| Author | Post |
|---|
ccattie
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 03:49 pm |
|
Not yet - I'm still trying to confirm all that I need before I ask a plumber to come in. I have his name on my short list.
-c
|
leakypipes
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 02:11 pm |
|
ccattie wrote: <aside> Leakypipes I have sent you a few PM's about me needing a plumber but haven't heard back from you. Could you hit me up offline? </aside>
-c
ccattie, did you ever contact J. Skinner about your plumbing?
|
Hot Flash
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1299 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 03:57 am |
|
You should know since you have turned in other people before. At least, that is my opinion.
|
leakypipes
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 19th, 2008 03:27 am |
|
| I work for myself so I can pretty much take lunch and whatever whenever. I notice that Mullen who supposedly works for the state or some agency related to the state is posting during working hours. He seems to have been posting a lot lately. What is up with that. isnt that a violation or something.
|
Observant
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 06:12 pm |
|
Pat Stombaugh wrote: Observant wrote: Pat Stombaugh wrote: As far as nothing has happened over the past year, this past year alone, 60+ new businesses opened in the Town of Smyrna with many more to follow.
Mdme. Mayor -- 60 NEW businesses? That is difficult to believe. Can the town post a list of them in here so that we can patronize them?
I will post a list of the new businesses for you shortly.
Mdme. Mayor --- just a reminder, before one of us loses track of this.
|
SmyrnaDE
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17th, 2008 03:24 pm |
|
| Don't you have to ask if Someone lives in town and owns property?
|
yun1095
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 06:50 pm |
|
| Interesting Mr. Mullen "We would welcome that input and see if the majority supports it". Who's majority? Council majority? Smyrna residents majority?
|
Someone
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Big Cave |
| Posts: | 1683 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 06:17 pm |
|
| OK, your right it is just my opinion. What I write is always just my opinion.
|
gene mullen
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 29 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 05:43 pm |
|
Someone wrote: Mr Mullen, don't know a darn thing about runoff and how to calculate, but I am not person who is happy about how some things are zoned, But your statement below was not what we should be doing. We need folks that want to do it right not because everyone else is doing it, hell they haven't gotten it right.
But the Town's zoning is pretty much in line with other municipalities
Your opinion Someone. Now if you'd like to tackle the zoning codes and rewrite them, I'm sure we would welcome that input and see if the majority supports it.
|
Someone
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Big Cave |
| Posts: | 1683 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 04:01 pm |
|
Mr Mullen, don't know a darn thing about runoff and how to calculate, but I am not person who is happy about how some things are zoned, But your statement below was not what we should be doing. We need folks that want to do it right not because everyone else is doing it, hell they haven't gotten it right.
But the Town's zoning is pretty much in line with other municipalities
|
gene mullen
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 29 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 02:59 pm |
|
SmyrnaGuy wrote: I don't see why you'd regret passing that info along Gene. That's good stuff for us to know.
Smy Guy, see below for my concerns (TC). I was referring to the Mayor's comments which are inaccurate at best. Density is set by zoning classification. As I said, most density is 20% +/-, but that varies depending. The stormwater calculations are based on total impervious of the overall site. Two Cents is correct in that more density means more runoff (minus open spaces & other) but stormwater calculations are based on overall site runoff and not lot numbers so you could have the same amount of impervious cover with a higher density as would be with larger lots and lower density.
My point is there are a lot of variables that the town doesn't necessarily have control over. And if density is a concern then the zoning requirements have to be changed. But the Town's zoning is pretty much in line with other municipalities.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 508 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 01:39 am |
|
gene mullen wrote: I'm going to regret this.
Stormwater management is a state/federal requirement. EVERY project must meet a standard for water quality and quanity based on pre-development runoff as opposed to post-development runoff. There cannot be an increase in runoff in post development so storage ponds or other facilities must take the excess and retain it for at least 24 hours without exceeding the rate of discharge in pre-development. It has nothing to do with the town. No matter the amount of lots or size of lots these requirements do not go away.
