Auto-login on future visits

Forgot your password?

Register
-ADVERTISMENT-
Slideshow image
-ADVERTISMENT-
Anyone interested in ad space, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Search Delusional Duck Recent Comments
You must be a registered member and logged-in to post comments.
On 02/22/12 at 08:28 PM:
rharlan added comments to the thread: More parents blast redistricting plans
On 02/22/12 at 06:30 PM:
Barbara added comments to the thread: Open Thread - February 22, 2012
On 02/22/12 at 04:08 PM:
cheryl added comments to the thread: Open Thread - February 22, 2012
On 02/22/12 at 03:21 PM:
Hydrilla added comments to the thread: Email calls foul on race remark
On 02/22/12 at 03:14 PM:
Barbara added comments to the thread: Open Thread - February 22, 2012
On 02/22/12 at 03:09 PM:
Barbara added comments to the thread: Dow crosses 13,000 for first time since 2008
On 02/22/12 at 02:16 PM:
seahorse added comments to the thread: Email calls foul on race remark
On 02/22/12 at 02:12 PM:
seahorse added comments to the thread: Email calls foul on race remark
On 02/22/12 at 02:00 PM:
cheryl added comments to the thread: Email calls foul on race remark
On 02/22/12 at 10:57 AM:
shadowdiver added comments to the thread: Dow crosses 13,000 for first time since 2008
On 02/22/12 at 10:39 AM:
shadowdiver added comments to the thread: Dow crosses 13,000 for first time since 2008
On 02/22/12 at 10:27 AM:
creekworks added comments to the thread: Balanced Growth Initiative
On 02/22/12 at 10:16 AM:
cheryl added comments to the thread: It's Time to Pay Attention to the Hard Working, Silent Partner That is Nature
On 02/22/12 at 09:56 AM:
seahorse added comments to the thread: Balanced Growth Initiative
On 02/22/12 at 09:51 AM:
seahorse added comments to the thread: It's Time to Pay Attention to the Hard Working, Silent Partner That is Nature
On 02/22/12 at 09:45 AM:
cheryl added comments to the thread: Radioactive groundwater found at North Anna plant
On 02/22/12 at 09:21 AM:
cheryl added comments to the thread: It's Time to Pay Attention to the Hard Working, Silent Partner That is Nature
On 02/22/12 at 09:18 AM:
cheryl added comments to the thread: Broadband Network Expands in Charles County
On 02/22/12 at 08:29 AM:
WeMakeItNews.com added comments to the thread: Broadband Network Expands in Charles County
On 02/22/12 at 08:05 AM:
Hydrilla added comments to the thread: Broadband Network Expands in Charles County
Recent Forum Posts
All registered members can start new threads and/or reply to existing ones on the Discussion Forums.
  • 12/21/2012
    last comment by: Viper
    01/26/2012 at 05:06 pm
Other Local Blogs
Ready, Willing and Abell

St. Charles Forums (ACPT)
Charles County Links Other Links Cable News Networks Local Media Newspapers Archives Blog Stats
Registered members: 616
Number of posts: 38194
Number of Comments: 44328
Last: 02/22/2012 08:28 pm
Guests online: 46


Members logged on:
Delusional Duck Feeds Credits
Powered by ExpressionEngine from EllisLab, Inc.
Hosting by EngineHosting

image

4724716

<<< Next Entry | Previous Entry >>>

Add your comments

This page has been viewed 700 times

Commission speeds up 2012 plan update

SoMdNews.com, by PAUL S. WARNER

Charles County Planning Commission members aggressively moved up the comprehensive plan update process Monday, requiring on a 4-3 vote that the 2012 comprehensive plan be before the county commissioners for their consideration no later than July 31.

Commission Vice Chairman Joe Richard and members Lou Grasso, Bob Mitchell and Joan Jones voted for the motion. Commission Chairman Courtney Edmonds and members Steve Bunker and Joe Tieger voted against the motion.

Members who voted for the motion argued that it was time for the planning commission to take responsibility for the comprehensive plan.


Posted by: Sammy on 01/25/12 at 12:48 PM
    Page 1 of 1 pages
  • 1. · It seems the supporters of those 4 are running scared and has put the foot down.

    The only way these supporters come out on top is if the County allows this planning commission to keep on its old tricks.

    Isn't it very clear who is objective and who is not?

    This County cannot change while the old wood are still on the Planning Commission.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck’ as spirit of the elder & BJGoodwin

    Comment by Barbara  on  01/25/12  at  02:06 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 2. · I am up to minute 103 in the video.

    They are certainly anxious to get the 'experts' in for zoning and building- the last 60 minutes i think were about that. Why cant we have the experts? What will it hurt to have the 'experts', why couldnt we meet in the past with the 'experts'

    But yet in this: they dont want any experts...is it because they cant find anyone who is an expert on the greatness of destruction?

    formerly known on the ‘Duck’ as spirit of the elder & BJGoodwin

    Comment by Barbara  on  01/25/12  at  07:16 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 3. · I only got to 9 mins.. so this cat (might have something to do with the indian head techno park)-- owns this group of 4.. and the nerve to bring up missing emails.. ha !

    the first guy is told he cannot discuss anything that is ON this nights agenda.... which i think is a funky rule. Yet, Mr. H.. gets the pass. You cant make this shit up.

    Comment by creekworks  on  01/25/12  at  08:32 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 4. · This group have talked about outsiders driving the process, also says citizens have had no voice....hummmmm.....

