Public Workshop on Traffic Impact Studies and Traffic Operational Analyses
For your information: DelDOT to Hold Public Workshop on Traffic Impact Study Regulations - Public Input Sought on Proposed Regulations
Dover - The Delaware Department of Transportation will be holding a public workshop, facilitated by the University of Delaware’s Institute for Public Administration (IPA), to solicit community input on changes to its regulations regarding Traffic Impact Studies and Traffic Operational Analyses.
The workshop will be held on Wednesday, September 14, 2011 from 6-8 p.m. in the Carvel State Office Building Auditorium (Mezzanine Level) in Wilmington, Delaware. A previous workshop was held on August 1, 2011 at the DelDOT Administration Building in Dover, Delaware.
DelDOT has proposed revision to standards and regulations regarding requirements for the conduct of Traffic Operational Analysis and Traffic Impact Studies prior to agency decisions on proposed land use questions. These proposed changes to the regulations revise and update the Standards and Regulations for Subdivision Streets and State Highway Access, enacted in March 2008 and revised in February 2010.
These regulations define the requirements which apply to:
· New subdivisions and land development
· Rezoning· Changed or expanded subdivisions and land development
· Any new access on to a State-maintained road
· Modifications to an existing access· Assessment of the impacts of traffic
· Off-site improvements
The intent of the workshop is to inform the public about the changes and to solicit input prior to finalizing the regulations. The workshop will consist of a presentation on the regulatory changes and a question and answer session with a panel of DelDOT staff. Interested citizens are encouraged to contribute written questions in advance of the meeting by sending them via email to Brett Taylor at Dotpr@state.de.us Audience members may provide written questions at the time of the meeting to be asked during the panel discussion. The number of questions addressed will be subject to the time available at the meeting.
Copies of the proposed Regulations are available at http://regulations.delaware.gov/register/june2011/proposed/14%20DE%20Reg%201323%2006-01-11.htm#P8_224. You may also review the Regulations on www.deldot.gov <http://www.deldot.gov/>. The Department will take comments on the Regulations through September 30, 2011. The public may submit their comments to Ted Bishop, Assistant Director of Planning, via email (Theodore.bishop@state.de.us) or in writing at Division of Planning, DelDOT, P.O. Box 778, Dover, DE 19903.
Read Bob Weiner's Questions for DelDOT HERE: New Castle County Councilman Bob Weiner's Questions For The DelDOT Panel On Wednesday Night
and the 2010 letter from members of the Delaware Bar to Jack Markell HERE: DelDOT's Rights, Powers And Responsibilities Are Not Limited By NCC's Redevelopment Ordinance
Monday, September 12, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Also Read Middletown Corridor Coalition - No One Can Justify The Costs of Bonds For The Construction Of US 301
Click onto the link:
Middletown Corridor Coalition Chair, Andye Daley, Writes: US 301 And DelDOT's FUNNY MONEY - From the inbox ~ No One Can Justify The Costs of Bonds For The Construction Of US 301
Middletown Corridor Coalition Chair, Andye Daley, Writes: US 301 And DelDOT's FUNNY MONEY - From the inbox ~ No One Can Justify The Costs of Bonds For The Construction Of US 301
The US 301 Public Workshop Set For 3PM - Stoltz At Planning Board At 7PM - All On Sept. 6th!
Upcoming Project Workshop Rt 301 Workshop The US 301 Public Workshop has been rescheduled for Tuesday, September 6 between 3:00pm and 8:00pm. The location remains the Middletown Fire Hall at 27 W. Green Street. There will be a PowerPoint presentation at 3:15, to be repeated at 4:15, 5:15, 6:15 and 7:15pm. Please let your friends, neighbors and anyone else who may have an interest in the US 301 project know of this rescheduled date.
This a a project that the Civic League has opposed due to the misguided alignment that appears to be designed to promote sprawling new development, such as the Bayberry North and South Developments, rather than interstate transportation.
Of even more critical concern is the highly questionable need and deeply concerning debt financing for this road. The project does not appear to have any potential to be self sustaining due to inadequate traffic volumes and limited toll revenues.
Anyone in NCC should be concerned with this project and its questionable funding scheme. The initial phase was funded with GARVEE Bonds, which are a sort of a federally authorized Ponzi scheme where States borrow large sums of money, but must repay it using federal funds "expected "to be received in the future. There is no guarantee that the federal funds will be available. (But perhaps congress may consider cuts to things like social security, medicare, or education to fund GARVEE debts!!!). At present, the risk to Delaware tax payers of having to pay these debts is pretty high due to the imminent risks of federal budget cuts, an expected delay in extending the gasoline tax, and a likely stalemate over a new transportation bill in the U.S. Congress.
If federal funds are not sufficient, the State taxpayers will have to pay the bill directly. Even if federal funds are available, the GARVEE commitment will severely limit options for future road projects that may actually be much higher priorities throughout NCC than the Proposed Rt. 301.
Thursday, we learned that the US 301 project did not get the targeted federal aide. Someone at the federal level appears to have done their homework and concluded that this project is not sustainable due to low traffic demand. They realize that the traffic volume will not produce enough toll revenue to pay the debt service in the bonds proposed for financing its construction. It is unsustainable unless the Delaware tax payers decide to heavily subsidize this sprawl promoting effort. There is a pretty good overview of the problem by Jeff Montgomery of the News Journal in today's paper. You can read it at: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110903/NEWS02/109030324/US-301-project-loses-out-aid?odyssey=tabtopnewstextHome
Please come out to ask questions, learn what is happening, and let your views be known on this massive project. After all, no matter what, you will be paying for it.
A few potential questions to consider:
This a a project that the Civic League has opposed due to the misguided alignment that appears to be designed to promote sprawling new development, such as the Bayberry North and South Developments, rather than interstate transportation.
Of even more critical concern is the highly questionable need and deeply concerning debt financing for this road. The project does not appear to have any potential to be self sustaining due to inadequate traffic volumes and limited toll revenues.
Anyone in NCC should be concerned with this project and its questionable funding scheme. The initial phase was funded with GARVEE Bonds, which are a sort of a federally authorized Ponzi scheme where States borrow large sums of money, but must repay it using federal funds "expected "to be received in the future. There is no guarantee that the federal funds will be available. (But perhaps congress may consider cuts to things like social security, medicare, or education to fund GARVEE debts!!!). At present, the risk to Delaware tax payers of having to pay these debts is pretty high due to the imminent risks of federal budget cuts, an expected delay in extending the gasoline tax, and a likely stalemate over a new transportation bill in the U.S. Congress.
If federal funds are not sufficient, the State taxpayers will have to pay the bill directly. Even if federal funds are available, the GARVEE commitment will severely limit options for future road projects that may actually be much higher priorities throughout NCC than the Proposed Rt. 301.
