If you care about protecting your treasured property rights and those of others in Frederick County, it’s urgent to speak up to defend citizens’ property rights from county government overreach before it’s too late. After all, “Freedom and property rights are inseparable. You can’t have one without the other,” as brilliantly stated by George Washington.

Right now, the Frederick County Council is reviewing the county government’s proposed Sugarloaf Treasured Landscape Management Plan, which citizens are calling a government land grab. The plan needlessly infringes on property rights, and that can unduly harm landowners and farmers, including hurting land use and property values. The Council will vote on the plan’s adoption, likely in mid-October. Send to: councilmembers@frederickcountyMD.gov. Please attend the Council’s Sept. 27 meeting, where the Council seeks public comments on the Sugarloaf plan (more on this below).

(91) comments

Burgessdr

Sounds like a massive land grab by Putin loyalists. They are probably planning to take your guns away. Maybe even sending people to forced labor camps too. Maybe even sending troops in to quell the disturbance

phydeaux994

Property Rights. The only other time I have heard that phrase here is during the Monocacy River feud a while back. Where can I find the definition of “Property Rights” in Maryland? What is your definition? Thanks.

rb789

Responding to Shiftless88: You asked if I could respond to your questions of which there are several in this thread -mostly focused on zoning it seems. Absolutely I can respond! Can't this very moment but will later tonight when I have time.

Plumbum

shift meant that you do not know how to respond in proper format.

As in reply directly to the comment at hand instead of starting a new comment

rb789

To Gabrielshorn below: No this is not Rocky the Realtor. Although I do know that Rocky has a highly successful and respected real estate firm. He has now and in the past, always stood up to defend property rights from unnecessary, confiscatory govt regulations that can unduly and wrongly harm landowners. I'm not speaking for Rocky, I've just observed his good actions over the years.

Hayduke2

But you are the other Bell - the one who tried to take over the Monocacy Commission , aren’t you??

Plumbum

Bingo!

shiftless88

rb; do you really not understand how to reply to someone's post in the thread? I would love to hear your answer to my questions.

gabrielshorn2013

OK, then if you're not "Rocky the Realtor", your writing style and words are very similar to the Bells when there were feuds in the river commission. High on hyperbole, and low on actual examples. You also failed to answer my questions that your 1:28pm post was in response to. Can you also refute, with actual data, Lorax's statements and numbers? They seem very dialed-in to the situation.

dtwigg

[thumbup]

Plumbum

We need to for a county police department before we continue to grow any further

rb789

Replying back to Lorax1: Okay I hear you too. You've made it perfectly clear. You don't seem to care if citizens fundamental and precious property rights and freedoms are ignored and infringed upon by unnecessary govt over-reach in the Sugarloaf Plan, hurting landowners and farmers. Of course I fully understand your fear that zoning can be changed as you expressed. In that case, instead of going straight to revoking and infringing on property rights –take it up with the govt powers that be who control county zoning and fight those battles the right way under existing zoning laws. Which is to follow the process and speak up at public hearings if a business you don't like seeks a zoning variance.

This zoning process has successfully worked for all these decades to ALREADY stop a gun range, large church people opposed, and many other inappropriate businesses from occurring in Sugarloaf area. The process in place is a good one that works well as it should.

But you want to short circuit this process to fix a system that isn’t broken and then take away people’s property rights in a government over-reach plan like the Sugarloaf Plan that will revoke, reduce, and erode citizens rights!

