Show Transcript
Disclaimer: The following transcript was auto-generated and may contain spelling or contextual errors.
You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe White.
Welcome to Open Agenda. I'm your host,
Joe White. The county council has passed
the budget as of June 3rd with over $20
million in surplus spending. And the
Salsbury City Council just had their
latest meeting and they do seem like
they are destined for several lawsuits
both from developers and private
citizens. I wanted to talk about all
this. I brought in Mike Goldberg from
Delmare, Dr. Dr. Joinosa from Salsbury.
Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. So, I
think if we can bring in Holly
Worththington later on in the show, uh I
think she'll be able to kind of tie it
up from someone who understands the
development side, but also as a private
citizen in Salsbury and a business owner
in Salsbury. Yeah. Yeah. Uh it seems
like there's a lot to talk about right
now, gentlemen. Um and we're not going
to be able to get all to it to this
episode, but I do think we should at
least address it. Uh some of these
topics are going to take some more
research and a little bit more time on
another show. Uh Mike, I'll start with
you. The budget was passed and there is
for the county. Uh there is $20.5
million in surplus spending. Uh we just
covered just a few months ago that we
finally got the financial audit from 24.
There was $1.5 million in additional
surplus. How do you feel about $20.5
million being spent? It's it's just
chump change that you if they run out of
money, you know, at least they'll just
find some way to to extract it from the
taxpayers. Well, well, we know which way
that will be. And we haven't even gotten
to Salsbury yet. Yeah. No, no. I mean,
uh, you know, County Executive Julie
Gardano stated just a few months ago
that that she felt like she was going to
have to break the the revenue cap for
education. Um, and then stated later it
was a bait and switch thing. She was
just messing around with the county
council. You just love to hear that from
your the highest elected official that
she was pulling a bait and switch and
that she actually wants to find a way to
increase our taxes. Yeah, that's a
conservative if I ever saw one. Yeah,
not really. Well, another conservative
move and you know, some with some very
articulate arguments is the tipping fees
at the the landfill. Uh we are going to
see another 22% increase as of January
1st of 26, which is in this fiscal year
budget. Uh we're going to go from $78 to
$88. I think part of the challenge is
that there's a lot of ongoing questions,
especially if you talk to people that
have worked up in that landfill years
prior and in prior county
administrations. Uh there are some big
questions about just what is actually
going on regarding the cell construction
and regarding the actual amount of trash
coming in. And I think part of the fact
is when you don't have any oversight
over what's going on up there, when you
have the public works director who came
in was there for a month. Mustafa Cole
Carson, correct? The guy with the
degree, right? you know, the doctorate
to do this, right? And the the only
registered professional engineer. Yeah.
I mean, to to bring in the person in a
position that had a 4-year vacancy and
then he was only there about a month and
very quickly left. And of course,
there's no transparency as to what he
actually may have uncovered, although
the community certainly has its uh
suspicions if you talk to the right
people. Well, one of the biggest areas
that we're going to spend some of the
surplus money and surplus money meaning
money that we didn't spend in fiscal
year 25 that we're going to spend in 26
is Sharp's point. Uh a total of $10
million. Uh the you know the public
works came before the county council
asked in in midappril for $2.3 million
and he needed an answer by that day. Uh,
and this was so we could just do the
dredging in Wakamaku River this winter
and we had to remove a 100,000 cubic
yards of material out of Sharps Point
through the Candom neighborhood. Now
we're talking about another 300,000 at a
at an additional cost of 7.5 million.
One of the areas I I I dislike the most
is and and director Pam Mullen spoke to
this is they're they're they're shifting
what's going to be bonded versus what is
coming out of surplus basically because
they need that money now. Right. Well,
we've gone from we haven't done this for
seven years to we need $10 million
before November. Yeah. I think that's
pretty scary. Well, it's scary, but it
raises even scarier questions, right?
Yeah. and and um and particularly if you
live um along Camden and Riverside, you
know, in those neighborhoods um that
part of the county, you're going to see
something even scarier than just your
money being spent without full answers,
which is of course 60 trucks per day
going down your 60,000 truck 60,000
trucks were needed to get the first
100,000. 30,000 in, 30,000 out, right?
So times that by four. So, you're
looking at 240,000 truck trips going up
and down uh on Riverside on Riverside.
