Larry Jarboe for St. Mary's County Commissioner

[charlie]

You two must have short term memory loss. It was the Republican board that approved the strip mall and the Democratic board and Shelby who had to take the heat for it.

[chris brugman]

The past board voted 4-1 to approve the PUD (Planned Unit Development) First Colony, and Larry Jarboe was the only commissioner who voted against it. He stated that 235 needed to be widenend first before he could support it. Once again Charlie, you are showing that you do not know the facts.

FYI, the land that First Colony sits on was zoned for commercial development by Democratic boards of commissioners. Are you suggesting that we (the Republican Board) should have went around changing rules for political reasons? The owner invested in this property, the property was zoned commercial, he waited (more than 20 years) until the population could support the business, and he went through al the legal requirements necessary to build. If you don't like it, you should have lobbied the past Democratic boards to change the zoning from commercial to rural preservation. Stop blaming everyone except those that are responsible.

Besides, I'm not sure if you can call First Colony a strip mall. Lowe's was looking for more than three years to relocate, so whether they did it at First Colony or another parcel they were going to build a bigger store regardless. First Colony actually placed NEW businesses all in one area preventing the massive sprawl that we are now seeing with the Wawa's and Sheetz popping up everywhere.

I dare say that if you asked, the majority of folks like Target, Giant, Lowes, Staples, Michaels, and the restaurants that are at First Colony. Not to mention the jobs they provide for the local economy and the tax revenue they generate so these commissioners can buy more friends:)

The "heat" that you saying the current board is under is their own fault. They are committing extortion by demanding that BJ's Wholesale Wharehouse build the county a public swimming pool in exchange for their vote. Yet another example of their mindset of getting something in return for their votes.

Another glaring example of not knowing the facts!

[charlie]

"Me thinks thou does't protest too much" If you aren't bitter why are you trying to get Larry Jarboe back in office? What's the point? What do you hope to prove that everyone doesn't already know?

[vraiblonde]

Well, I freely admit that I'm bitter and would love nothing more than to see Larry Jarboe back on the BCC.

Chris is correct in saying that he wasn't interested in a second term - if you recall, he was quite public about it. Go to the Enterprise office and go through their archives if you don't believe me.

[Christy]

"Me thinks thou does't protest too much" If you aren't bitter why are you trying to get Larry Jarboe back in office? What's the point? What do you hope to prove that everyone doesn't already know?

Me thinks you can't dispute Mr. Brugman's facts.

He's simply responding to questions/statements that you've thrown up here.

Why are you so bitter in regards to Larry Jarboe?

[chris brugman]

Originally posted by charlie
"Me thinks thou does't protest too much" If you aren't bitter why are you trying to get Larry Jarboe back in office? What's the point? What do you hope to prove that everyone doesn't already know?

I've always been afraid to use your quote here because I never knew how to spell does't

You raise a valid question and a good question. The only reason I am backing Larry is because I know him extremely well and I know what an ethical guy he is. I don't agree with him on many issues, and he doesn't agree with me on a lot of issues. However, I am so impressed with the guy's honesty and integrity and the fact that he loves being a county commissioner for one reason and one reason only, to give the blue collar, hard working, average citizen of this county a voice in government.

Mark my word Charlie, if Larry is elected, call him and ask to meet with him. Tell him you are against him but that you want to give him a chance to change your mind. If you sit down and talk with him for more than 10 minutes you'll know what I am speaking about. He's such a down-to-earth guy, a guy who is truly compassionate about helping others. He doesn't give it lip service, he carries it out. He was/is a hard-working guy that works tirelessly to resolve issues that genuinly effect the average person. He won't check to see what party affiliation someone is or if that person gave him money or not. If it is a genuine issue there isn't a stronger advocate for Joe Citizen than Larry Jarboe. In some ways he reminds me of some of the good qualities that Senator Roy Dyson has.

As far as proving anything, I only want to defend my hard work and our record as commissioners while we were in office. I know that we got the hell beat out of us for four years and the fact is that it always wasn't about the issues. Sure, sometimes we deserved it, but more often than not, it was driven by politics. I'm sure if you were in my shoes you would do the same.

[Tonio]

Originally posted by Nodnarb


Chris - first of all, I am a registered Democrat, although you probably couldn't tell that if you looked at my voting record. So, I can't even vote in this race.

