Craig Daily Press

To the Editor:

I was quite shocked to read your “Funding Inaction” editorial in Saturday’s paper, which took the city to task for not annexing adjoining undeveloped land and for not blindly running roads and utilities into undeveloped property.

I was even more surprised not to see any rebuttal letters printed to date regarding your wild claims.

In every town, city and state that I have ever lived in, developers are responsible for “developing” a division of land for housing.

This includes subdividing and submitting plats for approval, which includes showing how the roads and utilities are to be laid out.

Once that is done, actual construction of the water and sewer lines, curb and gutters, and roads are done by the developer. The costs of the initial development of lots for housing is eventually paid for in the price of the sold lots.

Outside city limits, city ordinances regarding construction of utilities and roads do not have to be followed, and most property development, such as drilling for wells and installing a septic tank and sewer drain field, is left in the hands of the prospective lot purchaser.

If a developer wishes to have city water and sewer brought to their division that is located outside the city limits, then the developer needs to be sure to meet all city codes when subdividing and platting and installing the lines, curbs and roads, in order to be able to request annexation by the city.

Every home in the city of Craig was once part of this process, and every homeowner has paid for the costs of development of their own individual property. It would not be right for the taxpayers to foot the developments costs of another taxpayer’s lot (and eventual home).

The costs of initial private development belong to the developer, until they sell their lots at a sizeable profit. Some developers, however, seem to want a higher profit margin, and may back off a project that requires more work, especially with some of our more hilly areas.

When I look at the names of those on your editorial board, I know some of those members know and understand the above process. I can’t believe that they let you lump the city into the same category as the county as far as foresight regarding future economic development.

The city is looking forward and actively planning for an increase in population. One example is in their planning for and building of a new and larger water plant. The city supports the local Economic Development Committee, unlike the “heads-in-the sand” county commissioners.

Also, unlike the county commissioners as a public entity, the city council publicly went on record supporting the new hospital and school measures.

You owe city officials an apology for unfairly comparing them with the negative county commission.

Sincerely,

E.V. Peterson