Since the beginning of Delaware Right there has been an open invitation to anyone with an opinion, a concern, an axe to grind, even those who wish to give it a whirl in the world of Blogging in Delaware what we call, ‘The Top of the Page’, since there is always room there. Friends and Foes alike are told daily where there is always room. Few have taken us up on the offer, so going into the 2016 Election, we again extend the offer, under the title “TOP OF THE PAGE”.
So, here we go. We hope the conversation is civil and constructive and we at DelawareRight.com , Delaware Right on Facebook and @DelawareRight on Twitter, enjoy our Democracy at work.
Submitted Article by Bob Mitchell
The Difference Between What is Legal and What is Right
$392,162 Reasons to Replace Dave Wilson
“Ethics is knowing the difference between
what you have a right to do and
what IS right to do.”
(photo submitted with article by Bob Mitchell)
I recently posted that quote from Potter Stewart (Former Supreme Court Justice) to which I added “Integrity is then choosing to do what is right. Leadership is holding others accountable to do the same.” Sadly, I think these three qualities are not as evident as they should be in politics today.
As most of the readers here probably already know, I am running as a Republican for State Representative for the 35th District. In doing so, I am challenging the current Representative, Dave Wilson, who has been in this position for 8 years and who I have voted for every time. My reasons for deciding to run were my concerns with the financial decisions that were/are being made in Dover. We are $2Billion in debt and we spend $200Million dollars more than we take in each year. This is unsustainable, and I was extremely disappointed in my opponent’s voting record over the previous 3 years where he supported all three annual spending bills. I’ve been in banking/finance/mortgage banking since I was 19 years old. I know what budgets are and I know that this type of “budgeting” is a sham.
As a Republican, I also disagreed with Dave’s public endorsement of a Democrat over the Republican Primary Winner for the Register of Wills in the last election cycle. I believe he allowed his personal issues with the current Register of Wills to cloud his judgement and harm his party then and even more recently by co-sponsoring a bill with to eliminate the position entirely. Those were, and still are, my reasons for entering the race.
About 3 weeks ago I was reviewing the Farmland Preservation program to make sure that I had a complete understanding of the program. This is the ONE program that my opponent has been extremely vocal about – especially when it comes to maintaining funding for it. He even went so far as to propose a Bill this year (HB124 – which did not pass) that would Amend our State Constitution to require full funding to the program ($10 Million) every single year – so I know that this program is of utmost importance to him and I wanted to ensure that I fully understood it.
As I was reviewing the 2013 list of people who received monies from this program, the last two entries jumped off the page at me and I could not believe my eyes. Dave Wilson (along with his wife on one parcel and two other people on the other parcel) were among those who received money from the program. He received $392,162.24 in Taxpayer’s money from this program!! He put two of his parcels of land into the program in 2013 and (with the others mentioned) received almost $400,000 for it!
I could not believe my eyes!! A sitting Legislator receiving taxpayer’s money from a program that he vehemently supports and defends AND is funded by the Bond Bill which he VOTED FOR?! Really?? $392,162 dollars from his “pet” program?!?! That’s A LOT of money to me. Is this not a clear example of a conflict of interest?? Who approved this?? Did other members of the House know?? Is this a violation of our State Constitution and therefore his oath of office??
Article 2, Section 20 of the Delaware State Constitution states: “Any member of the General Assembly who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill pending in the General Assembly shall disclose the fact to the House of which he or she is a member and shall not vote thereon.”
So I asked a couple of people “in the loop” if this was disclosed to the House of Representatives as required by Article 2, Section 20. To my amazement (insert sarcasm font here) it was impossible to get a straight answer! I was told that the “interpretation of ‘2-20’ (the above article of our Constitution) is an often debated topic…” I was asked, “So would that mean if a legislator’s child goes to public school that they shouldn’t vote on a bill that involves public schools?” and I was told, “You know we have House attorneys that we run this stuff by for their input…” and other comments that seemed, for the most part, to insinuate that this whole situation is no big deal… at least in Dover it isn’t…
How did I react? To be honest – I was furious… and actually, I still am…
You see, to me (and to the “normal” people I have spoken to) – there is a HUGE difference between voting on a school bill when your child is a student and voting on the Bond Bill to fund the program that is putting almost $400,000 into your own pocket… Maybe it’s just me, but there seems to be a complete disconnect between those who are “in the loop” and those of us who are out here just going to work every day trusting that our elected officials are going to Legislative Hall in Dover and looking out for the best interests of our State…
I told more than one of these “in the loop” people, “The reason this situation doesn’t “smell bad” to you is because you have been working at the ‘sewer plant’ for so long that your sense of smell is severely compromised!” I don’t think I’ll be invited to that person’s house for dinner any time soon… oh well… Please understand – I didn’t get into this race to make friends nor did I get in it to make enemies, but if speaking the Truth makes people one or the other, then so be it.
