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. In the studio with me today
is Dr. Joe from Salsbury, Miss Trish
Melvin from Fruitland. Thank you for
coming out. So, you were out last night
at the press conference uh held outside
the government office building before
the city council meeting uh in
I guess in talking about the the 287GOU.
What What was the point of the of the
press conference? The intent was to
raise awareness um and we had groups
from across Maryland really ACLU was
represented um NAACP
as well as uh local coalitions um
faith-based groups and um it the intent
was just to raise awareness for the
citizens of Salsbury because Salsbury is
considering uh joining with a county in
thisou with ICE.
>> Okay. So,
>> and Joe, you were at the meeting. Did y
did did those feelings spill over into
the the city council meeting and work
session?
>> I think so. I would say about maybe more
than half of the folks who were at the
press conference out on the out on the
steps came into the council chambers as
as well and many people spoke at
different points. Yeah. Well, I'd like
to bring in Michael Langford because I
want to talk specifically about the
agenda items and obviously one of the
items that did come up at least through
public comments was the 287G. I'd like
to bring you back in after Michael's
here and then I just want to get some
more information about just what was
said and and and where people think that
the city is going with this. All right,
>> sounds good.
>> So stay with us. When we come back,
we're going to bring in Michael
Langford, talk about the city council
agenda and any of the comments that did
come up last night. So stay with us.
We'll be right back.
>> Welcome back to Open Agenda. In the
studio with us now is Mr. Michael
Langford from Salsbury. Thanks for
coming out.
>> Dr. Vosa, thanks for sticking around.
>> Always.
>> You both were at the city council
meeting yesterday and there was a lot
going on. Uh do we want to start with
the the protest out front about the
287gou?
>> Sure. Um, so at about uh I guess 5:15, a
local Wakamako coalition for Human
Rights, which includes several different
groups, some political, some human
rights, uh, staged a protest. um
basically um in order to express their
dissatisfaction and concern with the
supposed agreement that's that may or
may not be happening um regarding ICE
cooperation with the county with an MLOU
and also specifically with a purported
agreement uh between the city police
department and the county and ICE.
>> Let's talk about what what where we do
have anou which is actually nowhere,
right?
>> Correct. Okay. So, the county executive
a a month ago came out and said that she
has anou with the sheriff of Wakcomo
County, but we've been tracking it. We
There is no application posted. There is
no signed. So, there's noou.
>> No.
>> And now she's saying that there's not
anou, but she expects one to be eminent.
>> Although, we don't know the details
about that yet either.
>> Okay.
>> That that's one of my big uh points last
night. In general, we have a lack of
transparency. So, like when we're
talking about theou, why isn't there a
document for us to peruse so that the
evidence so that the public can engage
with the material? We have the same
issue with ordinances.
>> Um, it used to be that you could go on
get the agenda, the briefing packet, and
then you could click on ordinance and it
would hyperlink to the document, right?
They don't do that anymore since um, you
know, Deshawn Dowy took over as council
president. So, we've been seeing a lack
of transparency that way. And um we're
we're also same thing with the subreient
agreement with the developers. There
isn't an actual plan. So there is a
there is some agreement but I don't know
the content of it. Again like theou all
these things kind of point to the same
core issue. No transparency.
>> You you spoke to this last night. You
said look people are upset at the city
council meeting about 287g.
>> Yeah. I wanted to address very quickly
the issue of um 287g. I would bet my
life and everyone's life here to be
frank that most of the people on this
council don't actually know the details
of the 287g program regardless of how
you feel about it. Okay, whether you're
in favor or not. And for the record, I'm
not in favor of it. And there's very and
there's many reasons for that. But part
of the problem is that there is no
communication occurring from the
officials who need to be communicating.
If council members are caught blindsided
by it, I'm embarrassed for you because
several private citizens knew this was
coming and heard about it. So, if you're
elected officials and you don't know
what's going on, I don't know what
you're doing with our
public trust. It's that's embarrassing.
Secondly, because this is a county
issue, if anybody here is concerned or
in favor of 287G, regardless, you need
to address your attention to the county
executive office. And unfortunately, and
I have to give the mayor credit on this
one, you at least are here answering
questions and taking criticism. The
county executive, unless you're a donor,
does not meet with any member of the
public at all. So, that needs to be
understood. Send any email to County
Executive Julie Girardano. She is the
authority who determines whether or not
we have agreements, and she's given
three or four different versions of
that. She's had a pretty tough week. So,
uh, she might not get to your emails
ever, but that's the entity you need to
address. So, please take that into
consideration and do better, council.
