Debate need not divide community

Opposing views about whether Big Lake should become a city should not tear the community apart.

Recent public meetings on the topic have generated heated debate between those who think incorporation is needed to improve services and those who think the area is just fine without more government. Although these discussions have remained civil, there’s a strong undercurrent of mistrust and animosity between the two sides that must be quashed in order to avoid a messy conclusion to the argument.

Those who believe incorporation is the way to go argue the area would be better served by the local representation that would come with a yes vote. Those opposed say incorporation would only bring cuts to existing services and more taxes.

It’s a worthwhile debate, and one that invariably happens in all growing communities. It’s not really a matter of who’s right, but a question of where the people of the sprawling lakeside community want to see their town go in the coming decades.

The debate will continue until Oct. 27, when the vote concludes and residents find out if they’re going to be the Valley’s newest city. Until that date, it’s likely the debate will continue to be the talk of the town.

This discussion is healthy and a crucial component of the public process. However, what it should not become is a messy war between two opposing factions. Public policy debates are frequently passionate, but there is no need for things to get personal. People can disagree without getting ugly, and we hope that the tenor of the debate remains civil in the weeks to come.

No matter how the debate turns out, the only thing that’s certain is the people of Big Lake will continue to have to live as one once the noise dies down. There’s no reason for this issue to become so contentious that it causes a permanent rift in the community.

There’s room enough in Big Lake for opposing points of view.