Mr. Mullen -- Your next to last sentence in the second paragraph, "It (post development runoff) has nothing to do with the town." It has absolutely everything to do with the town. The greater the housing density permitted, then the greater the impervious surface area per acre, thus the greater the post development runoff. I will agree that it may be that any development will increase the post development runoff thus requiring some sort of storm water management provisions, but the more dense the development, the larger the problem to be managed -- and the town has EVERYTHING to do with that facet of it.
|
SmyrnaGuy
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 289 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 16th, 2008 12:07 am |
|
I don't see why you'd regret passing that info along Gene. That's good stuff for us to know.
|
gene mullen
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 8th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 29 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 12:10 pm |
|
Pat Stombaugh wrote: Bixby wrote: leakypipes wrote: Mayor. You work in real estate? That wouldn't have been my guess. Most real estate people are more savvy. Do you know the reason for smaller lots. Smaller lots mean more open spaces and less sprawl. Plus in some developments most people want less lawn and grounds to maintain. A bit harsh for Mdm. Mayor, but the primary reason for smaller lots is not more open space but the developer and builder maximizing profit potential by putting as much housing within a givin space. More homes equals more bucks. They couldn't give a darn about open space...except to squeeze what they can into it. The Levittowns around the country were huge business successes because of that.
Squeezing the properties together is also the reason for water management ponds. Now the ponds are to be turned over to the community associations. What does the average person know about water management ponds? More money pushed on the home owner, have to hire an expert. When there are larger lots, there is more room for water to soak into the ground and the home owners take care of their own property. The new open land policy, again the association is responsible to take care of open areas so again more money pushed on the home owners. I hear Sussex County is looking at other options because the water management ponds are failing.
I'm going to regret this.
Stormwater management is a state/federal requirement. EVERY project must meet a standard for water quality and quanity based on pre-development runoff as opposed to post-development runoff. There cannot be an increase in runoff in post development so storage ponds or other facilities must take the excess and retain it for at least 24 hours without exceeding the rate of discharge in pre-development. It has nothing to do with the town. No matter the amount of lots or size of lots these requirements do not go away.
Zoning requirements set the number of units and impervious percentages. Most housing lots of less than 1/4 acre can only have 20% of impervious surface. A variance is required in some cases to exceed that percentage.
Sussex County is not looking to replace stormwater management as they don't have that authority. The State (DNREC) is always looking for better systems to meet the federal requirements but stormwater ponds are not likely to be replaced.
Citizens should have the correct information.
|
Smyrnite
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 406 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15th, 2008 12:08 am |
|
 Oh, okay.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 508 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 11:58 pm |
|
| Smyrnite -- the mayor tied her initial observation that the newspapers don't always get it right or tell the entire story, to her campaigning for office. I took that to mean that the news reports that people relied on to be ashamed to admit they lived in Smyrna had unfairly spoken of the former administration -- and nothing more. I am familiar with news reports about lawsuits against a former mayor -- but I certainly have no personal knowledge of them.
|
Smyrnite
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jun 15th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 406 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 08:07 pm |
|
| TC, it sounds to me like you're bucking to have the current mayor say that the past mayor wasn't as bad as everyone thinks. Newspapers may not print the whole story but lawsuits don't lie.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 508 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 07:58 pm |
|
Pat Stombaugh wrote: Two Cents wrote: Pat Stombaugh wrote: One of the items mentioned most, when I was campaigning for mayor, was people were ashamed to tell anyone they live in the Town of Smyrna because of the negative news articles published over the state. I have found, as you all well know, the news articles do not always tell the whole story which can made the situation sound quite different than it really is.
Mayor, are you saying that the actions of the former adminsitration of the town was maligned by the news articles? There are always two sides to every story and sometimes only one side is presented or just all the facts are not given.
Lets go back, then to your statement "... when I was campaigning for mayor, [was] people were ashamed to tell anyone they live in the Town of Smyrna because of the negative news articles published ..." "I have found, as you all well know, the news articles do not always tell the whole story which can made the situation sound quite different than it really is."
So then with this knowledge, shouldn't you agree to the notion that some of the actions of the previous town administration was no doubt maligned? Isn't this one of those arenas where one can't have it both ways?
|
Pat Stombaugh
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 04:55 pm |
|
Two Cents wrote: Pat Stombaugh wrote: One of the items mentioned most, when I was campaigning for mayor, was people were ashamed to tell anyone they live in the Town of Smyrna because of the negative news articles published over the state. I have found, as you all well know, the news articles do not always tell the whole story which can made the situation sound quite different than it really is.