To many people, their land and homes are their biggest financial asset. People have worked their whole lives to buy their homes and land to keep and rightfully enjoy. Since the founding of our great nation, so many of our forefathers and those in our current brave military, have made the ultimate sacrifice to die in wars to defend our freedoms. Don’t let this be all for naught and citizens property rights be wrongly and incrementally taken away here in our own country by needless government over-reach!

gabrielshorn2013

Is this "Rocky the Realtor"? Of course you object, as it removes a potential source of revenue from you. Didn't Mr. Strong want to save Sugarloaf in its pristine condition, in perpetuity, for all to enjoy when he established Stronghold? Or was there a sub-clause in the establishing documents in extra-fine font saying "until we can develop it for handsome sum"? I don't believe that is the case. If the overlay enhances Mr. Strong's wishes, why are you objecting? Yeah, yeah, I know, "landowner's rights", but wasn't Mr. Strong the original landowner? We're not talking about re-zoning somebody's farm to prevent development, when the landowner needed that money in retirement. This use has always been the intended use, right? How long has Stronghold held this property as per Mr. Strong's wishes?

mrnatural1

Well said, Gabriel. [thumbup][thumbup]

We should respect the wishes of the original landowner, Mr. Strong.

My understanding is that there were three (3) Stronghold board members on the committee that developed the Sugarloaf Plan. So why is Stronghold only now complaining and threatening to take their ball and go home (close the mountain to the public)?

It makes no sense. If there is truly a legit project Stronghold would like to do (e.g., a visitor center) getting an exemption should be very easy -- especially if they stop with the temper tantrum and cooperate.

A cynical person might suspect that the folks at Stronghold have an ulterior motive. If I was on the council their behavior would make me even more inclined to stick with the plan as written.

TrekMan

Right on Gabe!!

TrekMan

That's BS in the name of government overreach. I'm all for property rights, however, if it were a free-for-all, our county will look like Loudon county in a matter of a couple of years as everything, except those who have common enough sense to protect their lands from over development will be the only vestiges of our county left. Deep pocket developers like Natelli will be all over buying every piece of property they can and developing it into what Urbana is now, a royal mess of crap stacked on top of each other. Is that what you really want?? Then you shouldn't have stayed here and taken your money to Loudon or Fairfax counties in Virginia. People actually value our beauty, and the planners are trying like hell to preserve some of it before it's all gone. What doesn't anyone of the "rights" people understand about that. Unfortunately I don't have a boat load of money or I would gladly buy up land along 270 for preservation. In actuality most of the rights still exist, the planners are making it a little harder to thwart changes for the good of the public and environment. It's not like they are going after eminent domain or anything!! Get real!!🙄🙄

dtwigg

[thumbup]

threecents

Does the phrase, "citizens fundamental and precious property rights and freedoms" mainly refer to your right to make money off your land without preserving the ecology.

rb789

WHO DO YOU BELIEVE IS MORE CREDIBLE ON REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY VALUE MATTERS? COUNCILMAN KAI HAGEN OR THE HIGHLY CREDENTIALED AND RESPECTED FREDERICK COUNTY ASSN OF REALTORS WITH A 60 YEAR HISTORY OF EXPERTISE AND PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY?

Councilman Hagen has no comparable credentials in the real estate industry whatsoever, whereas, the very reputable and established Association of Realtors is known and respected for their views and expertise.

I see Councilman Hagen has engaged in this article’s comment section. He’s oddly insisting (without any confirmation from real estate industry experts to support his stance) that property values will not be hurt by Sugarloaf Plan vs. the professional assessment provided by The Assn of Realtors who’ve confirmed their view that additional regulations to properties and down zoning of land in the Sugarloaf Plan will negatively impact landowners and hurt property values. The Assn has also reasonably questioned the need for any of these unnecessary regulations and down-zoning given the existing highly sufficient zoning laws in place that are already working well to protect Sugarloaf area.

In the view of many citizens opposed to the plan: All the Sugarloaf Plan does is give more control of private land to county govt via unnecessary regulations hurting landowners and infringing on their property rights! It’s no surprise citizens are calling it a Govt Land Grab.

shiftless88

But the Realtor Association is NOT an unbiased source. Have they EVER spoke out against any development in Frederick County? Said, "no, this is not appropriate"? What was their stance on the ill-named "Jefferson Technology Park?"

TrekMan

Right on Shifty!!

TheLorax1

I think it was KO public affairs that got ‘land grab’ going in the chatter.

