Begin with two minute introductions.
Baker: voice shaky, (like a liar?) Immediately accuses Jud of taking property away from landowners… (I’m thinking: what? is he crazy? Sounds like a stupid developer my spouse said). Property ownership is not a privilege; that makes it sound like it can be taken away from you. That is scary to me.
Bennett: calm, confident like one telling the truth: my opponent has taken parts of my platform, and falsely represented my intent, such as taking property away from landowners, which is certainly not true.
On their Land Use Plan…
Baker: Jud is a communist. He won’t let developers do whatever they want. (paraphrased) Jud pushed for a bill in State Legislature which would Give the state control of code changes instead of the county. State control pure communist.
Bennett: That is not true. To cut down on density of the wear and tear on the land, I once proposed 10 acre building lots per house…. Roads, sewers, infrastructure including schools should be developed before the building of tons of houses, perhaps far too many for the community to bear. Developers should pay, not taxpayers.
On support groups
Baker: communist
Bennett: better growth, the term communist is ridiculous.
On examples where change is needed.
Bennett: Next to marsh farm . County did nothing.. Future plans need specificity… Whether it is the village concept, cluster housing, better situations for commercial development, wider use of open areas.
Baker: I have no development in mind… when developments are done, laws should be followed. Sliding on rules, that’s been done in past, it needs clear concise rules which can be followed….
Animated signs?
Bennett: County should enforce Roger’s own signs. Rogers installed most of them and therefore the ordinance should be either enforced or get rid of it…
Baker: Same as Bennett. Enforce ordinances, or change law…
What about Taxpayer $ to Charity Groups: handed out by council members.
Baker: Practice rubs me the wrong way. He would use $60,000 to build patronage for himself, and would feel uncomfortable buying votes. Recommends doing it in an open way that can be verified.
Bennett: Mark and I agree. Discretionary funds, $60,000 needs documented.
Why are you the best choice to cover the dispensation tax dollars?
Bennett:
I have the wealth of experience. Have made and lost a lot of money. Right now on the high side and hope to stay there. County is running deficits for two years now because transfer tax receipts are down. Would not have bought that land and built ….
Baker: I’m the best choice because of Baker Petroleum: It’s a Competitive industry. I manage abudget, I watch expenses, I maintain facilities, I manage a budget.
Prayer at County meetings?
Baker: uh..uh…are they now? (hesitant)…. yes?
Bennett: Yes, absolutely!
Build parks?
Bennett: Parks would be good in principal, but without money now is not the time. Down the road, when flush perhaps, Now vote no.
Baker: Recreation is important but now… without finances, it is not the time. Would continue seed money to grass roots organizations who provide recreation to citizens.
New County Services?
Baker: No
Bennett: Controversial, and falsely misrepresented by Baker. Would recommend the hiring of two attorneys for less money $220,000 versus the $400,000 thousand dollars. Hire inspectors for additional workloads. In house attorneys working for the country would be tougher on enforcing the codes, than those attorneys paid by the developers to enforce the county’s code against those developers paying them.
Baker: Does not understand those numbers. $88,000 for 1st attorney, $77,000 for the 2nd attorney, $25,000 for secretary; 10% for benefits, 12% for FICA, and 46,000 a year to provide office space…Other expenses, need to buy computers, need to contract specialists, need to question the competence of 88,000 and 77,000 attorneys…. Math does not add up.
Bennett: Several attorneys he’s talked to, think it will work. Baker is ignoring the current attorney’s performance. He does not want to foster bureaucracy. That is just not true….He recommends a more efficient operation, thereby saving money. Before we hired inspectors, …did that cause big government?
Baker: Still $165,000 and added 10%, 12%, 15% percent additional costs.
Bennett: You have to consider lawsuits we paid because we failed to appeal their decision because of the legal expense… It will save more than it costs.
Baker : For that we have insurance, and deductibles to pay.