Mayor, are you saying that the actions of the former adminsitration of the town was maligned by the news articles?
That is not what I was saying. There are always two sides to every story and sometimes only one side is presented or just all the facts are not given.
For instance:
The article in Sun Times on the last council meeting; said the reason I did not recommend Doug Chervenak for the Charter Review Committee was because he is moving out of town.
That is one of the reasons but they didn't print the other information I gave:
As chairman of the past charter review committee he tried to pass charter changes that were his ideas, not the majority of the committee. In fact a member told me they never voted on any of the suggestions, just talked about them
He wanted to eliminate the position of mayor and have council choose a president of council. This would become a political issue instead of the people's choice. Council can't even agree on committee recommendations let alone a president of council. Also the council would only choose from the council members at large. That is the biggest case of discrimination I have ever seen.
He wanted to change the penalty for violating the charter or an ordinance from $1,000.00 to $10,000.00, section 4.2.31. It does not say up to. The courses I have taken state every ordinance must have a penalty attached. Example: the new home occupation ordinance; if someone inadvertently did something wrong, they could be fined $10,000.00.
He wanted to eliminate the clause in the charter 9.7.2 - delete phrase "& setting the tax rate per $100.00 of assessed value". Without this phrase, the citizens would be taxed 100% of the assessed value.
This is just three of the recommendation that he tried to push through at his last meeting on council.
After talking with citizens the consensus was "Charter Review Committee members must be citizens of the Town of Smyrna who intend to continue to live in the Town of Smyrna, people who must follow these laws and who will be directed affected by the charter changes.
These were my reason for not recommending Mr. Chervenak to the committee.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 508 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 04:26 pm |
|
Pat Stombaugh wrote: Two Cents wrote: But Mayor, doesn't the town approve subdivisions that contain small lots? Yes, it does. Therefore it is the policies and subdivision ordinances of the town which permits small lots that requires the installation of the surface water retention ponds that homeowners ultimately become financially responsible for.
Two Cents, you are correct. I would like to see that changed as well as the parking ordinance that I proposed over a year ago to increase parking from 1.5 spaces to 2 spaces per unit and an area for overflow in apartment, townhouse and duplex developments. It is in the hands of business development now and suppose to come back to council next meeting. Board of Adjustments sent it to council with the recommendation to pass.
Yes, ma'am -- but that doesn't address the small lot sizes. The smaller the lot sizes, the larger the drainage problem. More square feet of rooftops and paved areas (driveways, sidewalks, patios, and roadways per acre only increases the amount of water on the surface that requires water management systems. Why not instead consider zoning prdinance amendments to require, among other things, larger lots, fewer square feet of impervious material per acre and maybe other changes which may lead perhaps to the elimination of the necessity for water management facilities.
|
Pat Stombaugh
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 04:12 pm |
|
Two Cents wrote: But Mayor, doesn't the town approve subdivisions that contain small lots? Yes, it does. Therefore it is the policies and subdivision ordinances of the town which permits small lots that requires the installation of the surface water retention ponds that homeowners ultimately become financially responsible for.
Two Cents, you are correct. I would like to see that changed as well as the parking ordinance that I proposed over a year ago to increase parking from 1.5 spaces to 2 spaces per unit and an area for overflow in apartment, townhouse and duplex developments. That has been bounced around for over a year now and at least 3 new developments have gotten through with the 1.5 spaces required. We actually have people calling planning & inspections and the police department fighting over parking space. You know how the buddy system works. It is in the hands of business development now and suppose to come back to council next meeting. Board of Adjustments sent it to council with the recommendation to pass.Last edited on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 04:13 pm by Pat Stombaugh
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 508 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 03:54 pm |
|
| But Mayor, doesn't the town approve subdivisions that contain small lots? Yes, it does. Therefore it is the policies and subdivision ordinances of the town which permits small lots that requires the installation of the surface water retention ponds that homeowners ultimately become financially responsible for.
|
Pat Stombaugh
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 03:49 pm |
|
Bixby wrote: leakypipes wrote: Mayor. You work in real estate? That wouldn't have been my guess. Most real estate people are more savvy. Do you know the reason for smaller lots. Smaller lots mean more open spaces and less sprawl. Plus in some developments most people want less lawn and grounds to maintain. A bit harsh for Mdm. Mayor, but the primary reason for smaller lots is not more open space but the developer and builder maximizing profit potential by putting as much housing within a givin space. More homes equals more bucks. They couldn't give a darn about open space...except to squeeze what they can into it. The Levittowns around the country were huge business successes because of that.