Thank you.
>> Two things on that. One was that the
mayor, I think, made a really, in my
opinion, boneheaded miscalculation when
he put out a press release saying that
the city police department would would
work with the county and help with ICE
on theou, but as we've all discussed,
there is no agreement yet.
>> Okay. So it kind of came across to me as
a preemptive kind of political move. But
of course then the council upped him and
did their own when they kind of in my
opinion uh to some extent grandstanded.
And again I want to be clear I'm
personally against the 287g agreement
for many reasons. But I don't think
anybody on that council actually knows
anything about the agreement whatsoever
because it doesn't exist. and they were
kind of taking sort of very broad
rhetorical potshots. The county council,
excuse me, the city council president
alluded to having conversations with
people at the White House.
>> I think now now if we arrest the person
and take him to the to the jail.
>> Yes.
>> Then they can check them for those. But
that's all you got to do anyway. So So
let me provide some context. That's
where
>> No, let me finish. Hold on. Let me
finish. So let let me give you an
example. We pull someone over for a
stoplight, for a headlight. Okay. and
this guy could be, you know, some sort
of, you know, have multiple warrants
out. We would not know that. And it's
certainly not an arrestable offense to
have a headlight out. My point is is
that it's it's another tool in the
toolbox to try and hopefully make
communities safer. Now, you can disagree
with that, but that's just, you know,
basic police work. So I think where and
this is where confusion came with again
reading the the release and then it look
it appears I mean it says city of
Salsbury intent to cooperate with Wakama
County on 287G program
>> that that I mean it it literally did it
brought some fear in and in people. I
think and I just so happened to have had
a a meeting with um some some staff
members from the White House and I asked
him I just said hey I got this release
what happens cuz I I have no
information. I'm getting calls, texts,
emails. Yeah, I'd like to see that. Um
but ultimately none of those people had
any real specific understanding as I
could see about what the possible
agreements are. I even said from the
podium that it was kind of embarrassing
that a group of private citizens, you
know, first among them uh Miss Trish
Melvin and uh Mr. Jim Atkins have
provided very important detailed
source-based analysis of what these
possible agreements could be. No one,
not the mayor and certainly nobody on
the city council seems to have any
understanding of what those agreements
would even entail. I'm somebody who
would be generally in favor of thisou,
but I'm not in favor of doing it with a
lack with this lack of transparency. And
and then you you you're seeing it last
night, Michael. I want you to talk a
little bit more. You have citizens in
Salsbury who are now thoroughly confused
and outraged all at the same time.
Right.
>> And that Yeah, I was going to say and I
I think it does feed off at Yeah. So I
think that there is a activity of like
politicking in which it doesn't matter
whether somebody is red, blue, right,
left. Just a suggestion. I don't know if
anyone's ever looked at this. Is it
possible that we make ordinances
available like uh on the Salsbury
website for transparency and the
public's input just because a lot of
times by the time you guys even see like
this first reading, I remember there
being a lot of chatter about that
international property maintenance code
and it'd be really great if like we
could just review it. Again, maybe it's
not accessible or easy to break down for
everyone, but if it was just, you know,
centralized city website able for us to
review ordinances, then we the people
can have conversations with you, our
representatives about the topic. And
then, uh, the other aspect is 287g. I
think like the ordinances if there is
any kind of discussion I think that in
order for the public to have input in
order to have the full transparency and
accountability of the police then making
these contracts available before you
know before the public so that people
can have something that they're bringing
rather than just I'm worried about this
outcome for people which is legitimate
and valid but also then people can
easily dismiss it whereas if we have
facts if we have information as the
public then people can respond in a
meaningful way. So, I think with the ICE
thing, we just need more transparency
there as well.
>> I think the maneuver is whether it's
coming from maybe the county exec and uh
releasing information without there
being documents to back it up or whether
it's the city council and rallying cries
for, you know, um a jurisdiction that's
maybe not in question.
>> The maneuver is to make people have an
emotional response to these things,
which then keeps them disempowered. If
there's no actual evidence, if there's
no document, if there's nothing for
people to debate and make better, then
everyone's left outside actually of the
conversation each other and yeah, and
we're all just emotionally wound up. But
are we getting anything for the
community, for the public interest? Not
at all.
