My poor bull meter short circuited shortly after the town manager's "State of the Town Address". Therefore, this edition of Bull Busters will have to proceed on its own to cut through the largest amount of bull seen in Ridgely since my brother in law(a dairy farmer)fertilized my vegetable garden in 1996.
I can't even figure out where to begin. We can dismiss fluff that's irrelevant to Ridgely like our town manager's story about the vice-president, his failed congressional campaign (who cares?) or "30 years of municipal experience". (Although we might ask were they like the Ridgely experience times 30?)
First and foremost, the "address" is an attack on the people of Ridgely for electing Kathy Smith commissioner last year. She is mentioned early on under the Rubik of the "crisis" that "intensified after the municipal election of 2008". Duuh? Do you mean when Kathy won? Thank God someone else noticed that all is not well in our ship of state. She is also cryptically referred to as "those who criticise need to fully comprehend what they do to morale"..."all we have to do is look at our police department". In fact, I wonder if Kathy has replaced the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE) as the town manager's favorite bogeyman? If only he could blame the global economy too. We, of course, know he can't because Ridgely's situation has preceded the global financial meltdown.
Back to the police. We have two less police officers because we can't pay them. We can't pay them because of poor management decisions. Besides the budget deficit, we lost county tax differential money because we weren't really maintaining a 24/7 force as the town manager claimed.
The town manager's salary and benefits package would pay for two officers. If given the choice, I bet most Ridgely residents would choose to hire back two officers and let the town manager go. Good police are are a lot more useful to the citizens of this town than the architect of a $238,000.00 deficit.
Another issue taking up a lot of ink was Zeb Brodie. I'm very happy that we have an investor in town opening new businesses. However, the "embarrassing, and frustrating experiences" which the town manager says that the investor went through are 100% of the town manager's making. The town manager knew what the planning and zoning ordinances required. Yet, chose to ignore them and "streamline" a process for approval circumventing our citizen planning commission. Our planning commissioners (being residents) knew that there were questions about the Cyber Ridge proposal. I think that the town manager must have known that there would be controversy too. Had normal procedure been followed, the business could have opened a couple of months before it did. As it turned out the planning commission took the heat on this and other issues orchestrated by our very own town manager. Mr Brodie, welcome to Ridgely. I'm sorry for the rough introduction to our town but the town manager doesn't live here. We who do live here, however, appreciate your businesses.
Finally, let's talk trash. How is it that we have to pay more and more and reinstate the trash fee which the town manager identifies as a culprit for our money woes? Denton's new contract is charges $4.95 per household. Ridgely is $6.95 and going up. Why can't we use the same company as Denton? More customers might lower the rate from this provider even more. We pay the town manager a huge salary to figure out such questions.
I have to hand to the town manager, he had to work pretty hard on his "Address" (on our dime) to turn our town's financial "sow's ear into a silk purse". Unfortunately for us, the reality of having to pay for so many mistakes undermines any amount of lofty rhetoric. Next year we should do away with this pretentious pomposity and save the taxpayers some money.
The "Address" ends with "unless someone has another idea or another plan, I do not intend to abandon the "kitchen" while the soup is still on and work needs to be done". There are so many ideas and other plans from so many citizens in Ridgely that would return our town to sanity that they can't be listed here. The "kitchen" isn't only too "hot" (because of the town manager), it's about to burn the rest of the house down. He can have his home in Westover, but let us have our town back and put Ridgely's financial fire out.
(Please note that the "Address" can be obtained at town hall. For some reason, it hasn't been posted as is usual on the town website. I guess I'd be embarrassed if I wrote so much bull too.)
Showing posts with label town planning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label town planning. Show all posts
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Election In Ridgely And Bull Buster Part I
Today's "Times-Record" announced that the Ridgely town election filing deadline for candidates and voting times are "to be announced". Hmmm...our Charter is very clear on the filing deadline. It's 10 days before the election. This year the election will be on April 27th. In recent elections the polls have been kept open longer than the Charter prescribes. I'm not sure how this came about but it's a good idea. The Charter, however, does say that the polls are open between 9 and 5.
