Tonya Beemster and her husband moved into their home on Winston Road in 2020. They chose the area at the time because it was a quiet and safe place to land, with plenty of open space for activities like hunting, fishing and riding four-wheelers.
With the Columbus City Council moving forward with a proposal to annex two areas located south and east of the city, Beemster and other citizens living in those areas are worried those aspects of their homes will be negatively affected.
“We bought our property,” Beemster told The Dispatch. “We wanted to live there. We worked very hard to get what we have, and we can’t afford the annexation.”
On Tuesday, the city council approved an annexation ordinance to take in the two proposed areas. Citizens and elected officials met on Saturday at City Hall to discuss their concerns with the possible annexation and the process that comes with it.
Michael Lewis, who lives in one of the affected areas, organized the meeting. Since June 2023, he’s been encouraging county residents to oppose the annexation through his Facebook page, Lowndes County Residents Against Annexation. Lewis said if the city absorbs the two areas in question, citizens will have fewer freedoms and higher taxes with virtually no benefits.
“I realized that the people in these areas are good people, and they’re just trying to get by,” Lewis said. “Some of them are just barely getting by … A lot of these people said if there’s another increase (in taxes and rent), they’re going to have to look for somewhere else to call home.”
The first of the two areas that would be annexed borders Ward 2 and Ward 3 and is bounded by Highway 82 in the north, Armstrong Road in the east, Lehmberg Road to the west and Deerfield Drive to the south.
The second area, adjacent to Ward 1 and Ward 2, is bounded by South Lehmberg Road to the east, the area adjacent to Scott Drive to the south, Hargrove Road to the west and Vernon Branch Creek to the north.
When the two areas were originally proposed for potential annexation by Vice Mayor Joseph Mickens and Ward 5 Councilman Stephen Jones, they suggested the addition would help counterbalance the city’s loss of population while also extending essential services, like fire and police, to citizens living in the areas.
The proposed annexation would add roughly 2,000 citizens to the city limits.
Ward 6 Councilwoman Jacqueline DiCicco, who voted against the annexation ordinance, said during the Saturday meeting she didn’t see those suggestions as a clear agenda for annexing the two areas.
“One thing that concerned me was that the clear objectives and the truthful objectives of why this is being proposed I don’t think have been stated,” she said. “I’m saying let’s (instead) do a study and find out why we’re losing population and make those corrections before we bring in people who will have the same issues.”
DiCicco referenced data compiled by the Golden Triangle Development LINK that indicates the city’s economic demographics would be negatively impacted by an annexation. The numbers show the median household income and median disposable income would both decrease. Poverty rates would go up and labor force participation would drop, according to the data.
DiCicco said that information makes it clear neither citizens in the affected areas nor in the city will benefit from the annexation.
“We have so much information about the negative impact on our residents in the city as well as the areas to be annexed,” she said. “We need to make it clear that this is going to hurt the lower income people if the city annexes them because if their rents go up, they might have to move.”
Mayor Keith Gaskin echoed DiCicco’s sentiments during Saturday’s meeting, saying he doesn’t see any logic in why these two areas should be annexed.
“The city is finally getting our finances in order, but because of the shortfalls we’ve had for so many years, we haven’t been able to take care of our citizens that live inside the city,” he said. “So why would we want to take in another area … when we haven’t fixed areas in our city where people have been waiting for years?”
Gaskin also explained the next steps of the proposal process during the meeting, which includes a public notice and a 30-day waiting period followed by a public hearing that citizens opposing annexation can attend. During that hearing, the judge will set a date for bench trial in which the city must prove that the annexation is reasonable.
Lewis encouraged others to get involved with making their voices heard in the meantime.
“Show up to meetings,” he said. “Let’s have an open discussion, and let’s just pick each other’s minds and see what all we can do as a community to make our voices heard.”
Beemster told The Dispatch she would attend the public hearing in opposition of annexing because she sees it as her last choice.
“If this is going to continue, I’ll put my three acres up for sale, and I will go as far out in the county till nobody is able to annex it,” she said. “I’d rather stay in the county. I know the county has got our back.”
McRae is a general assignment and education reporter for The Dispatch.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 44 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
You can help your community
Quality, in-depth journalism is essential to a healthy community. The Dispatch brings you the most complete reporting and insightful commentary in the Golden Triangle, but we need your help to continue our efforts. In the past week, our reporters have posted 44 articles to cdispatch.com. Please consider subscribing to our website for only $2.30 per week to help support local journalism and our community.
