THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal


Wednesday, October 11, 2006


I'm talking about "Development" on the radio today

Knowing Dace he is going to ask me "What is the Democratic Party's position on 'development'?"

I also know (without checking) that the Democratic party has no real "position" on development. I'm sure if I dig I can find out the in general Democrats think good development is good and bad development is bad.

Some candidates have a positions on development, but I'm not thinking that this is going to be a issue that the party tries force some kind of orthodoxy on everyone.

So, what would a good progressive development platform look like for Democrats? What are the best Democrats saying about development? Why should voters who are concerned with development vote for the the Democrat in any given race?

I'm not telling today, I'm asking. Put your two cents in below and listen to WILM this afternoon to hear me quote your words of wisdom.

Q: "What are the best Democrats saying about development?"

A: It's George Bush's fault!

Q: "Why should voters who are concerned with development vote for the the Democrat in any given race?"

A: Because George Bush did it, not us.

Just trying to help.
Development politics in DE is DIP Central. Unions are for sprawl because it means jobs, which causes some weird cross-party alliances. Never mind the jobs are just a sugar rush that leaves a mess on the landscape and the economy.

Builders seem to be the largest block of political money which skews the politics further.

I guess the progressive position should be to encourage livable, walkable communities near shopping. And to encourage re-use, for example: No more (or extremely limited) commercial building in Northern NCC until the old Merchandise Mart in Edgemoor is fully occupied (is that place still a depressing ghost town? I haven't been there for a while).

It would also be common sense to encourage counties to control their own sprawl via zoning. Northern NCC is already raped, but the rest of the state still has open space. Maybe (just fishing here) there could be some kind of revenue-sharing so counties don't have such an incentive to build, build, build just to keep collecting the fees and property taxes without regard to the open space or livability.
Just take whatever the other guy says and do the opposite.
Let's just say whatever the Sussex County realtor says will be viewed with a great deal of skepticism.
Maybe we could save our family farms by building Halloween-themed attractions on them.
Anon 9:14

Thanks for that. It sums it up pretty well.
Skepticism? I like skepticism.
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home


November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]