I have to wonder about all this "to be announced" confusion so near to an election. As many of you know, a few weeks ago the town manager presented some proposals to change the Charter election rules. The proposals raised suspicions among many and nothing more was done. It would now be impossible to make any change before the election.
This year I will not let the whispering campaign that emerges every Springtime here in Ridgely go unanswered. I've heard some whoppers over the years as election time approaches. My first BULL BUSTER concerns the strange story that Ridgely's financial woes (which preceded the global economic crisis) are the result of some "snitch" calling the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE). This "call" supposedly stopped our Ridgely Park development. First, even if there was a "call", MDE can't withhold permits without good cause. They had plenty of cause with or without a "snitch" since the town already had to use stream discharge at times when our waste water treatment plant (WWTP) couldn't handle the load. We simply could not handle a new development and the town has now embarked on a $1.5 million WWTP upgrade to accommodate future development.
MDE saved the citizens of Ridgely from a massive sewage spill. MDE also saved us from the massive fines that accompany WWTP failure. If there is a "SNITCH", he or she is a HERO who saved the town citizens from management miscalculations. But I think the whole story is BULL. MDE was just doing their job. They deserve a thank you.
BULL BUSTERS will always ask these questions. Who would start such a rumor? And, who might benefit from such a story? In this case, all signs point to a town manager and his allies trying to explain away the town's abysmal financial situation.
I have to wonder about all this "to be announced" confusion so near to an election. As many of you know, a few weeks ago the town manager presented some proposals to change the Charter election rules. The proposals raised suspicions among many and nothing more was done. It would now be impossible to make any change before the election.
This year I will not let the whispering campaign that emerges every Springtime here in Ridgely go unanswered. I've heard some whoppers over the years as election time approaches. My first BULL BUSTER concerns the strange story that Ridgely's financial woes (which preceded the global economic crisis) are the result of some "snitch" calling the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE). This "call" supposedly stopped our Ridgely Park development. First, even if there was a "call", MDE can't withhold permits without good cause. They had plenty of cause with or without a "snitch" since the town already had to use stream discharge at times when our waste water treatment plant (WWTP) couldn't handle the load. We simply could not handle a new development and the town has now embarked on a $1.5 million WWTP upgrade to accommodate future development.
MDE saved the citizens of Ridgely from a massive sewage spill. MDE also saved us from the massive fines that accompany WWTP failure. If there is a "SNITCH", he or she is a HERO who saved the town citizens from management miscalculations. But I think the whole story is BULL. MDE was just doing their job. They deserve a thank you.
BULL BUSTERS will always ask these questions. Who would start such a rumor? And, who might benefit from such a story? In this case, all signs point to a town manager and his allies trying to explain away the town's abysmal financial situation.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Preserving The Republic One Town At A Time Updated
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time." Abraham Lincoln
Most of us who are involved in small town government are volunteers or are paid only a token amount for our services. We are either elected or appointed to our boards, councils or commissions. We have families and jobs and are seldom political scientists or professional public servants. Not being professionals puts us at a decided disadvantage when dealing with the ever growing power of town managers over our communities. It is important to remember that it is the elected town government which employs the town manager. Increasingly, however, town managers seem to ignore this fact and act as if this arrangement was the other way around. The growth of the role of the non-resident and unelected town manager has led to many conflicts as citizens fight to keep control of their town's destiny.
Most town managers are itinerant moving from town to town over the course of their careers. This profession has one of the highest turnover rates of any occupation. There are many reasons for this. Being a professional, town managers often quickly assume an attitude of thinking that they know what's best for their employer's town. Such an attitude inevitably leads them to indulge in all kinds of Machiavellian maneuvers to manipulate various members of the community to achieve their goals. After a few years of this, enough enemies will have been made so that the manager becomes an election issue and is then sent packing.
A second reason for the high turnover is the fact that many small towns are governed by charters that never envisioned the need for town managers. Such charters don't even mention the position and are full of ambiguities that allow for all kinds of mischief. No party clearly knows what is expected of the other. Often, these charters provide for no elected mayor or long term commission president to counter the machinations of a manager. Ridgely, for example, rotates its commission president yearly, making management of the town manager difficult at best. Again, over time, ill will builds up and the manager faces the risks of growing citizen hostility.