>> I think we're getting something, but
it's negative. It's it's negative
effects because I think there are a lot
of people that are and some of them
spoke last night. There are people that
are legitimately scared because they've
been given all different kinds of miss
or disinformation or maybe just
incomplete information and they really
think that an ICE agreement might be one
thing possibly the stuff of their
nightmares, you know, because it does
affect people that they might love and
care about. And then they take that and
can only go with what they know because
they're hearing one thing from the
executive or some days nothing. One
thing from the county, one thing from
the city, one thing from the mayor,
sheriff.
>> I didn't come here to speak about 287G,
but I will say that there's been a lot
of uh uh misinformation and
misunderstanding and it all goes back to
the county executive and the way she's
played this card. Um, and if you'll
remember about two weeks ago, there was
on WBOC something about Congressman
Harris congratulates the county for
having anou with ICE. Well, he fell into
it, too, because of a press release that
she put out. Um, and I'm not going to
speak pro or con 287g, but I do want to
say we're trying on the open agenda
program to bring the facts to the
public's attention, not arguing one way
or the other.
>> The fact that we have ex expended so
much energy and time on an issue in
which we don't actually have an
agreement speaks to this problem, too.
>> What what really keeps me up at night is
we've already had our county executive
admit that she did a bait and switch
over budget issues.
>> Yeah.
I feel like this is just my opinion that
the landfill situation was in some ways
a distraction, a bait and switch.
>> Now we're talkingou. So if this is the
last one and we can deal with it, fine.
But I don't think this is it. I think
we've got more to come.
>> This is the mo notou of the county
executive in the sense of like what I
did there. Um this is what we kind of
have seen time and again. And
unfortunately I completely concur Joe. I
think that this is just part for the
course now. And I think she has decided
to go this route because she thought it
would be politically expedient or at
least it would be politically uh
advantageous at this point as she's kind
of campaign.
>> Well, I got one other one. She thought
it was politically expedient to get
behind with Typkin Creek State Park
until it wasn't. Correct.
>> And she's been backing away from that
pretty
>> fierce. And here's the irony, right? We
don't know if the state's going to pass
legislation that will make anything that
the local officials may or may not want
to do null and void anyway.
>> So I I think to your points, this is
really about politics at its worst. It's
the opposite of leadership and more
importantly, it's the opposite of actual
concern regardless of who your voters
are.
>> I think I think Michael's point is the
really the best one. Folks out there
need to understand that the far left and
the far right are are spending most of
their time and energy just getting the
rest of us whipped up into an emotional
frenzy,
>> very divisive,
>> and we're missing it. Y uh Mr. Bob
Taylor's on the show often actually has
a terminology for it when the county
executive does it. He calls it red meat.
You know, it would be like taking one
steak and throwing it into a a pin with
three tigers.
>> Uh they're probably going to tear each
other up before they even get the chance
to eat the steak. And uh I think you saw
that last night.
>> Absolutely.
>> All right. I want to talk about this
this lot 10 and and
>> yeah, so we we see I guess there they're
kind of two there's a lot going on right
now in the city. So we have that
subreient agreement with Mantis Capital
Partners that we're that people are
still deliberating over. The the core
issue with the subreient agreements are
that we're I think that the public is
left to debate. Oh, it could be this, it
could be that. And then like the red
meat thing, you you have people
fighting, well, how could you?
Basically, if you're against this
particular deal, the maneuver often
becomes, well, you're against
development or you're against affordable
housing or you're against providing
housing for people, how could you be
against something so good and you
demonize the opposition and you straw
man their position, right? So, and it's
like, but then nothing gets built from
that,
>> right? So if we go back to source
materials, if we're talking about what
is in the recipient agreement, subreient
agreement, then you know, I feel like
it's a meaningful dialogue. But now if
people are just, you know, who's
against, you know, who's for criminals
being on the street? Who's against there
being housing for people? Who's against
housing homeless people? Nobody. You
know what I mean? These are all general
things, but they're just so they're
general platitudes that people are I
guess again the red meat analogy.
They're just fighting over nothing.
>> Well, what let's start about let's talk
about this development potential on
North Shoemaker Drive because I think
that epitomizes this fight between
development, non-development, growth,
affordable housing. Uh there's an area
that's in the county right there, but
they're asking to be annexed into the
city. Correct.
>> Correct. So currently with this the
county designation it's R20. Um if they
were annexed in to the to be developed
it's you know an agricultural um thing.
Right now it's just a field right.
>> If that was annexed in and you didn't
change anything about the city plan then
it would just go to uh R10.