At the end of the day, it seemed obvious to me that no one wanted to get their hands dirty on this at all. One politician I questioned told me in a condescending tone that I was “obviously a novice at this” (I took that as: Best. Compliment. Ever. !!), and when I asked if I was understanding the transactions correctly, they said, “I’m not going to do your homework for you…” And that’s why I told this person, “This is exactly why Trump is so popular. Because people are sick and tired of this kind of stuff from our elected officials – “Establishment Politics” on BOTH sides of the aisle is what allows this stuff (ok, maybe I didn’t say ‘stuff’…) to go on – and it’s always the Taxpayer who ends up footing the bill…” (I think that comment pretty much assured my absence at their next Christmas Party…) There were other things said that I won’t reveal here, but suffice it to say, “Politics” is alive and well in Dover…
The Farmland Preservation program has its pros and cons. While I support the mission of the program, I see some obvious flaws in the implementation of it. I think preserving farmland is important. But I also see it as taking money from a large group of people (taxpayers) and giving it to a small group of people who, in return for this money, agree to keep their property for agricultural use – which is what they were using it for anyway. That sounds a lot like “wealth re-distribution” to me… and that certainly is not a Republican Party value. It also costs over a Half-Million Dollars per year just to administer the program! In fact over the last 3 years $600,000 has been spent just on appraisals! I am not anti-preservation, I am just concerned that our money is spent wisely and that we get our monies worth.
Finally, at the very least, I think if you are a sitting legislator, you should not be allowed to participate in the program. And that would be a piece of legislation that I would immediately sponsor. You see, that’s just common sense to me… it’s knowing the difference between what may be Legally right to do, and what IS right to do…
Here are the links to the public records and other sites where my info came from:
http://dda.delaware.gov/aglands/downloads/Round18_Selections_2013.pdf
Well I see Chicken Bob has deemed us worthy of his message, even though he has, in the past, belittled this site.
Bob had the opportunity to come here and make a case for why he feels he is better suited to be the Representative of the 35th District, rather than Rep. Dave Wilson. He could have pointed to legislation that he felt was detrimental to the District and the state. He could have done all of these things without pointing out the real reason he is running, the reason I have addressed here many times, and which Chicken Bob has denied, even though others were present when he stated it clearly, and he has called me a liar for publishing his own words.
So why, in an article, which he pretends is about Farmland Preservation, did he feel the need to once again point out the Register of Wills Race?
Because that is the real reason he is running and why the Greenwood MOB put him up to it.
Notice he was only able to hold off until the third paragraph before he said,
“As a Republican, I also disagreed with Dave’s public endorsement of a Democrat over the Republican Primary Winner for the Register of Wills in the last election cycle. I believe he allowed his personal issues with the current Register of Wills to cloud his judgement and harm his party then and even more recently by co-sponsoring a bill with to eliminate the position entirely. Those were, and still are, my reasons for entering the race.”
He could have stopped there, since that is what this was about. So who’s the liar now Chicken Bob? You addressed this in your post prior to any other issue you have with Dave Wilson, making it number one. Case closed.
But let us look at the rest of this post, because it is worth a laugh.
It seems as though Chicken Bob wants us to believe because Dave Wilson feels strongly about Farmland Preservation, and has as a legislator fought for its funding, that Dave Wilson should be banned from taking part in the program.
Chicken Bob said, “He even went so far as to propose a Bill this year (HB124 – which did not pass) that would Amend our State Constitution to require full funding to the program ($10 Million) every single year”.
That’s right Bob, Dave Wilson attempted to hold other legislators to their word. Farmland Preservation was supposed to receive that $10 million every year, but the Democrats in charge used the money elsewhere, maybe to fund the needle program, or abortions. Dave was drawing attention to the fact government had broken its promise. You see the Democrats wouldn’t just do away with FP, because then they would lose the ability to move the money around. Dave was attempting to protect the money for its intended purpose.
