| Author | Post |
|---|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 03:42 pm |
|
TNJ, I started the kent5thres id, but turned it over to a friend after I had a discussion with the Mayor of Camden and use of the forums. I started using my real name for everything, but chose to create URKidding to make some points about Sean Lynn. I thought it would be better to remain anonymous. After finding out who his backers really were and how nasty he has turned this primary race, I now no longer care if he knows my distrust of him. URKidding is dead and no other alias' exist.
Sean Lynn will not win this election, but if by some quirk he is able to get the majority of votes in this primary, he will do nothing more than bring hositlity to the Levy Court Dias. Mr. Edmanson has done the same thing with his comments in the Dover Post concerning the "liberal leadership" of Levy Court. Mr. Buckson, a republican Commissioner from the 4th District, was an advocate of the gym at Breaknock, based on the full support and recommendation of the Staff of the County Parks and Rec Team. Now you have a Republican calling his sole party mate on Levy Court a Liberal.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 02:25 pm |
|
| This primary is getting nasty. Some real estate hustler now has filed a complaint against Angel for some kind of zoning violation on his home business. I'm sure that's just being done as a concerned citizen and not as a developer ally out to get one of the commissioners who has been more adamant about not letting them continue to rape the county.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 07:23 am |
|
| Unfortunately, Mr. Sweeney, I don't think we can let you off the hook that easily. Were you not also "Kent5thRes"?
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 23rd, 2008 04:23 am |
|
OK, so that is out of the way.
I have been out walking in neighborhoods. I have probably knocked on 1,800 doors. depending on where I am, I tell them a few things. I am the only candidate who has lived in the county for 48 years,m graduating from CR in 1978. I am the ONLY candidate to stand up in opposition to Camden's Comprehensive Plan which annexed all of the developments east of Rt 13 and all farmland between Camden and Woodside. I am the ONLY candidate who is opposed to the annexation of 170 acres of land west of Camden, which is slated for more than 1,000 homes. I am using the catch phrase from 2006, "Infrastructure Before Development", but I am adding that I do not believe that existing taxpayers should pay for new infrastructure. New infrastructure should be funded by new construction through increased building permits on NEW construction and impact fees, NEVER on tax increases.
Now, lets wait to see if my opponent will counter this, or will he throw up some misdirection. Maybe he will let people know that I do not believe in the war in Iraq. That is absolutely true! I do not believe we should be in Iraq, I think our President lied to us, and I believe we need to get out. I do believe that we need to be in Afghanistan, tracking down Osama Bin Laden whereever his sorry ass should be.
Maybe he will say that he is a veteran, member of the DelVets, or a Navy Veteran and that I am a Liberal who does nto support the military. I support our military with every ounce of my being. I have a brother-in-law who retired from teh US Air Force as a Colonel, and a Son-In-Law who is a Sargeant in the US Air Force, stationed at Ramstein in Germany. My brother is a vet who served at the Berlin Wall, when it was still there, in the US Army. My Dad is a veteran of the United States Navy. I believe that our miitary is the best fighting force in the world and needs the support of home.
Don't pay attention to the misdirection. pay attention to his voting record in allowing developers to avoid paying for infrastructure and approving new developments.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 02:42 pm |
|
| You give me WAY TOO MUCH credit. I claim URKidding (started as a way to provide information about the campaign financing for Sean Lynn) and my own name. having been involved with computers all of my life, it is pretty easy to create an alias that can't be traced, but even running two was troublesome. But, in any case, nothing was said using an alias that 1) was not true, 2) was libelous, 3) my own opinion. 95% of my comments came using my name, and 100% has been true! Do you know how easy it would be to actually create an "alias" and use someone else's REAL name? I may not even be jody.sweeney, that is the beauty and the shame of this forum and such venues as Sound Off. And I have never been banned.
|
Zymergy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 02:26 pm |
|
Playing the game was CR...everyone knows that.
No need for multiple ID unless you get banned! 
