“All NCC Permits Rubber Stamped Within 6 Months” creates real winners and losers
Nancy Willing goes into some detail regarding Jordan Pusey and Matt Meyer joining John Carney in an attempt to try and ram through “Ordinance 19-005” which would dramatically weaken development rules in NCC and create a rubber stamp process for approving any and all development.
This is the CLNCC alert:
The Civic League for New Castle County is writing to alert you to a pending threat to our communities’ quality of life. The County Administration is proposing to dramatically weaken the development rules that protect us from crippling traffic congestion.
Shockingly, the County is proposing to create two new types of Districts — which can be declared anywhere in the County — in which:
-
ANY level of road congestion may potentially be approved
-
ANY method may be used to measure road congestion
-
Developer contributions to needed road improvements are sharply reduced
Need more proof that the government is in thrall to the developers? Need a better reason to hate on Carney, other then he’s Carney of course. Painful though it be I’ll be calling on Jeff Speigleman to express concern, contempt and alarm in yet another great giveaway to Delaware’s version of the donor class.
Everything old is new again. I remember when the Capanos wanted to develop part of the old Brandywine Country Club that would have impacted Route 202, which was already a nightmare.
A TIS (Traffic Impact Study) was required. The intersection at 202 and Silverside Road, pre-upgrade, was a disaster.
Transportation Secretary Kermit Justice, pre-incarceration, ruled that the proposed project would have no impact. Why? Because, by DELDOT standards, 202/Silverside was already a ‘failed intersection’ and it would still be a failed intersection post-development.
I’m going to do a devil’s advocate deal. Full disclosure – I don’t own a car.
I am a political enemy of corporate real estate developers. Period.
But at some point the idea of everything hinging upon propping up the horrible road/traffic situation seems very dumb. If the argument against big development capital is that suburbanites want to have three or four cars per family I don’t feel like it’s a sustainable position.
This TID ordinance does two main things, RE V, 1) it serves as a back door to let developers avoid compliance with current Level of Service standards and 2) it shifts the funding of road improvements from developers to state tax payers.
Are you so ready to put even more precious state dollars on the line so land speculator’s can better fill their pockets?
The cost of congestion is already in balance in the code with LOS waiver granted for the decent job-rich projects like AZ and Christiana Hospital (Wilmington University maybe less so considering what adjunct profs are paid.)
We don’t need this ordinance. It isn’t just about suburban homeowners either. This is about affording the Barley Mill Plaza plan, as one example, to be in a position to best the city in competition for office space.
Limiting capacity slows growth so the public isn’t scrambling to pay to fix infrastructure long after the horse left the barn (see the billions DelDOT is sending to Sussex for infrastructure after the fact despite the county’s complete lack of land use planning.)
Meyer just issued a moratorium on septic sewering. It is expected that his administration intends to screw around with the legal framework for the limiting factor for sewers. The law now states that sewer capacity, just like traffic capacity, is allocated on a first come first serve basis. NCC is now on the hook to provide sewering below the canal east of Rte 1 now that the Warren and Lester farms MUST be sewered rather than saved.
Meanwhile, Councilman Dave Carter has been flatly refused on his DNREC request for data around groundwater conditions in his district and he is fighting with the Meyer administration on their refusal to give him adequate data. He says they are using 1990s data and it is skewing the picture. George Smiley is hopefully joining him in the outrage where the administration is refusing to provide information to members of county council. George is good for that.
What about Bill Bell?
(jk – I know Bell is useless)
While I hate to disprove a fun conspiracy theory about myself, it should be noted that there is no connection between myself and the delaware prosperity partnership. In fact, I don’t support their existence. Also, there is absolutely no language in this ordinance that promotes a six month timeframe on land use applications.
I simply support smart growth and complete communities. The status quo encourages sprawl, and discourages infill development, walkabilty, multimodal transportation options, and place making. It is possible to have a dissenting opinion on the merits of this ordinance without personally attacking people.
I will never not attack Bill Bell.
Fair enough lol.
I agree with Nancy. I do not like the changes & don’t trust this Legislation. In the end will it bring much needed services to the communities, or more problems. Furthermore since so many current & former elected officials dropped the Ball with CRODA which had very little scrutiny, some of the arguments here fall apart upon further scrutiny. – IJS
^^^^ The only ex-cop that has the Bunker mindset ^^^^ Solid dude….
So..my headline is taking a side on this question: Is Meyer using Ordinance 19-005 as a Trojan Horse to do the bidding of The Delaware Business Roundtable in order to get their “DE in 6” rubber stamp process in place.
