.jpg)
.jpg)
Monday night's city council work session, let's see...
It started off with the landlord licensing and rental registration law that STILL isn't finished. The council, really, Debbie Campbell and Terry Cohen, had to work through the dry details of how to get the administration to get this right. The two interesting points to me were Debbie Campbell asked for language to make property owners prove their non-conforming houses were approved to be non-conforming houses and Terry Cohen was happy the addition of some tenant protection language that she asked for was put in, and she asked for more such references to be added. Gary Comegys left after this item, I think, so that left Shanie and Louise with Debbie and Terry.
Then came the flood mitigation study. Sounded like it had been done well. (I had been to one of these meetings and these guys rocked!) Debbie Campbell asked that Camden be added back to a list of at-risk areas, and the guy presenting noted that even though the flooding was due to stormwater, that was a good idea.
The real fireworks came with the discussion about the legal bills that are always running over budget and whether the council should be involved in deciding how deep the legal department ought to get into defending some cases. Barrie Tilghman put a long memo out in front of everybody and Terry Cohen said it would have helped to have had it ahead of time. Barrie made some excuse, but we've seen her do this before, while Louise sits there but bashes Terry and Debbie for not having their questions sent in ahead of time.
It sounded like Barrie's memo was really an assassination piece against Debbie and Terry for running up legal bills. But get this: Wilber charged YOU the taxpayer $2,200 to write a legal opinion to answer a question Terry raised All he had to do was send her an email or call her. She didn't ASK for a big legal opinion, just an answer. Maybe the problem was the question was posted anonymously by one of YOU on this blog, "a less than reputable website" as the mayor said and called me out by name. This is how your tax money is being spent, Salisbury.
As the mayor tried to wrap herself in the Constitution and put words in Terry's mouth (didn't work for Gary Comegys, remember, Barrie?), Terry stood her ground. Then Debbie calmly made several good points to show why even the legal department needed to live within its budget. These ladies were working hard tonight for YOU!
When Terry mentioned that taxpayers were concerned about the legal bills, Shanie basically called Terry a liar, saying SHE (Shanie) hadn't heard anything from anybody. She said, "I don't believe that. When I see hundreds of letters to the editors and Grapevines and get calls, then I'll believe it." If not those exact words, darn close. And Louise got upset with Terry for taking Shanie to task about believing her. A standard for one side, a different one for the other, eh, Louise?
There's your invitation, folks. Are you going to leave Terry and Debbie out to twist in the wind, or are you going to come out from behind your anonymous posts and support them, support yourselves?
The current budget discussion wasn't as exciting as I thought it would be, although Debbie asked good questions, and the evening ended with Louise and Shanie shooting down the idea of posting the work session minutes on the city website. Shanie said no one cares, no one asks for them, and hardly anyone visits the city website anyway. Forget that most people didn't even know such minutes exist!
The night ended with a couple of points of general discussion, like getting the council to consider options for personnel grievances. Shot down, of course.
Sometimes it's exciting to watch these meetings, sometimes it's frustrating. The one thing I know is, hard as it may be for some of you to come forward and speak out, you got to do it. Otherwise, you just voted two great people in just to leave them high and dry. In the end, you're going to be the losers if you don't start standing up for them and for yourselves.
Just my humble opinion.
Go to the City Council meetings, Salisbury taxpayers. Sitting at home and watching it on t.v. doesn't do it. We have a rogue Mayor who is ruining our City. Shanie, Gary and Louise are clueless. Support Debbie and Terry.
ReplyDeleteI guess Shanie doesn't count the Story Chat, where Wilber has been ripped for excessive legal bills repeatedly. Ah, well, off I go to the Grapevine!
ReplyDeleteI hate to disagree with you Joe ,
ReplyDeletebut ,when Gary left the meeting,
it was only Louise , Debbie and Terry. Shanie might as well not
be at any meeting , no input worth anything.
Curious as to what exactly was the question Wilber charged 2200 dollars to answer. How does he account for his time? What does his contract stipulate for his pay above and beyond the contracted amount.Why isn't he bound by a contracted amount? Does he reimburse when his work is not up to snuff and ends up costing us more? Is that why he doesn't know anything well enough to give answers when asked at the meetings? So he can go back, do some research(ha ha) and charge us some more?
ReplyDeleteAll these reasons and more why the city atty. should be on a salary with no overages AND not be engaged in a private practice.
Nalagirl
Maybe we should get some personalized M&Ms for Shanie's Candy dish that say: "Hey Shanie! Legal Bills R2 High!" She might notice then.
ReplyDeletePeople ought to be grateful I have no connection with the City since I pay no City taxes. I would be at every meeting I could. They have no idea how to run a meeting. If a question arises about the way the meeting is run, all you have to do is ask the Parliamentarian. Is there not a Paliamentarian at the meetings to enforce Roberts Rule of Order or is the Council meetings not subjected to this type of guidelines?
ReplyDeletethe city pays him to go to press conferences and to defend the bad laws he wrote all by himself. The taxpayers have paid for his 698K house on the water!