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 09:54 am |
|
| P.S. Having gone back and reviewed several posts on this and other threads in this forum, I now suspect that Mr. Sweeney is not only "URKidding", "Disbelief" and "Hot Flash", but also "Playing the Game", "Disgusted", "Rightwinger", "Helen here", and "nov_voice_de08". They all tend to say the same thing, over and over again, with some interesting ties to their identity. Am I correct? Perhaps I am incorrect in a couple of cases, but it would appear that Mr. Sweeney has been posing as several different people in order to fabricate a dialogue. Time for you to come totally clean, Mr. Sweeney...tell us how many different aliases have you been using, and please identify all of them by name. Otherwise, I'm afraid your credibility here is completely lost.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 09:07 am |
|
Wow. That's pretty incredible, Mr. Sweeney. I am shocked and disappointed. I like your politics, but I am now concerned about your integrity. How many other aliases have you been posting under? Are you also "Disbelief" and "Hot Flash"? If you are going to hold yourself out as a candidate for public office and use this blog as a venue for advancing your campaign, then I think you need to be honest, forthright, and candid in doing so, rather than hiding behind aliases to make it appear that your views are more widely held than not. Sorry to come down so hard on you on this, as I genuinely appreciate your perspectives and insights, but if we can't trust you to be honest about who you are, then that impairs the credibility of the points you make as well.
In any event, I hope you catch whoever is messing with your signs. I agree that stealing campaign signs is petty, juvenile, political BS. Wishing you continued good luck in your campaign against Edmanson...
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 03:59 am |
|
| True. but my signs were in the little bricked in yard right next to his door, and on the property line at the far end of his parking lot. very legal and on private property. And yes, I was URKidding. not anymore
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 03:42 am |
|
| If they are not legally positioned they are fair game for the picking.
|
URKidding
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 22nd, 2008 03:33 am |
|
| I have another issue of concern for this campaign. I have not put out my signs yet. I am waiting for the traditional start of sign season, usually Labor Day Weekend. But I do have them in three places other than my home. I have one at my parents, one at my cousins on Dawson's corner, and two at my brother's corner in Camden. last night, before sunset, someone walked onto my brother's property and removed two signs. This is an unfortunate petty and criminal thing to do. If you witness an act of this type, I would ask you to report it to the State, Camden, or Wyoming Police. I have sent an email to the State Republican Chair and the Kent County Republican chair asking them to please ask their supporters not to touch the signs placed in the public.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 07:21 am |
|
| Thank you very much, Mr. Sweeney. Your website is very informative and helpful. I agree that you are running a clean campaign, based upon the issues, and I am disappointed that Mr. Edmanson appears to be dodging the issues and engaging in negative attacks. I am impressed with your diligence and appreciate your detailed attention to the issues. Keep up the good work, and you will be rewarded for your efforts on election day.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 04:52 am |
|
The information of individual voting information, comments he has made, and other information, is located here:
http://www.friendsforjodysweeney.com/opponent.htm
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 21st, 2008 04:12 am |
|
| Mr. Edmanson has set the tone for the race for Levy Court 5th District. I have been running a clean race, pinting out why I am the better candidate for the county and referring to Mr. Edmanson's voting record in favor of development special interests. He has chosen to provide the readers with half truths and embellishments. Lets review his record: He has the worst voting record of any Commissioner by voting in favor to allow Developments to be exempted from the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances. That means that more developments do not have to contribute to the infrastructure they are affecting. He has voted in favor of allowing nearly more than 4,400 additional building lots in KENT COUTNY ALONE! He has submitted only two original ideas to the Levy Court, both forced Kent County employees, INCLUDING RETIREES, to have less money in their paychecks in a poor economy. He voted against a balanced budget that was $3m less than the previous year's budget, which included such items as funding for county-wide paramedics, an additional $700k for farm preservation, and no loss of jobs. There were raised fees, but they were fees that have not been adjusted in years, and the County does not have TOLLS. In his attempt to used his skills, he has failed to do his homework on many issues facing the court. He claims he opposed attempts to raise taxes through a property reassessment, which has NEVER been discussed at Levy Court. He states he is more in tune with the people of the District. Ask those he has promised to help and never retunred their calls or returned to a meeting. He has continued to build a relationship with Mr. Blakey and to exchange ideas. He will again try to ride Mr. Blakey's coattails into Levy Court. TIme for him to simply go away.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 07:35 am |
|
What?!*%$#&!?!?
