Impressions on Salisbury City Council forum

Tonight I was one of over 100 people who attended the City Council forum at Salisbury University. It was a nicely packed house, and the crowd listened intently as the six survivors of the February 27th primary answered six questions dealing with various topics. Candidates were asked for answers on what they considered their number one issue, plus pay parity for our police, ways to increase home ownership in Salisbury, relations between the city and the university, their views on TIF’s, and how they felt about the perception that the candidates were being split from a “six-pack” into two “three-packs” based on their views.

In this case, I don’t really have much of a say in the outcome because I can’t vote for any of them – however, I still can work on their campaigns and/or donate money to their cause. How I approached recording my view of the event was to pick out one or two points from each answer (where I could); also, I rated the answer on a scale from 1-10 based on both their presentation and how I felt about the issue.

I also had the bonus, if you will, of sitting next to current Councilperson Shanie Shields and getting her reaction to some of the answers. (She came in just before the start and took the seat next to me, so she could see I was writing notes.) Now one may say that putting my impressions of her reactions to answers here is dirty pool, but she made her opinion known by wearing a sticker advocating the reelection of Gary Comegys – so I feel that gauging her reactions is fair game. Moreover, if Shields reads my blog she’s certainly invited to respond as she feels fit.

I’ll go in alphabetical order, which means I begin with John Atkins. In his opening statement, he stressed his “public service” and desire to participate in the city where he lives. His adage of “if you’re not growing, you’re dying” led into an answer about managing revenues. But he also pointed out that for the police, it wasn’t all about salary, it was also about a good working environment.

I liked his advocacy of the Habitat for Humanity program as part of the solution to home ownership because that’s a private entity, not just another government program. He added that problems between the city and university were “solvable” and there should be a partnership between the two in doing so.

In answering the TIF question, John said that the city government needs to be involved with developers. (I like the idea of involvement but I’m not so keen on the handing out of big money incentives – so now you know how I feel about the issue.) He also thought that all six candidates get along well, and though they disagree on the methods of doing so, they all wanted to make Salisbury a better city.

Next comes Terry Cohen. Cohen opened her remarks by pointing to her experience in legislative affairs. But her pet issue is having Salisbury be more business-friendly and work on quality of life issues rather than big incentives to draw business. (I could hear Shanie sigh on that; meanwhile I looked over to see Debbie Campbell nodding.) Terry wanted to use money freed up by impact fees to help with police salaries, and made a very valid point regarding home ownership that current zoning laws also need to be enforced in order to help that process along.

In answering the town and gown question, Cohen noted that we need to get away from the “us vs. them” mentality. Terry also quoted a developer regarding the question on TIF’s, noting that the developer said in a hearing, “without the TIF, we’d have to charge more for the housing.”

What I found most interesting in both reaction and statement was Cohen’s answer to the “3-pack” question. Cohen stated a need to work together, and while Shields was heard to mumble, “yeah right”, Terry also blasted the tone of Gary Comegys’ opening statement. She closed by vowing to “put citizens first” and work to improve the quality of life for city residents.

As I’ve alluded to, incumbent Gary Comegys came out swinging from the get-go, telling the assembled that his “record speaks for itself” and that this election was a choice between a City Council that would find fault or a City Council that would find solutions. Intriguingly to me, his number one issue was keeping Salisbury as the “hub of Delmarva.”

I tried to find an answer to the question on police salaries, but nothing in his statements must have leaped out at me. However it did register when he pointed with pride at the city’s program to turn rentals back into owner-occupied homes, with 31 restored since he came on board to City Council. He also termed relations between the city and SU as “successful”, noting that SU funded a ladder truck for the city’s fire department to the tune of $200,000.

As would be expected, he defended the city’s TIF for the old mall, saying that the mall property was now underutilized and the TIF “commendable” as a solution. Gary continued defending his record in the “3-pack” question, hammering home his view that the candidates “need to be truthful” about the issues and look forward instead of assigning blame. He presented the choice again in his closing statement, terming it “conflict vs. consensus”. Of course, when he said as part of his close that the city also needs to “celebrate diversity” that lost me right there. His overall theme was to “vote for our future.”

Don Ewalt “believe(s) in Salisbury.” His number one issue was affordable housing. (Shields agreed with his assessment.) Don also wanted to make police salaries “competitive” and look for funding to that end without resorting to a tax increase.

On the question of home ownership, Ewalt pointed to the program brought up by Gary Comegys that already exists in Salisbury. Also, he thought also that the city should help SU as much as possible. The statement I question personally was where he “(doesn’t) see where the TIF (for the old mall) would hurt us.” That focus on the mall carried into his answer on the “3-pack” question as well.

But I did like one idea Don brought up in his closing statement. He thought that the city needed to work better with the County Council, and on that I agree.

Louise Smith really hammered on her message, almost to a point where she didn’t answer a couple questions. The themes of accountability and integrity carried over throughout her answers, although she also touched on the crime and neighborhood issues in her opening statement. When she brought up the wastewater treatment plant fine in her answer to the number one issue question, there was a chuckle from my neighbor Shanie. Louise also advocated restraint and prioritization when answering the question on police salaries.

She disappointed me a little on her next three answers. I know the need for affordable housing in Salisbury is “extreme” and that personal incomes need to cover cost. I also hope it’s not necessary to “open a dialogue” between the city and university when they cooperate in some matters already. And it’s unfortunate that she didn’t have a little more time to expand on the matter of a TIF given in 1998 for a strip mall vs. the 2006-07 TIF for the old mall, but she only had a minute to answer – it needed to be more brief.

