It’s time to end the cityhood issue once and for all and seriously work toward creating one Oxford with no silly boundaries or petty turf wars.
We strongly urge village residents to vote NO on cityhood Aug. 5 and end the incorporation process for the village.
Oxford’s biggest problem has always been that it’s one community saddled with two governments. Cityhood won’t change that, it will only make things worse.
A vote for cityhood is not a vote for village independence, it’s a vote for more divisiveness between governments, more legal fees and possibly more property taxes.
We want to make something crystal clear for the voters who are still confused about this issue ? this is NOT a vote to bring the village and township together as one city.
It is a vote to see if the village alone should continue the incorporation process to become a separate city and break away from the township after 132 years together.
The numbers associated with cityhood are vague and uncertain. From what we’ve seen, there doesn’t appear to be that much of a savings, if there’s any at all.
Don’t for a moment think that not having to pay 0.95 mill to the township automatically means a 0.95-mill savings. The new city will have to charge something for the additional services the township once provided such as assessing.
Heck, former village President George Del Vigna recently suggested the village could possibly use that savings to help pay for the new $2.4 million water treatment plant. It’s more likely village residents won’t save that 0.95 mill, they’ll just see it shift from the township to the new city.
Frankly, we feel financially cityhood’s either going to be a wash or end up costing taxpayers more money. Knowing the way government works, we’re inclined to believe the latter.
As far as the whole ‘controlling our own destiny? argument, given the village is surrounded by the township ? a geographic fact cityhood won’t change ? what happens in the township will always affect it, particularly when it comes to growth and development.
We’d rather see village residents continue to have a voice in township government through voting in township elections, being able to run for township board and being able to serve on appointed boards like the planning commission and ZBA. Cityhood would take away all those rights.
There is the argument that township voters greatly outnumber village voters 11,593 to 2,367. Numerically, it’s true.
But only a narrow-minded person who wants to pit the two governments against each other would assume that all township voters will always vote one way and village voters another. Only a narrow-minded person who doesn’t care about having one Oxford would assume township voters will always vote against what village voters want as if they’re two different species.
To us, cityhood comes down to this ? are you in favor of working together to build a unified Oxford or are you in favor clinging to backward, unproductive village-versus-township attitudes that keep us at each other’s throats?
We favor unity and that means voting against cityhood. A community is stronger together than it is divided. The village and township need each other.
Granted, voting NO on cityhood won’t automatically create some utopian Oxford where everyone hold hands and sings Kum Ba Yah, but it will get rid of an issue that’s created nothing but tension, fear and suspicion between the village and township.
And let’s not forget the cityhood movement ? if you can even call it that ? was never, ever a grass-roots effort.
It was initiated by the husband of a former village council president, who was sitting on the board when this all started. Neither of them even lives in Oxford anymore.
From the start cityhood was a council-driven (not the current council) idea masquerading as the will of the people.
Unfortunately, the movement was given taxpayer financing when the husband asked his wife and the rest of council to retain a high-priced attorney for his little venture.
And when an attorney gets involved, it’s no longer about what’s best for Oxford because he could care less. To him, it’s about racking up those billable hours. To date, the village has paid this lawyer a little more than $25,000.
This whole cityhood thing has stunk from the very start. And when something stinks, it’s time to bury it. ? CJC