    The only "outsiders' who have spoken out or written have been the heads of the Maryland or SMD or Charles County chapters of Organizations that represents a LOT of citizens.

    That is why people support the organizations. We want others to protect the things we believe in. With the bigger groups we can have the expertise that they provide.

    They have not butted in- they have been speaking for the thousands of members they have just in Charles County.

    Just cause these dudes can afford the lawyers and cry pity me- shouldnt give them what they want.

    Im sick of the babyish behavior. Farmers say they cant sell there land to develop for what they could- and boohoo they will not have the millions they thought they would have for retirement.

    Well apparently these 4 must feel the same. There is some reason they are so blatant

    formerly known on the ‘Duck’ as spirit of the elder & BJGoodwin

    Comment by Barbara  on  01/25/12  at  09:19 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 5. · and WHO is the guy sitting next to steve bunker..
    ?? that cat is a machine...

    i think joan jones is a baddass.. but im confused.. is she the legal council .. for the council, or a voting member.. or both.

    fascinating !

    Comment by creekworks  on  01/25/12  at  11:01 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 6. · i take that back.. joan jones. . . is just part of the machine. - but she does have a lot of energy.. and that cat.. joe richards... scam master, fast talker..
    NOW i understand who he is.

    Comment by creekworks  on  01/25/12  at  11:43 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 7. · (Creek, I think you are confusing the asst. county attorney, Ms. Theobold (sp?) with Joan Jones. Ms. Theobold rocks!)

    Everyone...we won "a" battle during the last election, but, the war is,obviously, not over. We have, IMO, a bad guy majority on the planning commission, and don't necessarily have a good guy majority on the board of commissioners. We all know how important the comp plan update is. Don't back down. It would be wonderful to see several citizens show up during the Public Forum portion of the next planning commission meeting, praising the, IMO, good guy minority. Also, a good scolding for those who are trying to rush the comp plan without the benefit of studies by experts would be in order.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/25/12  at  11:51 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 8. · OMG - my bad.. joan jones, was that sloth sitting next to the end.. the sharp chick . . . was really an atty .. sitting next to grasso.. - for commission. im learning !

    Comment by creekworks  on  01/26/12  at  12:05 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 9. · so .. just wait till 2:76.. is that joan jones a junky, or just tired.. i hate to be mean..
    then 2 minutes later at 2:78.. cortney edmonds.. kicks ass. and rants. !!!

    Comment by creekworks  on  01/26/12  at  12:47 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 10. · Again, thank God for Mr. Edmonds, without whom the Planning Commission would be the laughing stock of the county or maybe the state .... sad, sad, sad...

    Comment by cheryl  on  01/26/12  at  08:45 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 11. · Start writing the board of commissioners demanding the four planning commission members be removed. Sadly, despite the three who ARE doing the job they were appointed to do, the majority four HAVE made this county a laughing stock, and are being allowed, week after week, to steer Charles County down the wrong road, further off course. Only the citizens of Charles County can force the correction - Demand it. Time is of the essence. Starting writing and making phone calls.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/26/12  at  09:29 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 12. · So, every time you don't agree with a person on an appointed board, you demand they be removed and replaced with someone that agrees with your point of view. Now that's democracy in action (sarcasm intended).

    Comment by Northern Exposure  on  01/26/12  at  09:56 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 13. · the sharp chick .

    Sharp for sure, Creek, that's Elizabeth Theobalds, assistant county attorney. The 4 Cooperistas tend to ignore her recommendations.

    The "sloth" (gotta' love it...fits to a T) is Joan Jones, Edith's campaign manager, so we all know why she was appointed. In every PC meeting she's always fumbling with papers trying to figure out what's going on. Her halting speech and nonsensical questions gives one pause to think she's waaaaaaaay out of her league.

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/26/12  at  09:59 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 14. · #12 you demand they be removed

    No, have you watched any of this over months? I expected to see a vigorous give-and-take along with professional, knowledgeable discussions with a modicum of respect for each thought hammering out what citizens, organizations, and those from all facets of the business world have put in.

    It's pretty damn obvious that 4 Planning Commission members have their own personal agendas, and it stinks. I find their shenanigans distasteful. Not only are they dissing the system, not only are those 4 acting like Somalian pirates (do we need Seal Team 6 to restore order? grin by hijacking the Comp Plan Update process, refusing to listen to different POV, dissing staff, dissing MDP, dissing the Commissioners, dissing the citizens, but, most of all, Grasso, Richard, Mitchell, and Jones demean the very process that is supposed to move this county toward a viable future.

    So, there ya' go. They 4 above mentioned should be removed for dereliction of duty.

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/26/12  at  10:15 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 15. · #12 No, that was not the point at all.

    Have you watched the planning commission meetings? All of them? Have you, repeatedly, observed these four ignore the advice of counsel and vote to approve things they have no authority to approve? Have you observed their orchestrated rants about why they have to follow any rules? After all, they are the almighty and powerful planning commission! (Sarcasm intended)

    For you to make the statement you made in #12, I can only assume you haven't followed these meetings, and made an unwarranted, blanket statement, against my statement. This is very similar to your comment about Hamilton Park. No one said anything about the growth there, there was a concern about adequate parking. Another blanket statement, ignoring the actual facts.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/26/12  at  10:18 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 16. · #14 Dereliction of duty AND Malfeasance!