Chicken Bob then points out that Dave Wilson and family members participated in the program in 2013, Bob says, ” He received $392,162.24 in Taxpayer’s money from this program!! “.
Well first of all Bob, in case you don’t know this, Dave Wilson is a tax payer too. He paid taxes just like every other farmer who participates in the program.
Chicken Bob tries to make the connection that because Dave Wilson votes for the Bond Bill, and then received money from FP, he has broken the constitutional Article II sec. 20, which says, ““Any member of the General Assembly who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill pending in the General Assembly shall disclose the fact to the House of which he or she is a member and shall not vote thereon.”
Well poor old Chicken Bob is really reaching now. First of all, Bob admits he was unable to find anyone who would sustain his argument. Second, the reading of, “personal or private interest”, would mean if the legislator would directly profit from the bill.
Since FP has been around long before Dave Wilson became a representative I believe, he did not vote to put the program into place. And since the Bond Bill is an omnibus package, he is not voting for a single bill. If we held all our legislators to this idea, they would all have to recant themselves from voting on the Bond Bill since they all have business interest throughout the state.
But little minds think little don’t they Bob?
Or maybe a legislator should recant because the Bond Bill repairs roads, and they have a pot hole at the and of their driveway, but of course Chicken Bob sees that differently, I’m sure.
Chicken Bob Mitchell is attempting to cast a shadow of doubt on the integrity of one of the most liked and respected Legislators in Dover, and he is showing his desperation in reaching this far to do so.
This may be the funniest part of all, watch Bob twist and turn,
“The Farmland Preservation program has its pros and cons. While I support the mission of the program, I see some obvious flaws in the implementation of it. I think preserving farmland is important. But I also see it as taking money from a large group of people (taxpayers) and giving it to a small group of people who, in return for this money, agree to keep their property for agricultural use – which is what they were using it for anyway. That sounds a lot like “wealth re-distribution” to me…”
“While I support the mission of the program “, “That sounds a lot like “wealth re-distribution” to me”.
So Chicken Bob supports wealth redistribution.
And by the way Bob, the people who receive that money? Well you might want to get out and check the district you are running for and see what they think.
And the program doesn’t pay the farmer to keep farming, it pays them not to sell to developers. You might want to check with the patriarch of the Greenwood MOB, Sam Wilson (no relation to Dave Wilson), since he told me, after his no vote on the Overbrook Town Center, that he would have rather the land go into Farmland Preservation. Maybe you should be supporting Lisa Hudson-Briggs against Sam Wilson.
Chicken Bob closes with this, “Finally, at the very least, I think if you are a sitting legislator, you should not be allowed to participate in the program.”
Really? So should Legislators be able to drive on roads? Should their children be able to go to schools? Should they be able to receive care from volunteer fire companies? Should they be able gamble at the casinos?
I guess Chicken Bob will live the life of a monk if he were actually able to win the primary and the general. No worries there.
Let me be perfectly clear, I would do away with FP completely, because I think any farmer who takes the money is making a poor decision. They sell their rights, and continue to pay taxes on the land, and handcuff their children in the future. Bob could have made that argument, but that wouldn’t serve his purpose.
I’ll close with Chicken Bob’s own words, because this is where Bob lives and dies, and the hypocrisy is blatant.
“As a Republican, I also disagreed with Dave’s public endorsement of a Democrat over the Republican Primary Winner for the Register of Wills in the last election cycle. I believe he allowed his personal issues with the current Register of Wills to cloud his judgement and harm his party then and even more recently by co-sponsoring a bill with to eliminate the position entirely. Those were, and still are, my reasons for entering the race.”
Mr. Mitchell,
Time and time again you display your zeal to “expose” Rep. Wilson, while showing your ignorance about the topics you are discussing.
For starters I would encourage you to perhaps become involved in ANYTHING before jumping for a State Rep. seat. I truly believe you are good spirited, but incredibly naive. Perhaps volunteerism, a Town Council seat, County Council, School Board, etc…
Initially it was posts about Rep. Wilson’s voting record, where you displayed your inability to perceive how voting against an entire budget would affect critical programs needed in this State. For now, you seem to have abandoned this in an effort now criticize a Delaware landowner that sold property easements. Your claim is to be a numbers man, so let’s look one set of numbers.
