Larry Jarboe for St. Mary's County Commissioner
- Thread starter chris brugman
- Start date
chris brugman
New Member
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!
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!
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.
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.
chris brugman
New Member
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
Asperger's Poster Child
Re: Re: Larry Jarboe for St. Mary's County Commissioner
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.
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
New Member
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?
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?
Last edited:
Tonio
Asperger's Poster Child
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.
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
New Member
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.
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.
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
Re: Nodnarb
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?
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?
chris brugman
New Member
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.
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.
Last edited:
chris brugman
New Member
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
You're all F'in Mad...
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
Asperger's Poster Child
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
New Member
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
chris brugman
New Member
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.
instead of developers!
Oz
You're all F'in Mad...
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.
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
You're all F'in Mad...
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
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.)