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/26/12  at  10:21 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 17. · Actually, I attended or watch all Planning Commission meetings and attended every Comp. Plan meeting last year as well. I am well informed but just have a different POV than you.

    One could actually say the the Chair of the Planning Commission was out or order for making a personal attack during his rant at the end of Monday's meeting. It was not the right time nor place to point fingers at Mr. Mitchell.

    I am actually pleased to see PC members take charge of the process. It needs to be approved this year and all they have to show right now is a map that has almost no support from the business community (not just developers).

    Comment by Northern Exposure  on  01/26/12  at  10:29 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 18. · Not enough groundwater = no development.

    In other words, all of these "plans" are moot if there's not enough groundwater available.

    IMO the focus should be on the availability of groundwater in the future... of course reverse osmosis plants can be installed to obtain water from the Potomac but for the 40% of county residences with private wells, there's the expense of running water lines to those homes, i.e. higher property taxes for everyone...

    Comment by cheryl  on  01/26/12  at  10:42 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 19. · Regarding drinking water that brings up another point regarding how 4 members of the Planning Commission want to fast-track the Comp Plan Update....

    WHERE THE HELL IS THE WRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/26/12  at  11:08 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 20. · I agree that water is an important part of the comp. plan and that is a good example of why this process has been done backwards. They are drawing maps without clear goals and will back into the written text of the comp. plan.

    IMO, they should start with goals that are agreed upon by the Planning Commission and then write a plan and prepare maps that satisfies those goals.

    As close as I have followed this process, I am still not 100% sure what the County's goals are with the comp. plan.

    For expmple, the state has estimated what the population of the County will be in 20 years (I am not sure what that is). Does the currently proposed plan identify sufficient development area to accomodate this expected growth. They have significantly shrunk / eliminated the previously delineated development district and I would be willing to bet there is not enough area for the expected growth with the current draft plan.

    Yes, I know they will hope for more dense development with apartments, condos, and mixed use but this is not why people move to Charles County. The people who move here want a little piece of green (grass) to call their own.

    Comment by Northern Exposure  on  01/26/12  at  11:08 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 21. · that is a good example of why this process has been done backwards.

    Blame ERM for that. Their contention is that a WRE can be shoe-horned into any finalized Comp Plan rather than let the falling water table be a major player in the Comp Plan process.

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/26/12  at  11:16 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 22. · #21 - agreed!!

    The WRE should be at the forefront of any development "plan" including the Comp Plan. In fact, as I've mentioned many times before, there should be a fund set up to assist the approx. 40% of residences with private wells who may experience water supply problems when a nearby development starts to withdraw water.

    This would be funded up front by developers who propose new developments, i.e. the Port Tobacco proposed 1,500 new homes. When nearby residents start to experience difficulties with obtaining water after these developments start withdrawing water, this fund would assist the homeowners with drilling deeper wells to a deeper aquifer.

    Those residents who are already here should NOT have to suffer the consequences of new development!

    In fact, the developer and the county have to held accountable for their actions....

    Comment by cheryl  on  01/26/12  at  11:32 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 23. · Correction: "In fact, the developer and the county have to BE held accountable for their actions..." cheese

    Comment by cheryl  on  01/26/12  at  11:34 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 24. · they should start with goals that are agreed upon by the Planning Commission

    There's a problem with that. Anytime you have a majority in the catbird seat, and, when those with the majority have no wish or want to compromise or take the best ideas from all factions, you get crap.

    We have a lot of great ideas to work with, and I think everyone realizes that no one will get 100% of what they want, but we citizens will only get the best when those on the Planning Commission are capable of thinking, listening, interpretating and conversing on a high enough level to do what's best for us the taxpaying citizens of CC. Right now it ain't happenin'. I expect better.

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/26/12  at  11:36 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 25. · #22 In fact, the developer and the county have to held accountable for their actions....

    If the county has such lax regulations and restrictions as to allow developers to do as they please, the developer has no higher responsibility except to follow those rules and regs as already laid out. Just my take, and I've been yelling (you, too, cheryl) about the WRE ever since this Comp Plan thing started, but I don't get how any forward thinking planning can be done without a working, science-based WRE.

    So, what are they afraid of? That a real WRE (not that 2006 piece of crap put out by ERM based on allocation permits) will show falling water tables in all areas of Charles County? If so, shouldn't that be addressed sooner than later?

    Enough time has gone by to where a new, updated, science-based WRE should be ready to present. Where is it?

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/26/12  at  11:50 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 26. · The water supply MUST be first priority before any new development is approved, otherwise we could be in a dire predicament in the future....

    Comment by cheryl  on  01/26/12  at  12:08 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 27. · A BIG THUMBS DOWN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S PORT TOBACCO ERRA FROM THE MARYLAND DEPT. OF PLANNING

    WeMakeItNews.com has this and more in a new interview!

    LISTEN to a 2 min. excerpt from our interview with Michael Paone, Senior Planner with MDP -- http://www.tci-digital.com/AudioFilesforWeMakeItNews/Paone12512/Paone_1.25.12_soundbite.mp3

    Listen to the full interview and watch a short video about this issue at http://www.wemakeitnews.com/

    Comment by WeMakeItNews.com  on  01/26/12  at  12:11 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 28. · Excellent!! Now, IF this disaster is allowed, I suspect the MDE will carefully scrutinize anything that comes forward, including a Water Appropriation and Use Permit application!!!!! Without a permit, there will be no water withdrawals, and without water, there's no development!!!

