| Author | Post |
|---|
kentcitizen#5
Member
| Joined: | Mon Aug 4th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 88 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 8th, 2008 04:53 pm |
|
I can't believe Mr. Lynn spent the amount of money on his TV ad..or better yet his contribution money from his special interest groups. This isn't a campaign for a presidential election. Makes me think what his decision making is all about. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Best of luck to Mr. Alan Angel....A man of honesty...a man for the PEOPLE.
Vote Alan angel
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 737 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 8th, 2008 03:43 pm |
|
Jody.Sweeney wrote: Reassessment must be done.
Candidate Sweeney recognizes and posted that reassessment must be done. His complete posting also contained some weasel words about how to do it and how to implement it that were not so well thought out, but I have had private communications with him on the issue sine then that make me believe that he would readily move from his posted thoughts to more coherent and appropriate methods of implementation.
I had asked Mr. Angel and Mr. Lynn to post their beliefs on this important matter, and neither has chosen to do that. Each probably is afraid that their response would prove them to be less than truthful or cost them the election. Sad that they will not come forth on the issue -- but one of them is going to have to do so after the election.
|
Disgusted
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover |
| Posts: | 570 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 8th, 2008 11:14 am |
|
Olive wrote: Two Cents wrote: Because I live in the 3rd Levy Court District, I would be interested in reading in this forum the positions of Mr. Angel and Mr. Lynn as to whether they would actively sponsor and support a general property reassessment for the county within the next 2 years. I would be very interested in hearing their reasons as to why or why not.
I would also like to hear from both candidates concerning this important matter.
Hate to so advise, but none of the candidates will answer that question until after the General Election. Ask them, and you'll get various forms of "no comment."
Which is synonymous for favoring county-wide reassessments and increases.
|
Olive
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 150 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 7th, 2008 10:04 pm |
|
Two Cents wrote: Because I live in the 3rd Levy Court District, I would be interested in reading in this forum the positions of Mr. Angel and Mr. Lynn as to whether they would actively sponsor and support a general property reassessment for the county within the next 2 years. I would be very interested in hearing their reasons as to why or why not.
I would also like to hear from both candidates concerning this important matter.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 09:04 pm |
|
| I actually laughed out loud. Thanks. Maybe something good will come of it. Sometime you ask for the stars, settle on the moon, and everyone comes out smelling like a rose.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 08:58 pm |
|
Good save. Put that idea back in your pocket..... 
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 07:48 pm |
|
| See? That is why we need 7 commissioners on Levy Court, public meetings, and credible residents like HB to provide feedback and input. One person can never come up with, nor be blamed for the solutions. Heck look at the 2007 County Comprehensive Plan. Two years and everyone is STILL trying to make everyone else happy.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 05:52 pm |
|
Ho-Boy, a reassessment for every, even minor, building permit? You do know you have to get a $50 permit to even put new shingles on? Maybe you'd be ahead of the game to get rid of the petty permits rather than using them to gin up another reassessment. That idea will insure nobody will do any work on their place if the side effect is new property taxes. Contractors will be thrown out of work , buildings will fall and babies will go hungry.
Either bite the bullet and do the job right or leave it alone as it is.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 737 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 02:06 pm |
|
| Because I live in the 3rd Levy Court District, I would be interested in reading in this forum the positions of Mr. Angel and Mr. Lynn as to whether they would actively sponsor and support a general property reassessment for the county within the next 2 years. I would be very interested in hearing their reasons as to why or why not.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 01:45 pm |
|
| Two Cent, I made changes to my Side-by-side comparison. Tanks for the feedback.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 01:33 pm |
|
| Reassessment must be done. My position is to notify the public that every new building permit, regardless of the type or extent of the construction, will include a reassessment of the property. The residents of the county should be made aware of the purpose of the reassessment, how it is being performed, when they might expect a reassessment. If the reassessment causes a significant increase in property tax, residents should be allowed a grace period to become accustomed to the increase.The inspector corps from the County could receive training in performing these reassessments to avoid hiring new staff. Those homes that are not applying for building permits could be assessed while we are in a housing downturn. As a resident, it is very easy to take this position, but I would not make a formal proposition until I had the opportunity to obtain the opinion of the County Planning Staff. They are the experts and their input is critical to a successful reassessment program.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 01:17 pm |
|
| Reassessment is a political hot potato. No one is taking a stance on it. Mr. Edmanson's comment was from 2006 and he avoided the question during the recent Realtors debate. I have said that if the county is forced to do a reassessment, to do it correctly will cost a lot of money, estimated at about half a million dollars. Knowing that it MUST be done, but at the expense of taxpayers, is very unpopular.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 737 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 01:02 pm |
|
| Mr. Sweeney, I do not live in your area, so I cannot vote for you or your opponent. However, I do have to wonder why you didn't take a real position on the question of re-assessment; one that would actively support periodic reassessments so as to ensure that property taxes are equitably collected on the basis of property valuation. You should be acutely aware that such is not presently the case and there is no valid reason for the situation being further perpetuated. Yes, there will be a significant cost to do a reassessment -- but the alternatrive is to continue to collect property taxes in a disproportionate manner.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 04:00 am |
|
| Maybe if some of you know my opponent, you can get me the information to fill in for him. Such as his community involvement. I understand he calls a great game of Bingo! But I included the VFW. I do not know if he is a member of the Wyoming United Methodist Church, or if he is a member. I do not know if he has any other community service or involvement.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 03:56 am |
|
New information. I have created a comparison table between me and my opponent. The primary will soon be over, and the rest of us can get at it. I might as well toss the first grenade.