I don’t trust the Delaware Business Roundtable to do anything in the public interest. And yet…. People I trust say that there are simply no nefarious connections between NCC and DBR.
Jason, Alan Levin trained Matt Meyer during his first year as CE. The relationships are there, trust me.
Here is my joint op-ed on the community point of view published today, sorry Jordyn, it points out where you and Meyer are pushing total BS on the public.
And, if you had bothered to come to the Planning Board hearing, you would have heard the development attorneys cede the point that this is about siting Fortune 500 companies that might come knocking –
NCC Traffic Proposal Needs a ReDo
Last week, County Executive Matt Meyer and Jordyn Pusey wrote an Op-Ed about a different approach to addressing traffic congestion in New Castle County.
Legislation to formalize that approach came before the NCC Planning Board on April 2.
The County Administration is proposing to use more “modernistic” area-wide growth and traffic planning vs today’s traditional development-project by development-project approach.
In theory, the County would designate geographic areas called Transportation Improvement Districts (TID)s for study.
The County and DelDOT would then develop a 20-year plan for new development projects across the area, for the road improvements that would be made to address current and future road congestion, and how these improvements would be funded.
This makes sense.
In areas where there are multiple development projects in the pipeline for processing within a short time frame, TIDs could be a potentially useful approach – if they are properly defined and executed.
Unfortunately, this is where the County Administration’s pending ordinance takes away the current standards and leaves the community exposed to potential abuses that can make things worse, not better.
The County Administration claims the legislation is “focused on proactively targeting a limited number of specific areas for economic development through a more detailed and customized approach for addressing traffic”. In fact, the ordinance has no such limitations. It provides no definition to “limited number”, “specific areas”, or “economic development”, there by opening the door to substantial misuse.
Importantly, the legislation sets aside long-serving standards on acceptable congestion and the time-tested method to measure congestion.
Instead, it provides that any level of road congestion may potentially be approved in a TID, and that any method may potentially be used to measure road congestion in a TID. This is a fundamental, and we believe, potentially troublesome change.
This legislation also provides that TIDs may circumvent the Unified Development Code’s concurrency, defying its constraints against delay of any new-development related road improvements to meet the new traffic generated by the development.
In the Op-Ed, the County Executive claims “we as a community would designate these (TID) areas”, that there are “areas of the county where this clearly does not apply“, and that the legislation “can strengthen protection for our communities”. Nothing in the legislation addresses these matters.
The County Administration continues to claim that taxpayers who have studied this legislation are raising false concerns despite testimony from multiple respected attorneys and other subject matter experts.
This legislation, which fundamentally changes the land use process, is at this stage, unacceptable to our organizations.
We continue to stand ready to work with the County to develop legislation that moves our County forward, while protecting the legitimate expectations of all the citizens of the County.
Submitted April 5, 2019 by
Nancy Willing, President, Civic League for New Castle County,
Bob Valihura, President, Council of Civic Organizations of Brandywine Hundred
R.J. Miles, Vice President, Council of Civic Organizations of Brandywine Hundred
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2019/04/08/proposed-new-castle-county-traffic-rules-need-redo-opinion/3376518002/
Matt Meyer and Dave Tackett are our guest speakers tonight at the Civic League for NCC meeting in Christiana. I am pretty sure tabling this transportation ordinance, the intended sewering planned for south of the canal, and the budget will be popular topics for discussion.
Also,
NCC Planning Board defeated the Transportation TID ordinance today!
Co-posted on the Civic League for NCC website –
The Planning Board defeated Ord. 19-005 by a vote of five opposed and three in favor. This decision reflects the great, great work by many, with most appreciation to those members of the board today who stepped up with sensible questions about the way this ordinance has been written. Their comments broadly reflected key community concerns.
The Department of Land Use did provide four concessions in their report but not enough to assuage fears of promised but-never-built infrastructure (due to lack of funds) and the ensuing gridlock.
A more thorough report about the meeting discussion that led to the rejection of the text amendment will be drawn up, so stay tuned!
And a comment rescue from RJ Miles –
“19-005 defeated at Planning Board business meeting today, 5 no and 3 yes.
The board members expressed a number of concerns and wanted to table 19-005 to allow time for changes to address concerns, but Land Use preferred having the vote.
What changes will be made before 19-005 goes to Council Land Use Committee on 3rd Tuesday in May?
If Land Use, Council and Matt Meyer will not address concerns of the Planning Board, what hope is there that future concerns for a TID will be addressed, especially when LOS protections have been removed?
I believe Matt Meyer should table 19-005 so Land Use can propose additional changes to address concerns of the Planning Board.”