| Author | Post |
|---|
MooneyExposed@yahoo.com
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 12:51 am |
|
| For those Camden Taxpayers that don't know. This is the "ClubHouse" that you paid for. Do a paper trail on who got the contract to build it. (and the sub-contractors) Attachment: MooneyHSjr.JPG (Downloaded 268 times)
|
MooneyExposed@yahoo.com
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 7th, 2007 12:37 am |
|
See July Town meeting good thing we have an extra dump truck to sit and collect snow. I wonder if the again bought it off of one of our infamous councilmen? (Of course with the so-called lowest bid)
http://townofcamden.com/PDF/TC/Minutes/07-02-07TCM.pdf
Code Enforcement
Please see attached report submitted by Mr. Scott, Jr.
Mr. Scott stated that the Town has purchased a leftover 2006 dump truck for 50% less than the 2007 sticker price.[size=]
This is 7:30 am Thursday Dec 6th 2007
Is this what we pay extra taxes for? Mooney says the Residents want to annex more?
So far his lack of management for Camden is a disaster! Proven track record. Maybe another trip to New Orleans on the Camdens taxpayers money will help educate him?Attachment: 2MooneyHSJr.JPG (Downloaded 268 times)
|
Kent5thRes
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 5th, 2007 07:14 pm |
|
Thanks.
December 20th, 7:00pm, Water & Sewer offices.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Wed Dec 5th, 2007 03:49 am |
|
Got your message and I will address it at the meeting on the 20th.
|
Kent5thRes
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2007 09:26 pm |
|
| Mr. Sweeney, you have a new private message, please take care of this since I will nto be able to attend the meeting on the 20th.
|
Kent5thRes
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 8th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 4th, 2007 09:25 pm |
|
Mayor Mooney stated in a recent meeting that in order for a development to be annexed, a 75% majority must vote in favor of the annexation. Mayor Money, I invite you to read the Town of Camden Charter. It reads, in section 7a, "In order for the territory proposed to be annexed to be considered annexed, a majority of the votes cast both from the Town and from the territory proposed to be annexed must have been cast in favor of the proposed annexation."
Please read the charter for your town. Not everyone will follow you blindly. Both the residents and the town must approve the annexation, and it is only a simple majority, that is 50% plus one (1) household. What other wool are you trying to pull. I urge all Camden residents to attend the December 20th meeting, 7:00pm, to see what your town council is up to.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Dec 3rd, 2007 04:51 am |
|
LLC, you are, of course, absolutely right. No mayor should be able to tell the mayor of another town that they can or cannot do something. What Mayor Rife from Wyoming was saying was that Wyoming made the first bid for the Abbott farm along Moose Lodge Rd, north of the Moose Lodge, and that Camden could not make a second claim on the same parcel of land. Connie Holland from the State Planning Office confirmed a gentleman's agreement between Mayor Rife and Mayor Mooney that Wyoming had first rights to the land. Now, as far as density is concerned, here is a link to the density you are talking about. Click on the Savannah Farms Sub-Division, then scroll down to page 7 to see the kind of density Camden could allow...
http://www.friendsforjodysweeney.com/links.htm
Feel free to browse my website while you are there 
|
LongLiveCamden
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 26 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 11:53 pm |
|
| Since you decided it important to greatly emphasize my word "think", I have reconsidered. What I should have said is I "know", not I "think". Again, who is she to tell the mayor or the Town of Camden that they aren't going to do something? If Yyoming wants to grow, then so be it. If Camden beats you to it, shame on you. The key to any growth is control of what goes into the growth area. The developing will happen with or without the annexation of unimproved land. At least if it's annexed, the town (whichever one it is) will be able to have some control over the density and type of home or business that goes there. Agreed, the two towns should work together on these issues. But for the mayor of your little town to say "I am not going to let you" was simply an I dare you statement.
|
wy de native
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 3rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 103 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 06:59 pm |
|
Since the two towns border each other, I believe that Camden must have the agreement of Wyoming in order to gain approval of their comp plan. As a resident of Wyoming, I am pleased to see that Mayor Rife is looking out for our best interests. We do not want Camden wrapping round us. Wyoming is in the process of growing as well....just not at the freight train speed that Mayor Mooney has exploded Camden with. Our town has a completely valid vested interest in what Camden is doing....we too, are affected by the traffic, congestion and issues created by their rapid growth. So I disagree with your comment that she is "way out of line"....I think she is right on target.