Now, I don't know if anybody's ever seen
the movie Pet Cemetery, but it's never a
good thing uh to have high-speed trucks
with sludge going through residential
neighborhoods, particularly when you're
not informing the public. I think that's
the other thing uh that's going to be
and this is going to start in June so I
mean we're it's coming soon but
definitely some of these questions
should have been being raised at least
in the last couple years. Um well and
the other thing too is but you saw this
in the last county council meeting when
you know from the perspective of the
haulers they said listen we've never
been specifically told or brought into a
conversation about tipping fees tipping
fees and much like the issue that people
in Sharp's point are going to
unfortunately find out about um it's not
as if they were consulted prior either.
Now, I realize that if you're going to
do the project, and we're not
necessarily saying that the project
isn't valid, but but we could debate the
money and the timing of it, but but the
fact is I haven't talked to anybody in
that community, and I live in that
district. Yeah. Um I haven't talked to
anybody who seems to be aware of what's
coming down the road, literally. Well,
so an area that could have been chaotic
that wasn't uh this primary. Now, this
is a two-year um funding model. So in
year at one point the state was saying
hey look the county is going to have to
forward fund Fruitland primary we at
least have enough money coming from the
state to fund the first year's
construction
total of $56 million. The state is
supposed to chip in I think about 28 or
27.5 million of it. We're going to be
able to get started but this is
something that could creep up in less
than a year's time. 11 months from now
we this could be a serious chaotic
event. Right. Well, that a lot of the
cost of building that school remains
unfunded. We don't know where the money
is going to come from. This is poor
financial planning. And from someone who
comes from a background of, you know,
banking and and and financial planning,
it it just blows my mind how they go
about these things. Well, so more more
topics of future shows. The library
funding for the Shoemaker Pond uh
library. Uh we were told last September
the library commission needed uh a
little over $300,000 to get plans done.
They were at the top of the list to get
a grant from the state to fund most of
the renovations.
Uh as of June of 2025, we still have
it's still not been signed. Move the
public library flagship library on
Shoemaker Pond from FY26 PGO to general
obligation bond in the amount of
$866,000.
Motion is there second. We have a
second. James, uh, any discussion? All
those in favor say I. I post. Motion's
carried. Amendment passes. And there's
not been a lot of discussion. I mean did
Vice President Jeff Merritt did ask the
question uh back in May uh was told that
an update was coming soon but we are
literally 9 months out from having
committed this money. We don't know
where that's going to come from and much
to Mike's point about Fruitland Primary.
The the county now is the lease holder
of that building. Yeah. Uh and we're
we're committed to giving up the
downtown library Mhm. uh building to SU.
Um,
what are we going to do? What are we
going to do 6 months from now if we find
out this grant didn't go through? Are we
just going to sit on a moldy building?
Well, well, again, I think I have a
suspicion that the grant will go
through, but the fact that it hasn't yet
and the fact that there hasn't been any
updates since it was basically framed as
it's we pretty much got it. It's on the
desk. Must be a big desk because it
hasn't really come down yet. But, uh, is
it is this supposed to come from the
desk of the of the $3 billion in debt
state? I mean, we're counting on $7
million to come from a state that's 3
billion behind, going to be 6 billion
next year. Yeah. At least the federal
government can print more money, but the
state doesn't have the authority to do
that. Well, you know, again, I think I
think what concerns some of us is the
fact that it it was framed as such a
certainty and it would be, you know,
here now. One thing that they have
slowed down is uh the the Verizon
building renovations. They've said,
"Look, we're not going to fund that till
we get plans." Mike, you've talked about
what's the appropriate amount. Uh when
that stuff starts to come out, I think
we need to again do another show on that
as well. And and make a motion to amend
the capital budget as follows. Remove
the Health Department Verizon building
renovations from the general obligation
bond amount. That's a reduction of
$2,750,000.
Now, we are still spending money on
Baron Creek Road. Um, it was $850,000
set aside. We've already spent about
half of that. And, uh, we have video and
footage of, uh, pictures of the the
county down there spending money through
their private contractor, KSI, uh, KCI
or KCI, I'm sorry. And, uh, you we're
spending money on something that is, we
don't have any updates from the State
Highway Administration whether or not
they're going to fund it. uh which has
been told to us in the past. It's not
likely. As you can see in the budget,
we've got a lot of expenses expensive
projects on deck and a few that are and
and we need to think about prioritizing
these projects
on the cost versus the impact on the
citizens. Do we have a plan? Do we have
a timeline? Is there a cost projection?
Who's responsible for the funding?
