To the editor:
Re: How has Salem Townshop gotten away with 5-mill road levy?
One has to look back into the history of the townships around Salem to understand the problem.
When the millage issue came up for renewal in neighboring townships their supervisors at the time felt their township would remain a rural farming community .
An example is Dorr Township shortly after the millage was no longer on the ballot, the developments of Ranchero and Litchfield appeared… this was a mixture of 235 housing and homes sold not under the 235 program.
Now Dorr had a influx of city folk that expected better roads than the poorly maintained gravel roads… a minor “fix” was to have every new development pave access to a paved road closest to the new development, which of course the cost of this was passed on to the buyer of the home in the new development, hence the start of a major problem.
Now you had “locals” who disliked the first two developments (calling them “rabbit hutches”) and any further development… plus the new developments that were paying for a paved road and sidewalks in many cases.
So, when road millage votes arise (in Dorr), they are usually voted down (surprisingly, the last one passed )
It is because there were supervisors at the time who were so near sighted they could not see the future development of their township that many townships are in this mess. (Records should show townships like Dorr had a road millage the same as Salem, but the powers that be felt there was no need to purse it when it came up for a vote again).
That being said, since I live on a paved road in Dorr Township, would I vote for a road millage the answer is No… I refuse to pay for the lack of foresight of the previous governing bodies.
Harry Smit, Dorr Township