LongLiveCamden wrote:
I think the town of Camden is smart to try to control the inevitable growth in the area and improve their tax base. I think the mayor of Wyoming is way out of place telling the mayor of Camden what will not be done. “You’re overlapping with our comprehensive plan; you’re putting boundaries in that are ours. I have some major problems with this. Speaking for the town of Wyoming, I am not going to let you come around and suffocate me,” she said. That is just uncalled for. Exactly what is she going to do to stop it? Just because the town of Wyoming doesn't want to grow doesn't mean the rest of the world shouldn't. Camden should take a lesson from what has happened to Smyrna and carefully plan and control their growth instead of letting the developers run the show. Hurray for the forward thinkers in Camden!
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 06:57 pm |
|
The questions I want to ask, and I will at the next public forum are these:
Why is Camden interested in growing at the pace it has suggested in the Comp Plan? While greed and power have been suggested, those are not legitimate reasons behind the new plan.
What are the selling points to annexation into the municipal limits? Somewhere beyond the city tax and costly Water & Sewer there has to be benefits to being in town that would cause a landowner or sub-division to consider annexation
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 04:58 am |
|
| Ask the Smyrna residents how much they are cheering about their tax 'decreases' because of all the annexations their former mayor helped generate.
|
Observant
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1658 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 2nd, 2007 02:00 am |
|
CR Voter wrote: Current Camden residents are cheering. The more their mayor annexes, the lower their taxes will be. Those of us on the outside will pick up the slack.
CR -- In a perfect world, you would be right about Camden residents getting lowered property tax bills -- and that could happen -- but not likely. It is never too difficult for any town's budget writer to pump up the expected expenses to negate any plausible tax decrease. There would be no benefit to annexing existing developments other than that of increasing the tax base, thereby increasing the tax revenue (with little or no additional incurred expenses).
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 02:04 am |
|
| At the Camden Town Planning meeting on Wednesday night, it was apparent that developments are not going to want to be annexed. Land owners, although not at the meeting, will want to be annexed. To extend the current town services out to those new annesed land areas is going to cost money and without the added tax base of the residents in those developments, the current residents are going to have to foot the bill.
|
CR Voter
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 01:37 am |
|
| Current Camden residents are cheering. The more their mayor annexes, the lower their taxes will be. Those of us on the outside will pick up the slack.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 01:32 am |
|
| CR, your choice. So here is where we stand. Of those who have responded here, I know where Allan, HB, and CR live. LLC lives in Camden, I think, although that may not be true. What I do not see is anyone who lives in Camden. I don't even live in Camden, so I am more like Allan, someone who will be affected by all of this. I want to know where Camden residents stand.....
|
CR Voter
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 30th, 2007 12:53 am |
|
| Since the 2nd ammendment is still in control, I prefer shotguns and torches.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 10:46 pm |
|
| Petitions and signs will do just as well. Make sure your neighbors are aware of what is giong on. I am walking down Moose Lodge Rd on Saturday to let my neighbors know.
|
CR Voter
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 10:44 pm |
|
| I live in Planters Run and if they get close to us, we'll be on the mayor's doorsteps with shotguns and torches.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 10:41 pm |
|
| Annexation of developments east of Rt 13 was a major topic of discussion last night. The question was asked of those present and the response was that they would not ask any development to be annexed but would wait for the development to ask to be annexed. That did not answer the question. I spoke and said that those areas did not offer any agricutural, commercial, or TDR value, and the answer was that they would be annexed for the aesthetic value, meaning they look pretty for the outside of town. There are about 1200 homes on the other side of Rt 13, at about $500 per household in annual taxes, for $600,000 per year in tax revenue.
|
Allan
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 10:04 pm |
|
Long Live Camden,
I live in Fairfield Farms near Moore's Lake. Help me understand how and why this would be a good thing for residence of Fairfield Farms. This annexation would require me to pay Camden city tax (most likely $600-1000/year). What value would we (residence in Fairfield Farms) recieve from the annexation?