Whether the road gets fixed or doesn't
get fixed, the fact remains
we have nothing. We don't know what the
plan is. We don't know what the timeline
is. We don't know how much it's going to
cost. And we don't know who's going to
pay for it. Um the council is not
suggesting that we do want Baron Creek
to be put back together. We don't want
Baron Creek. I mean, none of the council
members I think have really come to that
conclusion as of just yet. The question
is how and how much is the county going
to spend? How much do you think that the
state's going to spend? Has MDE come
down here yet to evaluate the road? I
witnessed the dam in Fruitland
on their division street. I sat in a
meeting when they came down said it was
going to be $600,000
and I know we spent ended up spending at
least $3 million and it was it was at
least a year or two that that road was
completely closed. Salsbury city council
Joe I know you couldn't attend the
meeting but you were on live Pack 14.
Yeah, I I watched it. Yeah. So can let's
take a break. When we come back can we
talk about the Salsbury city council? We
definitely should. All right. So, stay
with us. When we come back, we're going
to dive into Dr. Jovenosa's brain and uh
what he witnessed at the Salsbury City
Council this past Monday. So, stay with
us. We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. I'm your
host, Joe White. So, as we're diving
into the Salsbury City Council meeting
uh just this last Monday, uh Dr. Joe
Venosa still in the studio, Mr. Mike
Goldberg. Um Joe, you were you were able
to watch it on PE 14 Live, right? I I
wish I'd been there in person. I
couldn't make it, but it was
entertaining and shocking nevertheless.
So, you know, the they are they were
talking about specifically hiring a
public information officer, but for the
council, right? Well, there there were
two things at work. So, um at once again
uh at a very last minute uh point, the
city council president Deshan Dowy uh
put on the agenda, which is not
available to the public by the way. This
is one quick thing that we need to
understand. And this is a big criticism
is that the briefing book for the city
is often not available until the very
last moment or not at all. So that's
been brought up before at meetings. But
nevertheless, um the issue that was put
on by the city council president was for
two positions. One was to uh basically
uh hire a new deputy city administrator.
Okay. Because there's a vacancy. Okay.
And with Andy Kits leaving there's they
need that. They need help. Yeah. And the
second was this this new position that
was to be created in the clerk's office,
which would basically, as the council
president and some of his allies framed
it, it would be a sort of a um media
coordination specialist or more
appropriately, I guess, a social media
zar. Um so that would answer directly to
the county or the city council. It would
seem to be that way. Um, as it was
framed initially and brought up, it
would be essentially someone whose
full-time job would be to do social
media and community engagement. The
nature of that would be a position that
would kind of work alongside Julie
English, the city clerk. Um, now this
was something that was brought out and
it was questioned particularly by
council members Dashil and April
Jackson. I'd like to have a discussion
about the media specialist position.
Absolutely. uh it has not been discussed
in council uh work session. There's no
job description. I'm not sure that it's
been processed through HR
and I think that's part of the vetting
process that we do do and I think there
is there would be a much better use for
that salary somewhere else in the city.
Counciloman Shield and we we did discuss
this during budget in the it was not it
was a different title. It now has come
up as a different title. same probably
position, different title. Yes. Um so to
me that's a way of getting a job in
there without including the total
council in discussion of this before
it's presented.
So apologies if you feel that way. This
was I have a a question and I I have a
problem with it. Um we're struggling for
money now for the budget.
We we really are. And I don't want to
put anything else on our citizens.
We do not need this position. We've
never had one. So why now do we need
one? We're doing no more than we were
doing before. And I don't need anyone to
do my media. I can do my own. And I
think every last one of us can do that.
85 85,000 more dollars. But we're crying
about finishing a budget that we're a
negative in. If you look on our social
medias, there hasn't been there's been
no mention of city council doing the
work in the community unless it's with
with anything else. There's also explain
legislation that's going on.
Councilwoman Dashield basically asks uh
the city council president um we've
never really talked to this before in
public. It was never mentioned in budget
session. Wasn't really mentioned. why is
it being brought now at such a late
stage and then the city council
president essentially said well we had
mentioned it before but it was under the
oposes of a different title um that
didn't go over too well with council
member Jackson who basically who tends
to call it like it is whether you agree
or not with everything she you know um
stands for or votes on she is very
direct and she's like basically excuse
me um you know why are we creating a
position which would cost about 85 grand
per year with fringe benefits s uh to
basically have a social media person
convey information that the city already
does through the mayor's office and
through individual members. And she she
brought up a point that she is in
regular contact with her constituents,
whether it's for fundraisers or events
through various social media platforms.
So why do we have to create this new
position? Did did you get the sense
especially from Michelle Gregory that
there's just a lack of connection with
the constituents? I mean, she asked a
question of can is it possible that we
hold town hall meetings? I mean, is that
is that someone who really understands
the people that she's representing? This
is somebody who could set up town halls
in each of our districts and and make
arrangements for that so that we can
answer constituents face to face. Could
we do that ourselves? Possibly. But at
least three of us at least.
but I cannot keep up on social media all
the time and I don't have time for that
things like that. I personally like
doing it myself, that sort of thing.