    Comment by cheryl  on  01/26/12  at  01:22 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 29. · It may only be me but I believe the comp plan process has become more a political process than a planning process. It appears it started out with a predetermined agenda with an attempt to support a result without following universally accepted planning procedures.

    Appears we were promoting solutions without identifying and understanding the problems first, which has now resulted in a politically charges process. My planning friends tell me planners typically identify existing issues and problems, such as water, and try and identify emerging issues. Next while involving various community leaders, land owners, business people, community and enviornmental organizations and citizens goals are discussed and established with priorities, these goals and priorities with active community participation are now set as a guide by the planning commission for the plan. Next detailed data is collected to further evaluate current conditions as well as to predict future conditions as related the enviorment, the economic impact, social conditions, public services, housing, traffic, population growth and this data is balanced aganist the goals. After all that a plan is prepared.

    We skipped a few steps. The goals and or visions for our comp plan were published on the county web site before the process started, who established these predetermined goals or visions prior to step one. We developed plans too early in the process without the data to give them worth.

    Comment by franklin  on  01/26/12  at  03:49 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 30. ·
    It may only be me but I believe the comp plan process has become more a political process than a planning process.


    I completely DISAGREE!! The way it was done prior to this was definitely more of a "political" process. This is because there was an APPOINTED comp plan committee whereby the Commissioners established what had to be addressed.

    After completion, it was presented to the Commissioners to either accept or reject.

    I know this for a fact because I served as a member on the infamous Comp Plan 2006 update committee.

    I think the way it's being done now is a VAST IMPROVEMENT over the past process!!

    Sure there are "glitches" as with any process, but this time the PUBLIC has more input in the process than ever before!!!

    Previous comp plan committees were heavily "stacked" with developer interests, but this time, they don't have the influence they had in the past.

    I'm glad to see the current "process" rather than what we had before....

    Comment by cheryl  on  01/26/12  at  04:20 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 31. · Cheryl, no argument that more public input and involvement is truly a plus this time around. Is it not you and Seahorse that keep asking where is the WRE, how could we have done a plan without a WRE, well someone evidently drafted a plan without consideration of water, just as the plan was drafted without benefit of an economoc impact analysis. Now the planners may have to draft a WRE to fit the plan instead of a science based WRE. My point is, I wished we had all the data before we wasted time drawing what may be a cartoon.

    Comment by franklin  on  01/26/12  at  05:40 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 32. · #17 Northern - So, despite witnessing these four planning commission members ignore advice from counsel regarding violating our own rules/laws, from your POV they are looking out for the best interests of the citizens of Charles County?

    From my POV, Courtney Edmonds is showing strong leadership by calling these individuals out on their obvious shenanigans, and not cow-towing to their orchestrated, bullying style. I wish we had four more just like Mr. Edmonds. I haven't agreed with a couple of "yay" votes Mr. Edmonds has made in the past, however, I have NEVER felt he EVER had any other motives besides trying to represent what was best for Charles County.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/26/12  at  06:19 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 33. · Can the Commissioners 'excuse' members and appoint new ones?

    ERM was the Consultant last go round and stayed this go round. They were retained by prior Administrations. So the Comm at the time and the Building Community must have loved the process before. This time there has been a wind trying to save our County and its resources. All the data is there to show the benefits.

    From what has been said over and over though this process is : there is enough buildings and plans in the
    process or already approved to last us until 2040 for goodness sake.

    The last WRE had no science no math- nothing behind it to support any evidence for or against development. Do we want that again

    formerly known on the ‘Duck’ as spirit of the elder & BJGoodwin

    Comment by Barbara  on  01/26/12  at  07:50 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 34. · Have any of the Fab 4 explained why they have ignored the advice of their Planning Staff and Counsel? I think they owe it to us, the public, to explain where their decisions come from.

    Comment by Hydrilla  on  01/26/12  at  08:58 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 35. · Can anyone explain why if 66b places the responsibility for updating the comp plan squarley on the planning commission why have they not taken the lead in this process earlier. Why did the members have to force a vote to be involved in a process that they simply are responsible for. If the planning commission does not set the schedule, who does.

    Comment by franklin  on  01/26/12  at  10:12 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 36. ·
    Have any of the Fab 4 explained why they have ignored the advice of their Planning Staff and Counsel? I think they owe it to us, the public, to explain where their decisions come from.
    Purposefully ignoring the advice of counsel, planning staff, AND the Maryland Department of Planning makes the case for malfeasance and justifies their immediate removal from the planning commission. Write the commissioners, go to the public hearing on January 31st at 6:00 p.m. for the ERRA and state the case for their removal.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/27/12  at  08:45 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 37. · #32, yes, I believe the 4 members who voted to move the process along do believe they are looking out for the citizens of CC. I think they are of the belief that the County needs to be more supportive of economic development. Are they right? Time will tell, but they do obviously have different views of the others, have a majority, and that is democracy in action. If you don't like their decisions, you need to try and change their minds with data and facts that support your case. Asking for people to be dismissed because they don't agree with your viewpoint is not the way our system works.

    There have been many actions taken by our Commissioners, state reps, federal government, etc. that I don't agree with. I don't ask for them to be removed from office, I write letters, speak to them personally when given the opportunity in an attempt to give a different point of view. As I said, it is how our system works and I am thankful for it.