Just sayin’

mrnatural1

That's right Lorax -- KO doesn't make all of that money for nothing. Here's a partial transcript from their video:

"Gee mister, a 'land grab' sounds awful bad!"

"That's right Timmy. We don't live in America anymore. The communists have taken over and they are confiscating everyone's businesses, land, and possessions. In fact, you'd better hide your bicycle!"

"But my ma and pa told me the county council is just trying to prevent the total destruction of what's left of the county."

"I'm afraid your folks may be communists Timmy. You'd better come with me..."

~

The professionals are good at creating scary labels aren't they?

TrekMan

Hey Alarmist Dude - FCAR is out for one thing - to make money for their constituency or realtors wouldn't be part of it!! Think about it. Do I trust Kai, not exactly, but I also don't trust some of the FCAR folks either. Professional knowledge?? Heck there is a real estate broker born every day!! The only property owners that may get hurt out of this are those that want to cash out - which in many cases is to developers. sometimes doing the right thing ain't doing the right thing - we need to protect our beautiful areas like that along Thurston Rd. and of course Sugarloaf - once you tear it up, you won't get it back!!

threecents

Why would we believe that realtors would be objective on this issue??? They would obviously be on the landowner's/developer's side.

rb789

There are surely a lot of “hater types” on this comment thread who just sling mud at others with no basis. They're also ignoring the facts of the Sugarloaf Plan issue too. I’d like to correct some misperceptions on this issue. To start: 1). A commenter called fjulia said this: "Isn't it strange that those complaining (about the Sugarloaf Plan) are the ones with interest in that ~6% of the land not really protected? Can get a lot of development in that 6%. If that wasn't so then why are the realtors and developers so up-in-arms?"

Okay fjulia here's the deal: Those you say are “complaining” about Sugarloaf Plan are people and organizations standing up to defend property rights as the plan infringes on property rights, and this needlessly hurts landowners! That is not a hard concept to understand as protecting fundamental property rights from govt overreach is very important obviously. With 94.8% most all of the Sugarloaf area zoned AG and RC, which is the most restrictive zoning there is to prevent development – such over-development simply can not, has not, and will not occurr in Sugarloaf area. It's a big lie coming from those stoking fears saying all the additonal regulations and down-zoning proposed in the plan are necessary to prevent over-development and protect the environment. There is already highly sufficient zoning in place to stop over development along with ample existing federal, state, and local regulations that are already protecting Sugarloaf area. NO NEED TO INFRINGE ON PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH MORE UNNECESSARY REGULATIONS TO PRIVATE LAND.

2). Commenter Fjulia also thinks that “you can get a lot of development in that remaining 6%” (of land that is not yet developed in Sugarloaf area). WRONG! This is because as indicated inf the Sugarloaf Plan, much of the remaining 6% of land that is not AG or RC zoned is instead zoned R-1 which is low density residential (not multi family apt buildings or large commercial sites for a new Walmart or data center). In the state of MD, R-1 zoning generally means building 1 house on a minimum 1 acre lot for example. There is only tiny percentages of land that are zoned mineral mining and commercial in Sugarloaf Plan area. The plan says only about 7 acres of commercial zoned land which may already used up by the existing commercial vetinarian office; the garden center; the cannabis place and others.

Many supporters of the plan likely don’t know any of this or that the Sugarloaf area is highly protected already with environmental regulations and prgrams in place. Perhaps they haven’t even read the 180 page plan. Sadly, when folks speak up with the truth, the hater types attack them

TheLorax1

We’ve read the plan. Over and over. Every version.

We hear your concerns and observations.

We simply don’t agree with you.

Zoning can be changed. Floating zones can be dropped onto any parcel the County decides.

Once the data centers go in on the west side of 270 there will be a rush to spread south and west. With no ‘plan’ in place to govern the long term use of the land there will be little barrier to making the slopes of sugarloaf look like Urbana.