The third reason for the instability of the position is the fact that our own American political culture is changing. Many citizens have lost their political self respect and ability to act as sovereign decision makers. Our society is run more and more on a bureaucratized or corporate model with less opportunities for the development of these traditional citizenship characteristics. People are elected to office unprepared to govern. They act as if they are serving on a charity board instead of a real flesh and blood political entity. Once again, after a few years, these folks wake up, assert themselves and it's off to the hinterlands for the town manager. This constant turnover doesn't benefit any one. The towns suffer from inconsistent management and town managers suffer from unemployment.
Let me retrofit an old saying here. "town managers or their equivalent consultants, you can't live with them and you can't live without them". For our citizen volunteers charged with governing our towns, their job is no small matter. We need the expertise of either a town manager or assorted consultants. Without them, we will find ourselves rudely awoken one morning by our fellow citizens, ready to lynch us because the waste water treatment plant is overflowing and their toilets won't flush. There is no question that we need these policy wonks. However, we are the ones who know what is best for our towns and set the direction of the course where we want to take our towns. We must make it absolutely clear that we are in charge. Failure to do so leads to unbalanced budgets, higher taxes and water bills and excessive ugly development. These are problems concerning the town's quality of life which our elected resident legislators must be attuned to. They are the kind of problems that get little attention from a non-resident and unelected town manager. This creates the sad opportunity for a town government to morph into the strange proposition of being (to borrow and retrofit another old saying) " a government by and for the employees". At this point, the town manager can even run candidates for office who are little more than water carriers for the town manager. Such a proposition gets expensive and the need for tax revenues will be ever growing. It's here that schemes including eminent domain abuse to raise more tax revenues raise their ugly head. In this situation, New London, Connecticut, the pioneer of eminent domain abuse is only right up the road. With its $238,000.00 deficit (which preceded the global financial meltdown), is Ridgely heading in this direction?
First, the town manager should be a stakeholder in the community. They should be required to live in the town they will serve as a citizen and taxpayer. This doesn't mean renting an apartment to use a few nights a week. It means residency plain and simple which must be written into a contract and clearly understood before being hired. Then, residency must be enforced. The negligence of elected officials to carry through on this first step is setting the town manager up for failure. A potentially successful town manager could be wasted if allowed to ignore this important step. A strong correlation seems to exist between town manager residency and an absence of autocratic actions. Ridgely has failed to pass this test and the consequences are a huge deficit.
Elected officials must make it clear to the manager that they haven't hired a municipal union leader (sorry grandpa). The town manager is management and works for the elected officials serving the taxpaying town residents. This isn't to advocate not paying employees what they are worth. You won't, for example, be able to keep a police force in a small town with the state and county constantly trying to recruit your recruits with promises of more money. It is, however, about the loyalty of the town manager to the elected officials who hired him. Too often town managers view the employees as their first constituency. If the manager has somehow avoided step one and not really moved to town, what does it matter if requests for salaries and benefits for staff will far exceed the town taxpayer's median income? Also, it's not money out of his pocket if deficits grow as they have in Ridgely.
Development and growth for the sake of raising enough tax dollars to maintain an ever increasing payroll destroys towns. The town manager's bottom line is often in conflict with the town resident's interest in maintaining their quality of life. When a choice must be made between revenues or quality of life issues, the manager frequently favors the first. This is particularly true if he isn't a town resident. Great plans emphasizing "smart growth" and "traditional neighborhood development" will all fall by the wayside in an economic crunch. It is at this juncture that the mettle of elected officials and town planning commissions will really be tested. Ridgely has arrived at this point and our Planning and Zoning meetings are now battle zones.
Certain citizens drive autocratic town managers nuts. They are usually the activist types who overwhelmingly make up a town's volunteer commissions. These are the natural enemy for autocratic town managers because they also think they know something about how their town should be run. They also can still think and act like old fashioned American citizens. Usually they aren't of one political persuasion. One of my favorite towns has an interesting coalition including Greens and Paleo-Conservatives. As long as national issues are avoided, they work well together trying to preserve their town from what Russell Kirk termed "the enemies of the permanent things".
