Maryland primary logo

Days before early voting begins for the primary election, Frederick County Council at-large candidates participated in a forum Tuesday evening.

The forum, held at Unity in Frederick, featured all nine candidates vying for two seats to represent the entire county on the council. Candidates received 90 seconds to answer randomly selected, wide-ranging questions. They answered questions in groups of three.

As Frederick County continues to grow, candidates weighed in on how the county can cope with increased infrastructure and housing needs.

Candidate Jason Miller (R) said the key to addressing growth in the county is to prioritize spending to create the infrastructure needed to accommodate new residents. He added that targeting areas in the northern part of the county could take pressure off other areas that have incurred more than they can handle.

Fellow Republican Justin Kiska expressed concern about “forcing” development into other areas of the county, saying instead that it should be the job of the council and the county’s Planning Commission to examine each project as it comes forward.

Susan Reeder Jessee, a Democrat, agreed with Miller, saying growth should be approved only in areas with the infrastructure to handle it. She added that the cost of that growth should be shared between taxpayers and the developers.

Mark Long (D) pointed to the Livable Frederick comprehensive master plan as a way to ensure that growth is done intelligently and develops “sustainable, livable communities.” He added that he felt the plan preserves the county’s farmland and targets other designated areas for growth.

Kai Hagen (D) also touted the Livable Frederick master plan as a key to getting the county’s infrastructure up to speed with the growth of the county.

“If we keep doing things the way we’ve been doing, we’re not only going to fall further behind, we’ll never catch up,” he said. “We have to approach this in a holistic, broad way. With the right plan, [public infrastructure is] easier to maintain, and less expensive to build.”

Galen Clagett (D) also expressed the need for the county to preserve farmland. He added, however, that the county needs to work with farmers to find a way to make farming more viable and economically sustainable.

Phil Dacey (R) highlighted the need to minimize the effects of external factors of growth.

“People don’t mind if there’s a neighborhood in Thurmont so long as the school is not [at] 150 percent capacity,” Dacey said.

The county government should also explore ways to support county residents identified in the United Way’s ALICE (Asset Limited Income Constrained Employed) report as being above the poverty line but still struggling to make ends meet, candidates Danny Farrar (R) and Kavonte Duckett (D) agreed.

Government loosening the restrictions on small businesses and “getting out of the way” is key for helping residents like those identified in the ALICE report achieve a higher standard of living, Farrar said.

Duckett agreed that developing small businesses are key to helping residents make a living wage. He added that members of that community need to “have a seat at the table,” and that government should do a better job including them to find out what help they need to succeed.

Early voting begins Thursday, and the primary election is June 26.

Some of the at-large candidates will reconvene on Wednesday for a forum on smart growth and the environment. The forum is sponsored by local environmental groups and will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Frederick Community College conference center, 7932 Opossumtown Pike in Frederick.

Follow Allen Etzler on Twitter: @AllenWEtzler.

(7) comments

mrnatural1

Quotes and questions:

1) "Susan Reeder Jessee, a Democrat, agreed with Miller, saying growth should be approved only in areas with the infrastructure to handle it. She added that the cost of that growth should be shared between taxpayers and the developers."

Whaa?! Why in the world should we existing residents pay one dime toward the cost of residential sprawl that most of us are actively opposed to?!

In what world does that make sense?

2) "Mark Long (D) pointed to the Livable Frederick comprehensive master plan as a way to ensure that growth is done intelligently and develops “sustainable, livable communities.” He added that he felt the plan preserves the county’s farmland and targets other designated areas for growth."

We all know the dictionary definition of "sustainable", but it is clearly something else in this context.

Some would argue that America (and the rest of the world) has already exceeded its sustainable population. That every person on the planet -- especially those living in developed countries -- cannot help but live in a non-sustainable manner. No matter how 'green', no matter how conscientious they are.

Setting that aside for the moment, what does a “sustainable, livable community” consist of? I would think one of the primary "must have" components would be public transportation, and a close second would be major employers within a reasonable distance. It's great to have walkable/bikeable communities -- where many necessities are close by -- but without public transportation, many/most of those people will be driving to Baltimore, D.C., and Northern VA every day to work. In addition, even the ones that are fortunate enough to be able to be able to pay their bills by working in FredCo will still have kids in our already packed public schools, and will still be driving on local roads.

3) "Galen Clagett (D) also expressed the need for the county to preserve farmland. He added, however, that the county needs to work with farmers to find a way to make farming more viable and economically sustainable."

This may surprise anyone who has read my posts/comments regarding growth, but I support a landowner's right to sell their land to a developer or anyone else. We certainly cannot expect a farmer to keep working the land if a developer comes along and offers him/her $10M for their farm. We cannot blame someone for playing by the rules -- but the rules must change.

More residential sprawl -- no matter how smart/slow/controlled it may be -- lowers our quality of life, and increases our property taxes. There are legal ways to limit growth. It does not have to be "inevitable".

When it comes to farmland, do not change the zoning -- leave it as AG land.

FrederickFan

Galen Clagett is pretending to be someone else than he has always been. He has always promoted, and can be counted upon to continue to promote uncontrolled residential development.

Also, Clagett is no Democrat. He wrote the now infamous letter four years ago endorsing Blaine Young over Jan Gardner. No one should ever vote for Galen Clagett unless they are employed by the residential building industry. Clagett has a long and distinguished career only caring about himself. He should never be in a public service job.

hayduke2

Fan - [thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

threecents

I did a double take yesterday after I walked past a house with Hagan and a Clagett sign.

DickD

Mark Long makes great sense!

threecents

Susan Jessie and Kai Haigan make better sense to me.

DickD

They are both good!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominen criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.