We hear your arguments about land grabs and over reach. It’s just that the VAST majority of the citizens expressing views on the sugarloaf plan approve of its goals and it’s overlay to implement those objectives.

gabrielshorn2013

[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup] Lorax! You're correct, plans may be overwritten. If the land is currently designated AC and RC, and Mr. Strong's desire was to preserve Sugarloaf for all in perpetuity, and the proposed plan does that, What is the big stink about??? Of course the realtors association disagrees with it. Guess who misses out on a windfall?

besmartten

The only reason that the family that controls the Stronghold board is opposed to this plan is they have plans to develop the property.

gabrielshorn2013

Correction zoning may be overwritten, not "plans may be overwritten".

Plumbum

So all this thing RB is rocky macintosh

gabrielshorn2013

You mean "Rocky the Realtor"??? This figures. Thanks!

TrekMan

It can't be Rocky the squirrel as he would be on the preservation side. Hahahaha!! Maybe it's really Boris and Natasha!!

mrnatural1

Well put Lorax! [thumbup][thumbup]

Some people seem to think every instance of down-zoning = a "gov't land grab or overreach". As if the National Guard storms in and takes property by force.

Basically, their position seems to be that there should never be any down-zoning, for any reason. They try to use faux patriotism and tribal politics to garner support for their views, but the reality -- at least in the majority of cases -- is that they are greed heads concerned about $$. Period. Not their neighbors or anyone else.

Of course up-zoning is always OK with them. The people who benefit typically have no regard for those who are adversely affected by up-zoning -- THEIR rights do not count. "So you thought you would have an unobstructed view of Sugarloaf Mountain but now there's a huge data center across the road? TOO BAD SUCKER! That's "progress"! Who do you think you are anyway, an American citizen with rights?!"

I will say I do support the idea of "property rights" -- not just because I'm a landowner, but because it is a fundamental principle. The problems arise when people become self-centered and see it as "all or nothing". The fact is, like much in life, compromises are often made. The rights of various parties are considered. None of us get our way -- 100% of what we want -- all the time. Yes, landowners have rights -- but so do other citizens.

An example of where I agree that the gov't is (or wants to) taking advantage of landowners is, in their zeal to cram through their "Lexus Lanes for the Rich" scheme, they have decreed that when a portion of a homeowner's land is taken for highway widening, they are only paid some relatively tiny amount for the actual land area -- vs being compensated for the actual reduction in their home's value. That's clearly wrong. To take most of a person's backyard, construct a massive sound barrier 20 feet from their patio door, pay them for X s.f. and call it good?! THAT's a 'land grab'. The owner(s) are often out tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost value.

That is clearly different from slightly more restrictive zoning. In fact, as I've pointed out elsewhere, RC zoning allows more building lots than AG.

rogy

mrnationalize... You make the statement "I will say I do support the idea of "property rights" -- not just because I'm a landowner, but because it is a fundamental principle.” Then you go on to defend the violation of fundamental private property rights enshrined in this ill-conceived plan. Fundamental means foundational. Everything else is built on top of this foundation. To compromise on fundamental principles puts every other right at risk. To claim one thing and defend another is hypocrisy. Either you believe in and defend the “fundamental principle” of property rights or you don’t. Lip service won’t cut it.

When it's your property they're coming to control, we'll see how willing you are to trust the bureaucrats to protect your “fundamental principles and private property rights”.

Hayduke2

Hey, is this the other Bell? Shocking that you would support and try to twist this, NOT....

shiftless88

rb; if this is already dealt with by existing zoning then what difference will this make?

Do you believe in any zoning at all? Because by your definition, zoning is inherently going to reduce property rights so it shouldn't exist. I'm not sure that is what we want.

petersamuel

Shiftless: Zoning has gotten ridiculously complicated with a host of unintended consequences and this Sugarloaf plan laying an overlay over existing zones adds to the absurdity of the already arbitrary zoning provisions. There's a strong case for drastically simplifying if not abolishing zoning -- a case most recently made by urban planner M. Nolan Grey in his recent book "Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It" Gray argues that zoning is the principal impediment to addressing sprawl, housing shortages, stunted growth and innovation, persistent racial and economic segregation, and car-dependent developments. "The arbitrary lines of zoning maps across the country have come to dictate where Americans may live and work, forcing cities into a pattern of growth that is segregated and sprawling....The good news is that it doesn’t have to be this way. Reform is in the air, with cities and states across the country critically reevaluating zoning."