Bennett: With the Marsh farm debacle, the attorney was double dipping and allowed something that was not legal.. The Marsh got screwed.
Baker: We should count on our Councilman for ethics, not an attorney. Whats the use of having a Councilman (who is owned by developers) if you can’t count on him for ethics. We don’t need an attorney (to represent homeowners) and shouldn’t have two more.
On Code enforcement:
Baker: Free fall of subdivisions being built from 144 in 2007 to 18 now. We need to make sure laws are followed. We are overly regulated as it is. It costs residents 1000’s of dollars, due to county regulations to build shed in yard
Bennett: From January to August of this year, 3600 acres were considered for development. Currently there is a 18 month backlog, meaning about 16 lots per day in pipeline, preventing the enforcement of numerous complaints. Recommends assign inspectors a caseload, to follow through a development from start to finish, they can then insure that everything is followed through correctly by the developers..
Closing statement: 2 minutes
Bennett: Large developers behind this opponent, have made this election extremely contentious. Glad when it is over, so will my wife.. Large landowners and large developers backing Baker, are trying to defeat me. Unlike developers, voters do care about their future, If charged with saving county millions of dollars, then guilty. If lobbying state legislature is a crime, then guilty. If wanting sustainable growth to be paid by developers, and not the taxpayers, then guilty. I am guilty of making Sussex County a place to prosper… The difference is whether we have a nice place to live, or a horrible place to live… You have a choice. Thank you.
Baker: Blah blah blah. I will close by reading you a statement. “The worse thing there is, is a career politician. Someone who puts them self above their constituents. We need someone who succeeds in business.” Ladies and Gentlemen, I am that man. I’m a new to the political process, and I am a successful business man. That writing? it was written by Bennett himself last August… you fool you just endorsed my candidacy….
End
(Just curious, is everyone down in Sussex County as juvenile and high strung as Baker?) What a sad closing.
If Jud Bennett is a conservative like a John McCain…. Mark Baker comes across as Dick Cheney….
Mark Baker does not deny it: he emphasizes that he will let developers do what they want in Sussex County, with no restrictions. No restrictions? Should someone want to see what Mark Baker’s vision will do to Sussex County, they should check out Harlem….. in thirty short years upper Manhattan went from farmlands to immigrant housing. Why? There was no regulation.
Why drive that far? Drive up and down Route 40 in New Castle County to get an idea of what Sussex County will look like a few years from now….There used to be 5 stoplights from the Maryland border to Dupont Highway… Now there is a yellow highway sign near the Route 7 interchange that says “WARNING, 5 STOPLIGHTS NEXT 1.6 MILES”
That is why Sussex County should reject Mark Baker. You can’t afford him.
kavips 
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 3, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Nancy Willing
superb!
September 3, 2008 at 6:47 pm
meatball
Wow, I had been leaning Jud’s way prior to this debate, but hadn’t yet heard Mr Baker’s take on growth. Too bad I’m not registered republican. I haven’t heard much from Mrs Deaver, though.
September 3, 2008 at 7:09 pm
anonymous
I live in that district and I’m voting for Jud. Dan Gaffney is pro growth, he was very clear about that today. He kept slamming callers if they couldn’t name a development in Sussex that was out of control. But that’s not the point.
There have been developments proposed, like the Townsend Center in Lewes, across from Cape High School, which would have had more retail space than all of the outlet centers put together, and it would have been a mess considering there are two roads into Lewes, the development would have been on one, the ONLY HOSPITAL IN EASTERN SUSSEX, Beebe, sits on the other.
I’m convinced that the only thing that prevented that development was the public. The public outcry was huge, even the Cape school board was forced by the people to take a stand against it. SC citizens shouldn’t have to freak out en mass in order to make the council see that some development is out of control. The council should be smart enough to see that for themselves.
The point IS that we need to get good people on the Sussex County Council so the Council makes good decisions on development. I think Jud Bennett would provide some smart balance.
If Jud loses I’ll break a long streak of voting republican to vote for Joan Deaver.
