Why voters should support annexation issue

This letter is to correct much misinformation that was published in a guest column in the Southeast Missourian on Friday, Jan. 20, signed by Ken and Ginny Leimbach, with the headline, "Ten reasons to vote no on annexation issue."

I will start with their statement that the city will be required to have a plan in place to provide costly services out several miles. Both Ken and Ginny Leimbach and a Southeast Missourian reporter were at the Jan. 17 public hearing on the Plan of Intent presented by the city of Jackson on providing city services to the area to be annexed.

It was made very clear which services would be offered and that the city would not be providing water, electricity or sewers until it is more economical to do so. The subheading in the Southeast Missourian article regarding the public hearing even states this.

They also question whether a new business would want to build near a quarry because of the dust, traffic, noise and possible structural damage.

First, most new businesses want to build where there is a lot of traffic. They even check the traffic count in the area before committing to locate there.

Second, since quarries are very strictly regulated by several federal and state agencies, there will be very little dust and noise.

Third, the blasting is also highly regulated, and it is in the best interest of the quarry to monitor it carefully so they will not have to pay any damage claims. Besides, every business has liability insurance. The city will have no legal obligations (lawsuits) for the actions of a business.

They also asked, "What about Hubble Creek?" They are referring to stormwater runoff. At the same public hearing that these people attended, Danny Dumey Jr., a Heartland Materials owner, stated that they have already put four containment ponds on their property and are installing another one. Again, because they are strictly regulated by their permit, they cannot allow any runoff from their property.

If this annexation goes through, why would the city zone an area "heavy industrial" that is next to schools and near homes when we do not allow this within our current city limits? It is correct that the city will not zone an area industrial if it is next to a residential zoning. That's because the city has planning and zoning ordinances in place.

By their own choice through an election process, there is no planning and zoning in the county. The city cannot be held responsible for that. If the annexed property is zoned heavy industrial, the city has ordinances in place regarding the regulating of heavy industrial property.

This group seems to rely very heavily on the remarks of one person at a public participation meeting stating that he or she would not want to see a new landfill or rock quarry within the community.

First, that was the remark of one person. Second, the comprehensive plan is a recommended guideline. Third, the new comprehensive plan did not address any areas outside the city limits because the recommendations from the previous comprehensive plan of December 1998 were still in place. Fourth, the comprehensive plan of 1998 stated the need for development of a rock quarry in the Jackson vicinity. That comprehensive plan also recommended annexation of an area that lies on both sides of U.S. 61 to the north of the city limits.

We hope this supplies answers to some of the misinformation contained in a former guest column. All the facts point to the annexation of the Heartland Materials/Hoffmeister family property as being in the best interests of the citizens of the city of Jackson as well as providing for orderly and reasonable growth of the city. As I have said before, let's welcome this industry into our city. Vote yes on Feb. 7.

Gene Penzel represents Citizens for the Growth of Jackson.