Nevada County Picayune and Gurdon Times Newspaper Archive

Letter To The Editor - Residency Questioned

In response to last week's article concerning the residency of Tommy Roebuck (candidate for District 36), I would like to clear up some false statements Roebuck made concerning me. Tommy Roebuck has publicly dragged me into the storm of allegations surrounding the residency issue.' The real issue is "Does Roebuck live in the district he wants to represent?"

Tommy Roebuck made the statement that "he would never have bought the house in Hot Springs had it not been for Eddie Arnold." This was a custom-built home, an estate for Roebuck; he did not just buy an existing home.

Another false statement was when Roebuck said, "The issue was taken to court with Roebuck winning a judgement." This is an outright lie! The case was dismissed. There never was a judgement issued.

Thirdly, Roebuck said, "If I had known that Arnold would break the contract I would never have bought the house in Hot Springs." Among the many factors involved in this contestation was the Reeder-gate issue that in effect made the contract null-and-void. He refused to resolve the conflict with Mr. Reeder over the alleged "confiscation" of Mr. Reeder's property.

A fourth misleading comment from Roebuck concerning his estate on Lake Hamilton was, "We don't live there. It's just an investment."If that is true, why do others and I regularly see Roebuck commuting back and forth from Hot Springs to Arkadelphia? The only times we have seen him at his Pine Street house was a month before the primary election in May and now a month before the November election.

It is extremely interesting that Roebuck's gated estate home in Hot Sprigs has a stated valued of $750,000 and his unoccupied house on Ridged Creek in Arkadelphia is valued at $350,000, but yet he says he lives in a $50,000 house on Pine Street, Arkadelphia. Now why would he choose to live in the $50,000 house? And, furthermore, after even the slightest review of the situation the construction of a $750,000 house is hardly a prudent investment as Mr. Reeder pointed out in a previous article.

The law concerning residency is sufficiently vague to allow for problems of the nature we are experiencing with Mr. Roebuck. But the precedent of several large lawsuits and the ruling of the Attorney General make it clear that where one sleeps constitutes the lion's share of residency. And any disputed case is the jurisdiction of the courts to decide. Another disturbing observation is that the local Democratic Party has not looked into this situation closer given the possibility that Roebuck's candidacy could be proved illegal. Honesty and integrity are values that we should demand from our elected officials. In my opinion Roebuck does not deserve the consideration of the voters of District 36.

Eddie Arnold

Arkadelphia