Thursday, we learned that the US 301 project did not get the targeted federal aide. Someone at the federal level appears to have done their homework and concluded that this project is not sustainable due to low traffic demand. They realize that the traffic volume will not produce enough toll revenue to pay the debt service in the bonds proposed for financing its construction. It is unsustainable unless the Delaware tax payers decide to heavily subsidize this sprawl promoting effort. There is a pretty good overview of the problem by Jeff Montgomery of the News Journal in today's paper. You can read it at: http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110903/NEWS02/109030324/US-301-project-loses-out-aid?odyssey=tabtopnewstextHome
Please come out to ask questions, learn what is happening, and let your views be known on this massive project. After all, no matter what, you will be paying for it.
A few potential questions to consider:
- If we must subsidize this small area with hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue, should we be building this highway, or considering other alternatives such as improved bus service or train service to get local traffic off 301?
- Do you have other pressing transportation issues that should be made a higher priority in NCC?
- Do we want to continue to claim we support Smart Growth in the New Castle County Development Plan, and then build sprawling communities dependent on interstate highways in areas with no employment base such as SNCC?
- Is this project really needed, or just a misguided effort by self serving politicians to try to create some unsustainable jobs in the short term that will make employment conditions even worse in the future due to the long term debt incurred with no clear revenue stream to pay it back?
- Do you think it is fine to subsidize this road, and want to support it?
Please come out to ask questions, learn what is happening, and let your views be known on this massive project. After all, no matter what, you will be paying for it.
I recognize that this meeting conflicts with another critical project meeting with serious transportation implications when NCC Planning Board will review the Stoltz plan (at 7PM in New Castle at 77 Reads Way). http://www2.nccde.org/landuse/PlanningBoard/PublicHearingAgenda/Default.aspx?MeetingDate=2011-09-06T04:00:00Z
For those that can make it down to Middletown, you may be able to attend early and then still get up for the 7 PM Stoltz meeting. If not, you can at least comment on the DelDOT webpage. Thank you for your consideration of this critical public issue and hope you will let Del DOT know your thoughts and views on this project.
Dave Carter
Friday, August 26, 2011
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Changes To The NCC Redevelopment Ordinance And Acierno's Rezoning For Box Stores Near Newark Are Up For Discussion At 7PM In New Castle
Been so much happening and no time to post lately!! A lot has happened for the better for New Castle County residents as a result of actions taken in Dover at the State level this year - more on that another day. As for today - don't miss the Planning Board hearing tonight at 7PM at the Gilliam Building in New Castle.
See for details:
Changes To The NCC Redevelopment Ordinance And Acierno's Rezoning For Box Stores Near Newark Are Up For Discussion At 7PM In New Castle
See for details:
Changes To The NCC Redevelopment Ordinance And Acierno's Rezoning For Box Stores Near Newark Are Up For Discussion At 7PM In New Castle
Monday, June 6, 2011
Stoltz Rezoning Is On The Agenda - Come Out For Tuesday Night's Planning Board Meeting - Set For 7PM IN New Castle
This is an important meeting for all of NCC as to whether the traffic on our roads and bridges will be unbearably clogged or will the redevelopment planned around Greenville be offset by traffic mitigation paid for by state tax payers?
Or will the public demand that developer Keith Stoltz must pay for the improvements if he wants his properties rezoned and redeveloped.
Click here for my post on the Barley Mill project and the News Journal's story
http://delawareway.blogspot.com/2011/06/barley-mill-project-doesnt-depict-class.html
Or will the public demand that developer Keith Stoltz must pay for the improvements if he wants his properties rezoned and redeveloped.
Click here for my post on the Barley Mill project and the News Journal's story
http://delawareway.blogspot.com/2011/06/barley-mill-project-doesnt-depict-class.html
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Please Make Some Calls To The Transportation/Land Use and Infrastructure Committee In Support Of The 'Traffic" Bill That DelDOT Wants To Kill!
PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD about the AGENDA for this Delaware State House committee hearing tomorrow and get people to make calls today - tonight, if possible, and attend the meeting on Wednesday. Call the committee members and Speaker Gilligan! The word is out that DelDOT doean't like this bill and that Deputy Attorney General Fritz Schrank-their lawyer, will be there to discount this bill.
WHAT: House Committee: Transportation/Land Use and Infrastructure WHO: Dems - William Carson, Jr. Chair Gerald Brady Vice Chair Edward S. Osienski Earl Jaques, Jr.; GOP - Gregory Lavelle Ruth Briggs King
WHERE: House Majority Hearing Room at 1PM
AGENDA
House Bill # 102
Primary Sponsor: Hudson Additional Sponsor(s): Sen. Blevins - CoSponsors: Reps. Outten, Ramone, Brady, Carson, Keeley, Mitchell
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO REGULATION OF TRAFFIC.
SYNOPSIS This bill requires the Department of Transportation to require certain studies, nalyses, and publications for certain development or redevelopment.
HS 1 for HB 101
Sponsor: Hudson Additional Sponsor(s): Sens. Blevins - CoSponsors: Reps. Ramone, Brady, Carson, Keeley, Mitchell; Sen. Ennis
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO AGREEMENTS THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAKES WITH LOCAL JURISDICTIONS FOR TRAFFIC STUDIES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT.
Synopsis: Memorandums of Understanding (MOAs) exist between the Department of Transportation and local governments to guide their interaction on land use development.This bill requires the Department of Transportation and local jurisdictions to rework their MOUs which may be in conflict with the authority of the Department of Transportation as set forth in this Bill. It requires the Department to put a greater emphasis on safety factors. It allows the Department to use its discretion to broaden, if necessary, any traffic study that will be required in conjunction with an application. This should help diminish future road congestion throughout the State. The bill also requires the Department to analyze the future costs to the State of construction and maintenance in conjunction with the project for which the application is submitted. It provides additional specific data that the local jurisdiction should consider in making its decision. Subsection (c) also mandatesthat traffic studies will not be based on traffic counts obtained on days or in periods when schools are not in session except on roads that haveincreased traffic due to weekend and vacation trips. Subsection (b) requires a TIS for all new development and redevelopment that will increase the traffic load. If the Department believes a full TOA is needed, it shall be treated with the same effect as the TIS. Subsection (d) requires a study of a signalized intersection in each direction from a proposed project for which the traffic needs to be studied. Subsection (e) mandates a TOA for project that will mean 50,000 square feet of additional gross floor area, or a 10% increase in traffic at the nearest large intersection not at the project entrance. Subsection (f) requires a report on bridges that may be impacted by a site development or rezoning. Subsection (g) requires DelDOT to coordinate with local jurisdictions to insure the developer meets its agreedto terms recorded on the Record Plan. Subsection (h) makes clear that the Department of Transportation has the final authority over the roads and highways of this State. The public safety must be paramount, and federal law must be considered in the air quality standards that can cut off federal funds if exceeded. Backed up traffic is the single greatest contributor to bad air quality.
WHAT: House Committee: Transportation/Land Use and Infrastructure WHO: Dems - William Carson, Jr. Chair Gerald Brady Vice Chair Edward S. Osienski Earl Jaques, Jr.; GOP - Gregory Lavelle Ruth Briggs King
WHERE: House Majority Hearing Room at 1PM
AGENDA
House Bill # 102
Primary Sponsor: Hudson Additional Sponsor(s): Sen. Blevins - CoSponsors: Reps. Outten, Ramone, Brady, Carson, Keeley, Mitchell
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO REGULATION OF TRAFFIC.
