|
Smith has
said he plans to introduce legislation into the General Assembly that would give
an elected and unpaid five-member board authority to regulate
land use, and nothing more, in the town. He has referred to that
as "partial incorporation," significantly different from full
municipal status afforded the cities of Wilmington and Newark
and towns like Elsmere and Newport.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Delaforum was in
error when it reported that the legislation had been introduced.
As reported in a previous article, Smith agreed not to introduce
it before the community had an opportunity to discuss it.
He told a meeting of the Claymont
Community Coalition on July 17 that he has no strong personal
feelings one way or the other, but drafted the measure at the
behest of many constituents who
|
raised the
issue with him. "My interest is [in] trying to do what the
people of Claymont want," he said.
Similar legislation which he
sponsored three years ago died without being voted up or down.
The issue, however, is much older than that. Various speakers at
the meeting said it has been cropping up from time to time for
as long as 30 years. While he said he has not yet formed an
opinion on the issue, coalition president George Lossé said,
"It's time to bring [the issue] to a head and see what the
people do want."
Smith suggested the
way to handle that would be to form a taskforce to hold several
public hearings leading up to a what would be, in effect, a
binding referendum. He said the urban affairs college at the
University of Delaware already has agreed to provide technical
support to such a taskforce.
He did not offer a
timetable for following that process. The Assembly is in recess
until January. Smith indicated that he
|
 |
|
State representative
Wayne Smith addresses the Claymont Community Coalition. |
would not press for a quick vote when
and if the measure goes before the legislature.. As leader of
the Republican majority in the House, Smith has considerable
influence over when proposed legislation comes before the full
body.
As happened when the matter came up
before the coalition a month earlier, there was no support for
the idea voiced at this meeting. The audience of about 50 people
asked questions and offered some comments bespeaking opposition.
Smith was unable to attend the June meeting because his presence
was required in Dover, where the legislature was in the process
of wrapping up its session.
Bill Lindewirth, legislative aide to
state Senator Harris McDowell, said the idea "has a lot of
negatives" and cited Elsmere as "a good example" of what happens
when a small town takes on major responsibilities. His reference
was to the necessity of evacuating an apartment building there
last winter when extensive amounts of dangerous mold were
discovered. McDowell, whose district also includes a portion of
Claymont, is majority leader in the Senate, where the Democrats
have the majority.
More outspoken in opposition to
Smith's proposal was County Councilman Robert Weiner who said
New Castle County government, under the present Gordon
administration, has been responsive to local needs. With
specific reference to Claymont, he said that further moves are
in preparation to accommodate the "unique village-like
qualities" of such unincorporated communities with established
identities.
"You don't have to have another layer
of government. ... We can do all these things with the {Unified
Development] Code without adding another layer of government,"
he said.
Smith said that decision-making by
officials with no particular affinity to the local area often
ignores local needs. "It's a large county. ... Incorporation is
a way to give you control," he said. He cited the increase in
the amount of rental housing in Claymont to more than 50%,
compared to around 30% about 20 years ago, as an example of the
consequences of lack of control.
Weiner, in his later presentation,
said that current county government "has tried to make up for
all the mistakes of the past."
Smith's proposed legislation would
provide for the county Department of Land Use to back up the
Claymont land-use board with technical and professional support.
The legislator also said he sees no reason why the community's
having a "limited-purpose charter" would cause county government
to back off from its support of the Claymont Renaissance
movement or other involvement with the community. "There [would
be] nothing in there that would endanger what has been done or
what will be done," he said.
Smith also said there would be
minimal, if any, additional tax-supported expense and that, once
established, "there would be no way it (limited local
government) could grow by itself."
|
