"80% of Life is Just Showing Up." -Woody Allen

In anticipation of the last Commission vote regarding annexation, I received an e-mail from one of our neighbors, objecting "STRONGLY" to our spending money on a lobbyist to help us succeed in our application to annex, and recommending that annexation be placed on a referendum before the citizens of BP.  This statement raised a number of issues, but one of them was the underlying wish of our neighbor: she did not want us to annex other territory at all.  At one level, this decision could be considered firmly made already, although there is certainly the opportunity for us to withdraw our application.  Our neighbor didn't request that we withdraw the application.  She just wanted us to disable our effort, by not getting necessary help.

Part of my reply to her was to point out, considering her obvious underlying wish, that the Commission that voted to move forward with annexation had advertised its intention, or in one case his availability, to do so when Commissioners were last elected, in December, 2013.  Of the three Commissioners who voted in favor of annexation, all were elected in December.  One was an incumbent who was re-elected, and the other two were newly elected.  Two ran on a platform that included an open commitment to annexation, which was a very hot topic during the campaign and election, and the third said at the time that he didn't yet have enough information.  He did not, however, say he opposed annexation.  Voter turnout was low, and although all candidates got relatively few votes, those candidates whose platform included a clear objection to annexation got the fewest votes of all!  If many people like our neighbor who wrote to me didn't want annexation, they did not come to the poll to vote against it.  They failed to show up when their input mattered most.

This past week, as the conclusion to the matter of choosing a lobbying and outreach firm to represent us in the annexation matter, there were two competing applicants.  One of them was evidently well known to our Mayor, David Coviello, and David was very obvious in his advocacy of this firm.  The fact is, each firm seemed well-qualified, and if David knew something about one of them, leading him to feel strongly that they would be a great choice for us, he was not wrong to "lobby" for them.  On the night when the choice had to be made, representatives of only one of the firms showed up for the meeting.  It was not the firm for which David advocated.  Representatives of both firms were asked to appear.  So four of us, even David, voted to retain the remaining candidate, the one which kept the appointment.  If you don't show up, no matter how good a contender you are, you lose.  Two of our neighbors, by the way, contacted me before the meeting to ask me to support the firm David liked, almost completely because David had great confidence in this firm.

I recently published a blog post inviting people-- more or less pleading with them-- to make a good argument against annexation.  I wanted this debate to be as strong as it can be, since it is not too late to change course, if there is a compelling reason to do so.  I made an argument in favor of annexation.  Of the four responses to the post, two were likewise in favor of annexation, the third asked a question, and the fourth answered the question.  (A fifth response indicated that the questioner was satisfied with the answer.)  The response to the request that people opposed to annexation make a clear and persuasive argument against it was: nothing.  Days have gone by, and there have been plenty of visits to this blog.  The people who circulate underground complaints, criticisms, and arguments, and who agitate for a referendum on the matter, do not show up when they are given a clear opportunity to make their best case.

It may be that Woody Allen understated the effect of just showing up, and the consequence of failing to do so.