Why on earth would they do that?
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 03:25 am |
|
| Brad Eaby moved to grant Dawson's Creek request for tolling, pending the resolution of the "Enray" (sic) suit against the County for the APFO litigation. Seconded and voted all in favor to grant. I believe this means that the clock has stopped for Dawson Creek's time to file their final recordation until the civil suit is complete.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 19th, 2008 02:31 am |
|
| Any luck confirming what happened with Dawson Creek?
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 03:09 pm |
|
| Not 100%, bit I think all they were voting on was an extension and it was granted. I will double check my resources this evening when I am home
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 02:31 pm |
|
Thanks for all the info on your website, Mr. Sweeney. Very interesting and helpful.
My question remains...does anybody know what happened with Dawson Creek last Tuesday night?
|
nov_voice_de08
Member
| Joined: | Tue Aug 12th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 16th, 2008 02:10 am |
|
| I am new to this blog but not new to the county. The conflict between Lynn and Angel is being driven by individuals who want to pay back Angel for defeating Cebrick in a primary in 04. A lot of what Lynn is bringing up is misleading and not based on hard facts. Those of you that follow the county already know this. Those of you that do not need only follow the money in Lynns campaign account and trust your instinct to know who is telling the truth. Angel has been a leader in trying to get growth under control. He should be commended for stepping up when others in Levy Court sat by and claimed they had no control over it. The county getting sued will continue to be a problem as long as the courts are undecided on law concerning growth in this county. The county must continue to stand tall and fight for our right to well planned developments. If law suits are a problem it is legal advice being given to the county commissioners that is off, not because Angel is a know it all and makes all the decisions.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 15th, 2008 03:55 am |
|
I completely forgot about this. I have been tracking most of the information about my opponent. GO to my website at http://www.friendsforjodysweeney.com and click on the OPPONENT button. I have quotes, APFO voting, Development voting, but focused on my opponent.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 06:37 pm |
|
| I'm hoping LC isn't getting into the business of giving extensions on final plans. The law seems pretty clear on what is required in that regard and the people who oppose Dawson's Creek should insist that they be given the relief the statutes allow. They have precious little other legal recourse in Levy Court once it gets past the Planning Commission. In their defense, they have been pretty fair about giving every break up to the limit but not beyond and they did knock down one development near Harrington recently that kept dragging out their final plan paperwork.
|
URKidding
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 03:57 pm |
|
Oops! This could be BAD!
Campaign donation reports are available online! Here is the just of Lawyer Lynn's donators:
$1200 (Mike and Mike JR Harrington), $600 (Tidewater Utilities), $600 (Friends of Mike Cebrick), $1200 (Phil and Pam McGinnis), $200 (Linda Paradee, wife of John Paradee), $1400 (Lawyers in the law offices of Tom Barrows (Tom Barrows, Brandon Jones, Dave Weidman, Jay Becker, Ron Smith, Harry Fisher, Alex Funk, Adam Perza, Terry Jaywork)), $800 (Jordan and Tony Ashburn), $1200 (Jim and Mary Jane McGinnis). Others are listed but I have not tracked them down, like Karen Barnes, Todd Stonesifer, Kevin Smith, Lisa and Jeff hastings, who are associated with the development and real estate industry in Kent County.
LAWYER LYNN needs to fess up who his masters are!
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 08:03 am |
|
I don't mean to pick on Angel exclusively. Several of the other Commissioners are subject to equal circumspection (particularly Banta, who only recently "got religion", having voted pro-development for most of his early tenure). I think Angel's heart is in the right place. It's just that, in my view, he is too often inconsistent and/or borderline incompetent (the poor guy can't even string together 2 sentences that make sense sometimes). Remember, this thread started with me suggesting that Sean Lynn might be an upgrade over Angel, just as Mr. Sweeney may well be an upgrade over Edmanson. That was my point, initially. Angel gets some of the credit when things go right, and also some of the blame when things go wrong, because he is both a member of Levy Court leadership (as is Banta) and a bit of a self-anointed ringleader.
