Ad

Add your comments

This page has been viewed 412 times

LTE: Safety isn’t only reason to support cross-county connector

Maryland Independent,

In a recent letter [”Scare tactics won’t build a highway,” Maryland Independent, June 26] Daniel Keyes characterized my position on the cross-county connector as “foolish, self-serving … flawed.” Also, because of my support of the connector some bloggers on the Delusional Duck have called me “scoundrel … pathetic … fear mongerer … cheap and tawdry” and a commissioner “toady,” whatever that is.


Posted by: Sammy on 07/01/09 at 04:04 PM
    Page 1 of 1 pages
  • 1. · I went back and re-read the thread Mr. Rutherford referenced, those statements are there... most from one blogger, and the 'toady' comment from another. What wasn't mentioned was that while nearly everyone disagreed with his position in support of the CCC, most of the comments were in his defense against those attacks.

    Comment by The Quack  on  07/01/09  at  04:50 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 2. · Once again, he fails to acknowledge the COST!

    He fails to acknowledge the expanded growth that will result to the Deferred Development District, which is rapidly becoming part of the Development District.

    Next thing you know the rural/ag areas will be the Deferred Development District and in time the entire county will be one huge DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT!!

    Comment by cheryl  on  07/02/09  at  06:01 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 3. · Latest cost figure is $47M. Infrastructure, rather than skating rinks, stadiums, and office upgrades for the commissioners, is where we should be directing our money.

    I certainly appreciate your concerns about growth. However, I'm convinced that with or without a plan growth is inevitable. So my question is simply why not plan for it? What other options are there?

    Comment by John Rutherford  on  07/02/09  at  09:32 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 4. · Yes, we should plan for it, however, time and time again I see the Comprehensive Plan is ignored.

    Again, how much development is enough? Where does it end, or does it?

    The Development District continues to expand and soon the Deferred Development District will be part of the Development District.

    Once we reach the water's edge, there will be no where to go but up.

    I'm convinced that in the next 10 - 20 years, more than 75% of the county will be part of the Development District.

    Once the CCC-X is in place, it will encourage more development, resulting in the "need" for even more roads, which I call "development corridors" as there has never been a road built that doesn't result in more development!

    I can tell you that I remember walking (as a kid by myself!) to where Kingsview is now, when it was a farm with Hereford cattle. The bridge was a one lane WOODEN bridge and part of the road was gravel.

    Now I'm not that old, so it shows you how rapidly things can change. Of course, the tobacco buyout was a huge contributing factor.

    When I envision a four lane highway with thousands of homes and businesses alongside of it, I can only imagine what the county will look like in just a few more years!

    So again, I ask where does it end or will it? Will Çharles Çounty resemble Northern VA, or worse, the Woodbridge area?

    Is this progress or greed?

    Comment by cheryl  on  07/02/09  at  10:09 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 5. · What is all this talk about saving the jewel of the Chesapeake bay? is it nonsense-a ruse -?are we that sick a speices that we would poison everthing in our environment in the quest for the all mighty buck?
    Take a walk -IN AUGUST-across RT 225 to 7 ponds where SOME OF 'Hunters Choice'? drains into and look at the algae and muck caused by development in these critical areas-only reason Kings Ransom/Grant -whatever- may not be Visibly showing a lot of impact is because of sufficient water flow and movement. Soils and oxygen tests may tell a completely different story.

    It is a plain and simple fact too much development is the main culprit in the killing of our water ways-- development people scream it is the dwindling farms..b.s--the farms were in excess before massive development of the watershed and the quality of the waterways was not as impacted
    i used to go to Port tobacco creek 1990-95 when it was safe to go in the water and see stripers and crabs, eels all over in the grasses-now you get 'stay out of the water' warnings/signs from all floating fecal material-this with a depleted fishery with less oxygen--This was not caused by all the new farms that grew up around Laplata-Lets get real here. THE LOVE/LUST FOR MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL

    As Mr. Rutherford said in his letter -read it once and dont have the paper now-so i will try from memory-Safety is not the only reasson-he could have fooled me from his first letter where he used the imagery of flipped over school busses with children aboard-the Scary sensationalism of carnage of children was the focal point of his first letter to the indy.