    #35, Franklin. I believe the PC gave the power / authority to staff to run with the process thus far. IMO, those who voted to move the process ahead (and become more involved) did so because they are not happy with the progress to date. The plan needs to be approved before the end of the year, there is a lot of work yet to be done, and they need to get moving.

    Comment by Northern Exposure  on  01/27/12  at  08:57 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 38. · #37 As I have said before, this is not an issue demanding their removal just because I don't agree with them. There was an outpouring of citizen input regarding the ERRA. The four totally disregarded, dismissed, and ignored the citizens. These four have shown they are NOT open to other points of view. The ERRA, as an example, is but the final straw. This has occurred many times. Past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior. It's time for them to go.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/27/12  at  09:11 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 39. · I will, also, point out, these people are not elected officials whom we can vote out at the next election like we did with the past board of commissioners. These individuals are appointees - our only recourse is to demand their removal by the current board of commissioners.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/27/12  at  09:14 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 40. · If the planning commission does not set the schedule, who does.

    I'll take an uneducated stab at that. This is the first time, if memory serves, that any citizen interested in contributing to the process can be involved and that's a really big deal, plus it's much more time consuming than having 12 hand-picked people sitting around a table looking at something most don't understand. Stir in the state of Maryland and their desire to clean up the Bay, add that Charles County just happens to own the major fish-spawning stream for the Bay, add that counties should become as sustainable as possible, add that we citizens can't afford to support sprawl growth--the county no longer has the money.

    Add 'em all up and there's no way to have a set schedule when information is needed, when consultants with more creds in different facets of future planning methods for sustainability should be forthcoming for presentations, when we don't even have a WRE. All information has to be on the table before the Planning Commission takes over, and right now, they don't have all the information needed to make informed decisions.

    Do you really want the Planning Commission to rush through something as important as the Comp Plan?

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/27/12  at  09:14 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 41. · If you don't like their decisions, you need to try and change their minds with data and facts that support your case. Asking for people to be dismissed because they don't agree with your viewpoint is not the way our system works.

    The four members of the PC in question have had data and facts coming out the kazoo regarding the PTR ERZ. I can remember a public hearing where a Mr Maury Tobin made a most excellent presentation regarding the latest in up-dated septic systems and how MDE was willing to help those who needed one. Those in a critical area were moved to the top of the list.

    So, what did we get? One Planning Commission member, Joan Jones, telling those who don't live in the Port Tobacco area that they had no business commenting. If that's not grounds for removal, I don't know what is. Plus, a total disregard for anything to do with updated septic systems. We just replaced 4 odious Commissioners who marched in lockstep, and we shouldn't have to put up with the same from appointees.

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/27/12  at  09:26 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 42. ·
    One Planning Commission member, Joan Jones, telling those who don't live in the Port Tobacco area that they had no business commenting.


    Oh yeah? - When the withdrawal of thousands upon thousands of gallons of water from the same aquifers that private wells withdraw from, which could lead to dry wells and she doesn't think that anyone outside of Port Tobacco has the RIGHT to comment??

    Comment by cheryl  on  01/27/12  at  09:40 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 43. · Northern - from your point of view, you see nothing wrong with ignoring advice from counsel regarding decisions on issues which could open Charles County up for lawsuits? These members have intentionally ignored our laws and voted on issues that counsel has advised is outside of their authority...

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/27/12  at  10:11 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 44. ·
    voted on issues that counsel has advised is outside of their authority...


    Shouldn't this be enough to remove them from their positions???

    When voting on issues that counsel has clearly advised is NOT within their authority, this appears to be a clear violation as members of the Planning Commission....

    Comment by cheryl  on  01/27/12  at  10:57 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 45. · #44, Article 66B, which was mentioned earlier re: the Planning Commission's authority in developing the comprehensive plan, addresses the appointment and removal of commission members:

    §3.02.
    (a) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this article, a planning commission created under this subtitle shall consist of three, five or seven members.
    (2) One of the members may be a member of the local legislative body, serving in an ex officio capacity concurrent with the member’s official term.
    (b) (1) The members of a planning commission shall be appointed by the local legislative body or by the person designated as the appointing power in the ordinance creating the commission.
    (2) Where there is a single local elected executive, the members of a planning commission shall be appointed by the local executive and confirmed by the local legislative body.
    (c) Each member of a planning commission is entitled to the compensation that the local legislative body considers appropriate.
    (d) (1) The term of each member is 5 years or until the member’s successor takes office.
    (2) The terms of the members of a planning commission shall be staggered.
    (e) (1) After a public hearing, the local legislative body may remove the members of a planning commission for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
    (2) The local legislative body that removes a member of a planning commission shall file a written statement of reasons for the removal.

    Emphasis mine, of course. The question is, where do you draw the line between political and philosophical differences and "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance"? If board members are taking action that counsel has clearly said is not within their authority, then yes, I think that qualifies. But only if it is clear-cut, and even then the commissioners had better have the opinion of counsel themselves.

    Comment by mbillard  on  01/27/12  at  11:25 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 46. ·
    If you don't like their decisions, you need to try and change their minds with data and facts that support your case.


    I think they nipped that in the bud saying they dont need to hear from experts- after it was asked.

    I say thats why they moved forward fast.

    And economic development is not impacted by protecting the environment- in fact keeping this the 'land of pleasant living' may just bring in Companies.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck’ as spirit of the elder & BJGoodwin

    Comment by Barbara  on  01/27/12  at  01:54 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 47. · These members have intentionally ignored our laws and voted on issues that counsel has advised is outside of their authority...