That's why I haven't put any requests in
because I like being able to do that
myself because Council President Deshawn
Doy, they have social media pages where
they routinely custom make videos and
and music clips. So, they clearly have
the time to engage on social media, but
they claim in the meeting, we don't have
the time to inform our constituents
about what's always going on. And um if
you watch the public comments, there's
some really good citizen input. And Mr.
Michael Langford, no stranger to the
show, um put it very well. Just common
sense wise, real quick soundbite for
y'all, part-time council does not need a
full-time PR person. That's crazy work.
I appreciate the members on the council
who spoke to common sense to
specifically to Councilwoman Blake. Your
your example of why before the budget's
approved, why would you put out an
official press release for something
that isn't official? I mean, that
doesn't even make any sense. So, your
example is just falling flat. You
couldn't and maybe have a better example
with more time, but what you're
presenting to the public here doesn't
make any sense. Please don't do that.
I'm glad that you guys went with common
sense at the end of the day and nicks
that second part that last minute
amendment wasn't even written for us to
review. You know, the council hadn't
reviewed that position. I just think
that like maybe I don't know what you
all need, right? But this is not the way
to go about doing it last minute trying
to shove something into the budget. It's
just like, you know, h be actually
transparent and have a conversation.
But, right, like you have a way for your
to hear your constituents. There's
plenty of people that aren't getting
email responses from y'all. As the
meeting went on, what people on the
council and specifically the split was
basically you have the mayor's
administration, council members Jackson
and Dashil and on the other side you had
council president Dowy, um vice
president Blake and council member
Michelle Gregory who basically I think
began to tip their hand and then said,
"Well, we're not
being allowed to convey information
uh from the mayor's office or in a in uh
in a way that would give our view. And
then what you really began to see is
that there seems to be more concern that
they can't drive a political narrative
at the same degree that the same group
that's not putting a briefing book out
to the public for the agenda. This is
the irony. Council member Gregory, uh
Councilwoman Blake in particular have
been on the council for more than six
years now. So, they're not they're not
new to the job and and they have every
ability to engage constituents. They
have every ability to have town halls in
their districts. Um, and more
importantly, they also can do something
which often is a challenge for some of
them, which is to just answer citizen
emails. Um, anyone who watches this, uh,
who has ever written an email
correspondence to the city council will
tell you that more often than not, they
never even get a response. Uh, and keep
in mind the city council literally
purged their email distribution list.
Yeah. Uh, I think two months ago. No,
about three months ago. Three months
ago, I'm sorry. And that was something
that the council president was also
called out for was, you know, you say
that you want to engage the citizens in
this new highly paid position when you
don't even actually keep citizens who
are informed and are following on the
email list. It it just seems like really
hypocritical and and kind of um
a a way to subvert I guess communication
from what they see as a hostile mayor.
That that would be my view of it. Isn't
it interesting that the answer or the
solution always seems to be to grow
government? Well, I'm another position
here. Well, it's just one position and
then a few months later or next year,
well, we're going to add somebody else.
It doesn't improve government, but
throwing money, you know, at government,
you know, and increasing the staff, um,
seems to appeal to those who are already
in power because it actually broadens
the authority that they have over
others. Keep in mind, and I want to be
very clear here, there are council
members who on their public
social media pages have blocked citizen
comments. So we can go into the whole
constitutionality of that and the legal
ramifications, but I think it is a great
and sad irony when you have a situation
where there is a need to create a whole
new position, administrative position
that doesn't actually have any
discernable benefit except pad the
authority of certain local officials.
When April Jackson brought up the fact
that in that very meeting they're
talking about raising water and sewer
rates 6%. Right? the actual meeting
where you're raising the price on people
on something so essential on something
so essential. You're then saying, "Let's
also create an $85,000
position." It it really was a bad look.
And what's very telling about the
meeting, if you watch these moments, is
that very quickly the council president
really kind of tucked his tail and sort
of then voting against it. Ended up
voting against it. It's very interesting
that the only person who actually sort
of died on the hill was council member
Gregory. Even Councilman Angela Blake uh
abstained. Okay. So, so it did fail 3 to
one with one absence, I believe. So, um
and and and for now it seemed to be put
to bed. Well, so but talking about
calling out, I mean, another citizen uh
got up and and actually called Council
President Deshawn Dowy out for some of
his own personal u financial choices.