SYNOPSIS This bill requires the Department of Transportation to require certain studies, nalyses, and publications for certain development or redevelopment.
HS 1 for HB 101
Sponsor: Hudson Additional Sponsor(s): Sens. Blevins - CoSponsors: Reps. Ramone, Brady, Carson, Keeley, Mitchell; Sen. Ennis
AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 17 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO AGREEMENTS THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MAKES WITH LOCAL JURISDICTIONS FOR TRAFFIC STUDIES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT.
Synopsis: Memorandums of Understanding (MOAs) exist between the Department of Transportation and local governments to guide their interaction on land use development.This bill requires the Department of Transportation and local jurisdictions to rework their MOUs which may be in conflict with the authority of the Department of Transportation as set forth in this Bill. It requires the Department to put a greater emphasis on safety factors. It allows the Department to use its discretion to broaden, if necessary, any traffic study that will be required in conjunction with an application. This should help diminish future road congestion throughout the State. The bill also requires the Department to analyze the future costs to the State of construction and maintenance in conjunction with the project for which the application is submitted. It provides additional specific data that the local jurisdiction should consider in making its decision. Subsection (c) also mandatesthat traffic studies will not be based on traffic counts obtained on days or in periods when schools are not in session except on roads that haveincreased traffic due to weekend and vacation trips. Subsection (b) requires a TIS for all new development and redevelopment that will increase the traffic load. If the Department believes a full TOA is needed, it shall be treated with the same effect as the TIS. Subsection (d) requires a study of a signalized intersection in each direction from a proposed project for which the traffic needs to be studied. Subsection (e) mandates a TOA for project that will mean 50,000 square feet of additional gross floor area, or a 10% increase in traffic at the nearest large intersection not at the project entrance. Subsection (f) requires a report on bridges that may be impacted by a site development or rezoning. Subsection (g) requires DelDOT to coordinate with local jurisdictions to insure the developer meets its agreedto terms recorded on the Record Plan. Subsection (h) makes clear that the Department of Transportation has the final authority over the roads and highways of this State. The public safety must be paramount, and federal law must be considered in the air quality standards that can cut off federal funds if exceeded. Backed up traffic is the single greatest contributor to bad air quality.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
New Castle County Council Begins Redistricing
Delaforum: NCC Council Redistricting Maps Due By July 26th
[Click above for graph and Jim Park's story]
"The two largest County Council districts stand to lose fairly large chunks of turf when the 13-member legislative body is reapportioned this summer. They will be divided among the other 10 districts. The Council president is chosen at-large."
Dist. - Council member - Commission member
At Large: Thomas Kovach - David Tise
1. Joseph Reda - Kenneth Woods
2. Robert Weiner - Thomas Schrandt
3. Janet Kilpatrick - Joseph Amon
4. Penrose Hollins - Theodore Blunt
5. Lisa Diller - Michael Gritz
6. William Powers - Robert Workman
7. George Smiley - James Holladay
8. John Cartier - Terrance Wright
9. Timothy Sheldon - Stuart Swinger
10. Jea Street - Cynthia Turner
11. David Tackett - Jennifer Thompson
12. Bill Bell - Mark North
More from the article:
Southernmost districts, which together cover all the area south of U.S. Route 40, added a total of 13,718 residents since Council was expanded from seven to 13 members and the former Council districts were cut in half in 2003.
As a result, the sixth district deviates by +50.5% from the average population and the 12th district by +24.6%. State law permits up to a 15% deviation, plus or minus, but the state General Assembly is limiting itself to a 5% variance and it's believed county government is inclined to follow suit. If so, Council members would each represent between 42,630 and 47,116 residents
....At its first meeting, on May 16, the commission elected Ted Blunt, former president of Wilmington City Council, to be its chairman. He is the only commissioner with prior experience at redistricting.
[Click above for graph and Jim Park's story]
"The two largest County Council districts stand to lose fairly large chunks of turf when the 13-member legislative body is reapportioned this summer. They will be divided among the other 10 districts. The Council president is chosen at-large."
Dist. - Council member - Commission member
At Large: Thomas Kovach - David Tise
1. Joseph Reda - Kenneth Woods
2. Robert Weiner - Thomas Schrandt
3. Janet Kilpatrick - Joseph Amon
4. Penrose Hollins - Theodore Blunt
5. Lisa Diller - Michael Gritz
6. William Powers - Robert Workman
7. George Smiley - James Holladay
8. John Cartier - Terrance Wright
9. Timothy Sheldon - Stuart Swinger
10. Jea Street - Cynthia Turner
11. David Tackett - Jennifer Thompson
12. Bill Bell - Mark North
More from the article:
Southernmost districts, which together cover all the area south of U.S. Route 40, added a total of 13,718 residents since Council was expanded from seven to 13 members and the former Council districts were cut in half in 2003.
As a result, the sixth district deviates by +50.5% from the average population and the 12th district by +24.6%. State law permits up to a 15% deviation, plus or minus, but the state General Assembly is limiting itself to a 5% variance and it's believed county government is inclined to follow suit. If so, Council members would each represent between 42,630 and 47,116 residents
....At its first meeting, on May 16, the commission elected Ted Blunt, former president of Wilmington City Council, to be its chairman. He is the only commissioner with prior experience at redistricting.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Brookland Terrace Civic Club Park CleanUp & Egg Hunt Tomorrow
ParkCleanUp & Egg Hunt Tomorrow
B.T.C.C. Annual Park CleanUp
April 30th 9AM
Trash Bags & some pick up sticks will be provided.
Bring GlovesWe will gather 9 AM at the baseball field.
For more info contact Dave 633-0828 orChuck 999-7733
BTCC ParkCleanUp - 9AM April 30th
B.T.C.C. 2011 Dates Meetings are 7PM Marbrook Elementary School
2101 Centerville Road
Easter Egg Hunt 1:30PM April 30th
ParkCleanUp - 9AM April 30th
Meeting - Monday May 2nd 2011 -Incorporation Day Event July 30th
Meeting - Monday September 12th 2011
Meeting - Monday November 7th 2011
Brookland Terrace Civic Club
Incorporated 1940
405 Hillside Ave
Wilmington Delaware 19805
United States of America
brooklandterrace@gmail.com
http://brooklandterracecivicclub.blogspot.com
http://deantigraffitibrigades.blogspot.com
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Urgent - Save Our County - Stoltz Proposal Meeting At 6:30PM April 13th At The Tatnall School
SAVE OUR COUNTY COMMUNITY MEETING ON TRAFFIC ISSUES WITH BARLEY MILL PLAZA PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT APRIL 13, 2011 - 6:30 PM TATNALL SCHOOL – Lower School (Located in the original house at the West entrance to the school) Come hear the issues we all face with the CRG/STOLTZ compromise plan for Barley Mill Plaza. "Stoltz's proposal--which links four developments in a single package that requests an approval 'of the whole' -- is an unacceptable tactic. Each of the four development proposals--Greenville Center, 3704 Kennett Pike, Montchanin Corporate Center, and Barley Mill Plaza--should, and will be, treated as separate applications. There will also be presentations from representatives of WILMAPCO, and Civic organizations (GHADA & Civic League). DelDot and NC County Land Use have also been invited. Please distribute this notice to your neighbors and all of your friends in New Castle County. This will impact the county with traffic congestion spreading throughout the entire region.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Ask Your Senate And House Members To Resolve To Mandate An Open, Public Redistricting Process To Shape Senate And House Districts
If you read Chad Livengood's article this morning [Redistricting to shift political power ] and thought that the redrawing of legislative districts should be a process open to public view, you weren't alone. Be an empowered citizen and ask your state officials to take the lead on an open and transparent redistricting!