Thanks for all the further info on Thorndyke Creek. That is both insightful and helpful. The question remains, however, how can Angel justify voting to exempt Thorndyke Creek when it clearly did not meet the "4 + 1" test?
By the way, does anybody know what happened with Dawson Creek this past Tuesday night? I saw something toward the end of the agenda sugesting that the Levy Court was considering an extension of their deadline (normally 18 or 24 months) to record their final plan, after first going into executive session to discuss pending litigation. Is Dawson Creek involved in any litigation with the County? Why would the Levy Court feel compelled to grant Dawson Creek an extension of their deadline?
Thanks for the lively dialogue...
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14th, 2008 05:04 am |
|
TNJ, your comments are really starting to lean toward one of the Commissioners as being at the root of all this. There are seven sitting Commissioners and winning must take a majority vote. I took the APFO's as a bell-weather for the intention of the Commissioner because there were a number of opportunities to have the developers contribute to infrastructure. If there was any question on the development requesting the appeal, I question how the Commissioner voted.
I do have the development vote information. It is not as sexy as the vote on the APFO's because I really only tracked yes votes and not differing votes (positive vs negative for the County). It will take some time, but I will try to get that information posted before the Primary.
As far as Thorndyke Creek, Mr. Ramos made a number of concessions to the State and County, including reducing the number of units, switching the development to an over-55 community, road improvements well beyond the DelDOT requirement, roadside berms, open space within the development, donations to the Magnolia fire Company, I could go on. IN MY OPINION, I think the developers felt that Mr. Ramos had bent over backward to comply with the APFO's, even though he was not required to comply, and the result was an overall imporvement to the area. In the end, Mr. Ramos could not justify the extreme increase in lots costs he would have to pass on to the buyer and eventually pulled out of the Thorndyke project. The result is, other projects, like Dawson's Creek, across Woodleytown Rd from Thorndyke, may end up picking up a larger share of the costs to improve the infrstructure in the area.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 08:38 pm |
|
| Good comments. This thread is unusual in that there is more of an analytical approach to the facts or circumstances than we typically get. The question/comment on Thorndyke Village is worth pursuing for a better evaluation of Angel's overall record. Not expecting Jody to do that, but I wonder if anyone out there has a perspective on why that vote came out the way it did.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 01:32 pm |
|
This is all very interesting stuff, but I would respectfully suggest that we should be focusing our attention on the Commissioners voting records on actual rezoning/conditional use/subdivision applications, not the APFO exemption hearings, as the APFO exemption requests spanned such a wide spectrum of different fact patterns, and the vested rights analysis undertaken by the Levy Court in response to each application is so different from the analysis performed under the Levy Court's traditional role, that meaningful conclusions are difficult to draw. Concluding that Angel has performed well and Edmanson has performed poorly in the consideration of APFO exemptions, based simply upon the number of votes cast in any particular direction, is overly simplistic and terribly misleading, I submit. Take a look at the vote on Thorndyke Creek, for example -- a project which had not even filed an application (let alone received RPC approval) and clearly did not meet the Levy Court's "4 + 1" test. Yet, Commissioner Angel voted to grant this project an APFO exemption. Utterly indefensible, in my view. More critically, the inconsistency in APFO exemption results (Thorndyke Creek is but one example, there are many more) is one of the gaffes that will ultimately doom the County's defense of the APFOs in court. Angel was responsible for most of the inconsistencies in the APFO exemption process, as he was often the one asking the County Attorney whether the APFOs met the "4 + 1" test (which, of course, is not only NOT the correct legal standard for vested rights, it is not even the actual standard set forth in the APFOs).
Again, I appreciate all of the research you have done. But I suggest that the conclusions you have drawn from the Commissioners records on the APFO exemption hearings is flawed, and in any event, we'd be better advised to review their records on actual rezoning/conditional use/subdivision applications. Any chance you can put together something which reflects the Commissioners' records on substantive applications?