If your town manager is having activist troubles, expect him to exploit any possible resentment of the activist group and attempt to remake the assorted commissions in the town managers image. People with no experience will suddenly be held up as planning experts to replace long term planning commission members.
Most of us don't want any of the above to happen. To start with, elected officials ought to start acting like they understand the power they have and exercise it on behalf of their constituents. Then, there are also ways to address the problem of inadequate old town charters which fail to address the role of the town manager. Ambiguity must be banished from these documents. A strong and consistent council presidency or mayor commission type of government must be established. This is absolutely essential to manage the town manager. Or, the new charter may not even provide for a town manager but more affordable and manageable consultants. Regardless, what's needed is a classic check and balance type of arrangement that can work well.
Charter change is not the panacea for all of the a town's problems. It's possible that a completely spineless mayor could be elected who actually sees nothing wrong with schemes for over development or using eminent domain to fatten tax rolls to cover overspending. However, in such cases, the citizen has a recourse through the ballot box. At least elected officials have records that can be made campaign issues.
Benjamin Franklin's observation at the conclusion of the Constitutional convention applies here. When asked what had been accomplished, he replied that: "You have a republic, if you can keep it". The history of republics is littered with failures from Rome to Weimar. All too often, it is the citizens themselves through their apathy, fear, or lack of knowledge, that allow the abrogation of their rights. We need to get to work here in our small towns to "keep" alive our part of this republic.
Most of us who are involved in small town government are volunteers or are paid only a token amount for our services. We are either elected or appointed to our boards, councils or commissions. We have families and jobs and are seldom political scientists or professional public servants. Not being professionals puts us at a decided disadvantage when dealing with the ever growing power of town managers over our communities. It is important to remember that it is the elected town government which employs the town manager. Increasingly, however, town managers seem to ignore this fact and act as if this arrangement was the other way around. The growth of the role of the non-resident and unelected town manager has led to many conflicts as citizens fight to keep control of their town's destiny.
Most town managers are itinerant moving from town to town over the course of their careers. This profession has one of the highest turnover rates of any occupation. There are many reasons for this. Being a professional, town managers often quickly assume an attitude of thinking that they know what's best for their employer's town. Such an attitude inevitably leads them to indulge in all kinds of Machiavellian maneuvers to manipulate various members of the community to achieve their goals. After a few years of this, enough enemies will have been made so that the manager becomes an election issue and is then sent packing.
A second reason for the high turnover is the fact that many small towns are governed by charters that never envisioned the need for town managers. Such charters don't even mention the position and are full of ambiguities that allow for all kinds of mischief. No party clearly knows what is expected of the other. Often, these charters provide for no elected mayor or long term commission president to counter the machinations of a manager. Ridgely, for example, rotates its commission president yearly, making management of the town manager difficult at best. Again, over time, ill will builds up and the manager faces the risks of growing citizen hostility.
The third reason for the instability of the position is the fact that our own American political culture is changing. Many citizens have lost their political self respect and ability to act as sovereign decision makers. Our society is run more and more on a bureaucratized or corporate model with less opportunities for the development of these traditional citizenship characteristics. People are elected to office unprepared to govern. They act as if they are serving on a charity board instead of a real flesh and blood political entity. Once again, after a few years, these folks wake up, assert themselves and it's off to the hinterlands for the town manager. This constant turnover doesn't benefit any one. The towns suffer from inconsistent management and town managers suffer from unemployment.
Let me retrofit an old saying here. "town managers or their equivalent consultants, you can't live with them and you can't live without them". For our citizen volunteers charged with governing our towns, their job is no small matter. We need the expertise of either a town manager or assorted consultants. Without them, we will find ourselves rudely awoken one morning by our fellow citizens, ready to lynch us because the waste water treatment plant is overflowing and their toilets won't flush. There is no question that we need these policy wonks. However, we are the ones who know what is best for our towns and set the direction of the course where we want to take our towns. We must make it absolutely clear that we are in charge. Failure to do so leads to unbalanced budgets, higher taxes and water bills and excessive ugly development. These are problems concerning the town's quality of life which our elected resident legislators must be attuned to. They are the kind of problems that get little attention from a non-resident and unelected town manager. This creates the sad opportunity for a town government to morph into the strange proposition of being (to borrow and retrofit another old saying) " a government by and for the employees". At this point, the town manager can even run candidates for office who are little more than water carriers for the town manager. Such a proposition gets expensive and the need for tax revenues will be ever growing. It's here that schemes including eminent domain abuse to raise more tax revenues raise their ugly head. In this situation, New London, Connecticut, the pioneer of eminent domain abuse is only right up the road. With its $238,000.00 deficit (which preceded the global financial meltdown), is Ridgely heading in this direction?