Mandate An Open, Public Redistricting Process To Shape Senate And House Districts - As noted in a January DelCOG-CLNCC press release:
Equal population is required in legislative districts by the U.S. Constitution. Equal elections are also required by the Delaware Constitution. "When such fundamental fairness is the goal of a legislative act, it is important that the citizens feel included." said Frank Sims of the Civic League. "This promotes greater participation in democracy and less alienation in society in general".
[A]s population centers have shifted to the South, many northern voters will be really distressed if they find two members who are very popular winding up in the same district. Being able to participate in the process will give them confidence that it was done fairly.....Districts have to be balanced also by race, political party and ethnicity as much as possible.
This presents a real challenge for the Democratic Party the first time they have controlled the entire process to do it openly.....but it will benefit them to show the public they are committed to good government. Fortunately, the New Castle County Council tried it last time and found no problems in doing so.
Tell your representation that you want to be included. Ask if they will resolve to support an open, public redistricting process!
Click here to find your Legislator (must be registered to vote)
COMPLETE LISTING OF DELAWARE ELECTED OFFICIALS.
The Redistricting Working Group of The Civic League for New Castle County and DelCOG Draft Resolutions for the House and for the Senate:
A RESOLUTION TO MANDATE AN OPEN AND TRANSPARENT REDISTRICTING PROCESS WITH PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
WHEREAS, the citizens of Delaware are entitled to comment on the redrawing of Legislative district lines as the process unfolds; and
WHEREAS, the migration of more people to the south compared to older residential patterns in this State will require the shifting of more than a few Census Tracts from within their current Representative and Senatorial districts lines to others; and
WHEREAS, not only Legislators, but their constituents, also have strong feelings about the geographic cohesiveness and the partisan balance of districts; and
WHEREAS, citizens should be able to recommend Redistricting Plans for the House and Senate they feel will represent the public interest;
NOW, THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE/HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THAT the 2010 Redistricting process for the Delaware SENATE/House of Representatives shall be open and transparent;
THAT all drawing of lines or grouping of Census Tracts to produce new Representative Districts shall take place in a public forum with the public being notified no less than 8 days in advance;
THAT Census data for Delaware and the computer program used by the General Assembly shall be available for a reasonable fee to any member of the public who wishes to purchase a copy from the Legislative Council;
THAT opportunities shall be provided for proponents of plans to present them in public to the House and/or the committees or persons charged with the task of Redistricting the House; and
THAT the final plan or plans to be voted on by the House shall be a product of this public process.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislators believe the public can fairly weigh all information that should go into considering how Census Tracts should be grouped and while they may be likely to favor people from their area, they will also be motivated to preserve fundamental fairness for all future candidates.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the objective of redistricting, as established by the United States and Delaware Constitutions, is to make elections equal, and this shall be the goal that drives the process--numerical equality in persons represented per district, along with equality of opportunity for anyone to be elected in districts balanced by party, race and ethnicity.
Monday, February 21, 2011
NEW CASTLE COUNTY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE/PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING
The New Castle County Council Executive Committee meeting scheduled for this Tuesday, February 22, 2011 has several several critical issues on it that impact all county residents. These issue address the underhanded action by Council to sneak the controversial removal of the dead restrictions for the Governor's Square project without public discussion or input, an effort to improve transparency by web streaming of public meetings, and a resolution urging council to follow the spirit of their own rules.
The specific agenda items include:
Agenda Item 4. The deed restriction was underhandedly removed as part of the consent calendar without even naming the project. If you are not familiar with this issue, please check the News Journal Article Links at:
Only the Public was hurt by Councils Hidden Vote (Click Here)
Councilman Smiley Deceived his Colleagues and Constituents (Click Here)
Agenda Item 5. There is an effort to start exploration of Internet streaming of council meeting, providing access to the public to keep track of what they are doing. This would help us ensure accountability, which is currently lacking.
Agenda Item 6. There is an resolution urging council to follow the rules and not sneak things through with listing the name such as was done for Governors Square.
All three of these items are good government actions, but they will likely be opposed by many on council.
If we want to help urge and ethical, honest, and accountable County Government, we need to show support to those council members courageous enough to push for these improvements.
IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, PLEASE ATTEND THIS MEETING, SPEAK OUT IN SUPPORT OF THIS ACTIONS, AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR ETHICAL BEHAVIOR AND GOOD GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES BY NEW CASTLE COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
A detailed agenda can be found at the link below:
Agenda Item 4. The deed restriction was underhandedly removed as part of the consent calendar without even naming the project. If you are not familiar with this issue, please check the News Journal Article Links at:
Only the Public was hurt by Councils Hidden Vote (Click Here)
Councilman Smiley Deceived his Colleagues and Constituents (Click Here)
Agenda Item 5. There is an effort to start exploration of Internet streaming of council meeting, providing access to the public to keep track of what they are doing. This would help us ensure accountability, which is currently lacking.
Agenda Item 6. There is an resolution urging council to follow the rules and not sneak things through with listing the name such as was done for Governors Square.
All three of these items are good government actions, but they will likely be opposed by many on council.
If we want to help urge and ethical, honest, and accountable County Government, we need to show support to those council members courageous enough to push for these improvements.
IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, PLEASE ATTEND THIS MEETING, SPEAK OUT IN SUPPORT OF THIS ACTIONS, AND SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR ETHICAL BEHAVIOR AND GOOD GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES BY NEW CASTLE COUNTY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
A detailed agenda can be found at the link below:
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Councilman Smiley deceived his colleagues, constituents
The editorial below appeared in the News Journal on February 16,2011. Great read and a call to action for all civic minded people in New Castle County, Delaware.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
A consent calendar means an agreement exists among the members that no one will put anything on it that needs debate. The purpose of it is to relieve a busy council from the necessity of reading everything.
Our council serves part time. By putting a resolution on it that did need debate, Councilman George Smiley deceived his colleagues and hundreds of his constituents for the benefit of a developer.
If Smiley was acting in his role as a committee chairman, he was ethically obligated to see that legislation assigned to his committee was handled properly. He has been dishonorable and he should be censured for his conduct.
But the council does not have to live with this mistake. Unlawfully enacted legislation does not become law.
The vote on lifting a deed restriction is a discretionary vote; therefore, it must be preceded by a fact-finding hearing. First error.
The citizens are entitled to testify regarding the lifting of a deed restriction to which they are essentially a party. It was a violation of their due process rights not to allow that, hence the resolution is unconstitutional. Second error.
