peel back effect

Weisner: Reasoning behind Mayor Taylor vetoing the density increase

Posted

In an opinion written by Jared Schablein, recently published in the Salisbury Independent, Mr Schablein accused Mayor Taylor of a conflict of interest by opposing the increase in housing density in downtown Salisbury, and doing so to “appease influential campaign backers”. Since Mr Schablein mentioned my wife and I as one of those donors, I would like to address some of his allegations.

I have known Randy Taylor for over 25 years. When he decided to run for Mayor, we gave him our full support because we felt Salisbury needed a change in direction. The City had sold valuable City owned parking lots for pennies on the dollar, granted millions of dollars in water and sewer fee waivers to big developers under the Here Is Home program and gave million dollar property tax abatements under Horizons to those developers. While it makes sense to offer reasonable incentives to encourage home ownership or affordable housing, none of those incentive programs required they be owner occupied or affordable housing. Which explains why most of these projects are high priced luxury rental apartments.

There is a campaign donation limit of $250 per person for City elections. This cap was designed to prevent undue influence by special interests. This cap accomplishes that goal. $250 doesn’t go far in purchasing advertising, yard signs and related marketing. Of the hundreds of registered landlords in Salisbury, only a handful contributed to his campaign. The further insinuation that the Mayor accepted campaign donations from landlords after taking elected office is simply incorrect.

The reason Mayor Taylor vetoed the proposed density increase in downtown was not due to a desire to “protect his interests and those of his donors” but to protect the viability and functioning of the central business district. Being a rural community without adequate public transit, sufficient public parking is necessary for businesses, the courts and governmental offices to provide the public with access to these facilities. With almost all City surface parking lots having been sold, doubling density when new developments have no obligation to provide any of their own onsite parking will be disastrous for downtown. Having more people live downtown would be positive, but only if there is adequate parking for them as well as for all current users.

As for transparency, the Mayor has made clear why he is opposed to increasing density in downtown - because of the negative effect it will have on the parking situation. The City Council has not been as forthcoming. At this past City Council meeting, the President of the Council did not allow anyone, neither the Mayor nor the public, to speak before voting, 4 to 1, to override the Mayors veto of the density ordinance. And when the council members were asked why they were for or against this ordinance, only Sharon Dashiell gave a reason why she was against overriding the veto. The other four members never uttered a word.

Michael Weisner
Salisbury resident

Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.

Members and subscribers make this story possible.
You can help support non-partisan, community journalism.

x
X