First, the town manager should be a stakeholder in the community. They should be required to live in the town they will serve as a citizen and taxpayer. This doesn't mean renting an apartment to use a few nights a week. It means residency plain and simple which must be written into a contract and clearly understood before being hired. Then, residency must be enforced. The negligence of elected officials to carry through on this first step is setting the town manager up for failure. A potentially successful town manager could be wasted if allowed to ignore this important step. A strong correlation seems to exist between town manager residency and an absence of autocratic actions. Ridgely has failed to pass this test and the consequences are a huge deficit.
Elected officials must make it clear to the manager that they haven't hired a municipal union leader (sorry grandpa). The town manager is management and works for the elected officials serving the taxpaying town residents. This isn't to advocate not paying employees what they are worth. You won't, for example, be able to keep a police force in a small town with the state and county constantly trying to recruit your recruits with promises of more money. It is, however, about the loyalty of the town manager to the elected officials who hired him. Too often town managers view the employees as their first constituency. If the manager has somehow avoided step one and not really moved to town, what does it matter if requests for salaries and benefits for staff will far exceed the town taxpayer's median income? Also, it's not money out of his pocket if deficits grow as they have in Ridgely.
Development and growth for the sake of raising enough tax dollars to maintain an ever increasing payroll destroys towns. The town manager's bottom line is often in conflict with the town resident's interest in maintaining their quality of life. When a choice must be made between revenues or quality of life issues, the manager frequently favors the first. This is particularly true if he isn't a town resident. Great plans emphasizing "smart growth" and "traditional neighborhood development" will all fall by the wayside in an economic crunch. It is at this juncture that the mettle of elected officials and town planning commissions will really be tested. Ridgely has arrived at this point and our Planning and Zoning meetings are now battle zones.
Certain citizens drive autocratic town managers nuts. They are usually the activist types who overwhelmingly make up a town's volunteer commissions. These are the natural enemy for autocratic town managers because they also think they know something about how their town should be run. They also can still think and act like old fashioned American citizens. Usually they aren't of one political persuasion. One of my favorite towns has an interesting coalition including Greens and Paleo-Conservatives. As long as national issues are avoided, they work well together trying to preserve their town from what Russell Kirk termed "the enemies of the permanent things".
If your town manager is having activist troubles, expect him to exploit any possible resentment of the activist group and attempt to remake the assorted commissions in the town managers image. People with no experience will suddenly be held up as planning experts to replace long term planning commission members.
Most of us don't want any of the above to happen. To start with, elected officials ought to start acting like they understand the power they have and exercise it on behalf of their constituents. Then, there are also ways to address the problem of inadequate old town charters which fail to address the role of the town manager. Ambiguity must be banished from these documents. A strong and consistent council presidency or mayor commission type of government must be established. This is absolutely essential to manage the town manager. Or, the new charter may not even provide for a town manager but more affordable and manageable consultants. Regardless, what's needed is a classic check and balance type of arrangement that can work well.
Charter change is not the panacea for all of the a town's problems. It's possible that a completely spineless mayor could be elected who actually sees nothing wrong with schemes for over development or using eminent domain to fatten tax rolls to cover overspending. However, in such cases, the citizen has a recourse through the ballot box. At least elected officials have records that can be made campaign issues.