Resolutions govern only the internal matters of a legislative body. State law specifically requires that anything done by County Council that has the force and effect of law must be done by ordinance. Third error.
Enough of the council did not cast a knowing vote – instead one based on fraud – therefore the vote was not legitimate. Fourth error.
The resolution is void ab initio. The council president can declare it that and require the sponsor to have it redrafted as an ordinance and reintroduced.
This is a test. Do we have a government of laws or not?
Christine Whitehead, Mill Creek
_______________________________________________________________________________________
A consent calendar means an agreement exists among the members that no one will put anything on it that needs debate. The purpose of it is to relieve a busy council from the necessity of reading everything.
Our council serves part time. By putting a resolution on it that did need debate, Councilman George Smiley deceived his colleagues and hundreds of his constituents for the benefit of a developer.
If Smiley was acting in his role as a committee chairman, he was ethically obligated to see that legislation assigned to his committee was handled properly. He has been dishonorable and he should be censured for his conduct.
But the council does not have to live with this mistake. Unlawfully enacted legislation does not become law.
The vote on lifting a deed restriction is a discretionary vote; therefore, it must be preceded by a fact-finding hearing. First error.
The citizens are entitled to testify regarding the lifting of a deed restriction to which they are essentially a party. It was a violation of their due process rights not to allow that, hence the resolution is unconstitutional. Second error.
Resolutions govern only the internal matters of a legislative body. State law specifically requires that anything done by County Council that has the force and effect of law must be done by ordinance. Third error.
Enough of the council did not cast a knowing vote – instead one based on fraud – therefore the vote was not legitimate. Fourth error.
The resolution is void ab initio. The council president can declare it that and require the sponsor to have it redrafted as an ordinance and reintroduced.
This is a test. Do we have a government of laws or not?
Christine Whitehead, Mill Creek
Sunday, February 13, 2011
New Castle County Government FOIA And Ethics Are Topics For Tomorrow's DECOG Meeting In Wilmington
Delaware Coalition for Open Government (DelCOG)Board of Directors meeting
February 14, 2011 - 12:00 p.m.Woodlawn Library, Wilmington
Agenda
12:00 - 12:05 I. Welcome - John Flaherty
12:05 - 12:10 2) Approval of Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2010
12:10 - 12:15 3) Treasurer’s Report - Bill Pearson
12:15 - 12:20 4) By-Law Review and Disposition of Absent Board members
12:20 - 12:45 5) New Delaware state web site highlights social media - Bill Pearson
12: 45 - 12:50 6) New Castle County FOIA Issues - Coralie Pryde
12:50 - 12:55 7) New Castle County Ethics Issues - Chris Whitehead
12:55 - 1:00 8) Open Court Testimony - Bonnie Corwin
1:00 - 1:05 9) Highmark/Blue Cross Blue Shield proposed affiliation
1:05 - 1:10 10) Public testimony
Plus, Vic Singer is on the agenda for the NCC Council's Land Use Committee meeting on Tuesday at 3PM to discuss FOIA as well. This meeting is on the 8th floor conference room in the City/County Building at 800 French Street in Wilmington.
February 14, 2011 - 12:00 p.m.Woodlawn Library, Wilmington
Agenda
12:00 - 12:05 I. Welcome - John Flaherty
12:05 - 12:10 2) Approval of Meeting Minutes of December 6, 2010
12:10 - 12:15 3) Treasurer’s Report - Bill Pearson
12:15 - 12:20 4) By-Law Review and Disposition of Absent Board members
12:20 - 12:45 5) New Delaware state web site highlights social media - Bill Pearson
12: 45 - 12:50 6) New Castle County FOIA Issues - Coralie Pryde
12:50 - 12:55 7) New Castle County Ethics Issues - Chris Whitehead
12:55 - 1:00 8) Open Court Testimony - Bonnie Corwin
1:00 - 1:05 9) Highmark/Blue Cross Blue Shield proposed affiliation
1:05 - 1:10 10) Public testimony
Plus, Vic Singer is on the agenda for the NCC Council's Land Use Committee meeting on Tuesday at 3PM to discuss FOIA as well. This meeting is on the 8th floor conference room in the City/County Building at 800 French Street in Wilmington.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Comp Plan Update Tonight And A Message From Vic Singer: "Planning board stands by oversight power"
(cross posted at DE Way - New Castle County In The News)
There's a Comp Plan Update meeting tonight at 6:30 at the Gilliam Building in the New Castle complex. The general public might take an interest. Paul Clark thinks that those who show up to meetings don't represent the public. I know that civic leaders, conservation and environmental leaders are participating in these planning activities along with the usual suspects (found on Clark's infamous memo [Paul Clark is dumb, not unethical?] with the Saul Ewing confidentiality tag). Meanwhile, those of us attending the process are still waiting for access to a report on the current Comprehensive Plan (2007).
(WNJ Delaware Voice) Vic Singer, president of the New Castle County Planning Commission writes ~ Planning board stands by oversight power
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNEXPURGATED TEXT OF OP ED ESSAY:
State and County law give the New Castle County Planning Board a large role in New Castle County's 2012 Comprehensive Plan Update (CPU) now ongoing. As PB Chairman, I must assure intense examination of facts and laws relevant to this and other assigned responsibilities, to prevent arbitrary or capricious decisions. At our 12/21 Meeting, I requested a summary of the Land Use Department (LUD) staff views on which features of the 2007 CPU need fixing, and which are fine as is.
The County's request for proposals (RFP) for Professional Planning Services for the 2012 CPU announces that "The County is currently in the process of reviewing and planning for the 2012 update. The review of accomplishments of the goals set forth in the 2007 update and an evaluation of recent economic trends are being analyzed." Further, the RFP defines as the first deliverable Consultant work product, an "Analysis of Current plan and data" due 9/1/2010 after two months of work. I requested a copy of that also.
We didn't get the LUD's staff work product, clearly public property. Nor did we get the Consultant's work product, which according to the RFP needn't be disclosed until the end of the consulting contract. Nor were we advised how to find them. Instead, the LUD General Manager (GM) said that nothing is in writing. Reacting, I called a 1/4/2010 Special Meeting (following our Public Hearing) where the LUD GM stonewalled again. Since the State's Quality of Life Act of 1988 requires an ANNUAL report presenting "an assessment and evaluation of the success or failure of the comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof," I demanded copies of the most recent version.
Incidentally, the Quality of Life Act defines "Local Planning Agency" as "the agency designated to prepare the comprehensive plan required by this subchapter," and requires County Council to "designate and by ordinance establish a 'local planning agency.' " Further, it assigns to the local planning agency "the GENERAL responsibility for the conduct of the comprehensive planning program." County Council's response: direction in the UDC requiring the Planning Board "to prepare or cause to be prepared the Comprehensive Development Plan, or any element or portion thereof" and requiring the LUD to "assist the Planning Board in its current and long range comprehensive planning responsibilities."
Instead of releasing documents that are public property, the LUD argued with the incidental issue. It interpreted other parts of State law as contradictions and thus invalidations of Council's authority to designate the local planning agency, and declared that "The contract was secured by the Department on behalf of the Department and is solely responsible for overseeing the contract and its provisions."