Delaware: 120,000 acres of property easements purchased
Percentage easements purchased from Rep. Wilson 00.15%
You also seem to fail to understand the disconnect between the farmland preservation program and the State of Delaware. Members of the General Assembly do not vote on the easements of parcels of land that are purchased. This is done by a completely separate Agriculture Land Preservation Foundation. Are you not only claiming corruption of a sitting Representative, but the entire membership of the Ag Land Preservation Foundation? I am sure they would also be interested in your wild accusations.
Furthermore, easements that are purchased, are typically properties that have VOLANTARILY given up their development rights for 10 or more years. Now we are back in the 2003-time frame, years before “Rep. Wilson”.
I do not agree with many practices that involve voting to benefit yourself, such as legislator raises; but your post once again shows lack of understanding of an important program in this State. ANY landowner that has been in the process of Ag Preservation deserves the right to sell their development rights to ALPF. I applaud Rep. Wilson for actually stripping the value of his land, and selling the easement. While you claim this transaction has benefitted the Representative, you have completely dismissed the value that the AGPF and the residents of this State have received.
As compared to a number of legislators who seek wealth and power out of a trip to Dover, I think Dave Wilson gives/has given more to the community than he has received from his political career. On the surface it may seem Dave Wilson is using his position to raid the public coffers but the reality is that the aprox. $400,00 is a fraction of what farmland is worth to developers. I’m sure many a developer has spent a great deal more than that to have help getting land rezoned. Competition is good, primaries are good, I’m glad to see challengers and choices in any race so let the process continue.
Frank –
1. I laid out the reasons why I chose to run in their order of importance. I could have avoided mentioning the Register of Wills issue since I knew you would go off on one of your tirades about it, but I didn’t because its what I have said since day 1 and my story doesn’t change just because I think someone may disagree with me.
2. I stated my case. There is a difference between driving on public roads that you voted for and pocketing almost $400,000 from a program that you voted for. If you don’t see (or refuse to see) the difference, then that’s up to you.
3. The “mission” of the program is preservation. I understand and appreciate having open farm space in our county and State. I appreciate and support the “mission” – I just question if this is the best way to accomplish that mission.
4. I actually have spoken to many people in my district about the program – yes, even farmers. The majority that I have spoken with feel the same way that I do about the program – and the same way I do about Dave’s taking money from it while being a legislator.
5. I think you went a little soft on your opinion of the Farmland Preservation Program above.
Your exact words the other night were “I think any farmer who take(s) advantage of it is a fool.” Those are your words, Frank – not mine. So based on your statement a week or so ago on Facebook, you fully support someone who you think is a “fool” for your Representative. Again – those were your words – not mine (I can send you the screenshot if you need reminding).
6. Lastly – You resort to name calling, false accusations, and childish photo-shopped pictures to continuously berate me and those who support me. That’s why I rarely respond to you – and why your previous rants about me have little to no responses.
I post real and relevant information and you refuse to look at it objectively. You’ve already made up your mind and don’t want your decision to be clouded with facts. That’s actually sad.
Fortunately, I have found that most people in the 35th are much less close-minded and actually are interested in facts like this and they seem to have no problem identifying the conflict of interest with this situation.
A list of the people Mr. Mitchell is accusing of corruption.
http://dda.delaware.gov/aglands/lndpres_contacts.shtml
Steve –
I appreciate your comments. However, before I posted anything about this issue, I did do my homework. I did look at the program thoroughly. Yes – there is an initial voluntary easement given by the landholder before they can apply for the program. But then there is an actual application made and submitted for it. I am not insinuating that Dave did anything illegal or that there was ANY corruption by the preservation board. I am simply saying that when you are elected to public office, you have been given a “public trust” and when it comes to benefiting from programs like this, I think you should be excluded. Now, you may disagree with me and make that case. But at the very least, knowing that he had an application pending with the Preservation board, he should have notified his House leadership and recused himself from voting on the bill that funded it – at least that is my opinion. And while I have no problem with someone putting their land in preservation if they choose to do that, I cannot applaud the decision to do it while he was in his elected office.
Funny. All of you seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room…
Article 2, Section 20 of the Delaware State Constitution states: “Any member of the General Assembly who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill pending in the General Assembly shall disclose the fact to the House of which he or she is a member and shall not vote thereon.”
Must be Clinton supporters.
Can a sitting Legislator visit a Library, Cheer Center, attend University of Delaware, Del Tech, vist a Fire Hall, live in a Town receiving State funding, have children attend public school, etc…..?
You can’t just throw around accusations.