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 05:16 am |
|
| Thanks, and I have the details to back it up. I am running on my history with the county, my knowledge of the county, and on my opponent's voting record.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 04:44 am |
|
| Neat chart. Shows the VP is even better than the Pres. and I thought he was doing well.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:52 am |
|
If you can see the picture, you will note that the most POSITIVE votes during the exemption process came from Commissioner Angel. The most NEGATIVE votes, voting to allow developments to be exempt from the APFO's, meaning they do not have to contribute to their effect on roads, schools, emergency services, etc, was Mr. Edmanson. Conversely, he voted in favor of the county the fewest times. I have the individual votes on each and will share them with anyone who asks. My email account is sweejody@comcast.net, and I will not share them with an alias. Please send me an email with your name and physical address.
I am working on a way to post the voting on allowing developments as well. Please stay tuned.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:48 am |
|
| Let me try this again, only with formatted screen print: I hope this works Attachment: Exempt_Vote.jpg (Downloaded 222 times)
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:45 am |
|
I will be more than happy to provide the information. I would have posted it immediately, but I do not post when I am at work, only when I am on vacation or after hours, or even occasionally at lunchtime when I am home.
The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances were enacted to force the developers to account for their effect on infrastructure items, including roads, schools, emergency services, and water & sewer. Many developers felt they were far enough along in the process to be exempted and appealed to Levy Court for exemption.
I have voting records for every vote on the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances exemptions. My overall account of the vote is as follows: Of the 56 votes that occurred that I have records for, 20 were granted exemption, and 30 were denied. Some were tabled and brought up later for another vote, hence the difference. Here is the rub....Of the 56 votes 17 were a split vote, meaning that at least one of the Commissioners felt there was a justification to question whether a development had justified the exemption.
If the Commissioner voted in favor of deny the exemption, or voted in opposition to allowing the exemption, those were considered POSITIVE votes for the county. And vice versa, if the Commissioner voted in favor to allow the exemption or voted in opposition to deny the exemption, it was considered a NEGATIVE vote for the county.
1
55
36
11
Harold Brode
2
4
6
2
19
0
29
0
5
1
2
56
29
19
Eric Buckson
5
4
4
4
15
5
25
5
6
56
30
20
Brad Eaby
5
2
4
4
18
2
26
2
5
1
2
56
28
20
WG Edmanson
2
5
2
1
18
0
21
7
6
4
56
21
25
Dick Ennis
3
1
7
11
0
22
2
5
15
55
22
13
Brooks Banta
1
17
3
29
1
6
56
32
18
Unanimous to Grant
12
Unanimous to Deny
21
Split to Grant
8
Split to Deny
9
Voted to Table
6
Total
56
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Wed Aug 13th, 2008 12:23 am |
|
I'd agree that a comprehensive listing of who voted for what would be interesting as far as Levy Court, but the most damage is done [as far as development approvals] in the Regional Planning Commission. Those are the people who vote a development up or down as long as no rezoning is required -and it generally is not. Other than rubber stamping the decision to allow a development, the Levy Court doesn't do much deciding on that. Of course, if the Planning Commission says 'no', [an extreme rarity], the developer promptly bucks it up to the Levy Court to get that vote overturned if they can . The law is set up so that only the developer can ask for a re-count, though. The people who opposed a development can't appeal it under our current codes. Tough nuggies on them , they aren't rich and don't have lawyers to sue the County.
The focus needs to be on the broader laws that govern development and that has been happening in just the past few years. Things like requiring adequate public facilities before subjecting existing residents to more overdevelopment have been the product of public pressure and a receptive Court. The developers don't like their free meal ticket getting curbed and have sued us county residents to let them have their own way, but that's to be expected and hopefully we'll start winning more of the lawsuits as we go forward. Perhaps Mr. Lynn could serve us better if he joined the legal team of the County and helped the administrators avoid the little gaffes that have given some of the devloper lawyers a way to get us in court. He certainly seems well qualified and earnest in his desire to help and apparently that is an area the County needs to upgrade.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Aug 12th, 2008 01:45 pm |
|
It is also too late for Mr. Lynn to change his party affiliation, and thus, it is categorically impossible for him to run on the Republican ticket. The suggestion that there is some sort of plan afoot for Lynn to jump onto the Republican ticket if he loses the primary strikes me, frankly, as conspiracy-theorist bunk.