http://www.friendsforjodysweeney.com/2008Comparison.pdf
Feedback would be great.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 08:28 am |
|
| I agree. Brad Bennett is a good man, and he is working very hard. I predict he will easily trounce Donna Stone come November. It won't even be close.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 05:32 am |
|
| Brad is working very hard. Donna Stone on the other hand has neglected a large portion of her voting public by not returning phone calls, showing up at the last minute at events, taking credit for issues that she really had nothing to do with. Brad will be a change. Many people want a change.
|
RadarGal
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 4th, 2008 04:51 am |
|
| How do you think the Bennett vs. Stone race is going to end up? I have seen alot of Bennett signs posted around Dover. It seems Mr. Bennett is out there working very hard. He came to my door and I was not home. He left his materials. What impressed me was he came back when I WAS there and spoke to me for about 15 minutes.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 3rd, 2008 01:46 am |
|
This is very helpful information. I now understand your position and see your point. Thank you very much.
Wish we could have more discussion on the merits of issues (like you did here), rather than all the silly games and personal attacks I've seen elsewhere.
In any event, thanks for your insight re: Brecknock Park, as I now have a better understanding and appreciation of the issue and your position (all of which makes sense to me).
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 12:43 pm |
|
When Elizabeth Howell Goggins passed away in 1993, her estate donated the land for Brecknock to Kent County. In early 2007, when Kent County Parks and Rec was reviewing its available properties for the construction of a gymnasium, Brecknock Park, because of it location to more than 50% of the residents of the county, was selected as the best possible location for that gym. A number of residents, not a majority as you think, but a very vocal group, opposed Brecknock. The reasons they stated were the element it would bring and the traffic. They used the intent of the will as their argument. The will was very ambiguous concerning how the park was to be used. The County lawyer interpreted the will in favor of the Parks and Rec putting the gymn there. The residents interpreted the will that the type of structure could NOT go there. The will mentions "outdoor" activities, so the intent could be interpreted to build an olympic size swimming pool there.
Regardless, when you are in opposition to government positions, your voice is louder and gets more media attention. Many of the people I spoke to were in favor of the gym at Brecknock, but they did not attend the meetings that were requested of the residents who were opposed to it. I was in favor because of the benefit it brought to the hundreds of kids in Rodney Village, Camden, Wyoming, Newell's Creek, Briar Park, Star Hill, who would be able to take advantage of it. Those who opposed it were residents in Chapelcroft and the Camden Historical Society. Of the two, Chapelcroft is the most understandable because of the location of the gym right behind some of their homes on Chalet and Cambridge.
The Historical Society was less understandable. Brecknock is on the list of Historical Places because of the Welsh Mill on the site. They were concerned with the effect of the gym on the historical image of the park. Yet, they were NOT in opposition to the ugly office building built along North Main St, where a beautiful victorian home was leveled. It was built about 100 feet from where the gym was to be located.