Benjamin Franklin's observation at the conclusion of the Constitutional convention applies here. When asked what had been accomplished, he replied that: "You have a republic, if you can keep it". The history of republics is littered with failures from Rome to Weimar. All too often, it is the citizens themselves through their apathy, fear, or lack of knowledge, that allow the abrogation of their rights. We need to get to work here in our small towns to "keep" alive our part of this republic.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
A Tale Of Two Commissions
The following is from the November town meeting minutes:
"Joe went back to the Ethics Board nomination. He said in the past, when an individual has been serving on a commission, and has been inquired about it and wants to be reappointed, the normal thing has been that the commissioners have reappointed that individual. If there are other people who are interested in serving, there are other commissions and committees to get involved in. We have an individual who for two months has stated that he would like to be reappointed, and he feels it is disrespectful to him to hold this off. The policy has been in the past that if the name is brought up, unless there is something dramatically wrong, or some concern, that the individual would continue for at least another term."
Herman Dunst was reappointed. Last month Jeff Garrett asked the he be reappointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission and forwarded his application to the Commissioners who tabled it. There is someone else interested but by applying the Town Managers own words above, this request should be channelled into another commission. What is the difference between these two commissions and commissioners?
Our Planning and Zoning meetings haven't been the most pleasant recently as we continue to stand up to pressure to approve anything that comes before us. It's not the Planning Commissions job to undo the Town Manager's deficit. We have ordinances on the book which have succeeded in keeping Ridgley a great small town. Despite the pressure, we have been upholding these ordinances. We have not been too popular with the Town Manager. Removing long serving Planning Commissioners and changing the Planning Commission make up might make the whiz from Westover happy but will leave Ridgely seriously at risk.
"Joe went back to the Ethics Board nomination. He said in the past, when an individual has been serving on a commission, and has been inquired about it and wants to be reappointed, the normal thing has been that the commissioners have reappointed that individual. If there are other people who are interested in serving, there are other commissions and committees to get involved in. We have an individual who for two months has stated that he would like to be reappointed, and he feels it is disrespectful to him to hold this off. The policy has been in the past that if the name is brought up, unless there is something dramatically wrong, or some concern, that the individual would continue for at least another term."
Herman Dunst was reappointed. Last month Jeff Garrett asked the he be reappointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission and forwarded his application to the Commissioners who tabled it. There is someone else interested but by applying the Town Managers own words above, this request should be channelled into another commission. What is the difference between these two commissions and commissioners?
Our Planning and Zoning meetings haven't been the most pleasant recently as we continue to stand up to pressure to approve anything that comes before us. It's not the Planning Commissions job to undo the Town Manager's deficit. We have ordinances on the book which have succeeded in keeping Ridgley a great small town. Despite the pressure, we have been upholding these ordinances. We have not been too popular with the Town Manager. Removing long serving Planning Commissioners and changing the Planning Commission make up might make the whiz from Westover happy but will leave Ridgely seriously at risk.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Planning And Zoning Blues II
The new scaled back plans for Ridgely Park presented to the planning commission raise a big question.
We are told that the plan reflects today's economic realities. We are also told no one is going to build anything for a while because of the state of the economy. In other words, nothing is going to get built until things get better.
The cutbacks in the plan presented Wednesday would require us to change many time tested town ordinances. If nothing is going to get built until prosperity returns, why should the developer plan represent today's recession reality? In other words, our ordinances should remain the same because if anything does get built it will be built in a time of returning prosperity. The developer will be able to afford to adhere to ordinances that are now deemed to be too expensive. Let's keep Ridgely, Ridgely!
We are told that the plan reflects today's economic realities. We are also told no one is going to build anything for a while because of the state of the economy. In other words, nothing is going to get built until things get better.
The cutbacks in the plan presented Wednesday would require us to change many time tested town ordinances. If nothing is going to get built until prosperity returns, why should the developer plan represent today's recession reality? In other words, our ordinances should remain the same because if anything does get built it will be built in a time of returning prosperity. The developer will be able to afford to adhere to ordinances that are now deemed to be too expensive. Let's keep Ridgely, Ridgely!
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Planning And Zoning Blues
At our planning and zoning meeting last night it was made clear that Ridgely Park won't be happening any time soon. Even if the project could start by February, it would not be desirable to do so because of the state of the economy.
