news
The legal proceedings, which began March 29, have already covered 14 days in the courtroom over a four-week period. After testimony last Thursday, the trial recessed and will resume May 24 - probably for at least a couple of additional weeks.
The lengthy duration and extraordinary expense of this feud among overlapping and neighboring governments continues to be a burden to the taxpayers and a hindrance to progress.
A pre-trial settlement between Tupelo and Lee County would have been much preferable, but it became clear in recent years that anti-annexation sentiment was too strong among at least some county supervisors for any true compromise to occur.
That's unfortunate. It's abundantly clear that the overall economic and social health of Lee County won't be aided by hemming in its core municipality. If Tupelo sees its tax base and services decline because it isn't able to capture the growth that naturally flows from the city, the surrounding area will eventually suffer as well.
That's not mere speculation; it's been borne out by the experience of other municipalities in Mississippi and elsewhere. Where cities are unable to expand, city tax bases dry up and services and quality of life deteriorate, leading to population decline and problems such as increased crime that cross over municipal borders.
Most disturbing in this legal conflict is that taxpayers in Tupelo - who are also citizens and taxpayers of Lee County - are paying double, financing both the pro-annexation arguments of the city and the county government's opposition. As Mayor Jack Reed Jr. pointed out on the stand last week, Tupelo residents are paying 100 percent of the city's cost and 60 percent of the county's.
If there's a more glaring waste of taxpayers' dollars, it's hard to imagine.
Yet the trial and the opposition will continue next month. The city of Saltillo and the town of Plantersville have joined Lee County in challenging Tupelo for reasons that are hard to justify for their municipal taxpayers as well.
The annexation Tupelo proposes is fair, prudent and reasonable. It doesn't overreach.
Were it a case where the city were attempting to take in an enormous swath of territory that it obviously could not service, opposition by the county government and others could be justified. But that's not the nature of this annexation attempt.
Unfortunately, hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars are being needlessly expended anyway.
Does anyone wonder why the working families of Memphis are struggling to get into DeSoto County? Is it more difficult to see the same situation with Tupelo and the surrounding area?
Mayor Reed stands up and talks about wasting taxpayers money when he's the mayor of the city that brought the action that is wasting taxpayer money!
Even though all this started before he was elected, as the mayor, he could have said now is not the time to proceed with annexation and put the whole thing on hold, or drop it altogether, but he didn't. But, instead, he's allowed the whole thing to proceed. So, now he owns it, whether it was started prior to him taking office or not.
Then he makes statements like those he's made about wasting taxpayer money as if it's the other side who instigated all this when it is him and his city who are causing the waste. That's disingenuous.
As for the Journal, I've never seen them print an article critical of anything that Jack Jr. has done, have you? I wonder why? Could it be that it's because the Reeds have been on the Journal board for years and Jack Jr. and Billy Crews are buddies and Crews ran his campaign (fortunately for Jack Jr., he won anyway)?
Does anyone really think that a newspaper is going to be unbiased when reporting (or not reporting) on city issues when the head of that newspaper ran the campaign of the sitting mayor and both that mayor and his father served on the newspaper's board for years and years?
The Journal is just too closely associated with Mayor Reed to be unbiased and thus has no credibility when it comes to issues in any way involving him, period.
They've compromised their journalistic integrity.
Don't take my word for it. Go back and read what they've published about the city since Mayor Reed has been elected and see if there's not a pattern of positive "spin" in favor of Mayor Reed in every instance. I challenge you to find anything they've written that doesn't somehow support Mayor Reed.
Coincidence? I don't think so.
Frankly if people moved out of Tupelo that means they don't want to pay Tupelo any more income.
Shame on you Tupelo City for being a big greedy entity.
Those taxpayers upset about this huge waste of their money should remember which side has caused it. Had the City of Tupelo not initiated this "land grab" none of this would be happening now.
So, if Tupelo citizens are upset that they're "paying 100 percent of the city's cost and 60 percent of the county's." as the article says, they should remember that it was the CITY OF TUPELO THAT STARTED ALL THIS. Thus, they have no one to blame but the city leaders that they elected.
So yes the Journal is right when it says "If there's a more glaring waste of taxpayers' dollars, it's hard to imagine." And "The Reed Regime" is responsible for the waste for allowing this obvious "land grab" to proceed to trial.
So, city taxpayers should definitely remember this monumental waste of their money, and who is really responsible for it come next election.
The City of Tupelo is not in any danger of being "hemmed in". Look at all of the vacant commercial property in the city now and how poorly maintained it is. New businesses are obviously not lined up waiting for commercial space in Tupelo! If they were, there wouldn't be so much vacant commercial property in the city now would there?
They keep talking about wanting to maintain a certain percentage (20-40%, I think) of "undeveloped land", yet much of the land that they're trying to annex has already been developed!
So, exactly how is it that the annexation of already developed land will increase the city's percentage of undeveloped land?
It won't! And it's just another fact that exposes this annexation for what it is, a "land grab" for the tax revenue and nothing more.
Lastly, I hope that those reading this editorial see just how biased the Journal is in favor of anything that "The Reed Regime" wants.
It's not about the truth, it's about what's good for Jack Jr.
The Journal is not an unbiased news source (even in the non-editorial sections), period.
So, those of you in the county who are against this annexation, the Journal is working against you. Not because it's the best thing for both you and the citizens of Tupelo, but because of their allegiance to Mayor Reed.
The Journal has made their choice to support Mayor Reed to the detriment of everyone else.
We really don't need them, we're not getting the "real news" anyway. The Journal only prints whatever "version of the news" puts their buddies (especially Reed and Toyota) in the best light.
Perhaps it's time for the rest of us to make our choice by voting with our dollars and canceling our subscriptions to such a biased newspaper.