Larry Jarboe for St. Mary's County Commissioner

[Oz (Premo)]

Originally posted by chris brugman
There are huge differences between Larry Jarboe and Anderson/Randall. Larry tried to support incentives versus punitive regs and draconian measures. I'm not sure how Larry stands on the 1 in 20 zoning, that's the first I've heard of it and I'd be surprised if he supported it. I know he was against it when he was a commissioner.

Another major difference in land regs is who they are going to benefit financially. i can assure you with 100 percent certainty that Larry would never vote to zone property commercial to benefit his friends and contributors. You cannot say that about Randall and Anderson.

I agree with that. I believe that if Larry says something, he will stand by his word. If you verify what Larry's 1:20 position is, it would be nice to hear it and have a clear understanding of his viewpoint.

The other thing that concerns me about Larry's campaign is that he talks about the WaWa's and Sheetz popping up on every corner, and how this board allowed that to happen. Shouldn't the previous board have done something to bring our 1980's zoning ordinances up-to-date so that the current board didn't have outdated laws to work with? It doesn't seem fair that Larry can pound on this board for allowing something that his board didn't take care of first. You guys had to know the county's zoning was mid-80's and needed updating to prevent the very thing that Larry now attacks? We knew about the Pax River operations expanding before you guys took office. The Zoning laws were written before BRAC effected St. Mary's, so what prevented you guys from updating the Zoning laws?

[Oz (Premo)]

Originally posted by chris brugman
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.

I think Mrs Guazzo was vote #3 on this - you forgot her!

[chris brugman]

Nodnarb,

The zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Land Use Plan is a long and complex story, but I'll try my best to condense it and still allow it to make sense.

When we took office, we knew the land use policies were outdated. We immediately took action and met with the Planning Commission which, by law, was responsible for writing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan with the use of our Planning and Zoning staff. At the time, Joe Anderson and Shelby Guazzo were both members of this commission, a commission that was nominated by Democrats I might add.

We met with the Planning Commission (PC) for months and months if not over the course of a year and a half. The majority of commissioners, Eagan, Brugman and Jarboe, instructed the PC to draft a land use plan that used incentives rather than punitive regs that would help preserve our rural character, plan wisely, yet still respect property rights to fullest extent possible. We went round and round with these folks, but for some reason, they refused to listen to the "elected" commissioners and drafted a draconian plan that was full of new regulations. In my opinion Nod, the commissioners were elected by the voters of the county so they had the mandate on the philosophical approach of the land plan, not the politically appointed PC.

Anyway, after 2-3 years of drafting this plan, the PC (Guazzo and Anderson included), presented this 10 inch nightmare of a document and we were stunned. We told them over and over that we would reject any plan that used regs rather than incentives to acheive our goals. We all agreed on the fundamental goals of saving farms, preserving rural character, and all that crap. The difference was the approach. They favored draconian, socialist land grabs and we favored incentives and financial rewards for achieving the goals, such as a proven TDR (Transferable Developement Rights) Plan that was successful in other parts of the country. They ignored us.

We immediately voted the plan down. At the time, Anderson and Guazzo's five year term was up and we replaced them with people who had common sense and would respect property rights. We told the PC to go back to work, hired an outside firm to come in and help draft the plan to get this thing passed as soon as possible because we knew how important it was to get this thing finished due to the rapid growth that was occuring.

The second Land Use Plan was literally finished after the elections but before the new board took office. The law required us to have a public hearing and hold the record open for 60 days after the hearing. Rather than be arrogant A$$holes and pass this thing at the end of our term, we respected the voters and allowed the new board to make the decision.

What did they do? They immediately rejected the second plan that had addressed the TDR issue and elimated much of the regs, they fired the consultant, they removed the common sense volunteers we appointed to the PC in the middle of their terms (we at least waited until the terms expired), and they started all over again.

When the smoke cleared, it took them more than three years to finally get a plan approved and the zoning ordinance to pass. Why so long? Get this, they were concerned about the TDR program and they got the hell beat out of them by land owners from all over the county at the public hearings. Why? Because the people were outraged at the draconian measures this board was about to approve. They then tried to weasal out of it by saying they weren't actually prepared to take this to public hearing and that they weren't aware of what was in the plan.

In my opinion, I honestly believe that Anderson and Guazzo were part of an effort to delay the land use plan adoption to hurt our board during the elections. They both new they were going to run for office and this would be one heck of a campaign issue to run on for them if we had failed to get the darned thing approved. And sure enough, it worked. They both used this as the focal point of their campaigns when in fact they were the main reason the plan wasn't approved in the first place. Why else would they intentionally ignore us and give us a plan they knew we would reject? No one has ever asked that question and I doubt if they would give an honest answer.

These are the type of people we are dealing with Nod. They put politics ahead of the good of this county. I sincerely believe this and nothing can change it. I've seen it, I've lived it, I've experienced what these people are capable of doing.

[chris brugman]

Originally posted by Nodnarb


I think Mrs Guazzo was vote #3 on this - you forgot her!

Lots of laughs, Nod. I didn't forget her, I just know the real reason she caved on her 1-20 stance and it's hard to give her credit for her vote when it was in exchange for support from developers in the upcoming elections. I was told this by a very credible member of the Chamber of Commerce and a member of the county's Economic Development Commission. Ironically, the people who are now her biggest critics were her biggest supporters in the last election. She stabbed them in the back by going with the 1-5 and they are furious. I'm sorry to say that a part of me finds it amusing.

[Oz (Premo)]

Originally posted by chris brugman


Lots of laughs, Nod. I didn't forget her, I just know the real reason she caved on her 1-20 stance and it's hard to give her credit for her vote when it was in exchange for support from developers in the upcoming elections. I was told this by a very credible member of the Chamber of Commerce and a member of the county's Economic Development Commission. Ironically, the people who are now her biggest critics were her biggest supporters in the last election. She stabbed them in the back by going with the 1-5 and they are furious. I'm sorry to say that a part of me finds it amusing.