We are over such a barrel because of the loan for the waste water treatment plant that there are those who say we should take whatever we can get. We are probably protected from this threat because nothing of either a good or sorry calibre is going to get financing for years to come.
Last night the scaled down project that was presented was very different from what we had previously approved. We would have to change both ordinances and our comprehensive plan to accommodate it. This isn't something to be undertaken lightly, since these laws are the means by which Ridgley has maintained its enviable quality of life over the years.
There are financial questions as well. We would still get the regular fees per house such as parks and recreation, public safety, and water/sewer. However, because of the reduction in scale, we no longer have the leverage to negotiate for money for streets and the extra $1 million which was to cover the new water tower and other necessities.
This project has been controversial. The burden of new development and the traffic and use of services it brings, were offset by an excellent plan and amenities. Now, that is no longer the case.
Elm Street, Ridgley Park's developer was invited back to present more complete plans. One thing we now all have is time, and we should not waste it by gutting our comprehensive plan and ordinances that have kept Ridgely such a fine small town. When good times return, we don't want a pack of rapacious developers to come here to take advantage of watered down planning and zoning ordinances.
We are over such a barrel because of the loan for the waste water treatment plant that there are those who say we should take whatever we can get. We are probably protected from this threat because nothing of either a good or sorry calibre is going to get financing for years to come.
Last night the scaled down project that was presented was very different from what we had previously approved. We would have to change both ordinances and our comprehensive plan to accommodate it. This isn't something to be undertaken lightly, since these laws are the means by which Ridgley has maintained its enviable quality of life over the years.
There are financial questions as well. We would still get the regular fees per house such as parks and recreation, public safety, and water/sewer. However, because of the reduction in scale, we no longer have the leverage to negotiate for money for streets and the extra $1 million which was to cover the new water tower and other necessities.
This project has been controversial. The burden of new development and the traffic and use of services it brings, were offset by an excellent plan and amenities. Now, that is no longer the case.
Elm Street, Ridgley Park's developer was invited back to present more complete plans. One thing we now all have is time, and we should not waste it by gutting our comprehensive plan and ordinances that have kept Ridgely such a fine small town. When good times return, we don't want a pack of rapacious developers to come here to take advantage of watered down planning and zoning ordinances.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Farming On Town Lots
Not too long ago a suggestion about amending our town's very restrictive animal ordinance (passed in 1967 and bans about everything) was the subject of ridicule. The subject came up at a town planning meeting when a member of the commission (me) found nothing wrong with vegetable gardens in front yards. "The next thing you know people will want chickens in their yard too" came the response from one of our public servants. Well, yes; that too. In the meantime, we have put a garden in our 4th st. front yard, and would seriously entertain the possibility of chickens, and even a goat. In fact, the goat ranks higher with me, as a very affordable lawn mower.
We live in an agricultural zone. Small animals are cleaner that dogs (Ridgely allows kennels) and not only appropriate, but increasingly a means to cut costs of burgeoning food budgets. No one is advocating pigstys. (However, pet pot bellied pigs should be given a reprive.)
Anyhow, action on animal restrictions is now happening around America. One of the places where I spent a number of years, Greensboro, N.C. (population 238,000), has caught up with its citizens and amended its ordinances. Can Ridgely be far behind?
Credit: Robert Franklin / News & Record
URBAN FARMING
The Greensboro City Council's newly adopted poultry and bee ordinance:* prohibits adult roosters* requires chickens to be penned* requires poultry to be kept in backyards* establishes a 25-foot setback requirement for lots between 7,000 and 12,000 square feet and odd-shaped lots that cannot meet a 50-foot setback, as long as chickens are housed 50 feet from a neighboring residence* limits residences that use the 25-foot setback to one hen per 3,000 square feet and one bee colony per 2,000 square feet* bans poultry or bee keeping on lots smaller than 7,000 square feet
GREENSBORO - Chicken lovers are in cluck.
The Greensboro City Council voted to loosen the rules and allow chickens and bees on small residential lots.
The unanimous vote also will provide a little peace for neighbors of the urban farmers. The new ordinance bans noisy adult roosters and limits the number of chickens and bee colonies on any one lot.
