Young people who grow up there leave because of the lack of job and and entertainment options, she said.
“Most of the people in the village that own property are older people. There’s not enough to draw the younger ones here.”
Driving through the village, a “for sale” sign can be seen on almost every street, Gladd said.
“Nobody is willing to buy.”
While those opposing dissolution acknowledge the village has changed significantly over the years, they don’t think that’s reason enough to dissolve its government.
“There’s too many unknowns,” Gooley said of the dissolution process. “It was a beautiful village to live in, and it still can be.”
As an alternative, she thinks villagers should generate ideas about how they can revive the community.
“We need to get a few more stores,” she said.
If the village majority votes “no” for dissolution, another petition cannot be brought forth for four years.
“We can always bring it up again by the board if it becomes necessary,” Gooley said.
BUSINESS AS USUAL
Like Gooley, village resident Beverly Maynard, 78, be voting “no” for dissolution.
“I’m against the village dissolving because I don’t think there will be a big difference if the town took us over,” Maynard said. “Abolishing the village will kind of take the heart out of the village.”
Emotions sometimes influence the opinions of residents when it comes to dissolution.
“You become attached to it,” Maynard said. “We’re all kind of a family here.”
Despite the possibility that it could cease to exist, the village continues to operate as usual.
Newly hired Superintendent of Public Works Michael Jolicoeur started work Feb. 18.
“I was very up front with him,” Martin said.
He said he told Jolicoeur that, judging from his own conversations with villagers, most of them do not wish to dissolve.