townships rather than radically fix what needed fixing.
I am tired of hearing this … as if we can’t learn from past mistakes.
Some will argue these points of the past as truth which, like I said, just won’t go away. But what I hear is an attitude, an ugly revelation about ourselves. They’re saying we cannot learn from past mistakes but are doomed to repeat them. Our wisdom can only be rooted in our past even if flawed; we refuse to discuss (much less attempt) forward thinking. And this bothers me … because too many people I personally know don’t fit into this negative rut.
It’s been over 40 years since I sat behind the wheel, holding my breath while driving a twin-screw dump truck loaded with gravel while approaching a bridge with a posting below what the ticket said I weighed. But I still sharply remember that stressful worry. Today I may live on a town street, but I have years of experience riding over “washboard” gravel roads incorrectly maintained … and worse.
So, yes, I do understand at least a little about why roads and bridges should command the bulk of a local government’s business.
All but 22 of Missouri’s 114 counties use a countywide approach. Advantages are measured not only in efficiencies in managing roads and bridges but also in other ways.
I write all this only to make this one point: The question of countywide vs. township government involves roads and bridges and a whole lot more.
I fear we’ll quit talking about it. Again.