Here is my problem Mr. Edmanson grew up in Milton, owned a coffee shop in Dewey, Rehobeth, Bethany, someplace like that, before moving to Dover to work for OIS (I hired him there). He moved here less than 10 years ago, yet he spoke as if Mrs. Goggins was a personal friend. I took offense to someone who did not know the county speaking as if they were a lifetime resident and fell to the polar opposite of the issue from Mr. Edmanson. Some residents still hold that against me, which I understand, but my position on the issue was blown out of proportion. I would have represented the residents, not only those who were opposed, but those in favor as well. The gym should have been built close by, maybe not Brecknock Park, but somewhere the kids could have taken advantage of it. Mr. Edmanson's disdain for the employees of the county puts him in an adverserial position, hindering his ability to work with County employees to provide the best service to the residents he is supposed to represent. He would be better suited to the Town Council, not Levy Court, where they have no employees to speak of.
The gym is being built north of Dover on Dykes Branch Rd, where mostly adults will take advantage of it.
Sorry for the long post. This is an issue that affects only Camden residents, but is still prominent in those who are one issue voters.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 1st, 2008 09:09 am |
|
Thank you for getting us back on topic, Mr. Sweeney. I do take offense to Catbird's use of the term "split-tail". That remark is both crude and sexist, and has no place here. By the way, I'm not sure you have identified everyone who attended the KCAR debate. I am not a "Lynn supporter", but I do think he has some good ideas, even if his tact is sometimes abrasive. And I do believe we can do better than Allan Angel. I'll leave it at that. As you say, back on topic...
Please tell me more about the Brecknock Park controversy, since I did not really follow that issue closely when it first arose. As I understand it, Mr. Edmanson opposed efforts to build a new facility there, in order to "save" the park in its current configuration. Apparently, that is what the majority of residents in the area wanted him to do. Am I wrong about that? And what is wrong with Mr. Edmanson's position? It sounds like he is trying to take credit for something that either (a) he doesn't deserve, or (b) didn't happen quite the way he portrays. What am I missing?
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 03:55 am |
|
| I will be at the Halloween Party. I walked Chapelcroft and a few residents were really not very supportive. They have associated me with being "against Brecknock." That is very far from the truth. I am for Brecknock Park, and think it would be a wonderful place to continue to increase the offering to the community. maybe a nice 20,000 sq ft Library, or an olympic size swimming pool. I am sure they are in the purview of the will....
|
depeacemaker
Member
| Joined: | Sun Sep 30th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 22 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 03:48 am |
|
| The only thing W.G. can lay claim to is delaying the county from building a much needed recreation facility at Brecknock Park. According to him, Brecknock Park is owned by the Town of Camden and the folks at the Hysterical Society and d**n the rest of the county residents with families and children. I just hope I can contain myself if I see him campaigning at the nice kids halloween event they put on like he did before.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 12:27 am |
|
| During the KCAR debate, even WG Edmanson asked Allan for some help in listing the projects that the County has supported. Even though WG himself did not support them, he is taking claim for them. The new power unit for the paramedics was in the budget, and Mr. Edmanson voted against the budget. He claimed he was an advocate of open space, but voted against the budget that included a 300% in funding for Farmland Preservation. We cannot possibly have a commissioner who votes against the residents, and then takes claim for the good that comes from the will of the court.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 12:23 am |
|
| Allan Angel in no way has put anyone up to using this forum to "advance a Republican conspiracy." Although that is good fodder for the papers, in my opinion Lynn is not only wrong for the Levy Court, but he is also burned plenty of bridges in trying to get there. Allan has been good for the county, he is good to his constituents, and he generally votes their will.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31st, 2008 12:18 am |
|
TNJ, I know this is off topic. We should be discussing the issues, and if there are candidates among the discussion, I would hope they would announce themselves after the earlier fiasco with me and my URKidding alias.
I am able to place everyone at the debate and who they were there to support. You are obviously a Lynn supporter, so pass this on. I am sure you are one of the following: Michael Rushe, Lynn Treasurer. Mike Cebrick, Lynn supporter with a chip on the shoulder about his loss four years ago. Brian Lynn, Lynn brother. Sean Lynn himself. I am not asking for you to come clean, I would not have had I not messed up. Just know that from this point on I will respond as if you are on eof them.
Back on topic....
|
Catbird
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 79 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 06:26 pm |
|
Playing the Game wrote: Still speaks like a lawyer, must be a lawyer or a politician, not that there is any difference these days it seems.