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 09:59 pm |
|
| LLC, you have got to be kidding! Where do you want to put the wall? Do you want to have gun placements every few hundred yards? Maybe a NO MANS ZONE between two fences with roving guards and dogs. This is not about Camden or Wyoming. This is about the overdevelopment of Kent County. Smyrna was in the middle of it a few years back and now it is Camden's turn. Developers are more inclined to choose open land inside a municipality because of the services that come with the property. Mayor Mooney and Town Manager Mulrine made it clear that no developments will be annexed without the development approaching the town first, and 75% of the residents voting yes in a formal referendum of the development, but part of Camden's Comp Plan includes a number of farms that only require the vote of the single landowner, not the 75%. Lets face facts here, no one wants the development or the for Camden to grow this fast.
|
LongLiveCamden
Member
| Joined: | Thu Nov 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 26 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 05:20 pm |
|
I think the town of Camden is smart to try to control the inevitable growth in the area and improve their tax base. I think the mayor of Wyoming is way out of place telling the mayor of Camden what will not be done. “You’re overlapping with our comprehensive plan; you’re putting boundaries in that are ours. I have some major problems with this. Speaking for the town of Wyoming, I am not going to let you come around and suffocate me,” she said. That is just uncalled for. Exactly what is she going to do to stop it? Just because the town of Wyoming doesn't want to grow doesn't mean the rest of the world shouldn't. Camden should take a lesson from what has happened to Smyrna and carefully plan and control their growth instead of letting the developers run the show. Hurray for the forward thinkers in Camden!
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 818 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 04:47 pm |
|
What do you think?
Camden plan draws gripes
From the Delaware State News
By Nora Engel, Delaware State News
CAMDEN — Residents and officials from neighboring towns crowded into the Sewer & Water Authority Building on West Street in Camden Wednesday night to express outrage and concern in response to the unveiling of the drafted town comprehensive plan.
Dale Rife, mayor of Wyoming, said she felt the plan was stepping on the toes of her town.
“You’re overlapping with our comprehensive plan; you’re putting boundaries in that are ours. I have some major problems with this. Speaking for the town of Wyoming, I am not going to let you come around and suffocate me,” she said.
“If we lived in a fantasy world, this would be a good plan, but we don’t and I don’t think its fair.”
Delaware law requires municipalities to have state-certified comprehensive plans in place in order to qualify for state funding for infrastructure projects such as highways and sewers.
In addition, municipalities must coordinate their efforts with their county and nearby municipalities to ensure there are no conflicts, and must provide the state with updates of original plans every five years.
Once adopted, the plan will be used as the basis for zoning decisions, infrastructure spending, annexation decisions and general growth policies.
The majority of residents who attended the Wednesday’s meeting were under the impression that the town had the power to annex land whether the owner liked it or not.
Camden Mayor Robert Mooney said that is not the case.
“No one needs to be fearful outside of Camden that we are going to arbitrarily annex them in,” he said.
“What you see is a comprehensive plan of the future, not a comprehensive plan that dictates action.”
Camden resident Charles Smith said he felt the town developed the plan without input from town residents.
He said it was not the plan that was upsetting people, but the fact that residents felt they had no input into the future of their town.
However, according to the draft, a survey was sent out to Camden residents prior to the draft of the plan being submitted for council’s approval.
It went on to say 10 percent of the people returned answers to the survey, which were compiled into the draft.
Despite Mr. Mooney’s consistent reminder to the crowd that the town does not have the power to march in and take over land, some residents did not come across as convinced.
