I am concerned by Craig Clark’s statements in a Nov. 10, 2018, letter to the Austin Daily Herald. 

Clark stated that he appreciated local Lansing Township voices, but appeared to disregard them in outlining his office’s point of view on this issue.  The people of Lansing Township are proud of where they live, what they do, and who they are. Their residency in the Township is a point of pride. Lansing Township is home, and is part of our identity. The City of Austin’s haphazard approach to annexation threatens that very identity, and does so without sufficient justification. 

Residents of the Township do not deny the need for cities such as Austin to engage in rigorous study and careful planning to foster commercial and economic growth.  We do not believe that Austin should “sit by idly and hope economic growth will happen.” Rather, we, as proud residents of the Township, and recognizing less-than-successful attempts at effectuating the Annex First, Ask Questions Later method currently proposed, believe there are existing avenues for development that don’t require uprooting the foundation of the township or its agricultural heritage.

As I write, across the street from my farm, which has been held by my family for generations, Austin residents can see the results of the city’s development efforts. There are numerous empty storefronts and lots, testaments to the sort of “business contraction” and empty spaces noted by my neighbor, John Ryther. Why, when there are opportunities for redevelopment already within the city limits, does Austin feel the need to push its boundaries further into a township it has previously eroded?  He stated that the annexation efforts are not “some plot against the township . . . but rather a simple reality.”  My neighbors and I believe that embracing reality requires respecting the voices of the township’s residents and their agricultural heritage. Progress does not require clawing away portions of the Township for development that may not come in the first place, particularly where previous development that was expected following annexations appears to have stalled or never materialized.

Clark noted that “the city’s request for joint annexation was originated at the request of a landowner.”  That landowner is certainly not me. The city has approved my neighbor’s annexation without my knowledge and has used this to increase the pressure on me. It appears that the city is more willing to do the bidding of the few rather than respect the opinions of many. Indeed, the city is now willfully ignoring the voices of multiple landowners and, indeed, the Township Supervisors. As Mr. Ryther noted, the Township Supervisors have twice voiced opposition to annexation. City officials seem to be unable to take no for an answer.  While we understand that the city would like to “be positioned for growth and remove barriers where we can,” this does not mean that the city should, nor needs to, ignore the will of the township and plough ahead and remove these “barriers” by force. This will only foster further ill-will. 

The City of Austin’s motto is “Growing Together.”  However, the current situation makes it clear that the City would rather forge ahead on its own. Lansing Township prides itself on being part of the agricultural heartland of Minnesota. Further annexations of the Township threaten a way of life that is already under siege. Rather than engaging in scattershot planning at the request of one landowner, the City should search for responsible planning solutions that address both current concerns and long-term goals.

Sincerely,

Mara Murphy

Lansing Township