Yeah. which have come into question
because we've seen some of the the
spending on logoed shirts and that sort
of thing which is really a very ethical
type of question like do the
constituents owe it to their elected
officials to buy them swag. I have
questions about your budget from 2023 to
early of 2025.
What you turned in is that what you're
wearing tonight? a J Crew jacket that
you turned in for us city um taxpayers
to pay for. I looked for a line item of
the 300 I don't know $2,000 for 2025.
Couldn't find any line items
where you're allowed to turn things in.
You have Nike Pro jacket and hoodie you
turned in. You turned in polo shirts.
You turned in embroidery. mileage is
kind of questionable, too. Then I took
it upon myself to check your record.
That's pretty pretty sad. Pretty sad on
the judiciary where you are in charge
part partially of a budget, overseeing
the city of Salsbury and you can't even
pay your bills. I highly recommend all
of you go back and watch the budget
session. There are questions about, you
know, how much money is city council
president Deson Daddy spending on
clothing uh or attending or attending
candidate fundraisers candidate
fundraisers before they're elected.
Correct. Correct. Um and and how how
does that look especially given that
we're dealing with the city that is
seemingly always in a perpetually
difficult fiscal situation and we're
raising rates. 6%.
Are you kidding me? on the water and
sewer. I I've lived through two from
2015 when Jake Day went on his tour of
raising rates for lawsuits. I don't care
what chemical you need, whatever. It's
ridiculous. Charges for services
increase by 31%
for every dollar you spend on water and
sewer bills since 2015.
You get the same service, but now you're
spending a $1.31.
That is 15%
higher than the Biden inflation rate
that did not go away as you were told it
would. This budget uh tonight, first of
all, the things that were shot the thing
that was shot down and a couple of the
other matters, they weren't even in the
briefing book. The only thing in the
briefing book was increasing
expenditures by about 933,000.
Uh the only things uh Mr. Daddy that
have been snuck into the budget without
much public notice have been things like
this these items. They wasn't in the
briefing book. Why was that? There's no
excuse for it. Media specialist or
whatever. It's basically to promote
political agenda for certain members of
the council. I mean $85,000 to have
somebody set up a Facebook page. have
this happening in this very same meeting
where you're talking about the rates
that will be raised on basic things. And
keep in mind, and the mayor has said
this and the people have said this, the
majority of what these rate increases
are for is tied to our debt service. Why
is the city in debt? Well, as our
incoming guest, Miss Holly
Worththington, will talk about. Um, part
of it has to do with the previous
mayoral administration and the decisions
there that you could argue were not
exactly fiscally wise. Well, and and I
think so great. I I want to bring her in
and and one perspective she can give us
is one where did some of the root cause
start with the issues with parking and
density downtown but also more
importantly what is the current county
city council and the current mayor's
priorities at least to mitigate those
issues and maybe even rectify them. So
well when we come back Dr. Dr. Joe,
stick around. We're going to bring in
Holly Worththington from the city of
Salsbury and talk about lawsuits and
development in Salsbury. So stay with
us. We'll be right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. I'm your
host Joe White. So we have been covering
the density and parking issues in
downtown business district Salsbury. In
order to talk more about this subject,
brought in uh Holly Worththington from
Salsbury. Thank you, Dr. Joea. Thanks
for sticking around. Always. So, uh,
Holly, tell me a little bit about
yourself and, uh, you know, what is it
you do? Um, I own a real estate
brokerage in downtown Salsbury. Uh, the
building that I own is called the
Synagogue. Okay. And how long have you
owned that building? Uh, since the end
of 2020. Okay. And the last several
years, you've been pretty outspoken
against uh, not maybe not just density
in particular, but just the process that
they've used to increase density. Is
that accurate? Uh, I would say so. Okay.
Yeah, Joe, you've been going to the uh
city council meetings longer than that.
I mean, is this has been a subject
that's been coming up for that long? It
has. I would say I've been attending and
getting involved more or less uh since
Holly has because I think that's when a
lot of these issues have kind of
coalesed. Okay. Yeah. So, I I want to
ask you, Holly, tell me a little bit
about the density issue from your
perspective, particularly with parking
and and any other issues that have come
up. Well, my initial uh interaction and
coming in and being involved in this uh
was um just based on my own personal uh
issue of them potentially developing a
lot that my building utilizes. But in
looking through and participating in the
meetings, um I'm starting to realize
there was a a lot a lot more issues that
were involved. um a lot of things that
went on behind the scene uh that were
not on the up and up and I think that my
participation now is to hopefully write
the wrongs that um have been going on
for many years. So you're you're
referencing specifically like a closed
door meetings, maybe deals that were
changed without proper contracts, but I
want to hear more about that. I mean,
you we've talked before about there's
there's been uh reissue of contracts
with different LLC's. Uh can you go into
some detail about specific there?