“Annexation can only occur if a single person owns an entire area and they make the choice to apply for annexation,” he said.
“As far as I am concerned, unless a (property owner) comes forward and shows they are organized and want to be a part of the town, we have no interest.”
Staff writer Nora Engel can be reached at 741-8272 or nengel@newszap.com.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Nov 29th, 2007 03:30 am |
|
| Just because an adjacent farmer or landowner might sell to a developer is no reason to annex the problem into the town so the rest of the residents have to pony up for the infrastructure and support costs. Too much empire building and not enough common sense... The only one that gets any benefit from annexation is a developer who can build to town rules which are always more lenient than County regs. That's why you have 1/8 acre lots in some of the town developments around here and no or low impact fees.
|
tspong
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 818 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 28th, 2007 04:12 pm |
|
What do you think?
Camden airs its plan tonight
Town foresees enormous growth by decade’s end
By Nora Engel, Delaware State News
CAMDEN — Downstate residents can’t help but notice that the Camden area has been developing by leaps and bounds the past few years.
That growth could be even more explosive by the end of the decade, according to a draft of Camden’s comprehensive plan, which is slated to be unveiled at a public meeting tonight.
The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. at the Sewer and Water Authority building on West Street in Camden.
A comprehensive plan serves as a virtual “road map” for a municipality’s expected future growth and infrastructure needs.
Once finalized, the document becomes a guide for city planners when proposed annexations come before municipal officials.
Delaware law requires municipalities to have state-certified comprehensive plans in place in order to qualify for state funding for infrastructure projects such as highways and sewers.
In addition, municipalities must coordinate their efforts with their county and nearby municipalities to ensure there are no conflicts, and must provide the state with updates of original plans every five years.
Once adopted, the plan will be used as the basis for zoning decisions, infrastructure spending, annexation decisions and general growth policies.
“(The size of Camden) nearly doubled from 10 years ago,” said Donald Mulrine, Camden town manager.
“There were only a handful of police, seven or eight, and now there are 14, including the captain and the chief.”
He said the town has been working on updating its plan since January and hopes to have a final version to the state by next year.
David Edgell, principal planner for the state planning office, said Camden covered 1,189 acres in 2000 and today covers 1,523 acres.
Mr. Mulrine said it is not the mayor and council who are responsible for the growth, it is property owners.
The draft plan has 11 objectives which include maintaining the town’s character, conserving the town’s natural resources, preserving areas with historical or cultural value, improving recreational opportunities, improving traffic, continuing the planning process, and providing an awareness of town history.
“The Camden Police Department provides a variety of services. The services have increased 66 percent over the past six years and continue to climb. This is due to the growing population,” the draft plan states.
“The Camden Police Department also serves nearly 4,000 students that attend schools in the community who do not reside here and several thousand customers who visit retail establishments.”
The draft plan shows Camden annexing land south to Woodside in the next three years.
In the next five years, it shows Camden annexing land east of U.S. 13 and more than five years after that the annexation of Fairfield farms north of Del. 10, and the residential developments of Royal Grant, Eagles Nest, and Stonegate along Rising Sun Road.
Also included in the draft is the annexation of Rodney Village on U.S. 13.
“Camden’s residents and elected officials are concerned with the town’s economic base. While there is no desire to significantly increase the population of Camden, there is recognition of the need to expand its commercial center,” the draft plan states.
The plan includes recommendations for developing a strategic plan for increasing and improving the use of the commercial properties in Camden.
“Explore marketing the town’s accessibility, increased cooperative ventures with the state, and redevelopment of certain parcels and the rezoning of selected sections of the town,” the draft plan recommends.
For tonight’s meeting agenda, visit the town of Camden Web site at http://www.townofcamden.com.
Post your opinions in the public issues forum at newszap.com.