    This is basically what Beall and Fink did-- chose to ignore rules and regulations (APFO) leaving citizens open for lawsuits from disgruntled developers who got approval when they should not have. We all know what happened to them.

    Removing appointees shouldn't be as tedious as removing a paid employee.

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/27/12  at  04:32 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 48. ·

    This is basically what Beall and Fink did-- chose to ignore rules and regulations (APFO) leaving citizens open for lawsuits from disgruntled developers who got approval when they should not have. We all know what happened to them.

    Removing appointees shouldn't be as tedious as removing a paid employee.


    Exactly !! The OPEN MEETINGS ACT - once again, used to break the process! Just like WSG, Just like Clifton, Just like the Planning Commission shenanigans.

    Comment by creekworks  on  01/27/12  at  05:54 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 49. · And what, exactly is the process for a citizen to initiate impeachment of a commission member?

    Just sayin'

    Ich bin ein Blind Squirrel

    Comment by Wayne  on  01/27/12  at  10:51 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 50. · Give me just one...

    Ich bin ein Blind Squirrel

    Comment by Wayne  on  01/27/12  at  10:52 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 51. · Demand that the board of commissioners hold a public hearing regarding these individual planning commission members to gather input and then they will come to a decision regarding their removal.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/27/12  at  10:54 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 52. · See number 45 above:

    (e) (1) After a public hearing, the local legislative body may remove the members of a planning commission for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.


    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/27/12  at  10:56 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 53. · So if I demand this they will do it? I think not. Maybe a petition drive or some other organized effort.

    But yes, they frankly suck at representing the will of the citizens and they should go. But we should actually target one. That's all it would take.

    Ich bin ein Blind Squirrel

    Comment by Wayne  on  01/27/12  at  10:59 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 54. · And these peiople are not paid. You are not removing their livelihood. How much of their own money will they spend to defend themselves? What's a lawyer going to get from defending them?

    Ich bin ein Blind Squirrel

    Comment by Wayne  on  01/27/12  at  11:05 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 55. ·
    But we should actually target one.
    The two masterminds seem to be Joe Richard and Lou Grasso - I'm split over which one is worse. Though, Lou Grasso probably leads by making the most first motions for the bad decisions...

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/27/12  at  11:09 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 56. · So Lou it is. Impeachment. Starts now. So we need to petition the commissioners?

    Ich bin ein Blind Squirrel

    Comment by Wayne  on  01/27/12  at  11:13 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 57. · The ERRA public hearing is probably the best example of malfeasance, therefore, the best time to start - January 31, 2012, 6:00 p.m. in the county government building.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/27/12  at  11:15 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 58. · And I plan to be there.

    Ich bin ein Blind Squirrel

    Comment by Wayne  on  01/27/12  at  11:21 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 59. · What's a lawyer going to get from defending them?

    That would depend on much the lawyer has riding on the outcome of the Comp Plan.

    http://savelandvalues.com/pdfs/BalancedGrowthInitiative.pdf

    Balanced Growth Initiative, P. O. Box 1990, La Plata, Maryland 20646

    P.O. Box 1990 belongs to Stephen H Scott of the Scott Law Group LLC.

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/27/12  at  11:23 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 60. · #29 We developed plans too early in the process without the data to give them worth.

    Franklin, ERM dropped the ball. What you are complaining about I agree with. It's not a matter of "we"; if we had capable consultants who knew what they were doing, we'd be in better shape and probably wouldn't have as many issues.

    #30 I'm glad to see the current "process" rather than what we had before....

    While you have a good point what with citizen input, I still question the lack of a WRE. That falls on the consultants, ERM. With no WRE, the Comp Plan process needs to come to a grinding halt and not continue UNTIL a real, honest-to-god WRE based on scientific facts is delivered AND approved.

    I'm thinking ERM doesn't know how to do a real, honest-to-god WRE 'cuz that last piece o' crap that had their name on it was a total joke and a waste of paper.

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/27/12  at  11:45 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 61. · Seahorse, right on target with #41!

    Everybody, get to the hearing on Tuesday and speak up. We need to support the County Commissioners in their quest to do the right thing. We need to turn out in huge numbers.

    Comment by Hydrilla  on  01/28/12  at  12:37 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 62. · I have been impressed with the Comp Plan process so far. I think that planning Staff and even the ERM consultants were sincere in listening to comments. However, now I feel like I have wasted an awful lot of time going to meetings because now we find out that our future is controlled by 4 people who haven't stopped being playground bullies.

    The Fab 4 have ruined the credibility of OUR Planning Commission. Routinely ignoring counsel advice, and recommendations from Staff. The only people the listen to are the lawyers and developers and the "Balanced Growth" gang that they have been working with for years on numerous different projects.

    I have little hope left.
    Wayne.. if you are looking to get rid of just one, I would look at someone further to Mr Grasso's right.

    I am just thankful that we have Mr Edmonds sitting there.

    Comment by riverrat  on  01/28/12  at  01:08 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 63. · I thought the Chairman behaved like a tyrant; he is not capable of leading the Planning Commission is a ordeerly manner, he failed twice to call the question on a standing motion with a second and he clearly has a personal agenda.

    I think he called Bob M. a liar and he has routinely attacked members of the Planning Commission in public from the chair.

    He, Joe Tieger, and Bunker are the "Gang of Three".

    He should step down.

