Look more closely at ad­vo­cacy group be­hind re­cent po­lit­i­cal ads

The Calvert Recorder - - Letters To The Editor -

In the Oct. 24 edi­tion of The Calvert Recorder, a full-page ad ap­peared with can­di­date score cards pur­port­edly rat­ing the com­mis­sioner can­di­dates. While the group does in­di­cate that this is a paid ad, they also do not tell you who they are with­out go­ing to their web­site.

This is not a group of non­par­ti­san vot­ers who were brought to­gether. This is a panel from the Keep Calvert Coun­try group. They have their own agenda and they are paint­ing the for­mer com­mis­sion­ers with a large brush try­ing to get a com­plete group of new com­mis­sion­ers in who they hope will vote with them in all things re­gard­ing growth. That is their right, but they should not take one vot­ing is­sue and lump all com­mis­sion­ers with­out look­ing at what was said.

Take the Ar­mory Square project. I am against it and have writ­ten to the pa­per say­ing so.

I also looked at what each com­mis­sioner said. Of the two running for re-election, one of them, Com­mis­sioner Steve Weems (R), voted against the big-box re­tail amend­ment for the site but did vote to au­tho­rize the author­ity to seek a bond to build on a new site. It was not a unan­i­mous vote. They hope you think so.

I am still not sure about whether the cost is ef­fec­tive ver­sus the rent now be­ing spent for the fore­see­able fu­ture, but if we build a county build­ing, there is no place down­town for a large new struc­ture as some of their mem­bers de­mand. There is other ground avail­able, with­out be­ing on Route 4, to look at.

The change of the num­ber of res­i­den­tial build­ings per acre was ap­proved after meet­ings and agree­ment with both farmers and de­vel­op­ers. They would have you be­lieve that the com­mis­sion­ers did it with­out any in­put. The only ones who may have been hurt in that are the deal­ers in trans­fer­able de­vel­op­ment rights, as a few fewer were needed. Growth in Prince Fred­er­ick has been done off Route 4 and, I be­lieve, has not been a cause of con­ges­tion while help­ing to meet the needs of more af­ford­able hous­ing. It is a bal­anc­ing act. Some of the decisions are made due to pres­sures from the state to meet goals that they have set.

I un­der­stand the con­cerns that KCC has for growth. I be­lieve that most in the county do not want to be­come as con­gested as Wal­dorf, in­clud­ing all of peo­ple running for com­mis­sioner. Had the com­mis­sion­ers adopted the com­plete agenda of KCC in the 1970s, how many of you would be here to­day?

I called the news­pa­per to see what the cost of a full-page ad is for po­lit­i­cal pur­poses. It is a bit over $1,300.

I have seen two KCC ads now and I would not be sur­prised to see more.

For a non­par­ti­san or­ga­ni­za­tion with a fairly small mem­ber­ship, that is not chicken feed. KCC is a vo­cal or­ga­ni­za­tion who is fight­ing for its agenda.

I agree with some of their plat­form and dis­agree with part of it. When any group is pur­port­ing to “help” you make a de­ci­sion, it is time to look more closely at who they are.

You are see­ing ads from a 10-per­son panel from a group of a few hun­dred peo­ple try­ing to shape your vote. Rather than fol­low­ing their sug­ges­tions, I think that I will lis­ten and look at the rec­om­men­da­tions made by plat­forms such as this pa­per who have no ax to grind in the election.

Ron Rademacher, Port Repub­lic

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.