Whoever “……” is, show me where I accused anyone on the board of anything. They processed an application. My sole contention is that the application should not have been made while one is an elected official.
Steve – I have a lot of respect for you – I really do. But I don’t think comparing checking out a library book or having your child attend public school is even remotely comparable to receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from a program that you are the most obvious supporter of… Once again – My Opinion – it was his legal right to do, but it was not the right thing to do…
Kurt J –
That had always been my opinion as well. And I don’t think that Dave “raided the public coffers” by any illegal means at all. I just think that 1. He should not have made application for the program. and 2. If he decided to apply, he was obligated to inform the House of his potentially having a “personal and private interest” in the matter, and recuse himself from the vote on the funding of the program. For me personally, I would not have applied. And I think that should be corrected going forward. Thanks for your input.
Rick –
Once an application was submitted to have the parcels considered for the program, especially given the dollar amounts involved, I believe Article 2, Section 20 should have been followed.
Thank you Bob for admitting it here once and for all to see, “. I laid out the reasons why I chose to run in their order of importance.”
So you now admit, settling the score about the Register of Wills race is the most important thing for you, those are your words.
I have not gone soft on my opinion of FP. I did say it was foolish for farmers to take the money, for the same reasons I listed in my above comment, but I don’t blame government, because it is voluntary, and there is a demand for it. Feel free to post the screen shot, but post it in its entirety, or be embarrassed once again.
And once again, Dave Wilson did not vote to institute FP. He may vote for the Bond Bill to continue funding, which is why the comparison to roads and schools are applicable.
Would you have a problem with a legislator voting for tax cuts which they might also save themselves thousands of dollars each year? Or would you exclude them from that also?
The desperate nature of your attack confirms the reason for your so called campaign, but thanks for the admission above.
Who’ll get the least votes in a primary race? For once Not Don Ayotte!
Frank. Please read my posts before making incorrect statements over and over. I said that I gave my reasons to run “in order of importance”.
My first (and therefore, most important) reason listed – here and in every conversation, post, and communication I have had for the last 7 months, is his voting record on the budgetary bills – especially over the last 3 years. Interestingly enough, he voted “No” for both the Budget, and the Bond bills – the first time in four years. Could that have anything at all to do with the fact that for the first time ever there is another Republican challenging for the position based on the fiscal policies that he has voted for? I’m sure that you will say, “no”. But it seems too coincidental too me…
And this is not some “desperate attack” – it’s simply a sharing of an event that occurred and my opinion on it. Others may have a differing opinion – no problem – but regardless, it’s relative information to consider.
And Bob is part of the Green/Bodenweiser crew.
Mr Mitchell, Do you realize there is a bidding process? First of all the land is appraised by the state. If its worth a million you bid in at what you will take for the development rights. In most cases 66% of the value of the land price is what you will get. Unless someone has bid lower than you ( I bid 65% you bid 55% your land will be accepted first). I understand Dave Wilson’s farms are century farms and he accepted 62% of the value. Which is under the average 66% of value. Also it takes about five to ten years for the process to be completed which mean all of this would have been started before Mr Wilson became Rep.. So i really don’t see your mood point for mud slinging! Looks like a play ripped out of Jordan Warfel’s play book of nit pick cry baby politics..
Frank isn’t INTENTIONALLY lying. He is just EXTREMELY CARELESS with the truth:p
Thats the pot calling kettle black Jordan…
Mr. Edwards – I appreciate your comments. I am aware of the process. It doesn’t take that long for approval (5 – 10 years) once you have actually applied for the program and I understand the discount determination.
For me it’s the principal of the issue. 1. I would recuse myself from participating in a program that is going to put hundreds of thousands of taxpayer’s dollars in my pockets while I was an elected official. Period. I think the potential for a conflict of interest – or even the appearance of impropriety – is too great. 2. At the very least, I think it was required of him to inform and abstain from voting on this issue while an application was pending. This is not voting on a road that you might drive on – this is $400,000 of taxpayer dollars going directly to a sitting legislator from the very program of which he is the most vocal supporter in the legislature.
How much land have you put in Mr Mitchell?
1) If Mr. Wilson put his land in before he was Rep., How would that make him a crook?
2) Why would he be not entitled to put a century farm in preservation?
His land was finalized in 2013 into the farm preservation program. His bill was not presented until 2016. God bless him for trying to save a program that has been depleted from democrats. I would assume since he Mr Wilson is a resident land owner and farmer he would be entitled to a farming program. No different from the farmers sitting on Ag boards and putting their land in preservation. But theres no mention of that just Rep Wilson! Why you may as its a witch hunt mud throwing campaign. If this is the best you can do i want no part of it.