see www.amazon.com/Arbitrary-Lines-Zoning-Broke-American/dp/1642832545/ref=sr_1_1

shiftless88

but peter, ANY zoning is therefore a land grab and goes against property rights. This Letter author is not making rational argument about this particular zone and spelling out what it will prevent that is critical to the growth of this county. She is just whining that zoning is a property rights issue. So your argument, while fine, has nothin to do with this issue.

stjohn42

Property rights are not under attack, and the writer would likely be the first one to complain if one of her neighbors decided to build something she didn't like. I am also interested in seeing where the current "anti-sprawl" Republican candidates land on this issue, since their traditional backers are the ones opposing this. Are they really "anti-sprawl", or is that just rhetoric to be discarded in mid-November?

edens30

"Hough said the county is forcing the preservation plan on landowners in the Sugarloaf area "

https://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/continuing_coverage/election_coverage/fitzwater-hough-debate-myriad-topics-in-rotary-club-of-frederick-forum/article_eb961a14-a186-5faf-bb1c-f4d637901c70.html

threecents

Hough's friend Dan Cox is a leader in homeowner's rights situations like this, so I am not surprised.

mrnatural1

[thumbup][thumbup] stjohn.

mrnatural1

The author would like to drum up some tribal red v blue, rep v dem outrage. The truth is, the Sugarloaf Plan is not liberal or conservative, but if we were forced to assign a political description to it, it is fundamentally "conservative" in the traditional sense. After all, it is about conservation!

If the author were honest she would admit it is about $ MONEY $. All one has to do is look at the list of people and organizations that oppose the plan: developers; realtors; builders; banks; the Chamber of Commerce. Their knee jerk reaction to any zoning change that does not allow MORE house farms, more starter castles, is to throw a fit and oppose it.

21,000 scientists agree that the U.S. is at more than double our sustainable population. We need to voluntarily, gradually, slow, stop, and reverse population growth. In the meantime, we should encourage large employers to locate in areas that still want growth.

Even under the best scenario, there will still be a demand for ugly boxes in our area. However, that demand is focused on D.C., and to a lesser extent, Baltimore. There is no reason those houses must be built here in Frederick County -- and particularly not on or around Sugarloaf Mountain.

If development TRULY paid for itself, housing would be prohibitively expensive and the building would naturally dry up. Lets jack the impact fees up where they should be. Then perhaps there would be no need for these debates. The developers will be OK -- they'll just go elsewhere.

BornToHula2

"What does all this opposition tell you about the plan?"

That business interests are chomping at the bit to develop every inch of our land to their benefit.

I am a landowner in the zone and am fully supportive thereof. The realtors association can go....

petersamuel

Hula: and why are business interests "chomping" -- as you put it? Because land for new housing is scarce relative to the demand. And housing prices and rents are high making development very profitable. Business is only profitable to the extent it is fufilling a need. All this 'chomping' is the sound of the housing shortage.

TheLorax1

Say it with me …

Re-development

shiftless88

perter; but we can choose wisely WHERE to develop, and this is not a wise place to develop.

BornToHula2

Exactly, we need denser living spaces with transit etc, not everyone spread onto two acre parcels they can't leave without a vehicle. (We also need to maintain wild spaces and farm land)

TrekMan

Right on Shifty - again!!

BornToHula2

"Business is only profitable to the extent it is fufilling a need."

There is a need for low income housing, builders are mainly building luxury housing (more profitable). So not sure that statement holds true, here.

gabrielshorn2013

Good point BTH. If the realtors were truly responding to demand, moderate and ow-income housing would be accommodated. However, there is little profit in that.