    Now- he says the road must be built to support commerce--''The truth emerges'' in the 2nd letter that it is ultimately about the money. If I had land holdings or business intersts involved in this proposed endeavor which i had planned for and would garner me much profit than i might holler about AS MANY DIFFERENT NEEDS AS AS I COULD THINK OF FOR THE MASSIVE HIGHWAY TOO. We can make logical raional choices. Destructive growth is not inevitable, no matter how fuzzily, and illusory it is wrapped .

    On the other hand, at what point do we say -an environment , especially a jewel like the Mattowoman deserves to be saved from the toxicity of our greed-especially when other routes can serve nearly the same purpose..the CCC wil spawn major growth and development along the corridor and the Mattowoman will potentially be on its way to becoming another toxic Anacostia river--As a species we ought to be ashamed of ourselves as we are becoming the main catalyist in our own eventual demise with out immediate pleasure and gratification outlooks. i am getting mine, i got mine-the hell with all else is a sad commentary on our stewardship in our infinitessimally short lifespans which are eclipsed by geological time

    Smart Gowth is exactly that Smart growth-this is not smart growth this is Murder of of the environment/environmental jewel and ultimately down the line to future generations with new or more ressitant cancers who will be saying as they curse us - What where we thinking, and why would we so callouslly do this to them-fouling beautiful natural assetts with no regard for the balance of life and health for the almighty buck-especially when other alternatives existed..

    NO, Mr. Rutherford contrary to what you expouse that 'Smart Growth equals No growth"-this is patently false..
    SMART GROWTH EQUALS=SMART GROWTH-AND IT IS ABOUT TIME WEBECOME RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS OF THE EARTH AND EMPLOY IT FOR OUR OWN HEALTH AND FOR THE HEALTH OF FUURE GENERATIONS

    Comment by WaterWorks  on  07/02/09  at  10:12 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 6. · First of all, I never espoused that smart growth equals no growth. I actually said that was a mindset not to get sucked into. Also in BOTH LTEs on this subject I made it clear that I had NUMEROUS reasons for supporting the CCC.

    I believe that growth is inevitable and to think otherwise is not very realistic. Therefore, we have to plan for it and control it. We do have a plan. If it's not working or not being implemented correctly, then it's probably time to change the planners.

    Comment by John Rutherford  on  07/02/09  at  11:04 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 7. · Latest cost figure is $47M

    Good Morning ALL at 1130am....Happy 4th of July and please be SAFE out and about when Driving smile

    47Mil...????? If I remember right and please guys help me out on this one but last July when we were in the County Building at the meeting that ran till just about 1am WASN'T THE COST TO Build THE C.C.C. about 75mil??? The statement made back then was that if the C.C.C. didn't get started by the end of 2008 the cost would be much higher.

    47Mil is the 1st time I've heard this amount? Any one agree or disagree?

    Now Safety! Is a major issue and it makes me sick when someone from EMS gets up there and says how bad Billingsly Rd. is and I agree on some parts of Billingsly needs work but now a 4 LANE HIGHWAY and the state even says the C.C.C. is NOT needed. Come on you know Cooper makes someone from the EMS Dept. stand up there and sing that song as well as someone from the Sheriff's office doing the same thing. Hmmmmmmm Maybe if the Sheriff's office traveled it much more and crack down on the speeders that travel it then maybe the accidents wouldn't be as bad. But also how about all the other roads in this County that are just as bad as Billingsly but they don't say anything about them. I'm sure we could lay a map down of Charles County and point them out.

    NO THERE IS ONLY ONE REASON TO BUILD THE C.C.C. AND THAT IS TO DO AS MUCH DEVELOPMENT AS THEY CAN TO IT.

    CHERYL YOU ARE SO RIGHT ON THIS LINE smile Again, how much development is enough? Where does it end, or does it?

    So guys you know my stand on Development please keep me in mind between now and next Sept. smile Candidate for Commissioner in District 2 "2010"

    Comment by DeGiorgi  on  07/02/09  at  11:07 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 8. · See the article in yesterday's Indy about connector supporters defending the road plan. It says that Jason Groth, chief of resources and infrastructure management, said in an interview this week that it will cost $47M to complete the connector.

    Comment by John Rutherford  on  07/02/09  at  11:53 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 9. ·
    will cost $47M to complete the connector.


    thats the key- it will cost over the $75 million when completed I am sure as the rest is overbudget- but to put in the last few miles $$& million.