>> Okay.
>> The developer requested R10s. R10 allows
for single family homes
>> which is what's already in that general
vicinity. Right.
>> Yes. What's next door is single family
homes in the development that's already
there which is the end which is the end
of the city limits and they would have
to go back they're annex they have to
extend that system.
>> Okay.
>> So the people in the development
currently on north uh Shoemaker Drive
that I've had discussions with their
concern is to keep the kind of integrity
of the area. You know they deliberately
live in the city and pay taxes while
still benefiting from like a lower
density than if they live say in the
commercial business district.
>> Sure. In very layman's terms, explain
the difference between 10S and 10A.
>> Sure. Sure. Um, so the R10A, so the 10
is 10,000 ft² minimum. Um, the A allows
for apartments and town homes. The
regular R10 that we have doesn't allow
for apartments and town homes. Okay. The
S allows for what's called cluster
development, which you still have the
same 10,000 square foot lot minimum, but
it allows
it allows for you to take a piece of
that 10,000 square foot and allocate it
to open space, making the lot size that
you actually build the home on smaller.
So making it so that you can put the
homes kind of cluster them in a smaller
area and the rest of the space is
reserved for
>> and this basically became typically it
would just be the R10. The the biggest
distinction is single family versus
allowing town houses and apartments. We'
recommend the single family because
that's what the neighboring uh community
is. The 10s, the S aspect is kind of a
little scheme that exists in the code
like he was saying to let them bunch
together more. It was something we
recommended as a way to give a little
bit more density and more units. This
particular parcel has a utility easement
across it, overhead power lines that
can't be built underneath. So allowing
this special S clustering lets the
developer in a prospective development
put the houses a little closer together.
So um so they like that. So their
concern is not, you know, they
understand they have no, you know, say
over what happens to this property and
its development. However, the
consistency in the property values, they
have an investment in not seeing their
property values go down, I think is um
is the main concern. So, what the
developer propos so they would like to
see single family development if you
know they get they don't have any say in
that. The developer is requesting to
change it to R10s. What ended what the
last planning joint planning city
planning and zoning commission voted on
was the designation of R10A.
>> Okay.
>> Um which allows for cluster development.
So basically they want to build
apartments, town homes. The developer is
saying it's 12 acres as 2 acres are
easement due to utility lines. So it's
10 acres they're building on and they
want to build 60 town homes on 10 acres.
>> Okay,
>> that's a way higher density than what's
currently there in place. They'd have to
extend this city water sewer system out
to there to do service. there's going to
cost a lot and going to be a lot of um
the current problem that I find is that
when the developer presented at the city
planning and zoning commission was that
these would be more affordable because
they're town homes.
>> Okay. You're talking like in the $260 to
$280,000 range is what?
>> Correct. And like new single family
homes are like 400,000. Okay. So based
on the market price. So compared to
another apples and oranges, yes, this is
more affordable. But in the sense of
will people here with a medium income of
between 70 and like 80 something
thousand in Wcomo County those those
people are they going to be able to get
mortgages for that price range
>> and it seems like maybe the developer
really wants to do it because twice as
many homes at 80% of the cost is
>> more profitable than building
>> fewer homes. We have a huge problem with
people presenting themselves as business
friendly who may not even be in a
business here, you know, um operating
one or or owning one
>> or doing math.
>> Yeah. And they seem to like to present
it as um
as that, you know, the the developer
presenting it is like, oh, we're doing
you this solid by making affordable
housing. It's like that's just the
marketing to sell it. But why the
developer or any business person is
doing anything for their business
>> for a profit motive? 100%. It's their
self-interest. It benefits them. And and
I'm not against that.
>> That's fine, too.
>> Yeah. Present it for one thing when it's
actually truly the other.
>> And and and as our public officials, I'm
very against Michelle Gregory, Deshawn
Dowy, and Angela Blakes propping up
developers
>> who when they should be representing the
public interest instead of these private
development interests. And it and it's
I'm glad you brought that up because I
think all three of them at a different
point in last night's meeting said that
they want to hear a specific
presentation from the de from the
developer on how this would aid and help
with affordable housing. Well, of course
they'll give you
a present. Like of course they'll frame
it any way they want to convince you.
Like if you're if you're saying like
tell me c convince me in a presentation
uh about how much you're going to help
us like if that's if that's the
assignment.
>> Yeah. Right.
>> That that's not much of a of a baseline
to work with.