TrekMan

Heck, in Urbana the opposite holds true, Natelli stacked everything on top of each other - it's a zoo.

phydeaux994

Frederick County could have prevented that with zoning that restricted the type of growth allowed. Howard County did that by defining the area served by water and sewer that allowed denser development. And they did it years before the growth reached them. But they were fortunate too, to have a responsible developer like James Rouse who did his own zoning to keep the Columbia largely hidden and the County followed suit. Columbia and the Ellicott City region are still listed as the 2nd best place to live in the Country. FC needs to stop blaming the Developers and the newbies for the mess that is happening in this County. It is the old-timers like Trek and Mr. Reid and the Blaine Young BoCC that allowed it to happen. Montgomery County has an excuse. They were first to be subjected to the attacks of the Developers because they were the closest to D.C., along with Fairfax County. Frederick County has no excuse. They saw it coming and did nothing. They didn’t even try to build a WALL. So to them I say…..boo hoo!

Hayduke2

Peter - how about in-fill development, brown areas, repurposing existing structures, etc. There is also a difference between profitable and greedy...

TheLorax1

Developer (with a Frederick address of …): “Harumpf…that’s all such a bother. Give me an open farm field! That’s where the profit is.”

mrnatural1

Exactly BorntoHula! [thumbup][thumbup]

TrekMan

Lady - I'm a conservative and can safely say, you're off your nut on this one. No rights are being infringed upon, the county and supporters are trying to preserve our rural character - which is what makes this county great! I grew up here, did you?? Probably not - so take your opinion and wear it like everyone else, on your sleeve!!🙄

shiftless88

Trek; when you get a chance I'd love to hear your response in the EV infrastructure letter comments. I pointed out that most nuclear plants that have closed in the US have done so for financial reasons. So what is your plan to support nuclear?

TrekMan

I just responded on that Shifty - check it out. 👍😉

shiftless88

And I pointed out the weaknesses of your solution. But thank you.

TrekMan

I saw that, but still....I accept my situation whole heartedly!! 😊

mrnatural1

Spot on Trek! [thumbup][thumbup]

phydeaux994

You had your chance to preserve your rural character 40 years ago. In 2000 when urban sprawl crossed the Frederick County line into Urbana it was already too late. A Developer had already bought the land and since there was no County Plan in place he built it the way that was most profitable to him. Don’t blame him for taking advantage of a County that was ripe for being taken advantage of……boo hoo

TheLorax1

Hmmm… KO Public Affairs talking points … wonder what KO charged for the ‘Government Land Grab’ suggestion?

And why an assumed name? If you google ‘Lisa Bell’ or search FNP site you get lots and lots of …aahh…eerrr…context.

Hayduke2

Since this writer is asking people to sign a petition developed by a high priced PR group and supported by developers, I would encourage folks to visit the Sugarloaf Alliance page at https://www.sugarloaf-alliance.com/ and sign their petition to honor the plan to perserve and protect the natural resources and land of this area.

TheLorax1

If you find this letter offends you …

Come make you view known tomorrow

5 pm Winchester Hall, Church Street

kaihagen

Thank you.

FrederickFan

This writer is just too extreme and can't be believed. This person is Lisa Bell. Wonder why she changed her name? Maybe because she knows she has credibility issues.

shiftless88

She would have more credibility if she also included "not re-zoning land currently zoned for agriculture" in her list.

Property protection via zoning has a long and legitimate history in this world. I mean, do you want to remove all zoning? How will a prison next door impact your property values?

mrnatural1

Exactly shiftless. [thumbup][thumbup]

There are many good things about Americans, but one negative characteristic is the almost baked in: "Every man (person) for themself!" "I've got mine!" "My rights are more important than everyone else's!" "I can do whatever I want with my property!"

Some say it's due to how the country was founded. Rugged individualism, 'bootstraps', etc.

I'm a landowner, but I realize that I have neighbors, and those people have rights too. That's a large part of why we have zoning, and why, if need be, zoning is changed. It's something all Americans are (or should be) aware of. If you buy property, the zoning may change. Sometimes it's more restrictive, sometimes less.