Squeezing the properties together is also the reason for water management ponds. Now the ponds are to be turned over to the community associations. What does the average person know about water management ponds? More money pushed on the home owner, have to hire an expert. When there are larger lots, there is more room for water to soak into the ground and the home owners take care of their own property. The new open land policy, again the association is responsible to take care of open areas so again more money pushed on the home owners. I hear Sussex County is looking at other options because the water management ponds are failing.
|
Someone
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Big Cave |
| Posts: | 1683 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 03:37 pm |
|
| On the same note would we know how many if any closed up.
|
SmyrnaGuy
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 289 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 03:11 pm |
|
Observant wrote: Pat Stombaugh wrote: As far as nothing has happened over the past year, this past year alone, 60+ new businesses opened in the Town of Smyrna with many more to follow.
The town has come a long way over the past year and there are good things planned for the future. We just have taken care of things quietly without putting the whole world on notice and making the citizens ashamed to tell people they live in the Town of Smyrna.
Mdme. Mayor -- 60 NEW businesses? That is difficult to believe. Can the town post a list of them in here so that we can patronize them?
If the town government has taken care of things, why do so cloaked in silence? I would think that the public would like to know those things, has a right to know them, and that doing so would not make citizens ashamed for others to learn that they live in Smyrna.
60 businesses doesn't have to mean businesses that have storefronts. It could be services like contractors, day cares, anything that needs a business license to run.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 508 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 02:11 pm |
|
Pat Stombaugh wrote: One of the items mentioned most, when I was campaigning for mayor, was people were ashamed to tell anyone they live in the Town of Smyrna because of the negative news articles published over the state. I have found, as you all well know, the news articles do not always tell the whole story which can made the situation sound quite different than it really is.
Mayor, are you saying that the actions of the former adminsitration of the town was maligned by the news articles?
|
Pat Stombaugh
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 01:51 pm |
|
Observant wrote: Pat Stombaugh wrote: As far as nothing has happened over the past year, this past year alone, 60+ new businesses opened in the Town of Smyrna with many more to follow.
The town has come a long way over the past year and there are good things planned for the future. We just have taken care of things quietly without putting the whole world on notice and making the citizens ashamed to tell people they live in the Town of Smyrna.
Mdme. Mayor -- 60 NEW businesses? That is difficult to believe. Can the town post a list of them in here so that we can patronize them?
If the town government has taken care of things, why do so cloaked in silence? I would think that the public would like to know those things, has a right to know them, and that doing so would not make citizens ashamed for others to learn that they live in Smyrna.
One of the items mentioned most, when I was campaigning for mayor, was people were ashamed to tell anyone they live in the Town of Smyrna because of the negative news articles published over the state. I have found, as you all well know, the news articles do not always tell the whole story which can made the situation sound quite different than it really is.
I will post a list of the new businesses for you shortly.
|
Observant
Member
| Joined: | Mon Dec 5th, 2005 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 1650 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 01:18 pm |
|
Pat Stombaugh wrote: As far as nothing has happened over the past year, this past year alone, 60+ new businesses opened in the Town of Smyrna with many more to follow.
The town has come a long way over the past year and there are good things planned for the future. We just have taken care of things quietly without putting the whole world on notice and making the citizens ashamed to tell people they live in the Town of Smyrna.
Mdme. Mayor -- 60 NEW businesses? That is difficult to believe. Can the town post a list of them in here so that we can patronize them?
If the town government has taken care of things, why do so cloaked in silence? I would think that the public would like to know those things, has a right to know them, and that doing so would not make citizens ashamed for others to learn that they live in Smyrna.
Last edited on Mon Jul 14th, 2008 01:25 pm by Observant
|
Pat Stombaugh
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 12:49 pm |
|
As far as nothing has happened over the past year, this past year alone, 60+ new businesses opened in the Town of Smyrna with many more to follow.
Council has had some disagreements, which is always going to happen when you have seven opinions but we have moved forward. There were many issues that we had to take time to correct that were handed to us from the past.