>> I want to ask one other question. This
goes back to something you presented on
the show a few weeks ago.
>> Would this development qualify for the
here is home u where they were where
they knock off the connection fees for
this development? Do you know? I'm not
sure because I'm not we're not the
process is maybe maybe you would the
city I guess I guess city officials
would be aware maybe talking to the the
uh department of infrastructure and
development like they have an idea of
that whole process of permitting as it
goes through um but we the public don't
currently have the media doesn't do that
for us
>> well when you did the math before it did
seem like there's this curve of well it
sounds great that we're going to bring
in development but then there's this
infrastructure that has to be paid for
capital improvements that then left
unfunded because they're they're waved.
I made that point last night again that
basically as we as we sign these
agreements as if we do a subreient
agreement for that lot 10 then all the
infrastructure all the upgrades around
it should be on that business is the lot
10 um there's no firm plans in did why
would we allocate taxpayer money
irresponsibly to a company that cannot
provide planning or evidence of
financing for any deal why would we
allocate millions of state funds and
taxpayer money to a company that can't
even abide by the city's planning
process
>> they should be paying because that's how
they originally got built like railroads
in this country got built by private
companies not by um not by army corps of
engineers. So in order to get certain
things certain infrastructure like you
need businesses either annexed in the
city paying taxes so that they're
contributing that way or if they want to
develop and make something new here then
the it needs to all the accommodations
to make their development connect with
our current existing systems and to
bring it up to date and up to par need
to be put on the business. It's the it's
the cost of doing business. But again,
if you have elected officials that don't
even know the basic business process or
what our own city laws are, that's a
very disturbing place to be.
>> I realize that the recent court ruling
against the city regarding the
restraining order for lot 10 happened,
but it's my understanding that the city
is still in litigation
on the lot issue itself. What we just
witnessed, if I understand it, was the
city council wanting to pass a
resolution while the city is still in
litigation. I realize there are certain
people on the council who do just want
to give Nick Simpson, Brad Gillis, and
all their friends our tax money. I
understand that's your prerogative, but
it seems that it doesn't really make a
lot of logical sense to push a
resolution when litigation is still
happening. It it's it actually
delegitimizes this body further. Closed
work session. Um, and I want to address
that and also the closed work session
that's set for the later in the evening.
Both of these have to do with lawsuits
involving the city parking lots that
have been sold uh for development. Uh
the one at 5:30 happens to be uh the
three big lots 111 and 15. Um and uh I
want to say this uh Mr. Shield tried to
keep this in an open session. Um didn't
go anywhere on that unfortunately.
Uh why is the council continuing to h
hand handle these things in secrecy? Uh
you you didn't convene that closed
session to confer with council. Uh there
is plenty of public information that's
out there. It's your job as the council
to be transparent about issues that
affect us, including our tax money. Um,
I realize there are always fears about
if some developers will scold you behind
the scenes, but you should work for the
people, not just for certain
corporations. And so on that note, I
implore you to rethink in the future
going into close session when you don't
legally have to. It's a bad look. It
leaves the public with much much um
concern and frankly a lot of distrust.
So please do better on that.
>> And then they're advising the public in
their position that they should trust
me. I know what's best. And this again
goes back to the we're now discussing
feelings. How could you be against
affordable housing? And it's like I'm
not against affordable housing. Nobody's
against affordable housing, but this
isn't how you do it.
>> Yeah.
>> The process like it's
>> it's also never affordable.
>> People are often debating the why
instead of how.
>> Yeah. Well, I want to I want to bring
Trish Melvin back in because I want to
get a more perspective on her feelings
that that she from that protest. She she
attended the protest and then she was at
the city council meeting for for the
first part. So,
>> all right. Thank you, Michael.
>> Thank you very much.
>> So, stay with us. When we come back come
back, we're going to bring in Trish
Melvin and talk about the protests from
last Monday night. Stay with us. We'll
be right back.
>> Welcome back to Open Agenda. It's Trish
Melvin. Thanks for coming back in
>> being here.
>> Dr. Vosa, thanks for sticking around.
>> Always. So, we it was great to get a
chance to talk with Michael about the
specifics of what what was accomplished
on the agenda and uh but then let's talk
about what's not accomplished. Uh
there's still just no transparency and
and Joe, you brought it up.
>> Yeah.