Clearly, the LUD GM regards the LUD as the "Local Planning Agency" for the CPU, and the Planning Board's role as subordinate. It's a nice theory but it's not what was given the force of law by the General Assembly and County Council. Contradictions among the relevant provisions of Delaware law can be found when they are isolated rather than considered cumulatively. The Delaware Supreme Court addressed precisely that issue in a 1984 case, declaring that:
"The golden rule of statutory interpretation . . . is that unreasonableness of the result
produced by one among alternative possible interpretations of a statute is reason for
rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which produces a reasonable result."
Cumulatively, the relevant provisions clearly express the General Assembly's intent for the bulk of the work of preparing and updating the Comprehensive Plan to be performed by the Land Use Department and for a separate entity to have GENERAL oversight responsibility. That shows insight into human nature. Working on complicated matters, we're often so close to the trees that we don't see the forest. The General Assembly sought to avoid that by assigning oversight responsibility to folks far away enough to see forest and trees together.
In summary, the LUD GM is concealing public information not exempted from public disclosure by Delaware's Freedom of Information Act. Concealing it from the public prompts suspicions of undetectable schemes too nefarious for sniff testing. The LUD GM is under notice that the in-house review must be exposed. Yet he stonewalls. A formal FOIA demand is now timely.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TEXT OF BOTH Feb 2, 2011 FOIA REQUESTS:
FIRST FOIA REQUEST: By this Information Request, I ask for an opportunity during usual business hours to examine in the Land Use Department facilities the following documents:
<> The review and evaluation described in the two sentences in the indented quotation below,which appear in two places: !) The General Information section in the 4/13/2010 solicitation for proposals for "PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES BID #10PP-012"; and 2):NC County's contract with JMT, the CPU Consultant engaged pursuant to BID #10PP-012, in the first two sentences of Section I.A.1.of Exhibit "A" therein.
"The County is currently in the process of reviewing and planning for the
2012 update. The review of accomplishments of the goals set forth in the
2007 update and an evaluation of recent economic trends are being analyzed."
<> The ANNUAL REPORT for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 required by 9 Del. C 2658(c) and (d) of the Quality of Life Act of 1988 to be submitted to the Governor's Advisory Council on Planning Coordination, which "shall present an assessment and evaluation of the success or failure of the comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof . . .".
SECOND INFORMATION REQUEST:
By this Information Request, I ask for an opportunity during usual business hours to examine in the Land Use Department facilities the CPU Consultant's response to the DELIVERABLES SECTION of the 4/13/2010 solicitation for proposals for "PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES BID #10PP-012" which cites as the first "deliverable" the Consultant's "ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PLAN AND DATA" covering the period between 7/1/2010 and 9/1/2010.
That response is further described in the resulting contract, with Johnston, Mirmiran & Thompson, JMT, dated 6/30/2010, wherein Section 1 binds JMT to perform all services necessary and appropriate to complete the tasks defined and set out in JMT's 6/17/2010 proposal responding to the #10PP-012 solicitation and incorporates the proposal into the contract as Exhibit A. Within Exhibit A, Section I.A.1 repeats the following two key "Project Background" sentences from the County's solicitation, therein termed "Background," with an added third sentence, the underlined portion of which describes what I seek to examine:
"The County is currently in the process of reviewing and planning for the 2012 update. The review of accomplishments of the goals set forth in the 2007 update and an evaluation of recent economic trends are being analyzed. JMT's Comprehensive Plan Team will conduct a review of the current plan, analyze data, conduct public workshops and other means to actively engage input on (sic) from the community on various elements of the Plan, assist in drafting Plan goals, and objectives and draft the 2012 Plan. . ."
At this point, the requests are from me as an individual rather than me as Planning Board Chairman, for several obvious reasons.
There's a Comp Plan Update meeting tonight at 6:30 at the Gilliam Building in the New Castle complex. The general public might take an interest. Paul Clark thinks that those who show up to meetings don't represent the public. I know that civic leaders, conservation and environmental leaders are participating in these planning activities along with the usual suspects (found on Clark's infamous memo [Paul Clark is dumb, not unethical?] with the Saul Ewing confidentiality tag). Meanwhile, those of us attending the process are still waiting for access to a report on the current Comprehensive Plan (2007).
(WNJ Delaware Voice) Vic Singer, president of the New Castle County Planning Commission writes ~ Planning board stands by oversight power
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UNEXPURGATED TEXT OF OP ED ESSAY:
State and County law give the New Castle County Planning Board a large role in New Castle County's 2012 Comprehensive Plan Update (CPU) now ongoing. As PB Chairman, I must assure intense examination of facts and laws relevant to this and other assigned responsibilities, to prevent arbitrary or capricious decisions. At our 12/21 Meeting, I requested a summary of the Land Use Department (LUD) staff views on which features of the 2007 CPU need fixing, and which are fine as is.
The County's request for proposals (RFP) for Professional Planning Services for the 2012 CPU announces that "The County is currently in the process of reviewing and planning for the 2012 update. The review of accomplishments of the goals set forth in the 2007 update and an evaluation of recent economic trends are being analyzed." Further, the RFP defines as the first deliverable Consultant work product, an "Analysis of Current plan and data" due 9/1/2010 after two months of work. I requested a copy of that also.
We didn't get the LUD's staff work product, clearly public property. Nor did we get the Consultant's work product, which according to the RFP needn't be disclosed until the end of the consulting contract. Nor were we advised how to find them. Instead, the LUD General Manager (GM) said that nothing is in writing. Reacting, I called a 1/4/2010 Special Meeting (following our Public Hearing) where the LUD GM stonewalled again. Since the State's Quality of Life Act of 1988 requires an ANNUAL report presenting "an assessment and evaluation of the success or failure of the comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof," I demanded copies of the most recent version.
Incidentally, the Quality of Life Act defines "Local Planning Agency" as "the agency designated to prepare the comprehensive plan required by this subchapter," and requires County Council to "designate and by ordinance establish a 'local planning agency.' " Further, it assigns to the local planning agency "the GENERAL responsibility for the conduct of the comprehensive planning program." County Council's response: direction in the UDC requiring the Planning Board "to prepare or cause to be prepared the Comprehensive Development Plan, or any element or portion thereof" and requiring the LUD to "assist the Planning Board in its current and long range comprehensive planning responsibilities."
Instead of releasing documents that are public property, the LUD argued with the incidental issue. It interpreted other parts of State law as contradictions and thus invalidations of Council's authority to designate the local planning agency, and declared that "The contract was secured by the Department on behalf of the Department and is solely responsible for overseeing the contract and its provisions."
Clearly, the LUD GM regards the LUD as the "Local Planning Agency" for the CPU, and the Planning Board's role as subordinate. It's a nice theory but it's not what was given the force of law by the General Assembly and County Council. Contradictions among the relevant provisions of Delaware law can be found when they are isolated rather than considered cumulatively. The Delaware Supreme Court addressed precisely that issue in a 1984 case, declaring that:
"The golden rule of statutory interpretation . . . is that unreasonableness of the result
produced by one among alternative possible interpretations of a statute is reason for
rejecting that interpretation in favor of another which produces a reasonable result."