The town has come a long way over the past year and there are good things planned for the future. We just have taken care of things quietly without putting the whole world on notice and making the citizens ashamed to tell people they live in the Town of Smyrna.
|
Pat Stombaugh
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 14th, 2008 12:38 pm |
|
Hot Flash wrote: leakypipes wrote: Zymergy wrote: ForeverSmyrna wrote: Don't just pick on WalMart. Thank him for all the cars too that come and go out of all the new developments built to house the state of NJ. The number of trucks is incidental compared to all the cars coming from the west to hit the highway and back.
So you wanted Smyrna to be some small town and never grow? What reality are you living in? Once Rt1 was started you should have had some clue that the growth was coming. Growth is inevitable you just need to make sure it is planned well. If the town didn't annex the land I can guarantee those homes would have still been built only the county would be getting all the tax money and the cars would have still been coming into Smyrna.
My point exactly. The homes north of smyrna would have still been built and New Castle county would have gotten all the money generated from the bldg of those homes including the transfer tax and regular property tax money, bldg permits, impact fees. Plus those kids in those developments would still have gone to Smyrna school and smyrna would have gotten only a portion of the school tax with the rest going to NCC. Annexing that land north of Smyrna was the right and smart thing to do. Can't understand peoples way of thinking. But most people don't put much thought into it.
CCattie. Sorry I didn't respond. I usually do commercial and new residential housing. I don't much fool with private homeowner plumbing issues. But you could try J. Skinner. I know he fools with the small stuff.
The homes north of Smyrna would not have been built because of the land use rules of New Castle Co. They wanted to be annexed by Smyrna so that they could have more density with smaller lot sizes. Who do you think you are kidding. The Doe's must be back on here or the Fax King X-Mayor himself because you are the only ones that think you are so wonderful other than some x-councilmen. At lease that is my opinion! Looks like you have changed your name again.
Here are the facts about the annexation north of town.
The reason the state and county did not want this to happen - there is a large water shed under ground on the Watson property. Rick Horsey (Parkview RV and I were told years ago that property would NEVER be allowed to be developed). Rick Horsey has the original map (I have seen it) that shows this to be true. I spoke to Rick the other day, he still has the map.
Remember this year when the properties in southern Delaware ran out of water. Our forefathers looked out for our future but today - GREED seems to be the only thing that counts.
When I asked (about a year ago) what changed to allow this to happen, I was told by a New Castle Official "when the administration changed a deal was struck". What deal, I was not given that information. In fact, everyone stopped talking.
The state did withhold a large grant to the Town of Smyrna as a penalty. We received $800,000.00 of that grant 1 month after I was elected. This money is designated for the downtown improvements and can only be used for this project.
|
Hot Flash
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1299 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 07:01 pm |
|
| Guess what Bixby, I have to agree with your post below.
|
Bixby
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1311 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 11:19 am |
|
leakypipes wrote: Mayor. You work in real estate? That wouldn't have been my guess. Most real estate people are more savvy. Do you know the reason for smaller lots. Smaller lots mean more open spaces and less sprawl. Plus in some developments most people want less lawn and grounds to maintain. A bit harsh for Mdm. Mayor, but the primary reason for smaller lots is not more open space but the developer and builder maximizing profit potential by putting as much housing within a givin space. More homes equals more bucks. They couldn't give a darn about open space...except to squeeze what they can into it. The Levittowns around the country were huge business successes because of that.
|
SmyrnaDE
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 23rd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 227 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 04:55 am |
|
Look at the BDC. Small minds bring small results.
|
Hot Flash
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 12th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1299 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 12th, 2008 02:02 am |
|
leakypipes wrote: Zymergy wrote: ForeverSmyrna wrote: Don't just pick on WalMart. Thank him for all the cars too that come and go out of all the new developments built to house the state of NJ. The number of trucks is incidental compared to all the cars coming from the west to hit the highway and back.
So you wanted Smyrna to be some small town and never grow? What reality are you living in? Once Rt1 was started you should have had some clue that the growth was coming. Growth is inevitable you just need to make sure it is planned well. If the town didn't annex the land I can guarantee those homes would have still been built only the county would be getting all the tax money and the cars would have still been coming into Smyrna.
