NCC Council & Developers Vs. The Public
The ongoing unholy alliance, with money as the catalyst.
Kids, wanna get your project rezoned and approved far from the prying eyes of the public? Here’s how:
A proposed New Castle County ordinance would affect what can be built on more than 80 properties, impacting multiple development projects seeking approval.
One property included in the proposal that has attracted the most attention is the 30-acre parcel where Incyte, the Alapocas pharmaceutical maker, has proposed a five-story office building to complete its Augustine Cut Off headquarters. The bill also has ramifications for a proposed shopping center, auto center and warehouse development in southern New Castle County.
The ordinance would rezone these properties without their developers needing to make a case in a public forum, cutting down on the county’s often lengthy approval process and getting them one step closer to construction.
Every property in the county receives a zoning district that limits what can be built there. To change that district, landowners must receive approval from the County Council following a process that requires at least two public hearings. The proposed ordinance essentially bundles dozens of those requests into a single vote.
…The bill has some within the county worried that the rezoning package could allow these projects to skirt public scrutiny.
Some? Meaning, I presume, those who have ethics. Also meaning, those who aren’t already in the pockets of the developers and the law firms who jointly pay off public officials.
This proposal, all in the name of ‘cutting bureaucratic red tape’, is designed to keep the public blissfully unaware of what the developers and their law firms are doing.
To all members of NCC Council: Will you stand with your developer enablers, or with public transparency? Feel free to come on here and tell us.
When the only people who seriously donate to County Council campaigns are developers, their attorneys, their engineers, etc this is what you get.
That’s true. It is almost as if there is a conspiracy of silence around County elections to keep them off the radar.
When it comes to developers and politicians I always suspect the worst, having grown up on Long Island I’ve seen this game before. Some will make millions, and we in turn will get to pay for new schools and roads. Dare say similar games are being played in Kent and Sussex as well. Look to Middletown, it already reminds me of Long Island.
Ive seen a lot of think-pieces recently on restrictive zoning, NIBY-ism, and the affordable housing crisis. Not that the projects described above are affordable housing, but it does make me wonder if this would be a hidden benefit
Who’s sponsoring the ordinance change?
That’s a question you would think the linked article would have answered.
It didn’t. I just didn’t have the time to research this today. I’ll see what I can find out.
Does anyone know where Matt Meyer stands or waffles on this?
I scanned far enough to see this is a Rich Hall ordinance usually given to Janet K. for enactment as she reigns over land use.
A Rich Hall ordinance is a Matt Meyer ordinance.
Meyer should be named as major sponsor.
I think you’re absolutely correct on that.
Janet gets what she wants–a continued delay on the Incyte proposal, and everyone else gets screwed. Hmmm, who do you s’pose will be the sponsor on this ordinance?
I have had the unfortunate displeasure of attending many Board of Adjustment hearings (and similar Boards for other jurisdictions). I honestly do not understand why anyone would believe those meetings are the best way to make decisions about land use. Does it suck for the people near the property that something new is coming in? Maybe! But if the benefits to the County outweigh those downsides for those closest to the property, shouldn’t the County government allow it to happen? I assume everyone here was happy when the old Raddison was made into a shelter and would have been mad to see that scuttled by a “public forum” so can we not realize that maybe public forums are not all they are cracked up to be?
Sure…but who determines ‘if the benefits to the County outweigh those downsides for those closest to the property’? So far, it’s been the developers and their lawyers. This new proposal would further distance the public from this process.
Do you see that as fair?
We handle it the same way we handle most things in this country, elected officials make the decision (which is what is happening when the county takes a vote on it). Legislators don’t have to do a tour of the whole state to do something like Paid Family Leave, they introduce a bill that will impact many more people than these zoning issues, they pass it, it becomes law. Rather a simple process that doesn’t require people with nothing better to do with their time show up to complain about changing the “character of the neighborhood”
State/nationwide policy issues are different from rezonings and other forms of changing neighborhoods which are, you know, local. Like having DNREC automatically grant polluters the right to set up in minority communities.
Your opposition to public processes is duly-noted. And embraced by the people pushing for this ordinance.
But the General Assembly DOES hold public hearings on bills. Where do you get the idea that they don’t?
Nobody lives near the old Radisson, which never should have been allowed to be built in the first place given its location in a flood plain, borne out by its frequent flooding.
So the problem, James, is that the process is as crooked as a dog’s leg. Hence the need for public hearings.
I actually have family that lives pretty close to there (relatively speaking but also as close as most of the people who show up to complain about zoning changes usually do). They were worried it would bring “the wrong element” which is nonsense and clearly hasn’t happened but it’s good that there wasn’t some long drawn out process. The difference is, you think a homeless shelter is good and a business building is bad. Instead of just arguing we shouldn’t let successful companies expand, you argue that the “locals” should decide because that sounds better than “don’t let that company have more space for more workers and hire construction people”
I was talking about that specific hotel – it shouldn’t have been built. Most local opposition to commercial development is about traffic, and the people who live near there as the crow flies aren’t impacted by traffic on Airport Road.
I don’t have a problem with most of these warehouse proposals, because they’re usually sited for their access to highways. The Incyte building is a different story, which is why Kirkpatrick wants to separate it out.
Warehouses aren’t big job sources, and construction jobs aren’t long-term. At what point has enough of the county been paved over for your taste?
Locals don’t decide. You talk as if opposition means automatic rejection of proposed development. Check the record. I think you’ll find your supposition false.
Seems to me that you can’t take the fact that people who will be impacted have an opinion that differs from yours. I’m not sympathetic to that argument.