    Comment by James  on  01/28/12  at  07:36 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 64. · #63 Mike, these three are the only members operating within their authority as set forth by law. They heed the advice of counsel and always request a thorough review by counsel before proceeding to ensure compliance to protect Charles County from litigation.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/28/12  at  07:57 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 65. · #64 - AGREED!!

    Comment by cheryl  on  01/28/12  at  08:30 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 66. · #63 James, what you seem not to realize is that the Planning Commission Chairman, Courtney Edmonds, along with Planning Commissioner Joe Tieger are lawyers.

    Do you really think any well-schooled, knowledgeable, ethical lawyer is going to agree with the shenanigans of those who have shown to have a total disregard and an ignorance of law?

    I suggest you watch the video, and then decide if Mr. Edmonds is out of line. I like how he handled those 4 just fine--he did well to keep his temper in check. Mr Edmonds backed up Asst County Attorney Theobalds, and he's NOT going to sign his name to something that doesn't pass the sniff test. He's a lion at the gate--deal with it.

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/28/12  at  08:51 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 67. · #63 Actually, Edmonds behaved like a chairman, which may seem like a tyrant to those unfamiliar with the actual role of a chairman and who prefer someone a little more complacent than Edmonds is. He knows his role and the scope of his authority and he uses it well. Witness several months ago when someone from the "gang of four" wanted to reconsider a motion from a previous meeting that had already been voted on because a member absent from the previous meeting was now in attendance and the vote was likely to change. Edmonds refused to allow the reconsideration, which was the right call for a number of reasons. The talk among the disgruntled board members was the typical nonsense you hear when people don't get their way--tossing about words like democracy and America and blah blah blah.

    While the meetings may be contentious and emotional, the simple fact is Edmonds runs a far more orderly meeting than some of the board members would like, because they can't get away with doing whatever they please.

    Comment by mbillard  on  01/28/12  at  10:37 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 68. · The one thing that can be said is they are not all concurring- their it all is out in the public for us all to see

    formerly known on the ‘Duck’ as spirit of the elder & BJGoodwin

    Comment by Barbara  on  01/28/12  at  11:38 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 69. · And it was Bob Mitchell who said at the December 5, 2011, meeting that they wanted to have a meeting the chair to "sit down with you and explain our side." (That is a quote from Mr. Mitchell.) Mr. Edmonds, of course, said it would have to be an advertised meeting that was open to the public.

    I concur: we are so fortunate to have Courtney Edmonds as chair.

    Comment by Hydrilla  on  01/28/12  at  12:08 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 70. · 69. Ooops, forgot the "with". ...have a meeting with the chair. Sorry!

    Comment by Hydrilla  on  01/28/12  at  12:11 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 71. · #69 I think the problem here is that so many of these people have operated without consideration for the open meetings laws for so long that it's not a case of willful disregard, but a case of it not even crossing their minds. That's not a defense for when they violate the law, just trying to establish an understanding. The notion that three or four of them sitting down with Edmonds to explain their side would constitute an official meeting may not have even registered with Mitchell at the time.

    Comment by mbillard  on  01/28/12  at  12:23 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 72. · #63.. The Chair is doing an admirable job. He is valiantly trying to give this body some credibility.
    The members of the planning committee are "citizen planners" without formal training. They are expected to rely on Staff, public comment and their Attorney when making decisions. That a majority routinely ignores staff and their Attorney is a HUGE problem. This has nothing to do with whether or not I like the vote. They reuse to believe that the law, or concerns about setting precedents apply to them.
    The cronyism of the majority is the problem and can not be tolerated.
    This is OUR planning commission. WE MUST FIX IT.

    Comment by riverrat  on  01/28/12  at  12:31 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 73. · #71 Correct. Bob Mitchell clearly does not understand the concept of open meetings. Bob Mitchell does not understand that times have changed during his over 7 years as a commissioner.
    Open meetings are the law and setting precedents has legal consequences that affect us all. This is OUR planning commission. WE MUST FIX IT.

    Comment by riverrat  on  01/28/12  at  12:40 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 74. · In the worst case, it is about patience. The change we elected last year will slowly but surely whittle away at the Gang of Four as their terms expire. I am sure that is why they want to speed up the Comprehensive Plan process before they all disappear. They are more transparent than they think.

    Comment by Julia Charles  on  01/28/12  at  12:55 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 75. · #74 In my opinion, we can't afford to have patience and wait on this one. These four can do a lot of damage between now and when their terms expire...the time is now.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/28/12  at  01:10 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 76. · #71 - I can agree that might be the case with Mr. Mitchell, and even Ms. Jones, but, in my opinion, Mr. Grasso and Mr. Richard are well aware of what the open meetings act is all about, but, feel they don't have to comply. They seem to like to make their own rules as they go.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/28/12  at  01:13 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 77. · #75: Patience would be a worst case scenario.

    Comment by Julia Charles  on  01/28/12  at  01:21 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 78. ·
    I am sure that is why they want to speed up the Comprehensive Plan process before they all disappear. They are more transparent than they think.


    That's for sure!!

    #76 - AGREED!!!

    Comment by cheryl  on  01/28/12  at  01:30 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 79. · #77 Patience would be a worst case scenario.

    The patience scenario can be shelved right next to the Cross County Connector LOL

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/29/12  at  09:04 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 80. · #76They seem to like to make their own rules as they go.

