Monday, March 22, 2010

Open to Receiving Information

Yesterday I sent an email to Bob Flanagan asking if he’d taken a position on the proposed Doughoregan Manor development. Bob is challenging Courtney Watson for the District 1 council seat and this is arguably the hottest issue in that district right now.

I am interested in seeing how challengers deal with the development issues in the county. It may be tempting for them to play to the anti development activists in order to differentiate themselves from the incumbents. It’s a tricky strategy though, particularly in the case of Doughoregan Manor where some development is inevitable whether it is ultimately this plan or not.

Bob is a seasoned politician. To his credit he replied to my inquiry the same day. Unfortunately, his answer offered no real insight to his thinking. He responded that he hasn’t taken a position on Doughoregan “but I am open to receiving information about the proposal.”

And then there’s that…

8 comments:

PZGURU said...

WB - why do you continue to label anyone who has questions/issues with development as ANTI-DEVELOPMENT?

Isn't it possible that some people want to have managed growth, logical planning and decision-making, HONESTY in the process? Desiring those things in no way equates to being anti-development. 621

Anonymous said...

This has been a hot topic for his community for at least a year and he's open to receiving information? What leadership. He's known he was running for months and should have been reading and attending meetings to get up to speed on a huge issue. Does he even want the job?

Anonymous said...

PZGURU, your response is more reflective of your development bias than WB's. WB did not say Flanagan was anti-development. He simply noted that Flanagan's response was neutral. You interpreted WB's comment as anti-development. Interesting. Of course, then you go on to state your real bias - that a planned approach is ok so long as it is your plan. Any plan that does not conform to your concept of managed growth would, by definition, be a pro-developer plan? Just curious...

Anonymous said...

anon 6:23am, can you even read?

anon 9:10, my questions exactly. Wtf has he been doing? I suspect it's just a convenient lie. He knows every detail but like too many others he's unwilling to oppose the powers. Sorry Flanagan, if you're going to represent people you're going to have to deal. This ball game is changing, so wake up.

Anonymous said...

Having read positions from Flanagan, Jordan, Schrader, and Trent K., I notice none of them take a position on any of the tough issues.

Do any of us know how they really feel about the Downtown bills, Doughoregan, the referendum, etc. The current Council members vote yes or no. When it comes to a vote, being “open to receiving information” and “truly weighing what this development means” offers no insight on how these folks would actually do anything differently from those in the offices they aspire to.

It only shows that they can fence-sit, and offer political slight of hand until after November when they will have to make a decision.

PZGURU said...

Anon 6:23 - Um, go back and read WB's post. He is insinuating that Flanagan is "playing to the anti-development activists".
WB's is the one who constantly labels anyone who has any concerns/objections to any development plan as being anti-development.

What "development bias" do I have? All I expect is that all developers be required to follow the laws; instead of the arbitrary and capricious system that goes on. The Carroll's have a certain amount of development potential BY RIGHT and I see no issue with them developing their land. The Town Center plan, by contrast, is a give-away (ie: they had a certain amount of development rights already, they asked for more, and they got approval based on lies and distortions and political shennanigans).

WB has a habit of drive-by attacks on republicans all while claiming self-righteously to be "neutral".

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:27, Trent K testified in support of the downtown plan so she's been willing to make her position clear (albeit not different than the current County Exec's position).

I don't think Dennis S needs to state a position yet, as he hasn't officially announced and hasn't held any events; I don't think you'll need to wait long for him to take a position on any issues.

While Anthony J didn't testify, he has made his opposition to the downtown plan well known on his website and blogs.

Charles said...

hey why don't you ask Kenny Ulman why he's apposed to commenting on his faulty positions.

WB your works are nothing but cover for the progressive left.