My point exactly. The homes north of smyrna would have still been built and New Castle county would have gotten all the money generated from the bldg of those homes including the transfer tax and regular property tax money, bldg permits, impact fees. Plus those kids in those developments would still have gone to Smyrna school and smyrna would have gotten only a portion of the school tax with the rest going to NCC. Annexing that land north of Smyrna was the right and smart thing to do. Can't understand peoples way of thinking. But most people don't put much thought into it.
CCattie. Sorry I didn't respond. I usually do commercial and new residential housing. I don't much fool with private homeowner plumbing issues. But you could try J. Skinner. I know he fools with the small stuff.
The homes north of Smyrna would not have been built because of the land use rules of New Castle Co. They wanted to be annexed by Smyrna so that they could have more density with smaller lot sizes. Who do you think you are kidding. The Doe's must be back on here or the Fax King X-Mayor himself because you are the only ones that think you are so wonderful other than some x-councilmen. At lease that is my opinion! Looks like you have changed your name again.
|
leakypipes
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 09:59 pm |
|
Mayor. You work in real estate? That wouldn't have been my guess. Most real estate people are more savvy. Do you know the reason for smaller lots. Smaller lots mean more open spaces and less sprawl. Plus in some developments most people want less lawn and grounds to maintain. I do about half my work with residential builders. They keep on building just to keep the momentum going. Do you even know why? Becuase they have already bought the land and and have paid a lot of money to have it engineered and put in all the infrastructure. So they are now paying interest carry on all that money that is tied up in those lots. Despite what you may or may not know these guys are just like you and me. The only difference is that they have gone way out on a limb. One I know they probably did not bank on with this downturn. They are hoping that the market will turn around also but meantime they have to keep the guys who work for them employed. You had better hope that they keep building so that those of us in Smyrna who depend on a job can get paid and keep food on the table and pay the taxes to the town so Hugg can get his paycheck.
If you are a realtor then you should know what was posted here about RT 1 is the truth. We are in between to off ramps. You know they put those where towns and citys are that have infrastructure. You know sewer, water and town services. Location Location Location. Close to schools and a jump on the interstate to work north or south. Start doing like our last mayor and savvy up or bone up on your skills at attracting new businesses. I can't believe that anyone on council or on the business development committee would say that they did not want your assistance. This just sounds like a cop out on your part. It makes a lot of us believe that you just cant get the job done. Instead of posting on here what you cant do why don't you tell us what you are doing. Schaeffer is still bring businesses so what about you.
|
Pat Stombaugh
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 09:41 pm |
|
| Smyrna School District issued a letter, a few months ago, that any new developments must include provisions for schools because the Smyrna School District is presently maxed out including the new additions and the new schools. The letter was sent to State, Kent County, New Castle County and Town of Smyrna.
|
Pat Stombaugh
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 09:33 pm |
|
leakypipes wrote: Zymergy wrote: ForeverSmyrna wrote: Don't just pick on WalMart. Thank him for all the cars too that come and go out of all the new developments built to house the state of NJ. The number of trucks is incidental compared to all the cars coming from the west to hit the highway and back.
So you wanted Smyrna to be some small town and never grow? What reality are you living in? Once Rt1 was started you should have had some clue that the growth was coming. Growth is inevitable you just need to make sure it is planned well. If the town didn't annex the land I can guarantee those homes would have still been built only the county would be getting all the tax money and the cars would have still been coming into Smyrna.
My point exactly. The homes north of smyrna would have still been built and New Castle county would have gotten all the money generated from the bldg of those homes including the transfer tax and regular property tax money, bldg permits, impact fees. Plus those kids in those developments would still have gone to Smyrna school and smyrna would have gotten only a portion of the school tax with the rest going to NCC. Annexing that land north of Smyrna was the right and smart thing to do. Can't understand peoples way of thinking. But most people don't put much thought into it.
CCattie. Sorry I didn't respond. I usually do commercial and new residential housing. I don't much fool with private homeowner plumbing issues. But you could try J. Skinner. I know he fools with the small stuff.