Mr. Edwards –
I have not put any in. I’ve not called anyone a “crook”. I have simply said that 1. I don’t think it’s right for a sitting legislator to participate in a program that involves this kind of money – even if it is completely legal. 2. If a legislator does apply for it, I feel that the State Constitution gives specific instructions as to what that legislator’s duty is.
Bob can you prove that Dave Wilson didn’t follow the rules in 2013. After 2013 I don’t see your point his business was finished.
Bob, I do not see the point after all this occurred after the fact (2013). It does take quite some time for farm preservation to process apps. The bill he introduced was in 2015. I understand government officials should not benefit from their office but at the end of the day farms are a businesses. I for one do not see how he would have a upper hand in this process. I for one do not fault Dave for putting his land in. Its his right. As far a Tax Payer money thats what the whole program is funded by. There are many many more names on the list that have received money not one of them have been mention for far more dollars. Like i said farms are businesses which need money to operate.
Witchhunter –
The Legislative Bill Tracking site ( http://legis.delaware.gov/ ) allows you to look up current and past bills. I confirmed all the way back to 2011 forward that Mr. Wilson did indeed vote on each year’s Bond Bill (that is where the funding provision is for the program) and recused himself from none of them. While it is absolutely true that the Bond Bill encompasses considerably more than just Farmland Preservation funding, to me, its the principle of the matter. And he very well may have gotten the advice of House attorneys who told him he did not need to – I don’t know. I am simply saying that – to me – when you are an elected official, you have accepted a position of Public Trust – and as such, you are held to a higher standard of accountability. You may not see it that way, but I do.
I was taught by my father that – not only do you abstain from wrongdoing – you abstain from any “appearance” of impropriety.
I am certain that his participation in the program was “legal”. I just contend that it violated the higher standard of public trust that each elected official is charged with upholding, and possibly violated the guidelines for how to deal with matters such as this as outlined in the State Constitution. Others may not agree – and that is their right – but I can tell you this – if we as citizens would hold our lawmakers to that higher standard, we would not be in the situation we are in where we are $2 Billion in debt and spend $200 Million more than we take in each year. It is Legislative Malpractice to saddle the next generation of Delawareans with this kind of financial burden. It is unsustainable and the consequences of this Republican enabled tax and spend policy will be felt much sooner than anyone anticipates. Mark my words on that.
Butler –
I only brought up the Constitutional Amendment bill to point out how this program is seemingly the most important program to him. This has been his soapbox for as long as I can remember. His sponsorship of that bill occurred after his deal was completed and does not factor in to what happened in 2013. I mentioned it only to show how important this program is to him.
I am contending that he had – at the minimum – a duty to notify his House leadership of his pending application and recuse himself from voting on the bill that appropriated monies to fund the program while his application was pending approval.
I will say again – if it was me – I would not have applied at all for the monies as an elected official – or if his application was submitted prior to his election in 2008 – which I find unlikely – I would have canceled the application once I became an elected official.
Bob I understand some what of your point. Dismissing your application would have been your choice. Its easy to play Monday morning QB. The bottom line is. Me or you don’t know what the circumstances are. It could have been to pay debt, upgrades, or just simply to make life easier. Both of us will never know. But it is the right of the land owner. As long as all the guide lines are followed there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it. So to pass judgement that you would have opted out might not have been a option for Dave. Once again the bottom line is. Its his right as a property owner as long as the guide lines have been followed. As more and more development comes to this area I’m glad there’s a life line for the farmers to use. I’ve talked to many farmers that don’t need the money they simply just don’t want to see their land developed. I’m good with that to! like i said, its the right of the landowner. THE TITLE SAYS IT ALL $392,162 reasons to replace Dave Wilson. The story completely implies wrong doing or just being irresponsible!
Bob,
So since elected, you are saying that Rep. Wilson should have abstained on the Bond bill in the off chance that his easements would be purchased by a separate FOUNDATION? I ilke the point that was brought up by another commenter; your position implies that elected officials should not be able to reduce taxes, since they would personally benefit.
