IF the Wicomico County Council is truly serious about being good fiscal stewards then they can't possibly vote for buying the Davis property for use as a park. I truly hope that our elected officials do take their responsibility seriously.
There are many excellent reasons for putting a new park on the west side of the Salisbury metro core. Those of us that were able to attend Tuesday night's public hearing heard them. Unfortunately for the park proponents, they were unable to present any valid argument for the county putting the park on THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND. Instead, the proponents would gloss over the "appraisal problem" and go straight to "it's for the children".
Now I don't mean to ridicule the proponents of the park. I'm the first to admit that I have an innate prejudice against such an argument due to eight years of Bill Clinton in the White House. I'm still waiting for Clinton to claim that he stained Monica Lewinsky's dress because it was "for the children".
Nevertheless, opponents of the park provided too many alternatives to putting a park on the sight advocated by County parks chief Gary Mackes. While I didn't agree with all of the proposed alternatives (such as using a small, unobtrusive section of Pemberton Historical Park) these alternatives should be thoroughly explored. Since the vast majority of the park proponents want ball fields, one alternative seemed particularly interesting - a parcel that the county already owns just a few miles up Nanticoke Road.
To make matters worse, no proponent of the park seems to be able to overcome the "appraisal problem". Why should the taxpayers pay $18,000 per acre for property when there is other land nearby available for far less? This isn't speculation. One lady, a Mrs. Black, stood up and stated that her farm is for sale and she has been unable to sell it at $5,000 per acre.
I understand that the Davis property has been subdivided and that it's value should be higher. So what? If land is available nearby, for a far cheaper price, doesn't it make sense to sacrifice a little convenience (location) to save the taxpayers a sizable chunk of change?
IF Mr. Mackes had presented alternative sites to the public. ... IF Mr. Mackes made a semi-objective case for each piece of property. ... IF Mr. Mackes was willing to publicly defend his choice in comparison to the other alternatives, that might make a difference with the public.
Mackes was quite forthcoming one on one. He makes a good argument for several of the problems I have seen with this proposal. Unfortunately, the milk seems to be spoiled. When you have citizens coming to a public hearing and offering to sell their property because of the high price being offered for the Davis property (and gladly admitting that they can't get anywhere near that amount per acre for their property) the perception is that it's a sweetheart deal. When you add in the fact that the Davises are a prominent and well-connected family, the stench meter goes up a few more notches.
In all fairness, I don't know the Davis family. My only contact with any of them has been my opposition to the Hearne annexation, attending a few events at The Fountains, and listening to one member of the family testify at the education impact fee hearing. Mr. Davis was the only developer who testified in favor of the the education impact fee.
Whether any blame for this fiasco is held by the Davis family is now irrelevant. Any elected official who supports this particular land purchase will be tainted. Unfortunately for our seven council members, they will not have the luxury of straddling the fence as our County Executive has done. To support this purchase smacks of a sweetheart deal, whether it is or not. There is simply too much circumstantial evidence for the public not to conclude otherwise.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Technorati Tags: Maryland, Wicomico, politics, Wicomico politics, Gary Mackes
There are many excellent reasons for putting a new park on the west side of the Salisbury metro core. Those of us that were able to attend Tuesday night's public hearing heard them. Unfortunately for the park proponents, they were unable to present any valid argument for the county putting the park on THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND. Instead, the proponents would gloss over the "appraisal problem" and go straight to "it's for the children".
Now I don't mean to ridicule the proponents of the park. I'm the first to admit that I have an innate prejudice against such an argument due to eight years of Bill Clinton in the White House. I'm still waiting for Clinton to claim that he stained Monica Lewinsky's dress because it was "for the children".
Nevertheless, opponents of the park provided too many alternatives to putting a park on the sight advocated by County parks chief Gary Mackes. While I didn't agree with all of the proposed alternatives (such as using a small, unobtrusive section of Pemberton Historical Park) these alternatives should be thoroughly explored. Since the vast majority of the park proponents want ball fields, one alternative seemed particularly interesting - a parcel that the county already owns just a few miles up Nanticoke Road.
To make matters worse, no proponent of the park seems to be able to overcome the "appraisal problem". Why should the taxpayers pay $18,000 per acre for property when there is other land nearby available for far less? This isn't speculation. One lady, a Mrs. Black, stood up and stated that her farm is for sale and she has been unable to sell it at $5,000 per acre.
I understand that the Davis property has been subdivided and that it's value should be higher. So what? If land is available nearby, for a far cheaper price, doesn't it make sense to sacrifice a little convenience (location) to save the taxpayers a sizable chunk of change?
IF Mr. Mackes had presented alternative sites to the public. ... IF Mr. Mackes made a semi-objective case for each piece of property. ... IF Mr. Mackes was willing to publicly defend his choice in comparison to the other alternatives, that might make a difference with the public.
Mackes was quite forthcoming one on one. He makes a good argument for several of the problems I have seen with this proposal. Unfortunately, the milk seems to be spoiled. When you have citizens coming to a public hearing and offering to sell their property because of the high price being offered for the Davis property (and gladly admitting that they can't get anywhere near that amount per acre for their property) the perception is that it's a sweetheart deal. When you add in the fact that the Davises are a prominent and well-connected family, the stench meter goes up a few more notches.
In all fairness, I don't know the Davis family. My only contact with any of them has been my opposition to the Hearne annexation, attending a few events at The Fountains, and listening to one member of the family testify at the education impact fee hearing. Mr. Davis was the only developer who testified in favor of the the education impact fee.