    In act what is the exact miles of road are we talking about- I know its 7 acres in total-

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

    Comment by Barbara  on  07/02/09  at  03:10 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 10. · In a recent letter ["Scare tactics won't build a highway," Maryland Independent, June 26] Daniel Keyes characterized my position on the cross-county connector as "foolish, self-serving … flawed."
    Also, because of my support of the connector some bloggers on the Delusional Duck have called me "scoundrel … pathetic … fear mongerer … cheap and tawdry" and a commissioner "toady," whatever that is.


    Now, not all called you names- even though many agree the road could be improved instead of made into a super highway.

    There was an small outcry 10 years or more ago when Kingview was proposed- and as you know money talks and creek be damned. Many of us were appalled at building that Community in that sensitive area. But again the dveloper was going to preserve the area and the habitat so all may enjoy.

    The ones who spoke out could see the writing on the wall and said the road system and schools were not sufficient for the area and so should not be built.

    Now again- long past- it is used as an excuse to build the road they want to.

    Beleive me i understand the reasoning for the road- I think it is logical and good for business.

    With age we come to appreciate those things we have watched being destroyed over 25 years or more, with our County slowly compressing and the health of our world, a world I want to perserve- I have to in good concious disagree.

    I too have been called names and been degraded in type because of lack of agreement on a topic. I think others should tone that back- or even better- attack an idea with sound logic but not attack the deliverer.

    Our world needs a lot more kindness.

    Im sorry if your feelings were hurt- as I remember quite a few spoke out for you- so you may have been better treated than some others (not that thats solice, being treated decently should be expected by all citizens).


    Comment by spirit of the elder on 07/01 at 12:46 PM |

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

    Comment by Barbara  on  07/02/09  at  03:13 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 11. · That $47 million figure is the cost for just the final phases -- up to 229 and west of 229 to 210.

    What has been pointed out and recommended by many, both on this site (in several threads dating back over a year) and in other public forums, is that there are already other connections from Waldorf to the Bryan's Road area.

    I believe that they should complete the Billingsley Road upgrade to 229, from there, you can take 229 to 228 to 210, or take 229 to 227 to 210. Both of these alternate routes can be more easily upgraded without major impact, if any, to the environment -- sections of both of these roads need no improvement at all for the time being. As it stands now, most take the upgraded section of Billingsley Road to Middletown Road to 228 to 210, all of which is upgraded four lane highway. In my opinion, in addition to these suggestions, the section of Billingsley Road from 229 to where it currently connects to 227 in Bryan's Road, should be left in it's current alignment but should be upgraded to slightly widen the road, add some shoulder, and other safety features. What shouldn't occur is creating a four lane highway through a corridor that is mixed with wetlands, woods and residential units and neighborhoods.

    In the meantime, if the road is that unsafe due to volume and speed, there are traffic control remedies that can be immediately implemented. The speed limit should be lowered, traffic signaling devices to break up traffic, and speed monitoring and enforcements devices -- including those dreaded speed cameras -- would greatly alleviate those issues. The corridor should be designated a zero tolerance safety enforcement zone, as they've done for Route 301 from just south of La Plata to the Harry Nice Bridge. This allows for increased enforcement and penalties.

    What essentially takes place is it moves the through traffic off of that section of Billingsley onto the alternative routes, decreasing traffic volume and leaving that corridor primarily to the local residents who live on that section of road.

    Comment by The Quack  on  07/02/09  at  03:36 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 12. · In the County's last CIP Quarterly Monitoring Report, the total remaining cost of Phases V, VI and VII is $44,321,990. The project total (Phases I thru VII) is estimated at $70 million, with a current budgeted amount of $67,172,290.28.

    If Jason Groth is now saying that the remaining portion if $47,000,000, you can see how much the cost has increased since their last released Quarterly Report dated March 31, 2009.