Playing The Game, And it has all of the ear-marks of a "SPLIT-TAIL" lawyer/realtor. I bet she is the one that is bringing all the allegations forward about Angel. must have been turned down for some business venture, and now wants RETALIATION for same.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 03:59 pm |
|
| Still speaks like a lawyer, must be a lawyer or a politician, not that there is any difference these days it seems. Last edited on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 04:00 pm by Playing the Game
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30th, 2008 01:10 pm |
|
| We have not "already determined" anything, as we still do not know what the County Code actually provided in 1982. Your parents' experience in 1991 suggests that the law was the same then as it is now -- one needs "conditional use approval" (not a variance) in order to lawfully operate a "home occupation". I will endeavor to find out what the County Code actually provided in 1982, and get back to you here. Only then will be able to determine anything conclusive.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 05:22 am |
|
We have already determined that they do not apply the same today as they did in 1982. My parents attempted to open a business in their basement in 1991. Even then, the response was that they did not need a variance, all they needed was a basement, no formal storefront, no customers requiring parking, and the approval of neighbors. They did not want to burden the neighbors and chose to move into the location they have in Camden, that my brother now owns.
I fail to see what part of that is not proof that Mr. Angel, and my parents, have been granted verbal conditional approval to pursue a business venture in their home. Just as I say it must be so does not make it so, so does you saying that you need proof mean that without proof it must not be true.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 04:18 am |
|
| I hear you and understand your point, Mr. Sweeney. But we need to find out what Mr. Angel was told, by whom and when, as well as what the law required back in 1982, before concluding that Mr. Angel is entitled to a free pass here. If the pertinent provisions of the zoning regulations read the same in 1982 as they do today, then Mr. Angel's explanation may not hold water.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28th, 2008 02:32 am |
|
In almost every change of law, policy, procedure, there is the ability to grandfather existing case as "legal, but non-conforming". I am a member of the VCF Ruritan. In the 70's, the Ruritan built a building, under the rules of the time, and all Kent County required was a hand drawing of the site, location of the building, and some money. Since then, Kent County has required an "engineer Site Plan" to be on record at Levy Court. The did not go back to every property requiring the plan, and tell them they were out of compliance and force them to obtain a site plan. Instead, the property was grand-fathered in. We are trying to add a pole shed to the site, and Kent County is requiring us to become compliant, or to request a variance. both are going to cost us money that we could use for community good. In Mr. Angel's case, he did everything the city and county asked him to do in 1982, but since the rules have chaned, he is NOT required to become compliant unless he makes a change to the property. Why did Mr. Cebrick or Mr McGinnis come forward four, eight, or whatever years ago to point out that he was non-compliant? Because he was not running against one of their own for his School District slot or County Commissioner.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 10:47 am |
|
An excellent point, Hartlyboy. I agree with the sentiment that, all too often, the intrusion of government into our private lives crosses over the line drawn by John Locke in "On Liberty" (the philosophical origin of the notion you reference -- i.e., one should be able to engage in any conduct which neither causes harm nor impairs another's liberty). The requirement to secure conditional use approval for a "home occupation" is a good example of Euclidean zoning gone too far, although some would argue that these sort of land use regulations serve as a stopgap to preclude greater evils along an otherwise slippery slope (e.g., if you did not require the government's blessing for home-based businesses at some level, there'd be no limit to the range of inappropriate "business" uses that could be made of properties zoned for "residential" use). Maybe the solution would be to establish a more objective "no harm, no foul" standard -- if you can't see it, smell it, or hear it, then no governmental approval should be required.
Unfortunately, while I agree with your point, thems ain't the current rules, and Mr. Angel's business activities appear to run afoul of the current rules.
And no, PTG, I am not Phil McGinnis (sorry). But I welcome your suggestion that we should get away from the chest-thumping, name-calling, brandishing of swords and get back to a debate upon the merits of the issues. Thank you for putting us back on track.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27th, 2008 01:21 am |
|
| We are the product of what we have allowed ourselves to become................
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 10:12 pm |
|
| The sad part of this to me is that we even have to have discussions about what you can do in your own home as long as it isn't impacting anyone next to you. Why in Hell should you have to beg the County for permission for every little thing? Have we become such sheep that it's normal to run around looking for permission on a piece of paper to live your life? The real estate puke is just playing politics but it does raise a higher question for us to ponder...
