Sparkle City Headlines: Westside Annexation Woes And The 2010 Census

Last week, Spartanburg City Council moved forward with plans to begin the annexation of more than 800 properties in the Westside area. They did so amid clear protest from many of those who own the annexed properties, many of whom are unhappy that a sewer agreement signed during the Reagan era is forcing them into the city’s tax base. Both sides have valid points for an against the annexation, and it’s not surprising at all that an attorney representing several of the property owners, Scott Talley, recently filed a lawsuit to block the process from moving forward.

The lawsuit was completely expected, and should hardly be a surprise to anyone who is following the situation. Talley’s presentation at the meeting, for all his definitive statements and lawyery phrasing, seems like a rather weak argument to me, but there’s no question that those being annexed deserve the chance to make their case.

But what gets me here isn’t the annexation fight — you’d expect it to be bitter, particularly in a tough economic climate — but rather the media coverage of the conflict. Spartanburg Herald-Journal reporter Lynne P. Shackleford’s story about the lawsuit and the annexation has some serious flaws, including one utterly incorrect assertion that was directly addressed in the last City Council session.

Here’s what I’m talking about …

The city would realize annual revenues (real and personal property and franchise fees) of $500,000 from the west-side annexations. But the delay could cost the city even more.

If the issue is not settled by the end of the year, the city wouldn’t be allowed to count the residents in the 2010 census, one of the primary reasons for the annexation. Many state and federal formulas use census figures to determine funding.

Well, as it just so happens, the Spark was at the meeting to video the whole thing. It’s been up on YouTube for almost a week, and it’s a shame Shackleford didn’t bother to refer to it when she was writing her story, since the City Attorney actually clarifies this point right there at the meeting. And since Shackleford was sitting in the front row, you’d think maybe she’d have caught this.

Council Member Joe D. Spigner: “If we are legally enjoined to proceed in this [annexation], this will not count in the 2010 census, correct?

City Attorney Cathy McCabe: “That’s correct.”

Spigner: “In other words, we will not get credit for these additional citizens.”

McCabe: “That’s correct.”

Joe D. Spigner: “So, in other words, if our aim were to get credit for that census, that will not occur.”

McCabe: “That’s correct.”

But don’t take my word for it, see for yourself. It starts at the 8:40 mark.

Here’s the thing: Had we not been on hand to catch this, there’d be no one to refute this one, very basic flaw in Shackleford’s story. And it’s not like this is an interesting aside in her story, it’s basically the slant of the entire piece. If the City of Spartanburg doesn’t get this passed by the end of the year, she claims, then census-based funding is in jeopardy. The census and its fund is a major reason this is happening, we’re told. Scandal! Intrigue!

Yet, the City Attorney said at the meeting, on the record that this is not the case. So where is Shackleford getting her info, and if it differs from the City’s view, why isn’t she citing her sources? Why did the the SH-J‘s editor let this pass?

I don’t think Shackleford is trying to pull a fast one here or anything, I think it’s just sloppy coverage. But this isn’t the first time this sort of thing has happened in the SH-J‘s coverage of City Council, and it’s because of this erratic, incomplete and often misinformed take on the meetings that the we here at the Spark decided someone had to start getting these things filmed.

And look what happens when we do, right out of the shoot. I mean, here’s the “local” newspaper — the one that’s supposed to be the paper of record for local politics — asleep at the wheel in one of the most controversial City Council meetings in recent memory. Yes, I know this is a minor detail, and a mistake that anyone could have made, but it really makes you wonder how many other such mistakes have slipped through without the SH-J noticing or correcting them.

And because there has been no easily accessible video of these meetings, no one knows what kinds of stuff has been missed, misinterpreted, incorrectly reported or overlooked over the years by the reporters who are being paid not a small amount of money to be there and get it right. Ultimately, however, it’s the City that needs to take the lion’s share of the blame here. If they’d invested in recording these meetings and making them available to the public, then this kind of thing simply wouldn’t happen. Anyone who wanted to could view these meetings, and reporters like Shackleford wouldn’t be able to slide by with whatever made it into her notes, rather than what was actually said at the meetings. Everyone would be more accountable.

Here’s hoping that the SH-J crew starts subscribing to the Spark‘s YouTube channel, and that the City takes the hint and starts doing this on their own.