ReplyDeleteBubba has to get both shoulders operated on. With no hand gestures, he'll have no voice at all or it will take him twice as long to spit it out. Weasal won't like that, they'll still be in session at 8 PM and that's past bedtime.
ReplyDeletethere not a Paliamentarian at the meetings to enforce Roberts Rule of Order.
ReplyDeleteweasal dosen't like to be corrected
I believe it was Mike Dunn that said they do not follow Roberts Rules of Order. Although every meeting run throughout the country is run under RRO the city of Salisbury has it's own rules as follows:
ReplyDelete1. If Gary or any of the mayors buddies are bashing Debbie & Terry they can have the floor as long as they like.
2. Anyone else is gaveled down.
3. Letters from the council president threatening to violate your constitutional rights will follow in short order. Ask Ms. Ennis, she received such letter.
Joe is giving ALL of the citizens of salisbury the info they need. Thank bejeezus i don't live within those confines. I would be thinking of removing tilghman & her crook cronies at any cost!!!! Give 'em hell, Joe!!! you're doing a great job. I can only hope the citizens who read this will act!!
ReplyDeleteJoe:
ReplyDeleteMs. Campbell is right on once again. Here's what Maryland's highest court said a couple years ago, in the Trip case:
"A valid and lawful nonconforming use is established if a property owner can demonstrate that before, and at the time of, the adoption of a new zoning ordinance, the property was being used in a then-lawful manner for a use that, by later legislation, became non-permitted. See, e.g., Chayt v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Baltimore City, 177 Md. 426, 434, 9 A.2d 747, 750 (1939) (concluding that, to be a non conform ing use, an existing business use must have been known in the neighborhood as being em ployed for that given purpose); Lapidus v . Mayor and City Counsel of Baltimore, 222 Md. 260, 262, 159 A.2d 640, 641 (1960) (noting that an applicant claiming that a nonconforming use had been established before the effective date of the city zoning ordinance needed to prove that the use asserted existed prior to the date of the ordinance); Vogl v. City of Baltimore, 228 Md. 283, 288, 179 A.2d 693, 696 (1962) (holding that the party claiming the existence of a nonconforming use has the burden of establishing the existence of the use at the time of the passage of the prohibiting zoning ordinance ). See also Lone v. Montgomery County, 85 Md. App. 477, 496, 584 A .2d 142, 151 (1991).
As the Court of Special Appeals recognized, nonconforming uses are not favored. County Council v. Gardner, Inc., 293 Md. at 268, 443 A.2d at 119 (“These local ordinances must be strictly construed in order to effectuate the purpose of eliminating nonconforming uses.”); Grant v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 212 Md. 301, 308, 129 A.2d 363, 365 (1957) (“Indeed, there is general agreement that the fundamental problem facing zoning is the inability to eliminate th e nonconforming u se”); Colati v. Jirout, 186 Md. 652, 657, 47 A.2d 613, 615 (1946) (noting that the spirit of the Baltimore City Zoning Ordinance is against the extension of non-conforming uses). Indeed, in Grant, this Court stated, “[T]he earnest aim and ultimate purpose of zoning was and is to reduce nonconformance to conformance as speedily as possible with due regard to the legitimate interests of all concerned.” 212 Md. at 307, 129 A.2d at 365."
***********************************
But, of course, this is Salisbury.
Nalagirl has asked some very pertinent questions that do need to be answered, or we'll all go to the poor house from having our tax dollars squandered for legal fees. It is absolutely time to hire on a City Attorney and dump the contracted (I suppose)fees that will certainly break the bank before much longer.
ReplyDeleteA. Goetz
I dont live in Salisbury and with the circus in town its a shame. I could go to the meetings and see some bears and clowns. Keep up the good work Terry and Debbie. You would have my votes if only i could. We need people like you on the county council. You would have our support if you were to run.
ReplyDeleteEvery time I think mare and weasel can't get more despicable, they prove me wrong! I have to remain anonymous to prevent loved ones from getting hurt. I am not a resident of Smallsbury but have friends and relatives working for the city. They are all for Debbie and Terry and would lose their jobs if the witch and her minions found out who they are. As for Wil-bur (said a la Mr. Ed), he is a piece of sh-t who needs to be locked up for unethical practices, IMHO. $2200 to answer a question that didn't require a legal opinion only because it was asked by Terry! Can't somebody get him disbarred?
ReplyDeletethot wilbur 's presence is required at council meets to opine on legal issues. when asked a question, he never has an answer. understandable, since it takes time to look things up in those mounds of paper. BUT, it shouldn't cost anything more for his answers.
ReplyDeleteIsn't that waht he gets paid 300,000 a year for?
are we paying merely for his presence?
ABOMINABLE!
Debbie and Terry both have to wade through that same pile of books. Heck he can charge the taxpayers all day for reading something and still not have an answer.
ReplyDeleteCampbell and Cohen get paid $10,000 a year each.
ReplyDeleteWilber's getting around $300,000?
The two ladies are the bargain of the decade, Wilber the rip-off of the decade.