    Something that seems to be overlooked in everyone's arguments here is the fact that the new Billingsley Road in these final phases (Middelton Road to 229 to Mattowoman Creek to 210) is all newly constructed roadway, it is not improving the existing roadway at all. Phases V, VI & VII are listed as "Current Conditions - non existing roadway; Proposed Improvements - 4 lane divided roadway." The very dangerous Billingsley Road as we're discussing today will still be the same dangerous road when the CCC is completed. All this will do is remove through traffic from the road. As I've stated before, and others have pointed out, there are already alternative routes, and other alternative routes that can be improved to remove through traffic from these sections of Billingsley Road AND this would save $47,000,000 (less a reasonable amount to reasonably improve the alternative routes and the current two-lane Billingsley Rd).

    Comment by The Quack  on  07/02/09  at  08:06 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 13. · #11, Quack, In my opinion, in addition to these suggestions, the section of Billingsley Road from 229 to where it currently connects to 227 in Bryan's Road, should be left in it's current alignment but should be upgraded to slightly widen the road, add some shoulder, and other safety features. What shouldn't occur is creating a four lane highway through a corridor that is mixed with wetlands, woods and residential units and neighborhoods.

    In the meantime, if the road is that unsafe due to volume and speed, there are traffic control remedies that can be immediately implemented. The speed limit should be lowered, traffic signaling devices to break up traffic, and speed monitoring and enforcements devices -- including those dreaded speed cameras -- would greatly alleviate those issues. The corridor should be designated a zero tolerance safety enforcement zone

    Your suggestions should've been implemented years ago, and I can't imagine anyone living on that section of Billingsley not having demanded better traffic control remedies.

    Using school kids as pawns, and the threat of a bus or 2 or 3 upside down in a ditch to try and make a case for the CCC, takes the blue ribbon in the "no-holds-barred-grasping-at-straws" category of talking points for Commissioners trying to shove a not-needed road down the throats of the CC taxpayers. If I had a child in the CC school system who was bussed on the "oh-so-dangerous" Billingsley, I'd be demanding upgrades, and I'd be questioning the authorities as to why my kid is sitting on a bus that travels a road that county leadership says is so unsafe that they draw a vivid, mental picture of school buses in accidents. What gaul!

    Comment by seahorse  on  07/02/09  at  09:36 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 14. · Quack, you make a good point by indicating alternative routes. However, my feeling is that if these were attractive alternates people would already be using them. 229 to 227 is a better road than Billingsley. Problem is it’s about 4 miles longer to get to the same place. If you could make improvements to make it a more attractive route, wouldn’t you then be focusing the desire to develop even further south and away from the development district. Some on this blog are fearful of that. That route also crosses a rather large section of the Mattawoman Natural Environment Area.
    A big problem with Billingsley that neither of these alternatives addresses is that Billingsley is the only access into both Kingsview and Highgrove. Together they total well over 1000 residences. When both were built, it was with the CCC in mind. There are set-asides in both communities to accommodate the CCC and provide access to it.
    I agree that some improvements should be made to Billingsley, but I do think there are a couple of very bad places where it may not be possible to widen. I'm not a civil engineer so I might be wrong.
    Again, given what we have in the Comprehensive Plan as well as the Bryans Road sub-area plan, I still see the CCC as the best option.

    Comment by John Rutherford  on  07/03/09  at  07:27 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 15. ·
    However, my feeling is that if these were attractive alternates people would already be using them. 229 to 227 is a better road than Billingsley. Problem is it’s about 4 miles longer to get to the same place.
    It's 3.3 miles longer. In my previous suggestion, lowering the speed limit increases safety, would make those routes more attractive. Those that are looking for the quickest through route from Waldorf to Bryans Road would avoid a section of road with reduced speed and increased enforcement and penalties and opt for an extra 3.3 miles to save five or ten minutes AND be on a safer road.

    As you mentioned, both currently end in Bryans Road in the same place, so it wouldn't change the outcome of the development district. Just as building up Billingsley is said its not going to encourage development along Billinsgley, an upgrade to 229 or 227 shouldn't encourage development along those routes. As for it's crossing of the Mattawoman, it is already built in an alignment what would be conducive to widening the road without additional (or very minimal) disruption to the watershed, Billingsley is not.

    Again though, what everyone seems to be avoiding is the fact that the Cross County Connector does nothing to address these sections of Billingsley Road. The CCC is completely new construction just to the Northeast of Billingsley.
    image
    On top of this, the approved development district envelopes nearly all of the section of Billingsley in question. The purple is 'Town Center Mixed Use; R - Retail Emphasis; E - Employment/Residential Emphasis,' the brown is 'Medium-High Density Residential.'