Piedmontgardener

Well written. However the simple solution here is either rezone entirely to AG or buy Sugarloaf. Or both. And the author can't argue against any of that, it's constiutional and preserves heritage lands.

Fredginrickey

PMG, exactly

Greg F

If it's left to the realtors and developers, they'd have every tree removed and every blade of grass covered over with house farms. We'd end up looking like FairFax County, with every possible 2 acre plot with a house, horse pens taking up acre after acre where forest used to be, and a clogged rural road system that they won't want to pay to improve, plow or maintain.

TrekMan

Or Loudon county.

phydeaux994

Every County around D.C. was once a pristine rural County within my life time. And as more and more people moved here and demanded Housing and supporting infrastructure. So as these Counties filled up the demand for land spread outward. And it’s still happening and isn’t going to slow up. It reached Frederick County 20 years ago. Now it’s engulfed the City and will soon spread to the East and North and West. A new Development in Thurmont building 150 Town Homes. Commuters to MoCo and D,C. from PA is already happening. As the population doubles in the next 70 years it will engulf FC like it has P.G. and MoCo and Howard and Fairfax, and Loudoun and Prince William Counties. It is inevitable, it is happening around major Cities all over America.

mrnatural1

Exactly Greg. [thumbup][thumbup]

matts853

Why is Lisa Bell now going by Lisa Buchanan?

No matter what her name is now, the rhetoric is the same. She always views preservation plans as a giant government conspiracy. It’s madness. No, we need preservation more than ever. It’s important.

Hayduke2

Matt - I wonder if she just submitted this under a false name and the FNP didn't do their due diligence. Same group that fumed and fussed about the Monocacy River, hijacked the commission and ignored the science and logic behind the proposals.

Dwasserba

The fnp calls the number you provide and asks if you wrote the letter 🤷🏻‍♀️

Hayduke2

I understand that.

matts853

Not always. Especially if you submit via email and they recognize it.

She called in to the last council meeting and gave her name as Lisa Buchanan Bell, so there might be some intentional obfuscation. Whatever her real name is now, no one except for Dacey listens to her. Her messaging is unbalanced, to put it politely.

Hayduke2

Matt-👍👍

mrnatural1

Matt is nothing if not diplomatic. [cool]

petersamuel

Matt: you write that "we need preservation more than ever. It's important." Preservation means new restrictions on use of land, right? You think that's urgent because without it there will be undesirable development. In other words you want to block changes profitable to landowners. How does that square with the claim that property values won't be diminished?

kaihagen

Property values in this area will not be diminished by this plan, Peter.

petersamuel

Kai: If as you assert property values won't be diminished by the plan then it follows that the plan is superfluous. The new constraints it imposes must be meaningless because the property owners would voluntarily abide by them. The plan would somehow be anticipating and accommodating what the owners would find to be the most profitable and desirable uses even if the plan didn't exist. It would be a 'non-constraining' unnecessary plan. That is theoretically possible. More likely in the real world the new plan will constrain future property owners from uses that would be profitable or add costs that would make the land less profitablel. So if the plan bites -- if it serves preservation purposes as advertised -- it has to reduce property values. Either it's benign and doesn't limit development and so doesn't affect property values. Or it limits development options, in which case it can only reduce property values. You can't logically have it both ways. Either it is all window dressing. Or it limits development that would otherwise occur. It's one or the other.

mrnatural1

Absolutely matt. [thumbup]

We're talking about <5% of the area of FredCo.

sevenstones1000

Isn’t this operating as a tax-exempt nonprofit? Why would they be concerned about property values?

mrnatural1

Good question seven. [thumbup][thumbup]

It's still unclear what Stronghold's true intentions are -- why they are throwing a tantrum over a plan that aligns with Mr. Strong's trust.

fjulia

Isn't it strange that those that are complaining are the ones with interest in that ~6% of the land not really protected? Can get a lot of development in that 6%. If that wasn't so then why are the rea L tors and developers so up-in-arms?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.