September 3, 2008 at 8:13 pm
your Sussex County neighbor
We moved to Sussex County 3 years ago. Although we can afford to buy a fine house, we have been renting while we study the county’s home construction and development standards. We are shocked at the uncontrolled development philosophy of the County Council. It has destroyed our confidence that we can buy in an area that won’t be sold off for thousands of condos and commercial buildlings right next to our home. If Delaware wants people from out-of-state to buy their expensive houses and contribute to the local economy, the county and state need to bring their zoning plans in line with those of Maryland and NJ. We won’t stay here if we have no idea whether our house will re-sell in 20 years at a loss because no one is watching out for property values.
This County needs a major overhaul, and Jud or Joan will help that happen. If Mark Baker wins this primary, it could be a big nail in the coffin for Sussex County’s future. We will likely leave. Some will say “good riddance,” but remember when we go, we’ll be taking lots of money and future jobs with us. If Delaware thinks that new residents will come no matter what they do, they are in for a very rude shock.
September 4, 2008 at 1:30 am
kavips
Thanks for your all of your insightful comments.
After listening to Gaffney slam callers this morning, it became obvious that with such a voice for developers down there, you certainly have an impediment in counteracting out-of-control development.
It’s a hard enough battle to win, even with the media ON your side.
From the conversation that occurred after the debate, it became obvious from where Sussex County’s problem derives.
Sussex is too big…
Less than (my guess here) 4% of the county is overdeveloped. The rest is practically wide open. Those in, and around, those developed areas which are over developed, suffer severe quality-of-life issues. Other areas,… experience no symptoms and do not want their quality of life to suffer by blanket rules used to curtail new growth in other parts of the county…..
I believe your current board is mostly staffed with persons from western Sussex localities, if I am correct, who are anxious to development to come to their localities.
Obviously the smart approach, and the one most politically expedient, would be to devise a two prong approach which would simultaneously accommodate both sides of the county….
Some tools which can be discussed.
a) Pass a tree ordinance. Commonly called Jade’s Law, by charging a tax for removal of each tree, the additional cost factor helps maintain healthy forests and forces development in cleared areas.
b)Establish 1 mile buffer areas on either side of major (numbered) highways with no residential, or commercial new building allowed on either side of the highway. (Think in terms of removing plaque from your arteries).
c) Develop a saturation limit ( number of houses per square mile) which once achieved, would force development to move on to another area.
d) Establish clear arteries (Evacuation Route strategy) and mandate the number of traffic lights per mile to a low number… Develop traffic arteries with U Turn lanes to change direction and institute right-turn-access-only to all major traffic arteries.
e) Organize, organize, organize. Use your numbers to jam Gaffney’s lines against development. (they are already doing that against you in case you hadn’t noticed…) Hint…. you only need forty volunteers…. Plus regular meetings, give you experience in discussing the issue with each other, so that when on the air, your volunteers sound more coherent than the opposition….
f) Start hounding pro-developer supporting Council persons…. (Remember that from their perspective, they actually have valid reasons for supporting them.) Only the most principled will make a stand against constant attrition. When their election cycle rolls around, run against them and vote them out of office.
Hope that helps. If you need support, all you have to do is ask…..
I hope that someday Sussex County one day realizes, that even if Jud Bennett loses this round, that throwing himself against the machine, was the first step in your citizens controlling their own affairs…..
Good luck: I hope all of you can band together can keep Mark Baker below double digits…… 🙂
September 5, 2008 at 1:43 am
Was A Willing Blogger
Jud sent the latest but I haven’t gotten it up on the blog yet. Evidently he mentioned a consultant in a not so nice way and there is a big spat about it today via emails.
June 27, 2010 at 1:27 am
Much Ado About Pork « kavips
[…] to mention that because of the mismanagement caused by developers such as Christain Hudson and his supporters, our state was facing a shortfall… It costs every citizen less to pay a tiny residual in […]