• 48°

The talk about town: Lone Oak Country Club

I have to side with the many residents who stood at the city commission meeting Monday night, who have walked into my office and spoke with me in person about recent issues surrounding Lone Oak Country Club and who are calling the city’s bluff on the ordinance for annexation, or as I was corrected – the “intent” to annex.

In all honesty, let’s be serious, if you are going to pass an ordinance for annexation, no matter what label you try and sugar coat it with, “intent” or not, you are still going to annex the property and residents have a right to a say and hopefully change the mind of the elected officials. That, however, was not the case earlier this week.

I too live on a golf course. Not only that, but I have been out and around Lone Oak many times. I share the same concerns as the citizens do as far as traffic, public safety, whether there would be a possible decrease in property value of their existing homes and how the potential annexation would affect the quality of life for the residents of the area.

Commissioner Patty Teater was quoted as saying, “When we have a request for that and it makes good business sense for us and it makes good common sense for us, there’s no reason for us to deny that request.”

To that I’d ask, what about making a decision that is right for the good of the people – not the city? Sure, it might make good business sense as the City of Nicholasville would be able to collect property taxes on whatever is built there undoubtedly making the most common sense for the city. But what about what is best for the city’s residents? Or am I wrong in assuming those kinds of decisions are what should be of first and foremost importance for the city commissioners and not what is best for the city’s pocket book?

Not to mention the countless people who have voiced their concerns about the water and sewage issues the community is already facing. More homes, especially a large amount of homes, would only increase this issue and cause future problems. It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to figure that out. Perhaps the city is planning on using the future tax dollars to fix this issue? But then, how much better off would the city be in terms of revenue if what it is collecting additionally is only going to fix future problems this decision ultimately created.

Also, unless the city intends to approve a development plan which would build houses comparable to what is already there, property values WILL decrease. I agree with everyone at the meeting Monday who stated they would march down to their local PVA once the first shovel breaks ground on the new development, whatever that may be. As a home owner, I would be irate if I had spent the amount of money some of these people have to live where they do only to have my home depreciate due to a poor decision made in later years by officials who were voted into office to make the right choice for the citizens on the community.

Many have voiced their opinion that they are not against the development, but the annexation. For the county has stricter rules and regulations that need to be followed on what can be built and the lot sizes required within the community’s limits. I hate to point out the obvious, but the only reason to annex into the city and not stay in the county would be the want and desire to develop something outside those limits – which only has the possibility for disaster as far as I see it.

For the sake of all involved, I hope now that the “intent” to annex is passed, the city and planning and zoning does what is in the best interest of its residents – and not its pocket book.