County Council District 5 Question
Posted by David Keelan on Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Update August 29th: Greg Fox has replied.
August 25th update: Please see Mary Smith’s latest comment on this post.
Update: I hope no one is “offended” that I point out the Wayne Livesay and Greg Fox have not yet replied to the question posted below by Mary Smith. Let me assure you that no “bias” is intended.
Mary Smith, a frequent reader and commentator on this blog, has posed a question for the GOP primary candidates in County Council District Five.
Jim Adams, Greg Fox, Wayne Livesay.
Please describe your position on comp lite, and support your position. Please describe any inconsistency in reports that don’t represent your position. Specificity is encouraged, no need to compress into sound-byte size.
I don’t think Mary would mind if Democratic candidate Don Dunn were to offer an opinion.
Question posted August 17, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Second response. Received from Greg Fox
I would love to know where you saw anything where I danced around the issue regarding Comp Lite. You won’t find such a thing. I have NEVER supported the Comp Lite legislation that was passed by all of the current council members, with the exception of Chris Merdon. I have always said that the citizens’ voices should have been heard and I support the referendum of Comp Lite. The fact that Comp Lite occurred is a concern to me, especially since it appears to have violated County Code.
What is even a greater concern is that properties were added without ever hearing from the public before voting on them — again a decision that was made by certain council members.
I would be more than willing to have additional dialogue with you. However, I have made it a practice of knowing who I am communicating with rather than someone who is afraid to disclose their identity. I am only responding now since you are recollecting something that doesn’t exist.
Mary, as I have mentioned before, I spend little time on these blogs. I just read your earlier blog (comment number 7) and can’t believe that you have the audacity to state such untruths. I challenge you to find anything that supports your comments. I can only conclude that you are either a Livesay or Adams supporter or are simply misinformed.
I have openly stated my concerns about develop and specifically issues with Comp Lite and Maple Lawn, which is one of the reasons that another candidate was recruited by the development interests to run against me. I have worked with the community opposing the Maple Lawn increases in density and, unlike one of my opponents, I am not supported by the one individual that voted for increase density after agreements had been made and voted on.
I challenge you to look at the financial disclosures to determine which candidates are getting large support from the development community as well as to which candidate has stated that the expansion of the metropolitan water district is inevitable.
Further, I am not the candidate who supported Robey in 2002.
I am surprised that David allows such misinformation to be blogged by you and hope that you seek for information about my positions prior to misrepresenting them on a public forum.
First response. Received from Jim Adams.
I believe comprehensive zoning, should be as the word is defined, comprehensive. I have heard that comp lite may be illegal, of course this would have to be determined by a court of law, and even if it is legal, it gave unfair advantage to those (I think the number was thirteen) parties who were included at the last moment. There was no 30 day period, as required by the parties involved with comprehensive zoning.
My real concern is that there is a feeling of untrust between citizens and the council. As you might have hear,there is favortism shown to developers.
Our sucess in land use has been because of planning. With BRAC at one end, open farm land at the other end, the predication of thousands of new jobs available in the area, we run the risk of trashing our County.
I believe to prevent this, we employee an individual, a lawyer as a legal zoning officier. A person with no ties to the county, who will be objective in their decision making, to address issues out side of comprehensive zoning. The council would be involved with appeal cases and peroidic reviews (comprehensive zoning).
The Planning Board members should go through orientation beginning their service on the board and there should always be a lawyer in the meeting to assist and advice the board.
Planning and Zoning should be staffed well enough to follow up on the zoning plans (ex. are there the parking spaces that were agreed on).
Mary, as an accountant I believe in internal controls, as a citizen and one who believes as President Madison wrote in the Federalists Papers “our government works better with checks and balances”, and as a person who has lived a good life in Howard County, I just want to protect our life styles, and if we can, improve them. My thoughts may not be yours, so as a part of this dialogue, I hope you will share yours with us.