Smith distanced herself from the “three-pack” controversy, saying that her “message is my partner” and that she was “her own person.” Driving home her main theme one more time in her close, Louise said that the city needs to be more responsible with its tax dollars.

Now I know Louise a little bit because she’s one of my predecessors on the Central Committee. Obviously she feels accountability is paramount, and with her background and experience I’ve no doubt she’d be quite an asset to City Council. But she does need to expand her range a bit now that the primary’s done, she’s in danger of becoming a one-note samba.

Finally, there’s Tim Spies. Tim touched on many good points throughout the forum, beginning with a powerful opening statement where he said he’d “never let people down.” He also struck a chord with me when he opined his number one issue as being growth – but more specifically, jobs for the housing we’re getting. Salisbury needs to “improve its business outlook” with commercial and industrial development helping to increase police salaries; after all restraint “only works so far.” Spies also wanted to curtail the changeover to rental housing (which drew an audible sigh from Shanie Shields).

Probably Spies’ worst answer was to the “town and gown” question, where he just wanted the relationship to continue onward and upward. He recovered quite well on his TIF answer, noting they were great for commercial development but in our case a “thinly veiled subsidy” for the developer. Tim also poorly worked around the dual three-pack question, instead saying that the city needed to work toward increasing the job base and the the Wicomico River was an “undiscovered treasure.” Spies closed by pushing for cooperation between the various elements in local government – legislative with executive, city and county, university and city.

As I stated at the beginning, I rated answers from 1 to 10 based on how they were presented and how I felt about the issue. It’s tough to do a tabular form with this format, so these lists will be a bit jumbled.

Opening statement: Atkins 4, Cohen 5, Comegys 7, Ewalt 6, Smith 5, Spies 6. While Gary Comegys was negative, it was a powerful opening that left an impression.

#1 issue: Atkins 4, Cohen 5, Comegys 6, Ewalt 5, Smith 4, Spies 6. Actually, my number one issue is crime and I think many of the other issues depend on taking care of public safety first. So no one really scored well.

Money for police: Atkins 6, Cohen 4, Comegys 2, Ewalt 3, Smith 4, Spies 8. I liked Tim’s approach to the issue best because it addresses another big issue; Comegys didn’t really answer the question and Ewalt wasn’t as specific as I’d like.

Home ownership: Atkins 8, Cohen 6, Comegys 6, Ewalt 6, Smith 3, Spies 6. Atkins cited the Habitat for Humanity example I spoke of above and Louise Smith restated the problem without really providing an idea for a solution.

City and SU relations: Atkins 5, Cohen 6, Comegys 5, Ewalt 4, Smith 5, Spies 5. It’s not a big issue to me – in fact, it mostly falls to SU students who act with immaturity. If they acted properly this would be a complete non-issue. I can excuse the folly of youth (I was a wild partying college student at times too, as evidenced by my GPA) but some things just go beyond the pale.

TIF’s: Atkins 3, Cohen 7, Comegys 1, Ewalt 1, Smith 3, Spies 9. Spies hit this one out of the park, and I’m sorry Don, but losing big-time revenue over several years will hurt the city. Gary Comegys correctly called the mall underutilized but fails to recognize that a good developer wouldn’t need city funds to tear it down.

2 – 3 packs: Atkins 7, Cohen 10, Comegys 2, Ewalt 1, Smith 5, Spies 1. This rates with the blog question in the WMDT debate and was sparked by the blogs in some ways. I liked Terry’s answer both for the reaction it elicited from Shanie Shields and the smackdown it gave Gary Comegys’ opening. While the Comegys opening statement was powerful, it was also divisive and turned out to clash with his closing statement where he called for conensus instead of conflict.

Closing: Atkins 4, Cohen 6, Comegys 1, Ewalt 7, Smith 5, Spies 6. The reason I thought Ewalt’s close was best was because of the idea that the city needs cooperation from Wicomico County as well – after all, city residents are county residents too. This isn’t Baltimore. And as stated above, Comegys spoke about “consensus vs. conflict” but will have to get along with at least two new members of City Council if he’s re-elected, and it’s highly doubtful they’ll agree on everything.

Total scores (in rank order): Cohen 49, Spies 47, Atkins 41, Smith 34, Ewalt 33, Comegys 30. In my humble opinion, two of the three primary leaders helped their cause tonight while Louise Smith didn’t hurt herself enough to drop down. Louise has a great core issue, but she needs to broaden it now and talk about what she’ll try to accomplish once the accountability has been achieved. John Atkins helped his cause, but it’s a question of whether he did enough to knock out two people in front of him.

But it was a good night for the voters of Salisbury. I liked most of the questions, and I did get an opportunity to talk some with both Cohen and Spies afterward. In addition, it was a local bloggers’ get-together as Joe Albero was snapping pictures and Cato from Delmarva Dealings came out near the end. And I got the chance to meet Debbie Campbell and her family, which was a pleasure.

There will be another pair of forums scheduled for March 19th and 20th. I may be able to make the one on the 19th and comment on it (the 20th is definitely out.) Also another WMDT forum is in the works and something tells me that Bill Reddish and John Robinson may be featuring some or all of the candidates on their respective radio shows.

I did submit one question that wasn’t used but I wanted to bring up as a closing. To paraphrase it, with 6,000 new housing units in the works locally, what steps can the city take to attract the good-paying jobs we need to fill all these houses? Retirees aren’t going to buy them all. So hopefully the debatees (or other interested folks) will read my question and answer it.