Before the last city election, on a September Sunday morning in church, a prominent local businessman came up to me and said, “Elissa, I do not like the direction you have taken the city in and I want you to know that I am voting against you for that reason.”
Now, I have been taught that there is a time a place for everything, and that you should always respect your elders, so I simply smiled and told the gentleman that democracy gave him the right to vote his choice.
Since that day, I have often wondered which direction our city was going in that met with his disapproval?
Surely he could not disapprove of the fact that there had been no increase in city property tax?
Did he not think our police chief was working on reducing crime and drugs in our city?
Maybe he did not approve of our hiring of a manager who had uncovered theft and corruption at City Hall and had started looking after expenses and cost, bidding for goods, and rebuilding our city’s pitifully depleted fund balance?
Perhaps he didn’t like that we were getting street paving started again after years of neglect, or how council members were coming out of their chambers to ride the streets of Henderson and investigate the problems first-hand — could that have been objectionable?
Or could he have disapproved of our Storm Water Ordinance? After all, that ordinance protected a water source for people downstream and called for permits before land could be moved and wetlands damaged, and it also called for property owners to pay the city when street cuts and sidewalks were damaged in construction.
It is difficult to believe, but would he have disapproved of the curfew that has worked to keep large groups of teenagers off of his properties after reasonable hours?
Maybe he disapproved of women making business decisions, or of women voicing their opinions, speaking out, and pointing out deficiencies in city government and bringing issues to the forefront?
Cleaning up neighborhoods and requiring rental property to be at the standard of migrant housing could be a direction that met with his disapproval. On the other hand, some of his business property was in the vicinity of blighted neighborhoods, so does that seem reasonable?
Did he disapprove of hiring a full time attorney that could go after tax deadbeats, foreclose on property, and clear the way to the tearing down of dilapidated housing and buildings? Or maybe he minded that the attorney was investigating extra-territorial jurisdiction and environmental concerns?
Is it possible that he disapproved of the plan to move City Hall to the Operations Center; but, since he is a good businessman, and that move made very good financial sense, and would have saved the city considerable money over very many years, is that likely?
Another direction that the city council had led in was getting a CDBG grant for the intended use of cleaning up and rehabilitating just one area of North Henderson on David Street. Could it be he did not think this was appropriate?
It is very likely that a source of dissatisfaction with the direction of the then-city council was that the council wanted to explore an end to joint funding with Vance County. This gentleman, after all, was a big contributor to the library. But if he had thought it through that far, he would certainly have realized that the library could very well have received far more funding than before if everyone shared equally in the expense. With careful consideration, why would anyone think that to be a logical concern?
The business of the city was being shared with taxpayers, and those taxpayers were educating themselves about the issues facing Henderson. Was that a problem? Things that had been covered up for years were coming to light, especially regarding the Embassy Foundation. Questions such as “Why did the Library Board transfer over $50,000 to the Embassy Foundation?” still need answers. If this businessman did not appreciate that all of this information had taken its rightful place in the public domain, one supposes that this have met with his disapproval.
These are some of my conjectures about what could possibly have caused his concern. I would surely like to ask him, after two years of the “New Direction” council, if he approves of the direction they have taken our city.
In fact, I would ask him, but I don’t see him at church any more. You see, since the “New Direction” council took over, this businessman sold his home in an upscale neighborhood in West Henderson and no longer lives in our city.
Yes, he moved, and in leaving abandoned the rest of us to deal with the new directions of closed government, tax increases, wasteful spending, neglect of our neighborhoods, missed opportunities, and overall ineptness and stagnation.
It is time to correct that direction. Stay tuned.