The difference between the revenue income and expenses are not to our favor. We may receive the taxes but we also receive the roads, larger areas to police, larger public works area, etc. that come with a development. Commercial is where the money is - not residential. I still have a major problem with the 1/8 A lots. People do not realize that they can not add a garage or deck. What they buy is what they get. I would feel alot better if the developers would do larger lots and not squeeze so much together and number one - we need to take care of what we already have before adding more. My question is - where does it stop - do we annex the whole state? I was never against controlled growth. I have always said this but some people want to twist everything I do and say. We can grow and maintain a small town atmosphere if it is done correctly. Working in the real estate industry, yesterday I was told it will be a good three years (hopefully) before we will see the housing industry pick back up. Why build more when there are so many just sitting now?
|
leakypipes
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 09:07 pm |
|
Zymergy wrote: ForeverSmyrna wrote: Don't just pick on WalMart. Thank him for all the cars too that come and go out of all the new developments built to house the state of NJ. The number of trucks is incidental compared to all the cars coming from the west to hit the highway and back.
So you wanted Smyrna to be some small town and never grow? What reality are you living in? Once Rt1 was started you should have had some clue that the growth was coming. Growth is inevitable you just need to make sure it is planned well. If the town didn't annex the land I can guarantee those homes would have still been built only the county would be getting all the tax money and the cars would have still been coming into Smyrna.
My point exactly. The homes north of smyrna would have still been built and New Castle county would have gotten all the money generated from the bldg of those homes including the transfer tax and regular property tax money, bldg permits, impact fees. Plus those kids in those developments would still have gone to Smyrna school and smyrna would have gotten only a portion of the school tax with the rest going to NCC. Annexing that land north of Smyrna was the right and smart thing to do. Can't understand peoples way of thinking. But most people don't put much thought into it.
CCattie. Sorry I didn't respond. I usually do commercial and new residential housing. I don't much fool with private homeowner plumbing issues. But you could try J. Skinner. I know he fools with the small stuff.
|
Pat Stombaugh
Member
| Joined: | Sat Dec 22nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 82 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 08:08 pm |
|
We all knew Smyrna would be found and would grow. The problem is the whole picture wasn't looked at and things didn't proceed in the proper order.
The existing town was not taken care of. Too much of the town's money was being spent on the outlying area - money that should have been paid by the developers. This has been corrected so the developers do pay their fair share now - not the town people.
Cabela's, unfortunately is the loser in this picture. The State, County and Town pulled together like never before, in a very short period of time, and offered a super package. I had nothing to do with Cabela's decision. I was and still am, 100% for Cabela's. I feel it is so suited for our area. With our draw from Maryland (because of no taxes) and our central location, easy access, water, beaches, marshes, wildlife areas, hunters and watermen; we are a perfect fit for them. Year after year many of my son's Christmas gifts were exclusively from Cabela. The Town, County and State offered everything possbile, but it didn't seem to be enough.
Regardless of how some people feel, WalMart's has been an asset to our town. I believe what went wrong was poor planning. Henry Jerkins sold his parent's farm off Paddock Road. I am so proud of him for standing behind a promise he made to his father - (if he sold the farm it would be for a business park to bring jobs to the town people). I would have developed this area first. (Just off Rte. 13, Rte. 1 and Paddock Road.) This is the ideal location for WalMart. The business park off rte 300 should be just that a business park - not an industrial park.
Smyrna has moved along nicely without the housing developments all coming at one time. We actually have faired better than many other towns when the housing market failed. We need to take care of what we have and move forward at a reasonable pace. We do not need to borrow, borrow, borrow and break the town. Over spending is what has put our country in the situation we are in now.
There has to be a combination of planning and spending or it will catch up to us.
|
Two Cents
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 508 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 07:55 pm |
|
leakypipes wrote: Two Cents wrote: leakypipes wrote: Two Cents wrote: That would be the mayor's responsibility -- and she has been strangely silent in these forums for a few months. Maybe the council meeting beatings are wearing her down? I don't think the mayor has the capability to bring businesses here.
Leakypipes -- you are so correct -- that's an issue the voters will correct in about 9 months.
Glad you think that we can correct the council in 9 months. Things have not gotten any better in Smyrna. At least before we had a mayor that new about business and could get them interested in coming here.
