Weighing the annexation issue

Approximately four years ago, my wife and I moved back to Jackson after being away 45 years. Our dream was always to return as residents after we retired. The city logo -- "Jackson the city of beauty homes, parks, schools and churches" -- has always been a source of pride. This image of Jackson has been marred by the sudden events of quarries wanting Jackson to give them legal protection from local control by the residents of Fruitland, who have the most to lose by the city's action.

This has all been done under the guise that it will be good financially for the city of Jackson. While serving on the community outreach board, my wife questioned Mayor Lohr as to why the train and its surrounding area was not required to clean up because it is an eyesore to the city. The mayor explained, "It is zoned industrial land and therefore the city has no control over it." If that is the case, why does the city want to zone the quarries heavy industrial, thereby having no control over one of the important entrances to our city?

While the state may regulate the operation of the quarries, the city is giving up its rights to regulate the nonstate concerns such as scenery, buildings and upkeep. The city should not sell out its control to regulate improvements it may deem necessary in the future. We feel we cannot support what the city is giving up, namely the good will of area neighbors, the lack of concern for beautiful "homes and schools" if they don't fit right in the middle of town.

The citizens of Jackson should vote "no" Feb. 7 or we are giving in to selling out to businesses that are only buying their way out of legal obligations.

LARRY AND DIANE DECKER, Jackson