Thanks to the anonymity of these forums, (at least in my case) we won't go into "credible" names although it's pretty easy to figure out if the person you refer to is involved in both.

However, one thing about Shelby's reputation on the planning commission was that she did her homework. Is there the slightest chance that she simply did her homework on One-In-Whatever, and figured that the 1:5 was the best answer. Maybe the other 2 commissioners you mentioned influenced her? Your explanation on 1:20 above, was a good one. Surely she could see the same thing. You really can't give Raley and Mattingly all the credit because without that 3rd vote, it wouldn't have mattered. The Chamber came out strong for the 1:5 and that's a big lobby. Isn't politics about listening to your constituency and THEN taking a decision? Politics aside, Mrs Guazzo simply could have done her homework and taken the best decision based on the information available?

[Tonio]

Originally posted by 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.

One additional question--I had always assumed that the farmers who sell their property to developers don't really make that much money on the deal. I thought that most of the profit went to the the developers. Do you know?

Anyway, I feel that 1-in-5 is too permissive and 1-in-20 is too restrictive.

[chris brugman]

Originally posted by Nodnarb
However, one thing about Shelby's reputation on the planning commission was that she did her homework. Is there the slightest chance that she simply did her homework on One-In-Whatever, and figured that the 1:5 was the best answer. Maybe the other 2 commissioners you mentioned influenced her? Your explanation on 1:20 above, was a good one. Politics aside, Mrs Guazzo simply could have done her homework and taken the best decision based on the information available?

Nod, I never said that Guazzo was a stupid woman. In fact, she would be far less dangerous if she didn't do her homework

Nod, for as long as I've know Guazzo, she has always been the 1:20 candidate. On the planning commission, as a candidate, and even as a commissioner until it was time for the vote. I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but part of me refuses. What changed? As you stated above, she has always done her homework. What homework did she do right before the vote that she didn't do over the past 10 years as a planning commissioner, candidate, and commissioner to all of a sudden make her a firm believer in 1:5?

Here is what I think. They took the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to public hearing and got the living hell beat out of them. They were literally stunned by the reaction of the public. I know from my friend that Guazzo then attended a few of the EDC and Chamber meetings. They layed it on the line for her. I believe that she thought her re-election chances were in shambles unless she caved on the 1:20 and switched to 1:5. If this reasoning suggests that she simply listened to what her constituents told her and and as you say, she did her homework, I would agree that she deserves credit.

But I don't buy it. I think she caved, she stabbed her original campaign supporters in the back, she went against what her core principles for as long as she's been in public office, and I really believe it was because of the elections. To me, the worst kind of politician is one that votes to save their own skin. I'd rather have an honest commissioner who I disagreed with on a few issues but were voting based on ethics and principles rather than polls and finger licking/wind checking.

That is just my opinion, and it doesn't mean that I am right. But it doesn't mean that I am wrong either:eek:

[chris brugman]

Originally posted by Tonio


One additional question--I had always assumed that the farmers who sell their property to developers don't really make that much money on the deal. I thought that most of the profit went to the the developers. Do you know?

Anyway, I feel that 1-in-5 is too permissive and 1-in-20 is too restrictive.

Tonio,

From my understanding, I beleive that a farmer will normally sell the land to the developer and will avoid the headaches of planning and zoning, roads, permits, lots, etc. Regardless, a farm that can hold 40 lots is worth far more to a developer than a farm that only hold 5 or 10 lots. So naturally, a farmer can charge more to the developer and make more money with higher density for development.

I'm not sure how much they make, but if I had to bet, it is the developers who make the most money out of the deal.
If not, it would be the farmers that bankroll Randall, Guazzo, etc.
:eek: instead of developers!

[Oz (Premo)]

Originally posted by chris brugman
I'm not sure how much they make, but if I had to bet, it is the developers who make the most money out of the deal.
If not, it would be the farmers that bankroll Randall, Guazzo, etc.
:eek: instead of developers!

It's also the developers who have to make the investment, and take the risk when they go through the process of subdividing, building roads, etc. They make the most money because they spend the money needed to EARN a return on their investment. Nothing excludes a farmer from doing this themselves. There are people who are willing to take the risk, and others who just want to cash out. As with all business, the person exposed to the most risk *should* make the most money when the project reaches fruition. Nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing wrong with the farmer wanting his cash and no headaches.

[Oz (Premo)]

Originally posted by chris brugman
That is just my opinion, and it doesn't mean that I am right. But it doesn't mean that I am wrong either:eek:

Agreed.

On another note, you are promoting that we clean the slate and bring in 5 more commissioners. 4 Years ago, I felt like you, Jarboe and Eagan deserved a shot at 4 more years. Then, you lost interest and went on the air with The Nic, Eagan lost to Andersen(?), and Jarboe became a Democrat. My thinking was that you guys did a good job, and just as you're really learning what goes on, you're out of office, and 5 new people have to start their learning curve. There's no telling how effective you guys could have been with more leadership and cooperation from the other 2 seats.

Now, you're promoting the same thing that happened 4 years ago, and I don't know if that is in the best interest of the county. Leadership needs to be stable. Do we really want to have a learning curve every 4 years? Would an all new board bring in their own department heads and qualified county administrator?

Another question that can be answered from the trenches. How much does that county administrator effect what happens in local government? That position may be more important than the 5 commissioners combined? (I know how important you guys thought that position was, because you changed it several times, removing the person who had been running government for 20+ years and bringing in new expertise. Current board dumped the pro, and hired an attorney. Give us some insight.)