>> How does a group of elected officials
still know less about what's going on
than what folks like Trish has drummed
up? Right. It it is embarrassing and
it's no disrespect to you, but it's
embarrassing that you as a private
citizen
>> can
do such a great job in not only doing
the research, but in explaining it in a
clear factual way in terms of not just
one ICE agreement, but you know, the the
different possibilities and elected
officials, regardless of where they
stand politically, don't seem to be able
or willing to do that.
>> I mean, Trish had done the you did the
math at the county council meeting. you
knew how many hours the sheriff's
officers could work of overtime that
would be uh compensated by the by ICE
back to the county taxpayers. These are
the conversations we should be having. I
mean, the county executive has come out
and said that we have aou. Now she said
we don't. Now she's saying we're going
to have a work session. It's not on the
agenda as of now for the county council
meeting on October 2nd, but it's likely
to be. I should be people be ready to
show up at that meeting?
>> I think so. I mean, there's a lot of uh
I think there's a huge economic impact
to the shore from this loss of immigrant
workers. I mean, you're talking about
hospitality. You're talking about
construction.
>> It's harvest season, too,
>> and agriculture for sure. And
>> you you asked a good question off camera
earlier, and it it got my brain
thinking. You're like, do do people just
think that everyone with an accent is is
illegal? You you hate that term. I know.
Yeah.
>> But I mean, we're not just talking about
people who shouldn't be here, who are
scared. We're talking about people who
>> who are supposed to be here. They're
they're legal. They might be different
statuses. Right.
>> Right. And and that's why I I nothing is
going to change in the near term uh as
far as ICE federally. Sure. Uh, in the
meantime, I would like to see people use
words like undocumented instead of
illegal and criminal because you're
talking about people who, in the case of
Haiti, people who have a protected
status, you're talking about people who
went to work in the morning in health
care or in construction and over the
course of the day some paperwork got
signed up the road that made them
undocumented.
>> Yeah. Cuz because they were here
legally. They're here leak under
temporary protect which is a status that
is linked to the ability to drive
through motor vehicles, the ability to
work through social security. Um
>> and and you were saying that even for a
benefit that they'll probably never
receive.
>> Yes. When you sign up for TPS, you
acknowledge that I'm going to pay into
Social Security, Medicare, state and
local taxes, although I may never
receive these benefits. That's part of
the deal.
>> Yep. And and so it's it's interesting to
me that when people at least are trying
to explain as several people did last
night saying listen I'm a citizen I've
been here 30 years but I want you to
understand when these kind when not only
when the rhetoric is used but when these
policies are in in initiated it really
creates the belief in our community that
nobody is safe because we look wrong and
that's one thing that I think whether
you're on the light left or anywhere in
between people really need to listen to
that particular concern because the
citizens are saying, "Listen, we don't
know what's going on, but this is what
we're hearing, and we're scared." And if
you're the public official, whether
you're Julie Gerdano or Michelle Gregory
or anywhere in between that spectrum,
um, you have a duty to the citizens to a
>> confirmation in a detailed manner and
know it yourself. Well, thank you both.
Appreciate you coming out. Thanks for
watching this episode of Open Agenda.
We'll be back later this week with
another new episode.
We oppose Julie G or We Julie G oro.
S2 E50: ICE DRAMA & POLITICAL ACTORS AT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
A protest against the County's 287(g) immigration enforcement plan was held this past week at the Government Office Building. The County Executive asserted that a MOU with ICE authorizing the Sheriff's Dept. to serve Federal immigration warrants had been agreed upon. But it has since been revealed that the County hasn't even submitted the application and no MOU presently exists. By withholding vital information from the public and County/City Councils, spreading inaccurate information, and refusing to be transparent, the County Executive is generating unnecessary apprehension and division. Salisbury's Mayor attends City Council meetings to inform the public and take criticism, but the County Executive refuses to face her constituents, choosing instead to leave them uninformed and frustrating their right to have their grievances heard. Likewise, the Salisbury City Council isn't forthcoming with information about proposed ordinances, density increases and developer agreements, etc. Not only is the information frequently unavailable to the public, but City Council members have often demonstrated that they don't even understand the implications of what they're voting on. Discussions that should be held publicly are instead taking place in the secrecy of closed sessions. Consequently, taxpayers are bearing the costs of infrastructure improvements that only benefit developers, zoning changes are adversely impacting existing property owners, and affordable housing goals are not being achieved. Can we trust a government that refuses to be transparent, is unwilling to communicate, and acts to benefit developers and campaign donors at taxpayer expense? Tune in and be informed.