I would be interested in seeing a detailed comparison of the voting records of all 7 Commissioners on a project-by-project basis, so we can test Mr. Sweeney's contention that Edmanson has the worst record. It may well be true, but I doubt it is so pronounced as Mr. Sweeney suggests. I can recall Edmanson voting with the majority most of the time. At least he's not as inconsistent as Angel has been (e.g., How can Angel possibly justify making the motion to approve Millwood Crossing? And how can Angel possibly justify voting for Verona Woods? Those were the only 2 projects proposed in his district for properties located outside the growth zone, and he voted for both of them. Worse yet, he made the motion to approve Millwood Crossing, and it is my understanding that he actually helped the developer out by coaching him on how to get the project approved!). Maybe we should throw all of them out (even Banta has been inconsistent). A detailed analysis of the voting records of all 7 Commissioners would be interesting reading, indeed.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 06:51 am |
|
Playing, the Republican Party has named a candidate, David Anderson. If Mr. Lynn does not win the primary, it will be too late for him to run. Political Parties must name their candidates to vacant General Election candidate spots by September 2. WIth the primary a week later, it will be too late for Mr. Lynn to be named to the Independent spot.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 06:44 am |
|
My problem with Mr Lynn is the fact that he is forcing a primary in the party. There are ways to get involved without unseating a Commissioner who has been working very hard for the county. His major campaign point is the cost to the county residents for lawsuits brought on by his counterparts, and the fact that some of the lawsuits were initiated when his partner was in the office.
I completely disagree with your assessment of the 5th District Commissioner. Much of his campaign financing came from development concerns; he has the worst voting record of any sitting Commissioner to allow developers to be exempted from the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances; he has the worst voting record in voting in favor of new developments; his statements over the last two years have flipflopped between increasing taxes and not increasing taxes. All of this is on the record.
I appreciate your wishes of success. I don't feel like I am goading the developers to "bring it on", just Mr. Edmanson. He hs put up two signs, both on my road. I think the gauntlet has been laid down. 
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 01:39 am |
|
If you eliminate the competition in the primary, there is no race. Without a declared Republican party supported candidate, the party can still run Mr. Lynn against Angel if Lynn loses the Democrat primary.
I'm a Republican so don't get caught up with the politics.
|
Truth N Justice
Member
| Joined: | Sun Aug 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 59 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 11th, 2008 01:06 am |
|
Mr. Sweeney:
With all due respect, the proposition that Sean Lynn is merely a Republican in Democratic clothing who is merely doing Ron Smith's bidding is a bit far-fetched, I submit. If Mr. Lynn was really a Republican, why wouldn't he just file and run as a Republican from the outset, so all of his Republican cronies could vote for him? Just because he is in the same law firm as Ron Smith does not mean that they think and/or act alike. Do you agree with everything that everyone in your office says or does? I doubt it. I give Sean Lynn credit for (a) being an independent thinker, and (b) having the courage to stand up and be counted. It should be a good race, and I think we're winners either way, since both Mr. Angel and Mr. Lynn are more friendly to our concerns than their Republican opponent, David Anderson.
Good luck to you in your race. I like (and agree with) most of what you say, but Mr. Edmanson is not quite the "friend" of development interests that you paint him to be (he votes with the Dem majority 95% of the time), and you might be better served if you were a little less "aggressive" with your commentary (e.g., goading the developers lawyers to "bring it on" is not helpful to our cause). All that said, I wish you success in your campaign.
|
Rightwinger
Member
| Joined: | Tue Apr 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 468 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 10th, 2008 04:09 pm |
|
Jody.Sweeney wrote: Hey HB, You are absolutely right. On the surface, Levy Court is really a non-partisan office. Levy Court will never vote, decide, or introduce ordinances for the normal national issues like healthcare, right to chose, foreign policy, etc. But, like I said, on the surface. Underneath though, most large developers, real estate people, large land owners, etc are Republicans, therefore they support the Republican candidates for Levy Court. Mr. Edmanson is obviously funded by Republicans, and he is obviously going to cater to their needs. His voting record is obvious proof of that. We will know in a few days who the contributors to Sean Lynn are.