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 12:16 pm |
|
| Does anyone else get the feeling that TNJ might b the one who filed the lawsuit against Mr. Angel? He seems way to involved and versed in the case to just be a casual, independent observer.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 04:34 am |
|
I don't dispute your premise that McGinnis filed his complaint as Lynn's surrogate, but where is the stretching of the truth? As I understand it from the News Journal article, McGinnis' complaint merely alleges that Angel is operating a business without conditional use approval from the County. That assertion appears to be 100% accurate. While one might reasonably quarrel with McGinnis' motivations, his charge does not appear to qualify as a "stretch". Your real beef, I think, is that the offense is easily explained and/or is readily excuseable. Not sure I agree, as I do not have enough info to reach a solid conclusion yet, but perhaps we'll learn in the days ahead what Mr. Angel actually knew and/or what he was told he needed to do in order to comply with applicable Code requirements at the time he set up shop.
As I read the County Zoning Ordinance, "taking customers" and/or "having a storefront" is not the litmus test. It is enough that one manufactures and sells goods from the home, which is precisely what Mr. Angel appears to be doing. At least that is what his business licenses from the State appear to indicate.
Engaging in Ebay trades over the internet or other "hobbies" is not the same thing as manufacturing and selling goods within a residence, especially if the manufacturing and selling of goods is a livelihood rather than a "hobby". I doubt the Division of Revenue would require hobbyists or Ebay traders to obtain a business license.
Furthermore, it is possible to ascertain what the status of the law was at the time Mr. Angel set up shop. All one need do is review the County Code as it then existed.
All things considered, I think we need to see what the County's investigation reveals. If, as Mr. Angel suggests, he made inquiry with the County when he first set up shop and they told him he did not need any conditional use or other approvals, then I think that ends the matter and he is completely vindicated. On the other hand, if the evidence suggests that Mr. Angel should have known better (especially since he occasionally sits in judgment upon similar "home occupation" applications filed by ordinary citizens), then maybe this thing has legs afterall. We'll just have to wait and see.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 03:24 am |
|
| Sorry, regardless of the charge, the allegation is still simply an opponent stretching the truth, reaching for straws, in order to discredit their opponent. Manufacturing dentures in your basement on the orders of doctors and dentists in the area, not taking customers or having a storefront, is hardly a business. Those who deal in hobbies, EBay, ongoing yardsales, all do the same on a regular basis and make good money off the act. Keep in mind that this has been in place for a couple of decades and no one can find out what laws were on the books at the time.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 01:31 am |
|
| Or, perhaps, like you...it's just a duck.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 26th, 2008 01:23 am |
|
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a lawyer duckspeaking.
Truth N Justice wrote:
Mr. Sweeney: Following up on my most recent post regarding this issue, I would agree with you that someone who brings work home from the office and does work at home without holding themselves out to the public as operating a separate business from their home should not offend County zoning regulations. But as I understand the complaint filed against Mr. Angel, the allegation is that he is, in fact, operating an independent home-based business run exclusively from his home, that he is actually manufacturing dental devices and selling them from that location, and that he is doing so pursuant to a business license issued by the State. That is a far cry from bringing home a few files from the office every other night, don't you think?
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 09:00 am |
|
| Mr. Sweeney: Following up on my most recent post regarding this issue, I would agree with you that someone who brings work home from the office and does work at home without holding themselves out to the public as operating a separate business from their home should not offend County zoning regulations. But as I understand the complaint filed against Mr. Angel, the allegation is that he is, in fact, operating an independent home-based business run exclusively from his home, that he is actually manufacturing dental devices and selling them from that location, and that he is doing so pursuant to a business license issued by the State. That is a far cry from bringing home a few files from the office every other night, don't you think?
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 08:51 am |
|
Mr. Sweeney, please accept my apologies for not seeing your responses here before posting my previous message regarding some ofthe same topics on another thread.
I think I can accept your explanation regarding your use of aliases, now that it appears you are not some of the other bloggers still active here. I simply ask that, in the future, you remain consistent in letting us know which posts are yours, that's all.
As for the complaint filed by Phil McGinnis concerning Mr. Angel's home-based business, I agree that it is a bit of a cheap shot, and another example of how/why politics can be such an ugly vocation. But if it is true that Mr. Angel has been operating his business without proper approvals, then I have to say that it does raise a legitimate gripe. It would be interesting to know how many conditional use applications for home-based businesses Mr. Angel voted for or against, knowing that he did not have conditional use approval himself -- i.e., the more often the issue came before him, the more obvious it should have become to him that he, too, might need a conditional use approval, but if these things are fairly uncommon and largely below the radar, then perhaps the oversight is easier to forgive. Is there any way to check out how often this issue comes up before the Levy Court?
