Oh, there’s mudslinging in Hickman! It’s not the candidates so much, and for that they are to be congratulated. You would expect a little mudslinging in this day of negative campaigning. No, here in Hickman it’s the local newspaper editor.
Sure, newspapers are entitled to endorse a candidate(s). But let’s do it on a positive swing rather than a negative. That’s what Hickman could use, a little community unification. We all know Hickman is struggling, a community definitely divided.
According to the editor’s article, two candidates are running “for themselves and not for the people of the city.” Why would a candidate do that? For the big bucks? Highly unlikely although the positions are paid. For the extreme gratitude of the constituents, I would doubt that. Maybe the featured candidates are trying to get to the bottom of the issue of nine office personnel that have come and gone since late 2005. Does that seem a bit odd to anyone? That doesn’t sound like a very strong administrative staff as claimed by the mayor in his recent campaign flyer.
The editor accuses Steve Parker of costing the city taxpayers big bucks regarding the old downtown buildings. Excuse me, who cost the city what? State Auditor Mike Foley reported that the City had illegally moved the buildings. The City Administrator had allowed them to be moved without following the proper procedure. Anything and everything that a government entity can no longer use needs to be offered for bid to all citizens, fair and square. After all, we all paid for everything with our tax dollars. The property belongs to us as taxpayers. And if there was no wrong doing on the part of the city (as they claim), then why did they insist the buildings come back for demolition? If the buildings were junk and of no value, then why did Harlans want them anyway? How is Steve Parker solely responsible? He sounds like a scapegoat, particularly at this time of election when he is running for the office of mayor. How convenient for those opposing Mr. Parker.
As far as the Peter Rabbit issue, the city council drug this issue on for over a year. They continued to put this issue on the agenda and haggle over it. The city council and mayor cost the taxpayers all the money. Their indecisiveness in dealing with this issue was one of the major reasons.
There is nothing funny about any of this. Legal wrangling does cost everyone involved. But really, should Mr. Parker have to apply for a conditional use permit for keeping hot dogs in his freezer? (What happens if the council votes to deny his application?) The city seems to use the defense that anyone who does not agree with them is guilty of wasting tax payer money. Sounds to me like the city officials are the ones who are being stubborn and vindictive.
The voters of Hickman can continue to allow the council and mayor to use their tax dollars for frivolous vendettas or they can vote in new members for some fresh and common sense approaches.