Initially, uh this development project
was going to be done by an a company
called DERCO. Okay. Right. And moving
forward, I think that was maybe 2017 or
something. That contract expired a year
later. Okay. Fast forward to 2023.
Um there is a meeting that's held and
it's in regards to the sale of lots 111
and 15.
During that meeting uh it went into a
close session which was deemed illegal.
There was discussions during that
meeting uh where lots and were already
in contract with this LLC since 2017. So
basically, they needed to throw lot 15
in so they didn't have to downscale
their project. So I think council
members did not fully understand this
was a whole new entity and to be honest
with you was a whole new entity that was
created in 2023. However, the
procurement officer uh during this
meeting stated that they had been
negotiating the sale of adding in lot 15
uh since 2021 with Salsbury Town Center
Apartments LLC. However, that LLC wasn't
even in effect since 2021 and that
contract was void several years earlier.
So in so just to break it down for the
average viewer like me, you basically
have the city council in an illegal
meeting with the procurement officer
Jennifer Miller basically giving these
this lot to Mr. Gillis, Mr. Gilkerson,
uh who who Sbury Town Center Apartments
under the opices of a different LLC that
didn't actually legally exist yet. No,
it was that the contract was not uh just
being updated at that point. That
contract needed to be redone. In
addition, um when I requested
information from the city, I received
information back that they never
reverted that uh the sale of that lot um
or lots after that contract was voided,
which legally based on law, they were
supposed to have readvertised that in
print. Now, is the city council aware of
that discrepancy themselves? Um, I
believe it's well, it's part of the
current suit. Um, so I believe they have
copies of that. Okay. Well, what do you
think the city council's priorities are
now? And do they align with the current
mayor Randy Taylor's priorities for
downtown development? No, I I think they
are prodevelopment, which is fine. We
all are prodevelopment, but I think
they're pro uh moving this all forward
without actually doing their due
diligence. They just want it to be done
and move forward. Um and then uh I think
Randy is actually trying to properly do
his due diligence so that when a
decision is made and the projects are
started moving forward, it's not going
to have a negative impact. So I I think
what he's doing is just protecting our
city. I don't think they are. And and
that's to me what's so shocking is that
you not only have the projects that I
think a lot of us would argue are not
beneficial to most people in the city
and certainly not to our finances, but
based on this, they're also illegal.
Mhm. Well, you know, we've had Randy
Taylor on the show as well, and one of
his concerns that he stated to us on on
our show is the bonding of, say, the
parking garage, because at the end of
the day, if the city of Salsbury bonds
the parking garage, they're they're
financially responsible. They're on the
hook. I mean, it's like co-signing a
Well, the other thing is that the city's
not going to generate enough revenue to
have that get paying for itself, right?
And the other part is it was a sole bid
and that bid was done several years ago.
That quote of 10 million isn't
essentially what the cost is going to be
now. So, you know, it's going to be
something that I think that the garage
is being done, you know, obviously to
suit this project. Um, but it's also
being done and it's not going to suit
our downtown. So, I want to get your
take, too. If we go back to November of
24, the planning and zoning commission
uh had a had a very long hearing. Five
five almost six hour long hearing. Yeah.
We had to bring a lunch and a dinner to
that one. Uh but the the it seemed very
staged and rushed at least to me. Oh. Uh
it it passed six to everybody. Yeah. Uh
do you think the decision there was
already made before we even had the
meeting? And I I'm going to tell you it
it was funny because when we all got
done our public comments, usually
they'll have people on that board will
give input, you know, and they went
right into that vote and it there was a
piece of paper that was being read off
of. Uh it was a script. It was literally
after that vote basically with them
moving it forward. It was already
written. Um, so to me that seems
remember Joe Holloway, councilman did
did ask for uh more time to to talk
about it, but there was none. I mean,
they went into discussion. Yeah, it's
kind of remarkable that in that meeting
where for nearly 4 hours and a good
majority of people spoke out uh against
this this change I mean with the
exception of the developers who were
literally there um that you would have
chip to shield kind of read a
pre-written script with no response to
the public no reflection as you said it
was Yeah. It was like we didn't matter.