Cumulatively, the relevant provisions clearly express the General Assembly's intent for the bulk of the work of preparing and updating the Comprehensive Plan to be performed by the Land Use Department and for a separate entity to have GENERAL oversight responsibility. That shows insight into human nature. Working on complicated matters, we're often so close to the trees that we don't see the forest. The General Assembly sought to avoid that by assigning oversight responsibility to folks far away enough to see forest and trees together.
In summary, the LUD GM is concealing public information not exempted from public disclosure by Delaware's Freedom of Information Act. Concealing it from the public prompts suspicions of undetectable schemes too nefarious for sniff testing. The LUD GM is under notice that the in-house review must be exposed. Yet he stonewalls. A formal FOIA demand is now timely.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TEXT OF BOTH Feb 2, 2011 FOIA REQUESTS:
FIRST FOIA REQUEST: By this Information Request, I ask for an opportunity during usual business hours to examine in the Land Use Department facilities the following documents:
<> The review and evaluation described in the two sentences in the indented quotation below,which appear in two places: !) The General Information section in the 4/13/2010 solicitation for proposals for "PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES BID #10PP-012"; and 2):NC County's contract with JMT, the CPU Consultant engaged pursuant to BID #10PP-012, in the first two sentences of Section I.A.1.of Exhibit "A" therein.
"The County is currently in the process of reviewing and planning for the
2012 update. The review of accomplishments of the goals set forth in the
2007 update and an evaluation of recent economic trends are being analyzed."
<> The ANNUAL REPORT for the years 2008, 2009, and 2010 required by 9 Del. C 2658(c) and (d) of the Quality of Life Act of 1988 to be submitted to the Governor's Advisory Council on Planning Coordination, which "shall present an assessment and evaluation of the success or failure of the comprehensive plan or element or portion thereof . . .".
SECOND INFORMATION REQUEST:
By this Information Request, I ask for an opportunity during usual business hours to examine in the Land Use Department facilities the CPU Consultant's response to the DELIVERABLES SECTION of the 4/13/2010 solicitation for proposals for "PROFESSIONAL PLANNING SERVICES BID #10PP-012" which cites as the first "deliverable" the Consultant's "ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PLAN AND DATA" covering the period between 7/1/2010 and 9/1/2010.
That response is further described in the resulting contract, with Johnston, Mirmiran & Thompson, JMT, dated 6/30/2010, wherein Section 1 binds JMT to perform all services necessary and appropriate to complete the tasks defined and set out in JMT's 6/17/2010 proposal responding to the #10PP-012 solicitation and incorporates the proposal into the contract as Exhibit A. Within Exhibit A, Section I.A.1 repeats the following two key "Project Background" sentences from the County's solicitation, therein termed "Background," with an added third sentence, the underlined portion of which describes what I seek to examine:
"The County is currently in the process of reviewing and planning for the 2012 update. The review of accomplishments of the goals set forth in the 2007 update and an evaluation of recent economic trends are being analyzed. JMT's Comprehensive Plan Team will conduct a review of the current plan, analyze data, conduct public workshops and other means to actively engage input on (sic) from the community on various elements of the Plan, assist in drafting Plan goals, and objectives and draft the 2012 Plan. . ."
At this point, the requests are from me as an individual rather than me as Planning Board Chairman, for several obvious reasons.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Reminder: 2012 Comprehensive Plan Update Meeting Tonight In New Castle
Read more about the saga of the missing 2007 Comp Plan report:
NCC Comp Plan: A Blueprint For Legislation Relating To Zoning, Community Design And Redevelopment
NCC Comp Plan: A Blueprint For Legislation Relating To Zoning, Community Design And Redevelopment
Friday, January 28, 2011
John Flaherty Sends Along Good News From The State House - Unanimous Passage Of The FOIA Bill!
BENNETT FOIA BILL UNANIMOUSLY PASSES HOUSE
HB 5 sets deadline for governments to respond to requests
DOVER – Legislation setting a deadline for government entities and other public bodies to respond to a Freedom of Information request unanimously passed the House Tuesday.
Under House Bill 5, sponsored by Rep. E. Bradford “Brad” Bennett, any FOIA request for a public record must be granted within 15 business days from the receipt of the request. However, the public entity can extend that deadline if the request is for “voluminous records, requires legal advice” or if the record is in storage. In those situations, the agency or entity must inform the person making the request within 15 business days of the need for additional time.
Currently, state law does not include any time limit for public bodies to respond to or fulfill FOIA requests.
“A request can sit for months without a response,” said Rep. Bennett, D-Dover South. “Public information should be readily accessible to any citizen, and any person who makes a FOIA request for public records deserves a prompt response. This bill further improves the FOIA legislation passed last session. It makes us a more transparent and open state. By adding these provisions, we will go from being one of the least transparent states to one of the more transparent.”
HB 5 is similar to legislation that passed the House last session, with a couple small changes. Rep. Bennett said he extended the deadline – it was 10 business days in the previous measure – after hearing some concerns raised last session.
HB 5 sets deadline for governments to respond to requests
DOVER – Legislation setting a deadline for government entities and other public bodies to respond to a Freedom of Information request unanimously passed the House Tuesday.
Under House Bill 5, sponsored by Rep. E. Bradford “Brad” Bennett, any FOIA request for a public record must be granted within 15 business days from the receipt of the request. However, the public entity can extend that deadline if the request is for “voluminous records, requires legal advice” or if the record is in storage. In those situations, the agency or entity must inform the person making the request within 15 business days of the need for additional time.
Currently, state law does not include any time limit for public bodies to respond to or fulfill FOIA requests.
“A request can sit for months without a response,” said Rep. Bennett, D-Dover South. “Public information should be readily accessible to any citizen, and any person who makes a FOIA request for public records deserves a prompt response. This bill further improves the FOIA legislation passed last session. It makes us a more transparent and open state. By adding these provisions, we will go from being one of the least transparent states to one of the more transparent.”
HB 5 is similar to legislation that passed the House last session, with a couple small changes. Rep. Bennett said he extended the deadline – it was 10 business days in the previous measure – after hearing some concerns raised last session.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance And Civic League For NCC Both Meet This Week
The MLCA monthly meeting is THIS Thursday, January 20th at the Mill Creek Fire Hall, starting at 7pm. Civic Leaders in organizations between Wilmington and Newark are always welcome.
MLCA TOPICS include:
- Council President Election (Tom Kovach will be invited)
- Missing annual land use comprehensive plan reports (Ref: State Law 9 Del. C. 2658(c) and (d)
- Proposed changes to Redevelopment Ordinance
- Update on Development projects at Limestone/Milltown Rds, Little Falls Village and Barley Mill Plaza
- Rejection of proposed change to Little Falls entrance by DelDOT
- No update on DNREC HSCA Plan for Little Falls area development
- Newark Area Hospice's changes to their Development Plan
- DelDOT stance on road improvements regarding Greenville Overlook I (original Hercules effort)
- Feedback from this month’s Civic League for New Castle County (CLNCC) on Jan 18th. Read the Newsletter at http://www.civicleagueforncc.org/.