You are talking about property rights, but isn't Larry Jarboe in favor of 1 in 20 zoning, which would require you to have 20 acres to build a home in St. Mary's? Unless you're in a planned development with water and sewer, Larry would want you to have 20 acres to build your home. With 1 in 5, our true ratio of buildable land is close to 1 in 20 using Aleck Lokers' numbers. This one issue, for me, is enough of a reason to vote against Larry. I don't think we need the land grabbing regulators elected to office. I think Larry's support of 1:20 was a tactical error, and on Tuesday, we'll find out.

If I recall correctly, 5 acres or 20 acres aren't the lot sizes. 1-in-5 simply means you can subdivide a 5-acre parcel to get one home lot, leaving the rest of the land undeveloped. If you have 10 acres, you can get two home lots, and so forth. I don't know how big the actual home lots would be--my guess would be 1/2 acre to 1 acre. I repeat--no one to my knowledge advocated a home lot size of 20 acres or even 5 acres.

I was disappointed that the commissioners wouldn't compromise on this issue. I think most people on both sides of the issue could have lived with something like 1-in-10 or 1-in-12.

[chris brugman]

You're right Tonio, the 1-5 zoning allows one unit per 5 acres. This is such a difficult issue and there are valid sides on both sides of this argument. However, let's take a hypothetical situation and apply the zoning options here.

A farmer has 200 acres in a rural preservation district. With 1-5, he is permitted to build 40 lots. These lots can range in any size so long as the 200 acres isn't exceeded. When this zoning method is applied it not only drives the cost of homes up, it actually conributes to sprawl because now we need more land in the rural areas to develop. Even if it was zoned 1-20, now we're looking at 10 lots instead of 40 lots for the same 200 acre farm. This will create a heavier demand on land because the farm that used to hold 40 lots (with 1-5) now will only hold 10. So what happens then? The farm next door will be developed, and so forth, and so on. I'm not sold on the 1-5 or the 1-20 zoning as a way to preserve our rural areas. I think it is political fodder to make people think they are doing something about sprawl.

What I find amusing about this debate is that the same commissioners who want to increase zoning from 1-5 to 1-10 or even 1-20 are clamoring about affordable housing. What do you think will happen to the price of land if 1-20 were approved. A farmer wants to farm if it is still profitable. But when his children don't want to farm, when government is trying to make the number 1 cash crop in the State of MD (tobacco) illegal, and when the government imposes more and more restrictions on what can and cannot be done with private property, what else is a farmer to do? Donate his land? Everyone knows that farmers are land rich and cash poor. If farming is no longer profitable, how will he pay the taxes on the farm?

The farmer that owned 100 acres with 1-3 zoning could build 33 lots and sell them at affordable prices and still make a decent profit to retire on. If 1-20 were passed, that same farmer would only be able to build 5 lots. Do you think the cost of those five lots would be the same per lot as the 33 lots on the same 100 acre farm. Of course not. Again, the farmer has to make a profit in order to support his family for the rest of his life. The cost of those 5 lots will be so expensive that only the rich, high-income people will be able to enjoy living in rural areas while the peons and peasants are forced to live in the highly developed areas.

As I said, this is a difficult issue and I'm not sure what the answer is. If you ask me, I believe it lies somewhere in the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, but we have to be very careful because now we are talking about depriving people of property rights.

Remember, when this board raised the zoning from 1-3 to 1-5, that farmer that could build 33 homes on a 100 acre farm are now only able to build 20 homes. Why, because the commissioners said so. Were the property owners compensated for the loss of 13 building lots? Of course not. Their land was downzoned and basically robbed of value without just compensation.

In all honesty, I will compliment Commissioners Raley and Mattingly for having the guts to stand up to public pressure to raise it to 1-10 or 1-20 and voting for the 1-5. Even though I doubt either solution will solve the problem, 1-5 was the least punitive as far as property rights are concerned.

This is definately a tough issue that has many sides. I'm sure someone can counter my argument and make perfect sense, but does that make them right? Does it make me right? Who the hell knows?

[Tonio]

You made some good points, Chris. Do you see the 1-in-20 zoning as raising home prices only because of supply and demand (fewer homes on the market)?

The problem behind the zoning conflict is the fact that farmers have to sell their land in order to survive or to retire. That to me is outrageous. I don't have a solution for this.

[chris brugman]

Tonio, I believe the cost of homes at 1-20 would increase for several reasons. Supply and demand, farmers certainly would need to make up the difference in lost profits for the downzoning of their property, and frankly, enough people down here make a lot of money so they have it to spend on a nice home with some property.

It is a tough issue and I'm not sure any one person has the solution. It probably is a combination of ideas, but I will always favor the solution that is less restrictive and less punitive when it comes to property rights.