Whether any blame for this fiasco is held by the Davis family is now irrelevant. Any elected official who supports this particular land purchase will be tainted. Unfortunately for our seven council members, they will not have the luxury of straddling the fence as our County Executive has done. To support this purchase smacks of a sweetheart deal, whether it is or not. There is simply too much circumstantial evidence for the public not to conclude otherwise.
cross posted at Delmarva Dealings
Technorati Tags: Maryland, Wicomico, politics, Wicomico politics, Gary Mackes
15 comments:
Sir:
It has been reported that the Davis family made substantial contributions to the County elected officials' campaign funding in 2006 -- does anyone know whether/how much/who???
The Davis folks are big time developers and would not be trying to sell to the County if they could make more by doing the subdivision. They goofed on this site and now want the rest of us to salvage their investment.
But will the Seven Dwarfs be able to say "NO" to Mackes and Pollitt?
While they are separate matters, this shenanigan suggests why the Wicomico landfill situation could happen. It seems that public officials don't care much about what happens to other peoples' money (taxes).
FYI-
Others developers supported the education impact fee behind the scene, and some simply stayed silent (did not oppose it, although some did). My guess is that they would almost all oppose it if it were coming up now, rather than (as was the case) during the height of the market frenzy two years ago.
What Davis did then has no bearing on this outrageous attempt to get the County to do a bailout deal.
Did I understand correctly last night that someone in the know said the option to buy this property had to be signed by April 1st, at the end President Cannon said the Council hoped to make a final decision by the middle to end of April? If signed does the option to buy commit the County to purchase the property at the proposed $18,000 per acre?
Anon 11:32
http://mdelections.umbc.edu/
campaign_finance/
ctprocess1.php?pagenum=1&acctno=A4742
Paste this in browser - all one line, no spaces
Several points I would like to make.
First, I thought the county put the city to shame last night as far as people showing up to express their views and the fact that everyone got a chance for their say without being scolded by the council president. So kudos to the citizens and the county council in that respect. Very impressive. I hope the thoughtful and insightful questions and concerns posed will be taken seriously and the county councio will at the very least consider land and locations that make much more sense as we learned last night.I also hope it motivates the city people to show up for their council meetings and express themselves in like manner no matter what side of the fence they are on. And that Louise Smith will turn off her recording and just let people speak.
I would like to know more about a couple poimts that PJ Hannon was makeing--something about the soil and at the very end speaking to a person named "Bill". Mr. Hannon really touched me with his knowledge, passion, and sincerity.
I implore the council(if they are hell bent on making a purchase of land rather than using what we already have that is underutilized) to consider some of the availability of other parcels with better locations and lower cost. That only makes good common sense. Also, remember, this is Salisbury. It is not like getting from one point to another(especially those that reside in the Nitsdale, pemberton, crooked oak corridor takes more than 15 minutes to get to or from most any point in the county. So why not upgrade Winter Park?
That's my 2 cents for today.
nalagirl
It seems to me the proponents of this deal think its OK to waste the state grant money bailing out a local family that got themselves caught in a bad purchase of property. That grant money is our tax dollars, as was stated at last nights meeting, so lets not hear its OK cause its just grant money!
This is a bad deal for the county, in my humble opinion.
A. Goetz
Okay, there is alot of conjecture in the comments this morning. First of all, I don't hold it against John Davis for trying to sell his land for as much as possible. Secondly, this deal is not "bailing out" Mr. Davis on this property. It certainly would be a great deal for him, but his cost is half what the appraisal is for and he will mover forward with his development plans if the County doesn't buy the property. Thirdly, there are innumerable other options for less money. Finally, even if this purchase is made, this park will not happen for another 3-4 years. The added cost of road expansion, and completion of the west side bypass, will put off construction for years
Why on earth would you BUY land in such an out of the way location intended to serve an entire county? If it were a gift it might make sense to use it as a park. When you're trying to serve the needs of lots of people, be they there now or anticipated to move there, you would certainly be wiser to choose a more central location. BUT WHY WOULD YOU EVEN PAY MARKET VALUE FOR SOMETHING SO FAR FROM OTHER STUFF? If the objective of the county council really is to provide more open space and parks, then make a more logical acquisition. If you're trying to bail out an old friend, then have another story entirely.
230pm....BS! your obviously a player in this sweetheart deal or your very misinformed. over 90% of that land wont perk {he's keeping what will} 2nd, he wants over 3 times what neighboring land sells for..theres a ton of other reasons too but I got a feeling you already know them....it's a rip-off!
Anonymous said...
Sir:
It has been reported that the Davis family made substantial contributions to the County elected officials' campaign funding in 2006 -- does anyone know whether/how much/who???
11:32 AM
PROVE IT!!!!
TO: Doubting Thomas @ 5:41
This is from Pollitt's campaign finance report:
Barbara Davis
(P.O. Box 71
Quantico, MD, 21856) $500.00
Chris Davis
(1800 Sweetbay Drive
Salisbury, MD, 21804) $500.00
It's on-line at the place noted above (@ 12:38). Apparently the Council candidates funding & contributors are not available there.
Anonymous 2:30-
If it is true the land won't perk, then Davis cannot move forward with other development unless the land perks. Others have said it does not perk, so does it or doesn't it, if you know. Thanx.
Plus it only makes more sense to either develop what is already owned and underutilized, or investigate the other alternatives for locations that are cheaper. Most of the developments in the county can access most anywhere in the county in less than 20 minutes.
The county would be fools to pay this price. If they really wanted this property, being patient would be wise.
This property, or many like it, will be available in the years ahead at substantial discounts from today's prices.
The housing booms is OVER, folks!
Post a Comment