    This map, taken from the approved Bryans Road-Indian Head Sub Area Plan, and repasted in nearly a dozen other County planning document shows what the plan is for the area. While I don't agree with it, its what has been approved in the way of zoning and construction. However, none of those zones would need to change because the black/white checkered line representing the CCC vanished.

    Comment by The Quack  on  07/03/09  at  09:04 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 16. · 1. "The purpose of the cross-county connector is to provide a safe and effective connector road," Hodge

    2. "The road was planned and designed to protect the environment … and it was deliberately planned and designed to achieve those highest of standards." Hodge

    Response #1 - Mr. Hodge left out the fact that the connector will spur growth along road corridor.

    Response #2 - This is dangerously, uniformed, unsubstantiated and irresponsible remark. Mr. Hodge, Mr. Groth, Mr. Bell and anyone else who stands up before the public and makes statements like this have not a clue if the design meets the highest or even close to the highest environmental standards. None are experts in the field. We should ask the County to provide just one shred of proof to substantiate this remark and it should come from an expert. Without question this remark is politically motivated.

    The remainder of the growth in the corridor will be done by developers who will, like the County, do as little as is needed to meet the law. The developers should not be at called out. It is their business to do just enough to get a permit.

    Mr. Hodge, if the County is so environmentally conscience for the Cross County Connector and following the letter of the law, why did the County not follow the letter of the law when paving miles of trails in the Mattawoman watershed without the first storm water plan, permit or approval? Hodge seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth as is Groth, Bell, or anyone else buying the pack of twisted words and postions.

    Comment by Anne P  on  07/03/09  at  09:09 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 17. · Anne P, all great comments! This one by Hodge especially grabbed my attention

    2. "The road was planned and designed to protect the environment … and it was deliberately planned and designed to achieve those highest of standards." Hodge

    What a crock! If Gary Hodge thinks the NEPA-Lite "environmental study" contracted out by the Commissioners to a private firm wasting more taxpayer $$$$ was of the highest standards, he, either, 1. doesn't know jack about EISs and NEPA regulations or 2. he and his buds are trying their damnest to prevent the Corps from doing a real EIS. Heh, or 3. BOTH!!!!!

    Comment by seahorse  on  07/03/09  at  09:29 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 18. · Hodge seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth as is Groth, Bell, or anyone else buying the pack of twisted words and postions.

    I suspect Beall, Groth, and any other county employee don't want a one-way ticket on the Comfort express.

    Comment by seahorse  on  07/03/09  at  09:35 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 19. · MDE submitted a 5 page letter to the Commissioners on January 21, 2009 requesting additional information.

    The letter specifically states that the "project purpose and need seems to have been expanded to include more of a traffic SAFETY component."

    MDE requested that the Commissioners provide a "clear and complete description of the project purpose and need."

    The Army Corps of Engineers "notes that there have been many transportation improvements that facilitate east-west traffic flow including Routes 228, 225, 224, and 227."

    MDE asks: "What benefit does the Cross County Connector provide that are not or can not be fulfilled by UPGRADING these existing roadways?"

    I wonder if the Commissioners responded and if so what their response was?

    Comment by cheryl  on  07/03/09  at  09:36 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 20. · Cheryl I love you smile lol don't tell my wife now.

    You hit the nail on the head. but lets add one last line that no one else has added

    THE STATE SAID A LONG TIME AGO THAT THE C.C.C. 4 LANE HIGHWAY IS NOT NEEDED!

    If I am Commissioner I would be ok doing "UPGRADES" to Billingsly's but hell no to a 4 lane road.

    I made a post on #7 which no one replied to which is ok! But to spend 47mil (PLUS MOST LIKELY) just isn't needed. Now what I get so mad about is when I read and here how this was a plan 20 or 30 yrs ago. SO WHAT! WELL I'm sorry this is 2009 not 1989 or 79. The picture has changed now. 20 or 30 yrs ago Commissioners could care less about spending......OH I'M SORRY THIS IS 2009 AND WHAT ARE OUR COMMISSIONER'S DOING SPENDING SPENDING AND MORE SPENDING. 2010 GUYS 2010!