    Watching the 1-23-12 Planning Commission video and listening to Grasso try and push his agenda with the paltry excuse of "that's what we've always used for years," begs the question of Planning Commission decisions back when he was chairman--did he leave Charles County open for lawsuits? That Edmonds wanted "clarity from counsel" and that Bunker wanted to postpone the vote due to a maybe "violation code for Hunter's Ridge" points up how 3 PC members are looking out for us citizens while the other 4 are nothing but little Cooper/Patterson puppets dancin' the business-as-usual jig.

    Further, no honest developer would want approval that leaves him/her open for lawsuits, either, and it could happen.

    #72 This is OUR planning commission. WE MUST FIX IT.

    RR is right, it is our Planning Commission, and, if 4 don't care enough to support the citizens of CC and do what's best for them, we do have to fix it.

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/30/12  at  09:39 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 81. · Everybody, show up Tuesday night at 6 and speak out against the ERRA. There is lots of reference material on the DUCK, and the Planning Commission meetings are on line.

    We have to start taking the Fab 4 on. Send them the message that what they are trying to do is not acceptable.

    This is OUR planning commission. WE MUST FIX IT.

    Comment by Hydrilla  on  01/30/12  at  09:59 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 82. · If you are going to speak tomorrow, please remember that the problem is with the majority on the Planning Commission. There needs to be a super majority of the BOC for the ERRA to be stopped. Referring to the PC majority as Cooper/Patterson puppets reflects on the BOC, and will not be helpful.
    We have some wonderful people working for the County from Candice and Mr Edmunds to the staff and counsel. The specific issue tomorrow is the ERRA. The ultimate solution is to change the PC so that our Comp Plan is not torpedoed.
    This is OUR planning commission. WE MUST FIX IT.

    Comment by riverrat  on  01/30/12  at  10:45 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 83. · Referring to the PC majority as Cooper/Patterson puppets reflects on the BOC,

    I don't see how. The present BOC inherited the Planning Commission lock, stock and barrel, right? Or am I missing something? But no matter I'm hopeful that all 5 commissioners, especially the 2 lawyers, Collins and Davis, say no to the ERZ. After all, Mr Edmonds is a lawyer and chair...I'd take his thoughts over the likes of Mitchell, Grasso, Jones and Richard--none of them versed in legality.

    The specific issue tomorrow is the ERRA. The ultimate solution is to change the PC so that our Comp Plan is not torpedoed.

    So, are you suggesting that no one mention the Planning Commission tomorrow if they have time left on their 3 minute allotment? See number #57--I tend to agree with Pauleen.

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/30/12  at  03:03 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 84. · There are two major premises relating to the ERRA, that the four continuously repeated - 1. That the ERRA was not based on an individual project or application; and 2. That no one offered alternative solutions - both untrue. Hammer those facts as they pertain to the ERRA and the fours' ability to know fact from their own fabricated fiction.

    formerly known on the ‘Duck as CCCitizen and, unless otherwise stated, any opinions expressed are those of my own.

    Comment by Pauleen Brewer  on  01/30/12  at  03:15 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 85. · Just remember that Reuben Collins was a County Commissioner when these Planning Commissioners' terms were extended, and we need his vote on Tuesday to turn down the ERRA.

    Comment by Hydrilla  on  01/30/12  at  03:33 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 86. · Thank you 85> this is my take on the situation. We need to convince at least 2 Commissioners that have had relationships with the old Board and may have continued loyalty to the decisions made then.

    When I am scolded and continually reminded of the past (even if I now may be changing my mind) it makes me more likely to not listen to facts.

    I think we need to stick to short facts on the zoning and/or expressing that the planning commission clearly were not listening or reading our comments through all the hearings , but were very concerned for the developer.

    They were continually reminded by Ms Theobald that it was a zoning issue and not a specific development issue- but they kept referring to the one development. It is clear they have connections with this in some way or they would not be so concerned with this particular development.

    So- remember the old saying: attract more flies with honey.- convince the Comm, that the problems can be solved another way and not with this huge zoning change

    formerly known on the ‘Duck’ as spirit of the elder & BJGoodwin

    Comment by Barbara  on  01/30/12  at  04:16 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 87. · I''m hopeful that the vote will be unanimous to deny this "zoning" change. Remember the Commissioners were unanimous when they voted against the Nanjemoy development, so I would expect the same with this one.

    I think that by consistently telling us this is a zoning issue is a way just a CYA tactic by those 4 members of the Planning Commission. EVERYONE knows exactly what this is about - to circumvent the Comp Plan to allow for dense development in areas currently zoned 1:3 or 1:5.

    It's a shame it even got this far....

    Comment by cheryl  on  01/30/12  at  04:57 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 88. · #82,#84-#87 Thanks, I was missing the boat what with being so wrapped up in the latest PC fiasco.

    Comment by seahorse  on  01/30/12  at  05:03 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 89. · #86: It is clear they have connections with this in some way or they would not be so concerned with this particular development.

    The connection is called Danny Mayer. The Good Ol' Boy network is alive and kickin'!

    Comment by Hydrilla  on  01/30/12  at  11:08 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
    • Page 1 of 1 pages

YOU MUST BE A REGISTERED MEMBER AND LOGGED-IN TO POST COMMENTS

Smileys

 @ 
<a>

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Next entry: Planning commission kills preservation area

Previous entry: Charles County Planning Commission meeting video

<< Back to main

Copyright © 2003-2012, Delusional Duck®, All rights reserved. Delusional Duck® is a Registered Trademark.
Comment Policy | Terms of Use | .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Home | Discussion Forums