I was merely suggesting that the town's voters will have opportunity and reason to replace the mayor in about 9 months -- and a couple of council members can leave with her. If there are no quality candidates to be elected, the problems continue.
|
ForeverSmyrna
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 07:46 pm |
|
| Answer to question 1 - YES!!! However, you are absolutely correct in what you say. It would come. I nor anyone else could have totally prevented it. The world I live in is the same one most small town people live in with the thought - MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE OR STAY IN NEW JERSEY!!!
|
Zymergy
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 06:48 pm |
|
ForeverSmyrna wrote: Don't just pick on WalMart. Thank him for all the cars too that come and go out of all the new developments built to house the state of NJ. The number of trucks is incidental compared to all the cars coming from the west to hit the highway and back.
So you wanted Smyrna to be some small town and never grow? What reality are you living in? Once Rt1 was started you should have had some clue that the growth was coming. Growth is inevitable you just need to make sure it is planned well. If the town didn't annex the land I can guarantee those homes would have still been built only the county would be getting all the tax money and the cars would have still been coming into Smyrna.
|
GuestGhost
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 863 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 06:23 pm |
|
| is there any truth to the rumor that a Super G is coming to Simon's Corner???? I cast my vote for a Sav-A-Lot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
ForeverSmyrna
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 102 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 04:51 pm |
|
| Don't just pick on WalMart. Thank him for all the cars too that come and go out of all the new developments built to house the state of NJ. The number of trucks is incidental compared to all the cars coming from the west to hit the highway and back.
|
fuzzy
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 472 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 04:23 pm |
|
Leaky pipes:
It doesn't matter what you think about Schaeffer - he did what he wanted to do because he didn't follow the rules, and nobody was smart enough to stop him until it was too late. He got his money out of the town and hopefully has left for good. Oh yeah, while you're thanking him, you can thank him for all the Wal-Mart trucks rumbling down 300 as well
|
ccattie
Member
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 04:20 pm |
|
<aside> Leakypipes I have sent you a few PM's about me needing a plumber but haven't heard back from you. Could you hit me up offline? </aside>
-c
|
leakypipes
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 36 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 03:33 pm |
|
Two Cents wrote: leakypipes wrote: Two Cents wrote: That would be the mayor's responsibility -- and she has been strangely silent in these forums for a few months. Maybe the council meeting beatings are wearing her down? I don't think the mayor has the capability to bring businesses here.
Leakypipes -- you are so correct -- that's an issue the voters will correct in about 9 months.
I just left a pre-bid meeting. Contractors were talking about new projects in or near Smyrna. I found out that Schaefer sold the rest of his site over by Food Lion. A new hotel is coming there and Schaeffer got Friendly's Restuarant to go in on the pad next door. I also saw where the Mayor Stombaugh said she is not allowed to get businesses to come to Smyrna. Remember when the guy who did Christina Health facility wrote the letter to the editor saying that if it hadn't been for Schaefer they wouldn't have come here. There was a big stink about it when someone said that Schaefer had nothing to do with it and then the guy who was the owner of the property wrote to the Sun times. And how about WalMart. I know that some folks don't like him but he did bring jobs and businesses to Smyrna. I always had to laugh when people would say that they didn't want development and didn't want more people. It beats me how they thought that the hardware stores and restuarants that they wanted were going to come here without more people. People are going to come here wether they want them or not. Population is growing and people need houses.
Glad you think that we can correct the council in 9 months. Things have not gotten any better in Smyrna. At least before we had a mayor that new about business and could get them interested in coming here. All the plans for the Simons shopping center were done while Schaefer was in office. I don't want to hear that this is not the case, because I was trying to get work before ground was broken over there.I also asked one of the other contractors about Cobelas. He said that Hugg and Schaefer were negotiating with Cobelas before Schaefer left but talks broke down when the new mayor came in to the picture. They said Cobelas was worried about the direction that the town was heading and decided that they would not come here. I heard that they thought she did not under stand tax incentives and so forth. Just think of the jobs that would have brought. Particulary for us independent guys who make a living at doing some sort of construction.
Rob Widdig is responsible for Simon's Corner. He's a developer and real estate agent. He's a nice guy. Our mayor doesn't even know who the players are. Can we stand another 9 months of this no nothing do nothing council. I don't know. But no one else seems to step forward to try and help us. I think we made a big mistake the last couple of elections.
|
Someone
Member
| Joined: | Thu Dec 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Big Cave |
| Posts: | 1683 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 11th, 2008 12:19 pm |
|