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 03:47 am |
|
| One last point tonight. On the same night that Mr. Edmanson voted AGAINST the balanced budget, he made a motion to use $2500 dollars in funding to investigate bringing an air carrier to Dover Air Force Base. We are in tough economic times, many people in this state did not receive a pay raise this year. He voted against a balance budget but wanted to give money to a pie in the sky idea.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 03:41 am |
|
Mr Edmanson's announcement was at Breaknock Park near Camden. His attempts to politicize this beautiful park is a disgrace. Kent County does not allow political functions at this park and his announcement should have been no exception. He did not ask permission to use the park for that purpose. And he was there with Representative Don Blakey. When Mr. Edmanson speaks, Mr. Blakey's lips hardly move at all. When will Mr. Edmanson stand on his own and have an original thought or idea? I have spoken with quite a few residents who don't even know who he is, or have asked for help and never received any from him. His only claim to fame is preventing the Kent County gymnasium from being built at Breaknock Park. It will now be built north of Dover, unfortunately out of the 5th District and more than likely not available for most of the children in our District to use.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 03:30 am |
|
Mr Edmanson is using misdirection and misstatement to avoid discussing the real issues facing Kent County. His statements are nothing more than avoiding discussing the real issues facing Kent County. In his announcement he stated that he voted against the Kent County budget bill because he felt raising fees and tolls, and doing away with jobs to eliminate red ink was wrong. Mr. Edmanson did not do his homework on this issue. The budget bill was balanced and $3,000,000 less than the budget from the previous year. The budget bill does not include a discussion of fees and Kent County does not have tolls, but it did provide for an additional paramedic Power Unit, more than 300% increase in funding for farmland preservation, and allowed for the removal of county positions if they have been vacant for more than two years. His attitude toward Kent County employees is dispicable.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 25th, 2008 03:15 am |
|
| Mr Edmanson is using misdirection and misstatement to avoid discussing the real issues facing Kent County. His statements are nothing more than avoiding discussing the real issues facing Kent County. In his announcement he implied that he made a stand against reassessment, but it was not discussed in a public forum at Levy Court. During his run for the At-Large seat in 2006, he stated that he thought reassessment would bring in some much needed money for the county. Now he says he opposed attempts to raise taxes through reassessment. Like every other issue he has faced, he has not done his homework. County Code prevents increasing the County's overall tax revenue by more than 15% as a result of reassessment.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 24th, 2008 09:16 pm |
|
Like Edmanson's that his goons placed on the privately owned Planters Run Property on Rte. 10 today. Go Jody.
Playing the Game wrote:
If they are not legally positioned they are fair game for the picking.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 05:18 pm |
|
Amen, Disgusted. Allan does not have a business that is open for people to visit, a storefront, or even a separate door that I am aware of. If we all had to have a Conditional Use license to operate a business at home, than I can think of about 5,000 State workers who take work home and to work at home in offices that are in violation too.
Allan Angel needs to be on Levy Court. He is certainly one of the great protectors of our county.
|
Disgusted
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover |
| Posts: | 570 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 04:54 pm |
|
TNJ article, if accurately written (and, given the state of American journalism these days, that's a BIG IF) is a 100% cheap shot by someone who I formerly thought to be a respectable member of the Kent County Real Estate Community.
Phil's father is Jim McGinniss. The same fellow who served as Lt. Governor in 1973-1977 under "One Term Sherm" Tribbitt. I don't think that Jim would have gone public with this.
As for Angel, he's run his business there since 1982, appearnely with the OK of those in Levy Court who would need to kiss and bless the operation. There's no record of his neighbors complaining. We're not talking about a 10,000 bird chicken house or diesel mechanic shop in his yard.
Cheap shot, Phil. You just cost Sean the primary, for folks who were fence sitters before will probably support Angel, if for no other reason than spite.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 03:44 pm |
|
| The one thing I noticed about the article in the NJ was that McGinnis stated that Mr. Angel is no friend of Kent County Real Estate. What a wonderful endorsement for a candidate whose campaign platform is "Infrastructure Before Development". I can only hope that the Real Estate community endorses my opponent.
|
Current time is 02:38 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|