Staff writer Nora Engel can be reached at 741-8272 or nengel@newszap.com.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 28th, 2007 01:42 pm |
|
Don Mulrine, Camden Town Planner, in this morning's De State News, stated, "it is not the mayor and council who are responsible for the growth, it is property owners." While on the surface, this is true, it is farmers who are selling off their land to developers, I see no reason why Camden feels they have to grow at the rate they are suggesting. Is there some race for space that I am unaware of? The Camden Town Council, including the Mayor and Planner, have a knack for blaming all of the problems on everyone else, such as DelDOT or Kent County Levy Court, and now the property owners are to blame for growth. How about looking into the mirror?
If you want to see the 111 page actual Camden Comprehensive Plan, and not the smoke and mirror, dog and pony show to be presented at the Planning Committee meeting tonight, go here:
http://stateplanning.delaware.gov/comp_plans/camden_comp_plan_draft_20071019.pdf
|
MooneyExposed@yahoo.com
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 45 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 27th, 2007 10:33 pm |
|
Mooney and his cash inhalers just want to build mindlessly as Kent County has record foreclosures!
http://www.co.kent.de.us/Departments/RowOffices/Sheriff/
|
Observant
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1658 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 06:38 pm |
|
| If the town's residents sit still and wait for the mayor and council to ask, they will be asking far more town residents than there are today!
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 02:39 pm |
|
| This mornings DEStateNews says it all. Camden TOWN mayor Bob Mooney and Camden TOWN Manager Don Mulrine attended the National League of Cities conference in New Orleans. Camden wants to be to Dover what Newark is to Wilmington. Do we as residents want that too? Maybe they should ask!
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 05:10 am |
|
| Flowery because the whole process smells?
|
CR Voter
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 26th, 2007 12:24 am |
|
| That's what I said, but you use flowery politic talk.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 11:06 pm |
|
Here is how I see it: As the mayor of town, I must ensure the future success of my town. I can stay within the limits and improve services, or grow town and expand services. Community service drives the first, greed & power drive the second.
The 5 year plan annexes farmland, hedging their bets that there are going to be developments in those areas because they are in the growth zone. All of the other developments that are annexed (Fairfield, Sandy Hill, Traybern, Eagles Nest, Stonegate, Burwood Farms, Tamarac, Derbywood, Derby Shores, Hampton Hills) are source of income to pay for the services and infrastructure (police, water & sewer, schools, roads) needed to support the whole area. Farms are not going to provide much in the way of taxes when compared to a development with 250-300 homes. So the answer to your question is that you are fodder to pay for their grandiose plans to grow the town bigger.
|
Allan
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 07:57 pm |
|
Thanks for the post but the operative word in my previous post was "seriously". .... But I do get your point! OK, imagine you are the mayor of Camden speaking at a special town meeting full of Fairfield Farm residence. What would the mayor possibly say at this meeting supporting this annexation.
Cheers
|
CR Voter
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 07:44 pm |
|
| Maybe you have a strong desire to pay higher taxes and surround yourself with further development?
|
Allan
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 06:20 pm |
|
Seriously, someone please roll-play with me and try to convince me why I would want the development I live in (Fairfield Farms) annexed by the Town of Camden?
Last edited on Sun Nov 25th, 2007 06:22 pm by Allan
|
Allan
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 06:18 pm |
|
How does one fight this annexation. I'm currently not in the Camden town limits so I can't vote someone out of office. Do I even have the right to walk into Camden town hall and voice my opinion?
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 06:17 pm |
|
| I would love to see the size of the Mayor's office in the new town hall. Has this group not read the writing on the wall about what the residents want?
|
Observant
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1658 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 05:21 pm |
|
| Allan -- sounds as though you are laboring under the delusion that the political leaders of camden have your well-being in mind. In actuality, they are looking to expand the taxable property base of the town and therefore, ultimately, the property tax revenue of camden. By annexing already developed areas, the infrastructure is already in place, and there are but little advertising and legal fees involved in annexing your development in exchange for the taxable property addition to the town tax rolls.
|
Allan
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 24th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 57 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 05:00 pm |
|
Are there two different meetings this evening?
