Transformed From Village Idiots to City Elders

The comment below was posted Tuesday, June 10, in the Wimberley View Online Edition in response to the day's top story: "Village of Wmberley becomes a city."

I second the commenter's analysis. The council's (slim majority) reasoning for the name change, as reported in the story, was superficial at best, and against the grain of everything the Wimberley community represents. The three council members who voted for the change (Roccaforte, Larson and Xiques) displayed considerable chutzpah in rushing this important question to a conclusion, without optimum input from the citizenry.

Mark Twain might have remarked that perhaps the thinking was to grant council members immunity from ever being referred to as "village idiots." (Present company excluded, of course).

-- Bob Ochoa, Online Editor

_________________

According to Mr. Roccaforte, Wimberley is a Type A municipality. The Texas Local Government Code provides:

"§6.002. INCORPORATION PROCEDURE. The procedure for incorporating as a Type A general-law municipality is the same as that prescribed for incorporating as a Type B general-law municipality."

Therefore, as noted in my prior post, a Type A municipality can be a "village or town." I read Mr. Roccaforte's rationale and did not find any convincing substance to it. His rationale appears to be that (1) he does not like marketing gimicks, (2) that the incorporation ballot was unclear, giving the Village/City Council the discretion to switch the name back and forth as the Council changes, (3) that the family of Pleasant Wimberley chose the word "TOWN" rather than "Village" on a grave marker, and (4) he does want to divide Wimberley but unite it. (Hmm, where did I hear the before and how well did that work?)

With all due respect to Mr. Roccaforte, I agree with Mr. Bob Emerson. This community is a village not a city. Recognizing the community for its true character is not a marketing gimick. It is reality; the truth. If Mr. Roccaforte believes that the voters were not clear in the incorporation election, then let the citizens vote on the name, or at least do a serious poll, rather than switching the name back and forth on some whim.

The decision of the Wimberley family to use the word "TOWN" rather than "VILLAGE" on a grave stone may have been to save the cost of three more letters or space limitations, which should not be now reason to change the name of a municipality many, many years later. Or, more importantly, even if the folks back then were not in the practice of calling communities "villages," it is the decision of the inhabitants who were living when the community incorporated, not of some unrelated decision those many years ago.

History is great to recognize and learn and appreciate. But, simply turning our decision over to the acts of people in the past who did not have intention to control the acts of people in the future, much less any awareness of the future consequences of their actions, is very shortsighted.

Last, if you did not mean to divide the community, Mr. Roccaforte, you would have done a better job on discerning on the sentiments of the community and insisted that your motion fail unless it passed unanimously. It could be that your intention will not be successful. What do you think? What is that road to you know where paved with?