The shallow sophistry of Lubbock’s mayor and others on the city council regarding annexation of people’s private property into the taxing and regulatory boundaries of the City of Lubbock, is about as unique as a dust storm on the High Plains in the spring.
At a city council meeting in which Lubbock officials are going through the motions of forcible annexation, Mayor Dan Pope delivered a frustrated soliloquy that demonstrated all that is wrong and shallow with his thinking.
Mayor Dan Pope with his Socialist slogan.
Mr. Pope, there is no delicate balance or stewardship at issue. To have stewardship would mean that the land in question was already under the control of the city for which you have stewardship responsibilities. It is not, it is property outside your jurisdiction.
If by stewardship you mean the desires of the city as an entity, you are arguing for the idea that the wishes of city leaders and residents, one set of property owners, should take a superior position to that of other owners of property.
The argument you are making ultimately means that there is no right to private property and to live as you wish on such. Your position, and that of most on the council, is shameful and directly at odds with the American ethos.
If the city offers such great amenities then let property owners petition to join it, don’t force them so to do in a Stalinist fashion.
Lubbock’s mayor does not respect property rights
At a city council meeting in which Lubbock officials are going through the motions of forcible annexation, Mayor Dan Pope delivered a frustrated soliloquy that demonstrated all that is wrong and shallow with his thinking.
Mayor Dan Pope with his Socialist slogan.
Mr. Pope, there is no delicate balance or stewardship at issue. To have stewardship would mean that the land in question was already under the control of the city for which you have stewardship responsibilities. It is not, it is property outside your jurisdiction.
If by stewardship you mean the desires of the city as an entity, you are arguing for the idea that the wishes of city leaders and residents, one set of property owners, should take a superior position to that of other owners of property.
The argument you are making ultimately means that there is no right to private property and to live as you wish on such. Your position, and that of most on the council, is shameful and directly at odds with the American ethos.
If the city offers such great amenities then let property owners petition to join it, don’t force them so to do in a Stalinist fashion.