Yeah. Yeah. And this was for a text
amendment change. This is I mean of this
isn't for a variance. This
logistically changes all development in
the central business district and and
and well go ahead Joe. Well, just one
thing and all that included. I think the
thing that also disturbs a lot of us or
at least certainly people like me is
that when you look at who is on the the
planning and zoning commission, I mean,
I have a real problem with the fact that
at least four of those people have
personal business connections to some of
those developers. And the fact that they
don't recuse themselves or don't even
admit it is really, I think,
problematic. uh when when you're looking
at who like where is the root cause of
these legal issues because we're you
know we're talking more if you were if
you're kind of looking back in history
the last five or seven 10 years where do
you think the issues arose from um well
I think the sale of these lots I think
kind of slid by the radar of the public
um I didn't know a lot of this stuff was
going on um until initially Actually, I
got a invite to a historic meeting. You
know, I was owning a business downtown.
There wasn't a lot of conversation I was
hearing about all of this. Um, you know,
I I feel like it was a lot of uh closed
door meetings. Uh, you know, the sale of
the lots, the pricing that they did not
benefit the city. You know, those lots,
look at Marina Landing, I think in ' 88,
sold for like 1.45 million and now it
just sold for a dollar. Yeah. And then
then we're leasing our marina back for
50 years at a dollar and with a renewal
on top of two two renewals. So they can
actually renew that two more times. So
uh it does seem like you're busy running
a business. You're you're busy doing all
the other things that people do in their
daily lives, make payroll and and and
sell and all that kind of stuff. And uh
if you're not closely paying attention
and even if maybe if you are these other
deals happen but the surplus sale
started with former mayor Jake Day's
administration back in 2015 16. Is that
that's accurate? Right. Uh he was
elected in 2015 I believe. So yeah you
can't. So one thing I found strange that
lot 15 was originally not part of the
comprehensive plan. It was slated to be
parking.
the fact it was surplus and is full on a
daily thing. Plus, the city put out this
big um advertisement or big uh write up
about how they had put the charging
stations there. um after they surplus a
lot, which to me is strange that you're
going to surplus a lot and then you're
going to go add in charging stations and
then you're going to take uh a big
notoriety about the fact you added in
these charging stations, but what you're
not putting there is you're actually
going to remove those because there's
going to be now there's going to be
development. But this this is is really
the the crux of it is that how former
mayor Jake Day essentially from my
perspective gives away city assets to
his childhood friends and in some cases
his campaign contributors and nobody
thinks to even question is that in the
interest of the city and certainly is it
going to bring in the city money. I mean
put put aside the ethical implications
just terrible business. Well look at the
Brew River issue right now. Brew River
was uh given exclusive rights to their
parking lot, right? Justin Chaw brought
this up at the meeting. Yeah. And then
they gave it to Marina Landing. Now
Marina Landing suing for 40 million, but
they bought the property for a dollar.
Yeah. You're going to put us at that
kind of liability to, you know, and
again, that's a Jake Day decision,
correct? In terms It was as far as the
timing. Yeah. Yeah. The uh how do you
think we can resolve this issue? I mean
obviously that some of this is going to
go through courts. I mean there's a
there's a lawsuit now and even some of
your contention is that they're
calculating the density wrong. Correct.
How do we get to a point that what's
best for the citizens of Salsbury and
even to some degree Wakcom County are
served. I think that they need to look
at all the studies and they need to see
the impacts they need to have. I think
removing a a community impact statement
was terrible, especially you're adding
in a new development in a historic
downtown, you know, and it's already
been uh the
what was it? The uh zoning board of
appeals already said the reason one of
the reasons for denial was the negative
impact it was going to have on the
existing downtown. But then here we go,
fast forward down the road, now all of a
sudden it's allotted because we changed
the zoning. But it doesn't take away the
negative impact. It's still there. And I
think that's hard for like the common
citizen, you know, who doesn't want to
get into politics or government affairs.
I don't want to get into that. So the
board the board of appeals is separate
from planning and zoning. They can u
allow a variance, but they can't just
pass the text amendment. It h that has
to go to planning and zoning. And our
board of appeals turned this down and
then it went to circuit courtice twice
for appeal and that was turned down.