    You ask when will it stop "spending that is"! Well I hate to spend MONEY! Just ask my wife Virginia! My wife and I always talk TO EACH OTHER about what we need to spend MONEY on and not what WE WANT TO SPEND ON!

    The C.C.C. is a want Commissioner's NOT A NEED!

    Comment by DeGiorgi  on  07/04/09  at  12:25 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 21. · "Jason Groth said it will cost $47 mil to build the connector...''
    Jason Groth sells the spiel he is told to sell 100% by the King Coop and to make no bones about it to anyone--lest he will be looking for work...The king's method of totalitarian control of governance should be as obvious as the nose on our faces by now.

    Comment by WaterWorks  on  07/06/09  at  12:06 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 22. · 10 Mr Rutherford.
    I think Mr Keyes seriously objected to the use of the the sensationalized instilling fear imagery of flipped over school busses and associated carnage you loaded your arguement with in your fist letter w/o much mention of anything else in your support of the road.

    Your second letter was a bit more rounded and honest as you noted in your support that the commerce/$$$ the road would generate was a major reason for your support for the desructive environmental CCC hwy.

    Do you have any montary interest in any company, entity, llc, partnership or land holding that would be utilized in building the CCC?
    Honestly, you did note that you did not know much about the environemental damage the CCC would cause-and only could primatively postulate from Kingsview's construction.

    Comment by WaterWorks  on  07/06/09  at  12:21 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 23. · who owns the land parcels in the CCC proposed route of destruction for the Mattowoman watershed and ultimately another death nail in th CB??
    And with widening 227 would much less infrasructure be needed -therefore less $$$dinero for the Loop of cloisterd Cc govt and cronied up buds

    Comment by WaterWorks  on  07/06/09  at  12:32 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 24. · who owns the land parcels in the CCC proposed route of destruction

    Excellent question, WW. Further, it's not just who owns the land parcels close to the CCC but, if the CCC is attached by a bridge at Chicamuxen crossing into Virginia and then hooks up to a Western Bypass (another boondoggle) at the other, Charles County becomes part of an Outer Beltway. That's the plan, and that's where, I'm thinking, some have invested mucho dinero. Taking one step at a time, they need the CCC, and it's definitely NOT for safety reasons!

    Comment by seahorse  on  07/06/09  at  01:27 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 25. · 22 WaterWorks
    To answer your question, I have absolutely no financial interest in whether the CCC is completed or not.
    I simply think it makes sense. To me it makes sense to plan for the inevitability of growth, it makes sense to designate a development district, it makes sense for that district to be located within the northern corridor of the county between Waldorf and Bryans Road, it makes sense to lay in the infrastructure prior to development, it makes sense to build a main corridor to focus and direct any development that may occur, and it makes sense to get as much traffic as possible off the old section of Billingsley Road.
    I know that you and most other contributors to this thread don't agree. I don't expect to change your mind nor should you expect to change mine. However, I do think the debate is worthwhile if for no other reason than to allow at least a glimpse of the issue from the other's perspective.

    Comment by John Rutherford  on  07/06/09  at  06:27 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 26. · I believe that growth is inevitable and to think otherwise is not very realistic. Therefore, we have to plan for it and control it. We do have a plan. If it's not working or not being implemented correctly, then it's probably time to change the planners.


    Comment by John Rutherford on 07/02 at 12:04 PM

    John>>>>

    I have said this before not only do we need to charge out the Commissioners in 2010 but also a lot of the Board/Planners that sit on theses committees that the Commissioners appoint them to need to be re-moved!

    Comment by DeGiorgi  on  07/07/09  at  12:49 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 27. · "I believe that growth is inevitable and to think otherwise is not very realistic. Therefore, we have to plan for it and control it. We do have a plan. If it's not working or not being implemented correctly, then it's probably time to change the planners."

    Yes "we have a plan" -the Comp. Plan and it is not a legally enforceable document - it is only for "guidance".

    However, it's the Commissioners, past and present, who continue to ignore it and as DeGiorgi says, it's the Commissioners who appoint the members of the Boards and Committees.

    When I sat on the Comp. Plan Update Committee several years ago, it was stacked heavily with real estate/developer interests.

    Hughesville is a perfect example of how the Comp. Plan is being thrown out the window!

    More examples are the six "waterfront villages" (in addition to Swan Point) that will be scattered throughout the county.

