Support continued efforts of the LCRA

A couple of weeks ago, two Sikeston City Council members - John Graham and Maude Harris - tried unsuccessfully to remove funding from the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority.

By way of a disclaimer, I am a commissioner on the LCRA board and have supported and promoted the removal of decaying properties since the voter-approved LCRA was first formed over 10 years ago.

The two council members wanted to remove $20,000 from the $100,000 annual budget that keeps the LCRA in operation. But the reality is that the full funding for the LCRA won't adequately remove all of the problem properties and the loss of 20 percent of that budget would delay our community progress even more.

Reading between the lines, I assume these members think that somehow the LCRA has overstepped their responsibilities and removed properties that could be salvaged.

That's only a guess on my part because their opposition was not fully articulated.

As a community, we recognized that literally hundreds of condemned or soon-to-be condemned properties were ruining neighborhoods, presenting massive code violations and harboring criminal activities.

So we undertook a path to remove these properties and eventually pave the way for redevelopment.

It's hard to argue with the success of the removal part of the LCRA mission. The redevelopment aspect has been more difficult for a variety of reasons.

Graham leveled a charge that the LCRA was guilty of "gross mismanagement," in offering the motion to remove funding.

Now "gross mismanagement" is a serious charge. And to leave those derogatory words floating in the community dialogue is a disservice to the LCRA and the thousands of voters who approved the formation of this city commission.

But Graham and Harris are more than within their right to question the direction and activities of any and all city activities. That's why we elected them.

I do find it somewhat curious that Ms. Harris sat on the LCRA board as a council representative for a full year and, to my recollection, never voiced opposition or cast a dissenting vote on any actions taken by the LCRA.

Graham, on the other hand, has been a vocal opponent of the LCRA. He claims proof of properties that, in his opinion, could have been rehabbed but were razed by the LCRA.

I can only assume we're waiting on that proof to validate his claim of "gross mismanagement."

Another group also recently came before the LCRA with a plan to rehab properties using the training skills of recently paroled inmates.

And that brings me to my final point.

This group would rely on taxpayer-funded grants primarily to rehab these properties that are deemed beyond repair.

But by using taxpayer money- and enough of it - any property can be rehabbed.

If cost is not important, anything can be rehabbed.

If you continue to support the efforts of the LCRA and the continued removal of problem properties, then let your voice be heard.

Michael Jensen