Chicken owner and Lindley Park resident Brian Talbert worked with city staff to amend the poultry and beekeeping ordinance after he learned that his lot did not meet the city's 50-foot setback requirements.
Talbert's backyard coop became a problem after his rooster, Elvis, rattled neighbor Sherry O'Neal with a 4:15 a.m. wakeup call.
On Tuesday night, Greensboro's chicken owners said they keep the poultry for the eggs, but they consider them pets.
Billy Jones, who spoke on behalf of the amendment, has four hens and one rooster named Gus. He said his neighbors enjoy the eggs, but he promised that if the rooster bugged them, he would take care of it.
"I promised them, if we did have a problem with the rooster, I would fry it," Jones said.
O'Neal, who spoke against the amendment, said she was concerned about the noise and the farm smells in her neighborhood, where the lots are small and residences are close together.
Under the newly amended ordinance, residents can keep bees and chickens on lots as small as 7,000 square feet, as long as they are housed at least 50 feet from any neighboring homes. The new rules also limit urban farmers to one bee colony per 2,000 square feet and one hen per 3,000 square feet of property for lots that don't meet the setback requirement.
"I think that is a reasonable request, particularly if we limit the number of hives," Talbert said. "We limit the number of hens."
The City Council requested that city staff give some consideration for roosters that already live in neighborhoods but will soon be banned.
"We don't want to get Gus fried," Councilwoman T. Dianne Bellamy-Small said.
We live in an agricultural zone. Small animals are cleaner that dogs (Ridgely allows kennels) and not only appropriate, but increasingly a means to cut costs of burgeoning food budgets. No one is advocating pigstys. (However, pet pot bellied pigs should be given a reprive.)
Anyhow, action on animal restrictions is now happening around America. One of the places where I spent a number of years, Greensboro, N.C. (population 238,000), has caught up with its citizens and amended its ordinances. Can Ridgely be far behind?
Credit: Robert Franklin / News & Record
URBAN FARMING
The Greensboro City Council's newly adopted poultry and bee ordinance:* prohibits adult roosters* requires chickens to be penned* requires poultry to be kept in backyards* establishes a 25-foot setback requirement for lots between 7,000 and 12,000 square feet and odd-shaped lots that cannot meet a 50-foot setback, as long as chickens are housed 50 feet from a neighboring residence* limits residences that use the 25-foot setback to one hen per 3,000 square feet and one bee colony per 2,000 square feet* bans poultry or bee keeping on lots smaller than 7,000 square feet
GREENSBORO - Chicken lovers are in cluck.
The Greensboro City Council voted to loosen the rules and allow chickens and bees on small residential lots.
The unanimous vote also will provide a little peace for neighbors of the urban farmers. The new ordinance bans noisy adult roosters and limits the number of chickens and bee colonies on any one lot.
Chicken owner and Lindley Park resident Brian Talbert worked with city staff to amend the poultry and beekeeping ordinance after he learned that his lot did not meet the city's 50-foot setback requirements.
Talbert's backyard coop became a problem after his rooster, Elvis, rattled neighbor Sherry O'Neal with a 4:15 a.m. wakeup call.
On Tuesday night, Greensboro's chicken owners said they keep the poultry for the eggs, but they consider them pets.
Billy Jones, who spoke on behalf of the amendment, has four hens and one rooster named Gus. He said his neighbors enjoy the eggs, but he promised that if the rooster bugged them, he would take care of it.
"I promised them, if we did have a problem with the rooster, I would fry it," Jones said.
O'Neal, who spoke against the amendment, said she was concerned about the noise and the farm smells in her neighborhood, where the lots are small and residences are close together.
Under the newly amended ordinance, residents can keep bees and chickens on lots as small as 7,000 square feet, as long as they are housed at least 50 feet from any neighboring homes. The new rules also limit urban farmers to one bee colony per 2,000 square feet and one hen per 3,000 square feet of property for lots that don't meet the setback requirement.
"I think that is a reasonable request, particularly if we limit the number of hives," Talbert said. "We limit the number of hens."
The City Council requested that city staff give some consideration for roosters that already live in neighborhoods but will soon be banned.
"We don't want to get Gus fried," Councilwoman T. Dianne Bellamy-Small said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