Last edited on Thu Dec 20th, 2007 01:06 pm by Allan
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 25th, 2007 05:52 am |
|
| I wish the land control battle was as simple as as being a Democrat/Republican issue. It would make it a lot easier to decide who to vote for,but it was a Democrat-controlled Senate that stifled Minner's Livable Delaware plans and a Republican on Levy Court who sponsored the idea of reduced density in the Coastal Overlay Area [unfortunately shot down by a Supreme Court judge recently). Also, as you know, one of the most active developer lawyers suing the County all the time is a big time Democrat. Labels don't seem to matter much in this fight. I'd take the Republican Buckson over several of the Democrats currently on the Levy Court as far as looking out for the residents of the County.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24th, 2007 04:00 pm |
|
| Unfortunately, I don't live in Camden town limits, yet, anyway. They are annexing the property that surrounds me, though. My hope is that as a County Commissioner and leader in the Democratic Party, I can work closely with State Legislators to affect some laws that give the County more power in controlling growth in municipalities. If not the County, then definitely the Sate. Camden is controlled by the other party, meaning they got most of the campaign funding from real estate developers, agents, and lawyers. the Camden town council is not going to be very happy with my public stance on this.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Nov 24th, 2007 02:57 am |
|
Sounds like your Camden 'leaders' have the same delusions of grandeur that the Smyrna Mayor and Council had. All you need to do is look north to see how that worked out. The new Mayor up here is trying to get some semblance of control on the runaway development but still has enough Council holdovers that the annexations , while having slowed are , are still happening. The problem is the people who live in those developments don't realize until it's too late the impact on their taxes and quality of life and leave too much in the hands of the good old boys they elect to Town Council.
The developers really push those guys to do annexations because then they get away from County control. Density increases dramatically under most town rules. There are some places in Smyrna that you can put 8 houses per acre instead of the 1 per acre the County allows. It is unlikely the County will ever have the stones to say, "no more annexation of our land" so your only chance is to vote out the people who run the town and get folks in there that are more interested in the current residents quality of life than empire building.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Fri Nov 23rd, 2007 12:08 am |
|
| Nail on the head, baby, nail on the head. There was a study done by a professor at Penn State that proved that annexing property did nothing to improve the financial position of the municipality. Just the opposite, residents of the town end up with increased taxes to pay for the infrastructure that does not exist until all of the land is developed. By then it is too late to decrease taxes because the infrastructure has to be maintained. Hopefullly, this blog will generate some responses from some "NAMED" members of town council. Otherwise, the response from those who are in favor of this travesty are just antagonizers.
|
High Voltage
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 2nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 340 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 22nd, 2007 12:43 pm |
|
| How many ways can you spell greed?? Look at all those potential property tax dollars that could be in the town's coffers, with minimal or no expenses associated with grabbing them, when talking about annexation of existing developments.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Wed Nov 21st, 2007 08:07 pm |
|
In doing some research, the Camden Comprehensive Plan submitted to the PLUS (Preliminary Land Use Service) system was uncovered. This plan shows the agressive nature of the Camden Town Council in annexing land. Their plan shows the annexing of land from Camden south to Woodside in the next three years. It includes parcels of land that will box Wyoming in on the south as well, leaving Wyoming no place to go but due west. In the next 5 years, it shows Camden annexing lands east of Rt13, including Sandy Hill and Traybern subdivisions. Finally, more than five years out, they annex Fairfield farms north of Rt 10, Royal Grant, Eagles nest, and Stonegate along Rising Sun Road.
In what world do these guys live? Why would the council want to annex and grow that big and that fast?
Here is a link to the PLUS Application for the new Comprehensive plan. This is not the actual plan itself, I am still trying to find that: http://stateplanning.delaware.gov/plus/projects/2007/2007-11-10.pdf
Attachment: Camden Annexation1.jpg (Downloaded 323 times)
|
Current time is 09:08 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 |
|