BILL NO. 3052-24 ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF CAMDENTON, TITLE IV: ZONING
CODE, CHAPTER 400: ZONING REGULATIONS, SECTION 400.030: DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES, REZONING A TRACT OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 44 FIRST STREET,
FROM R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO C-2 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT SUBMITTED BY MARK MORRIS AND MARJORIE MORRIS
WHEREAS, Mark Morris and Marjorie Morris has made application for property fully described
in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part of this ordinance, to be rezoned from R-2 Two
Family Residential District to C-2 Highway Commercial District; and
WHEREAS, the City of Camdenton Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on
November 12, 2024 to consider this rezoning request; and
WHEREAS, the City of Camdenton Planning and Zoning Commission made the recommendation
at their November 12, 2024 meeting to recommend approval to the Board of Aldermen for the
second public hearing and final decision; and
WHEREAS, The Board of Aldermen held a public hearing on December 3, 2024 to consider the
rezoning request.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF
CAMDENTON, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Code of the City of Camdenton, Section 400.030 – District Boundaries, is
hereby amended by changing the property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a
part of this ordinance from R-2 Two Family Residential District to C-2 – Highway Commercial
District.
Section 3. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage by the Board
of Aldermen and approval by the Mayor.
Read the first time this _ day of December 2024. Read the second time and passed and approved this _ day of December 2024.

John D. McNabb, Mayor
ATTEST:

Renée Kingston, MMC/MPCC
Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk

However by integrating such a system, a city not only improves its operational efficiency but also enhances its relationship with its residents, fostering a community that feels valued and respected. A complaint system in a city is beneficial for several reasons:

1. Accountability: It allows citizens to hold public officials and services accountable for their actions or inaction. By reporting issues, residents can ensure that problems are addressed, fostering a culture of responsibility among city officials.
2. Service Improvement: Feedback through complaints can pinpoint areas where services are lacking or could be enhanced. This direct line of communication helps in prioritizing resource allocation and improving public services like sanitation, law enforcement, and infrastructure maintenance.
3. Public Participation: It encourages civic engagement by giving residents a voice in local governance. When people feel heard, they are more likely to participate in community activities and support local initiatives.
4. Data Collection: Complaints provide valuable data on recurring issues, which can help in urban planning and policy-making. This data can reveal trends or chronic issues that need systemic solutions rather than temporary fixes.

1. Transparency: A well-managed complaint system can increase transparency in government operations. By making the complaint process and its outcomes public (while protecting privacy), cities can demonstrate how they handle grievances, thereby building trust with the community.
2. Preventive Measures: By systematically addressing complaints, cities can prevent small issues from escalating into larger, more costly problems. For instance, timely repair of a pothole can prevent accidents and further road damage.
3. Legal and Ethical Compliance: It ensures that the city adheres to legal standards and ethical practices, as complaints can highlight where the city might be falling short in terms of compliance with laws or ethical conduct.
4. Enhancing Quality of Life: Ultimately, an effective complaint system can lead to a better quality of life for residents by ensuring that their living environment is maintained and improved in response to their needs and concerns.

In an era where economic prudence is preached, the U.S. federal government’s expenditure on foreign military financing (FMF) and other international support programs continues to spark debate. With the U.S. budget for 2024 stretching into trillions, a significant chunk, specifically 54% of discretionary spending, is allocated to defense, including substantial outlays for foreign military aid. Yet, questions linger about the tangible benefits these investments bring back to American taxpayers.

The United States supports over 150 countries annually through various military aid programs, with Foreign Military Financing (FMF) being one of the largest. In fiscal year 2023, the U.S. spent approximately $6.1 trillion, with defense activities alone accounting for 13% of this budget – around $820 billion. A considerable portion of this defense budget doesn’t end with domestic military operations but extends into foreign lands through programs like FMF, IMET (International Military Education and Training), and Peacekeeping Operations (PKO).

Israel tops the list, receiving about $3.3 billion annually, followed by Egypt with $1.3 billion. Jordan secures around $425 million each year. These allocations are intended to secure strategic partnerships, promote stability, and ensure access to military bases or intelligence-sharing. However, the return on these investments for American taxpayers often seems opaque.

The International Military Education and Training program, while less costly, still impacts over 100 countries, with each receiving from tens of thousands to a few million dollars. This program aims at fostering goodwill and ensuring that foreign militaries align with U.S. military practices and doctrines, potentially influencing future arms sales or alliances.

Critics argue that these investments yield little in terms of direct benefits to U.S. citizens. For instance, the support for countries like Pakistan, which has historically received significant funding under the Coalition Support Funds for counter-terrorism efforts, has been marred by allegations of corruption and ineffective use of funds. Recent discussions on X have highlighted concerns over money laundering within these aid programs, suggesting that the money might not even reach its intended military purposes.

Moreover, military aid to Ukraine, while politically and morally justified by many, has also been subject to scrutiny. With over $70 billion in aid, including both military and economic support, the U.S. has been a primary backer in the conflict against Russia. However, there are growing concerns about the oversight of this aid, with some questioning whether the funds are being used effectively or if they’re leading to corruption or just arming another country’s military without strategic returns for the U.S.

From an economic perspective, the benefits are debated. While military spending can stimulate the U.S. defense industry, ensuring jobs and maintaining technological superiority, the direct benefits to the average taxpayer are less clear. The U.S. spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined, yet the economic return on this investment is often questioned, especially when considering the opportunity cost of not investing in domestic infrastructure, education, or health care.

Strategically, the U.S. aims to maintain global influence, counter adversaries like China and Russia, and secure allies. However, the effectiveness of this strategy is debated. For example, the U.S. commitment to countries like Saudi Arabia, despite human rights concerns, has been criticized, especially when considering the limited diplomatic leverage gained in return for military support.

The narrative isn’t just about dollars and cents but about the moral and ethical implications of supporting regimes or engaging in conflicts with little direct impact on American lives or security. Moreover, with economic challenges at home, many taxpayers are questioning why such significant funds are directed overseas when domestic issues persist.

The debate over U.S. taxpayer money spent on foreign military financing without much return is complex, involving geopolitical strategy, economic considerations, and ethical questions. While the U.S. has undoubtedly influenced global events through its military aid, the direct benefits to the American public remain a point of contention. As the U.S. approaches the next fiscal year, with a new administration on the horizon, the conversation about where and how to spend taxpayer dollars will undoubtedly intensify, with many advocating for a reevaluation of these international commitments in favor of domestic priorities.