Mhm. When all of those options failed
and only because the the ability of
these developers with with deep pockets
and lawyers were they able to come back
and do a text amendment change. Would
that be accurate? I would say yeah I
mean the deep pockets help but what's
interesting is that the city council at
least the majority um you know I don't
necessarily think that the financial
influence of the developers necessarily
matters as much as like there's this odd
ide ideology that basically as as I see
as a citizen is like if we give the
developers everything literally
everything somehow down the road we'll
have more revenue more housing and it
will enrich the city like and again I
have to say this I'm I'm I'm I'm being a
bit hyperbolic, but I was I would almost
respect some of these city council
people if they were like being
financially influenced because at least
there would be self-interest. But I
can't for the life of me understand why
you would have people who would just
give away our city assets overlook the
environmental the historical impacts,
the the Well, and and there's one other
aspect, too, and and I've gone around
the the county the last year or so
filming a lot. There's other
developments inside the city and the
county that just fine that that didn't
need a giveaway. builders will build to
to quote one of my friends uh who used
to be a county executive here and he
made the point that you know if you look
at Futland if you look at other parts of
the city if you look at other entities
in the municipalities even over on the
west side absolutely I mean look at
what's going on by nook road and I mean
but the problem with that is if they
build in those areas they're not getting
the same kind of grants or you know tax
breaks or things like that yeah what
Jake day brings the big they're not
getting they're not getting that, you
know, money that helps towards the
development and yet the development
still happens, right? That's the irony.
And it it seems like when you have these
personal political connections to
certain entities, whether it's the
former mayor or now state authorities,
it really tilts the table as as far as
who has influence on the direction of
the community. So, okay, let's talk
about influence. How does the common
citizen who does not who has to go to
work, has to go to, you know, pick up
kids at daycare, sports, and all that
kind of stuff. How do they help hold the
elected officials accountable when we're
still more than two years away from an
election? The truth. Yeah. The truth. We
go to the meetings, we say the things,
we're not heard. So, I don't even know
what the the resolution other than we're
filing a lawsuit. Like I I don't see a
resolution as a last resort. This was
not You didn't wake up one morning
going, I cannot wake up even want to be
involved in this. I'll be honest with
you. I It was very hard for me to get
the courage to speak up, especially as a
business owner and especially as these
are people I've known for quite some
time. But when I had conversations to
make resolutions, there was no
resolution that was,
you know, uh beneficial for both sides.
Well, and that's that's the thing. I
think you are the embodiment of the
solution is that it takes regular people
in some cases as you said. You know, it
costs money, costs time, it costs some
of these personal re relationships to
say, listen, this is wrong and I've got
to address it and I'm addressing not
just because I'm personally affected,
but because of how it affects so many
other things. And and and I think to
your question, the solution is, you
know, if people are going to have the
courage, which I think you you've
you've, you know, shown in this, and the
tenacity to challenge it, then other
people get behind it. Like I wouldn't
have personally gotten involved or even
known about the issue until I sort of
saw what was happening with you and
other people who were going to the
meetings and saying, "Hey, listen. Not
only is this ethically dubious, but it's
legally like it's literally it's
illegal." They function best when
there's a lack of transparency, when
other people are are maybe intimidated
and in fear of speaking out, and when
they see that there is a consensus to
allow this to happen. I think, you know,
in in our different ways, whether it's
you, Holly, or Joe or myself or other
people, the one thing that we all have
in common is, you know, we might have a
lot to lose in some cases, but we're
willing to stand on something because we
think it's wrong. And we have to
articulate not only the legal reasons
but the moral reasons why because like
in the end you're absolutely right. This
is a really small community and like
sometimes we do lose friends or
associates over some of these decisions
but that doesn't make those decisions
wrong. You know if somebody part of the
process well look if somebody's willing
to say to you I'm not going to be your
friend anymore because you're speaking
out against this development project.
First of all I challenge what kind of
friend they really were at first. And
secondly, that doesn't make their
argument correct. Right. Well, I I can
give you our word that we're going to
continue to monitor this story. Um and
we do hope to check back in with you in
a few months just for updates from your
perspective. But, uh we've been covering
the story for a few months and we're
going to continue. Thank you. Um Oh,
it's our pleasure and thanks for staying
up. And I do want to mention one other
thing. I mean, we we had this whole
segment and we didn't say affordable
housing once. Uh, you know, I think uh
and and and we should because this has
nothing to do with affordable housing,
market rate. Yeah. Market attainable
housing. Attainable. Yeah. So, thank
you, Holly. Thanks for coming in. Thank
you for having me. Thanks for watching
this edition of Open Agenda. We'll be
back next week with another new episode.
My brain, God help us.
Would you buy a piece of real estate for more than a million bucks and then sell it for only one dollar? On OPEN AGENDA (S2 E21) we reveal that this is precisely what the Salisbury city government has done. We discuss how the questionable sale and use of "surplus" city property to favored real estate developers has resulted in expensive lawsuits for which taxpayers are on the hook. We also explore how certain city council members are using taxpayer dollars to purchase personal clothing, fund dubious travel expenses and create unneeded staff positions, while keeping the public in the dark. Additionally, we examine the County Executive's commitments to costly capital improvement projects that have unknown total price tags and are not fully funded, and how this may increase your taxes next year. Tune in and be informed.