You are also encouraged to attend monthly meetings of the Civic League for New Castle County Next Meeting: January 18th at 7 PM, Delaware State Police Troop 2 Building, 100 La Grange Ave, Newark, DE.
Agenda: Legislative Proposals.
Get info and directions at http://www.civicleagueforncc.org/
Bill Franey, President, Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance (MLCA)
MLCA TOPICS include:
- Council President Election (Tom Kovach will be invited)
- Missing annual land use comprehensive plan reports (Ref: State Law 9 Del. C. 2658(c) and (d)
- Proposed changes to Redevelopment Ordinance
- Update on Development projects at Limestone/Milltown Rds, Little Falls Village and Barley Mill Plaza
- Rejection of proposed change to Little Falls entrance by DelDOT
- No update on DNREC HSCA Plan for Little Falls area development
- Newark Area Hospice's changes to their Development Plan
- DelDOT stance on road improvements regarding Greenville Overlook I (original Hercules effort)
- Feedback from this month’s Civic League for New Castle County (CLNCC) on Jan 18th. Read the Newsletter at http://www.civicleagueforncc.org/.
You are also encouraged to attend monthly meetings of the Civic League for New Castle County Next Meeting: January 18th at 7 PM, Delaware State Police Troop 2 Building, 100 La Grange Ave, Newark, DE.
Agenda: Legislative Proposals.
Get info and directions at http://www.civicleagueforncc.org/
Bill Franey, President, Milltown-Limestone Civic Alliance (MLCA)
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Planning Ahead For NCC Comprehensive Plan Update Meeting # 1 - Land Use
[Cross-posted - Is NCC Going Into 2012 Planning Without Any Discussion Of Whether, Or How Successfully, The Goals And Objectives Of The 2007 Planning Update Were Met? ]
Jan. 26th 2011 (6:30PM at 77 Reads Way) - NCC Comprehensive Plan Update Meeting ~ Public Meeting #1 Land Use Agenda pdf
1). Welcome / Introductions
2). Overview of the Comprehensive Planning process: Register Email/Twitter and Process Flow Diagram
3). Update on accomplishments from 2007 Comprehensive Plan (the following list of 2007 accomplishments was taken from the Kick-Off Meeting Summary pdf ~)
- Accessory Dwelling Unit code amendment.
- Drafting of the Water Management Code.
- Implementation of the two-step development process.
- Cooperating with DelDOT - prioritizing of transportation projects.
- Affordable Housing code amendment.
- Improved Village/Hamlet provisions.
- Updates to the Building and Property Maintenance Codes.
- SNCC Master Plan process, ongoing.
- MOU for preservation of Red Clay Scenic Byway.
4). Discussion on Land Use: This meeting: Where we've been and where we are. Jan 26 2011 Vision for the future: Review and Refinement of Vision Statement, Goals and Objectives and Vision Mapping activity
5). Facilitated Activities /Public Participation Round 1
- Mapping Activity: Community Assets
- Mapping Activity: Issues and Concerns
6). Facilitated Activities /Public Participation Round 2
- Mapping Activity: Issues and Concerns
- Mapping Activity: Community Assets
7). Visual Preference Survey
8). Closing / Next Step
9). Reminder: Comment Cards and Email RegistrationPlus the Summary Kick-Off Meeting pdf - activity outcomes
A. Identification of Community Issues and Concerns:Population Density
Unincorporated land
Space for new high-paying jobs
Parks near future development areas
Development/Redevelopment regulations
Transportation standards
Attract young people/recent graduates
Preserve agriculture and open space
Mixed use walkable communities
New housing only where infrastructure exists
Avoid "fad" planning
Community interconnectivity
Community character
Promote redevelopmentB. Assess/Prioritize Delaware Community Design Core Values:
1). Land features before land design
2). Land design before yield
3). Cluster before sprawl
4). Scale before statement
5). Pedestrian before vehicle
6). Context before application
7). Sensibility before fad
8). Neighborhood before individual ownership
9). Community inclusion before site exclusion
10). Community character before ordinance
11). Land planning and architectural design before engineeringC. Reactions to 2007 Comprehensive Plan Vision Statements:
List of vision statements is too lengthy
Eliminate redundancy in vision
Add remediation of brownfields as a priority
Is development pattern economically viable?
How much development is too much?
Vision statements are too vague
Need to plan for future population and employment
Should articulate where we want the community to go
Infrastructure vs development
Need for multi-modal mobility for seniors
Consistent "Community character"
Consistency from Land Use Dept.
Need consistent County codes
Desire for form-based codes
We should care how the County looks
Communicate with the cities
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
According To The Cape Gazette, So Far, CLNCC Working Group Gets Some Press, Some Supporters But No Sponsors For Their Redistricting Bill
Updated Feb. 2011: Good to report that there is currently a lineup of support and interested sponsors of this bill. Stay tuned!
~~~~~
(Cape Gazette) Kara Nuzback reports ~ Activist calls for transparency in redistricting - Senate leader expects change to come slowly
See: DE Way ~ Sims Finds Sponsorless Support For 146th General Assembly Redistricting Bill for more from the CLNCC working group and the draft of the bill.
~~~~~
(Cape Gazette) Kara Nuzback reports ~ Activist calls for transparency in redistricting - Senate leader expects change to come slowly
[Frank] Sims said legislators on both sides of the aisle have already pledged support for the resolution, including Rep. Earl Jaques, D-Glasgow, Rep. Deborah Hudson, R-Fairthorne, Sen. Bethany Hall-Long, D-Glasgow and Sen. Gary Simpson, R-Milford, but no one has volunteered to sponsor it. “We’ve got to open the process, or for the next 10 years, people will not be represented,” said Sims, who serves on the civic league’s board of directors.
“People are nervous about this kind of change,” said Senate Majority Leader Patricia Blevins, D-Elsmere. Blevins said in the past two legislative sessions, she has attempted to introduce a bill to establish an independent redistricting commission. The bill was never put on the agenda.“The districts are intended to be for the benefit of the voters, not for the benefit of people in office,” Blevins said. She said it is important future redistricting take place more openly than in the past. Blevins said she knows there will not be time to pass the bill, fund and establish a commission before redistricting this year, but she wants the law on the books for the 2020 census.“It’s a change you don’t shove down people’s throats,” Blevins said.
...Sims said he is concerned Democrats will use redistricting to secure their incumbency by redrawing electoral lines in their favor, a process known as gerrymandering. “It makes our votes null and void,” Sims said. The former chairman of Delaware’s Independent Party filed a lawsuit against the Legislature in Superior Court in 2002, when the General Assembly failed to redraw district lines. Ultimately, electoral lines had to be redrawn, but Sims said, it was done behind closed doors.“Most people don’t have any idea this is going on,” Sims said. “The people need to be involved.”Sims’ resolution emphasizes an open and transparent process for redistricting involving public participation.
See: DE Way ~ Sims Finds Sponsorless Support For 146th General Assembly Redistricting Bill for more from the CLNCC working group and the draft of the bill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)