    The "growth" that will emanate from just those villages alone indicates just how useless the Comp. Plan and similar documents are in this county and throughout the State.

    It's a cycle that has always been in motion and will continue until there's a planning document in place that is legally enforceable.

    Comment by cheryl  on  07/07/09  at  06:39 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 28. · Old name, Commissioner's Task Force
    New name, Planning and Growth Management Advisory Board (could be why Jason Groth is toeing the line).

    Members

    Gary Badgley
    Melvin (Chuck) Beall (Charles County Government Staff)
    R. Gore Bolton
    Mark Konka
    James Lorenzi (Chairman)
    John K. Parlett
    William T. Sandy, Jr.
    Stephen H. Scott
    N. Louise Shaffer
    Duane Svites
    Wes Tomlinson
    Dennis Vaira
    Wayne Wilkerson
    Mark Williams

    Don't see any Jim Longs or Vivian Mills or Linda Reddings listed, do you? Why does the Planning and Growth Management Department NEED the advise of a bunch of realtors and developers? Isn't Lorenzi, the chairman, of this so-called "advisory" board the very one who is promoting zoning changes for those so-called "waterfront villages"? Talk about having the fox in the hen house, this stinks big time!

    Comment by seahorse  on  07/07/09  at  07:50 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 29. · Yes- this does STINK to high heavens!

    But, it's been this way as long as I can remember, and unless or until, there's a change in the "mindset" of the Commissioners, we're gonna see it continue this way.

    I recognize several developers on this list and as you say I don't see anyone who is on the other side of the issue, i.e. Vivian Mills, Jim Long, and others.

    As a result we'll see more and more development projects go forth.

    It's a sad commentary on our local political "system" isn't it?

    Comment by cheryl  on  07/07/09  at  08:03 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 30. · seahorse #24 you have busted open the pinyata
    cheryl #29 you aint nuthing but the truth..

    an article of late said we need to operate under 21st century rules for quality of life and environmental quality -if it is to exist for ther future. We need to concentrate growth up and around rail in the waldorf area. No need at all to destroy the Mattowoman except for GREED $$ 0f the players in the cloistered bubble of CC commerce/govt..BR needs to be less dense than planned __HELLO WATER AND NO RENEWABLE WATER SOURCE FOR WEST COUNTY-and 228, 227 can serve the routing purposes..

    As it is it is being guided by 20th century mode and money and those who presently hold it in relation to this anticipated wealth which can only be further consumated by the destruction on the mattowoman and the environment -and-thern there are those who get rewarded materialistically largely by pushing the governmental levers for them- alas-you get a total control freak egomaniac with hints of messianic complex at the helm of CC govt -give a selfishly, self interested ,base man enough rope and his nefariosness will begin to expose itself-[paraphrase the Kings own words]
    """Charles county was lucky to find a gem like Him-not he was lucky to serve the citizens of Chas county"""Voila-you have-King Cooper of the Waterfront Villa "land of Cooper' -legend in his own mind-impossible to get property on the CBW with deep dock at bargain basement prices -no normal citizen would get such a bonanza-i paid as much yrs ealier for a regular property way in land in west county--but i was not a paid for suit pushing levers for my newest best buds .....Nor would i ever treat my spirit so soulessly

    Comment by WaterWorks  on  07/07/09  at  09:42 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
  • 31. · Mr Rutherford
    now you are starting to take another look-a broader more conscious one-"WE need to change the plan and the planners" -we need to change the cronied up ole boy Greed$$ network as the major contributing impetus of planning and design..in CC
    Change -TO-an environmentally and quality of life people friendly 21st century planning to preserve our precious jewels in the name of our very humanity--and not allow our elected officials to sell out like Judasas to the hioghest cronied up bidders in a cesspool climate of greed that controls the process in CC govt/commerce above any and all other considerations
    It is time for a change like you say Mr. Rutherford--where we bring ethics and moral;s back to CC govt--30 pieces of silver has been running the climate of CC govt for th long under his honor the King

    Comment by WaterWorks  on  07/07/09  at  09:53 AM | [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?

Ad

Next entry: Red tape, green groups slow plans

Previous entry: LTE: Article caused misunderstanding on progress of 301 study

<< Back to main

Copyright © 2003-2010, 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