Sean may be "Democrat" on paper, but he is "Republican" where the development of Kent County is concerned. URK is right, though. Ron Smith is still a power in the Republican party, and Sean Lynn works with Ron Smith, and 2+2=4. If Sean Lynn wins the primary election, Ron Smith will order David Anderson out of the race and Sean will waltz onto the dias. Allan Angel has to win this primary
I love these blogs, you get the "inside scoop". I have met both Angel and Lynn
and I believe Angel is the man for the job!
I haven't heard anything negative about Angel but I have heard negative things
about Sean Lynn.
|
Jody.Sweeney
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 9th, 2008 06:33 am |
|
Hey HB, You are absolutely right. On the surface, Levy Court is really a non-partisan office. Levy Court will never vote, decide, or introduce ordinances for the normal national issues like healthcare, right to chose, foreign policy, etc. But, like I said, on the surface. Underneath though, most large developers, real estate people, large land owners, etc are Republicans, therefore they support the Republican candidates for Levy Court. Mr. Edmanson is obviously funded by Republicans, and he is obviously going to cater to their needs. His voting record is obvious proof of that. We will know in a few days who the contributors to Sean Lynn are.
Sean may be "Democrat" on paper, but he is "Republican" where the development of Kent County is concerned. URK is right, though. Ron Smith is still a power in the Republican party, and Sean Lynn works with Ron Smith, and 2+2=4. If Sean Lynn wins the primary election, Ron Smith will order David Anderson out of the race and Sean will waltz onto the dias. Allan Angel has to win this primary
|
URKidding
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 9th, 2008 05:17 am |
|
| the republican for the 3rd District is David Anderson. He will no doubt withdraw in Lawyer Lynn wins and agreed on the Republican_democrat thing
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 9th, 2008 04:35 am |
|
OK, it's making a little more sense now as far as who the contribution report covered. Who is the Republican who would run against the winner of the primary, assuming it was Angel? I'm not sure I have a strong belief that this is a Republican-Democrat thing as far as Levy Court. Buckson is a Republican I believe and he has proven to be a pretty fair and concerned Commissioner as far as growth issues are concerned. The developer lawyers don't seem to like him which is a great endorsement in my opinion.
Anyway, thanks for helping educate me on all the inside stuff...
|
URKidding
Member
| Joined: | Fri Aug 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 19 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 9th, 2008 04:23 am |
|
I will try to explain. First of all, the finance reports were from Edmanson. Most of his money DID come from republicans, but they are all developers or real estate agents. Sean Lynn's report will be here on Monday, the filing date was today for 30 days before the election.
For Disgusted: Mr Angel's voting record favors open space and slower growth. He first introduced the moratorium, and fought to get the moratorium implemented for a couple of years, and has a good record of voting against development and against excluding developments from adhering to the APFO's. The Development community in Kent County does not like that, so they hand=picked a Democrat, whose Dad was a Republican, and who works for Ron Smith, ex Commissioner evicted from Levy Court in the 2006 Elections. Lawyer Lynn is on the defensive, not only in these forums, but in Letters to the Editor, by sending an abusive, childish letter, almost accusing Allan Angel of being the archangel.
If Sean Lynn wins the primary, then the Republican will withdraw, leaving him to walk into Levy Court unopposed, since he most likely will represent the Development crowd better than a republican.
Last edited on Mon Aug 11th, 2008 03:36 pm by
|
Disgusted
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover |
| Posts: | 570 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 8th, 2008 03:08 pm |
|
I'm not a 3rd District resident, but would someone mind explaining what has prompted Sean Lynn to run against Allen Angel?
I keep an eye on Levy Court, and Angel's votes seem quite reasonable, especially in that he's a Democrat. I'm somewhat surprised the Donkeys haven't transferred his membership card to the Elephant Party.
Lynn had an ad in the Post that included his father's picture. That's shameful in that he's trying to trade off his dad's good name. Although imperfect, Pat did quite well in keeping DHS together in spite of community changes that brought problems on school grounds that had, and have, no business being there.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2846 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 7th, 2008 03:16 am |
|
| Lynn is Ron (Shorty) Smith's business and law partner. He will stoop to anything. Pun intended.
|
Hartlyboy
Member
|