Let me remind you of the process:
“Participants in the state’s preservation program first enter into agreements where they pledge not to build on their land for at least a decade. Later, they have the chance to turn their property into an easement, selling the development rights to the state.”
http://delawarestatenews.net/government/delaware-farmland-preservation-mandate-fails/
Mr Mitchell the picture that you and Mrs. Green are painting is a total witch hunt. Ag found no wrong doing but the continued accusations of wrong doing is a witch hunt head by you, Warfel and Green. Hopefully the three amigos will find their unicorn. Please get me a picture of Bigfoot while you there! This is exactly why nobody cares about 35th its run by a bunch of wackos! This best advise I can give you is dump the Stay Green team while there’s still time for you to join the real world.
Butler- I agree with you. It was his choice to participate or not. But he had – at the bare minimum – a duty to disclose and abstain as set forth in the State Constitution.
Steve – while it may be a separate “foundation”, it is fully funded by taxpayer dollars so I can’t follow your logic there.
As to the process – yes, a voluntary, 10 year easement is required to be given by the landowner, but there is no requirement for those 10 years to pass before applying for, and receiving the Preservation funds (at least as I understand the program guidelines).
WitchHunter- please read my posts. This is about 1. A higher standard of a Public Trust. Or 2. Constitutional requirements when situations like this arise.
I’m simply saying that in my view, one or the other should have been followed.
“Higher standard of public trust. ” Which implies Dave has not been trustful. That statement is a total load of crap! The problem is Markel and his liberal democrat train. NOT Dave Wilson 1) How do you know that Dave did follow the advise of the state attorney? 2) Have you asked him or you just making a assumption? Sounds like to me lets throw it against the wall and lets see what sticks politics.
Look, all the MOB is here now!
Chicken Bob says, “I could have avoided mentioning the Register of Wills issue since I knew you would go off on one of your tirades about it, but I didn’t because its what I have said since day 1 and my story doesn’t change just because I think someone may disagree with me.”
Really Bob? Because when I wrote a post about it, you called me a liar on Facebook. So which is it Bob, are you settling the score or not? Oh that’s right, you have admitted it here.
Chicken Bob then said, ” I stated my case. There is a difference between driving on public roads that you voted for and pocketing almost $400,000 from a program that you voted for. If you don’t see (or refuse to see) the difference, then that’s up to you.”
Really CB? So would you have a problem with Dave Wilson voting for tax cuts which he would profit from? Are you saying you would never vote for tax cuts? Or would you refuse those tax cuts? And can he call the fire department since he votes on grant in aid, and putting out the fire in his house would save him thousands of dollars? You are not as funny as Don Ayotte, just sad.
Let me correct myself here Chicken Bob, you did mention fiscal issues prior to pointing out your vendetta for the Greenwood MOB. But you are not really making a fiscal argument here, you are making an ethical one. You have said you support the “mission” of FP. Your argument is whether a sitting legislator should take the money. In particular, the one you have chosen to run against. So really your argument is a political one, not one of ethics.
I am scrolling through the comments and addressing them in the order they came in, which brings me to Jordan Warfel.
Jordan Warfel, the sitting Chair of the 35th GOP District, the same Jordan Warfel who posted on social media he is not a fan of Dave Wilson. Maybe Jordan didn’t get the party memo about staying neutral during primaries. Hey Billy Carroll, reach down your pants and find a set. The same Jordan Warfel who is the hand puppet of Cindy Green and Sam Wilson, the leaders of the Greenwood MOB.
Back to Chicken Bob says, “. I would recuse myself from participating in a program that is going to put hundreds of thousands of taxpayer’s dollars in my pockets while I was an elected official.”
So Bob, if elected, wait, wait, I just spit soda on my key board laughing. If elected, shoot I did it again. You would not vote on financial issues? Ever? Since you are a finance guy. Well since Delaware is a financial leader in the nation, this would leave the 35th very under represented.
Oh Bob, little minds think little, ” If a legislator does apply for it, I feel that the State Constitution gives specific instructions as to what that legislator’s duty is.”
Figure this out. Dave Wilson was not a legislator when FP was instituted, so he didn’t vote for it. The state Constitution does not require a disclosure when applying for FP. And since he had already received the money in 2013, there was no need to disclose anything in 2016. Desperate attempt to hide the real reason for you being hand picked by the MOB to run.
Finally, something I can agree with Chicken Bob on, “And he very well may have gotten the advice of House attorneys who told him he did not need to – I don’t know.” You are right Bob, you don’t know, above you spoke of facts, yet here you are ranting about one of the most well respected Legislators on both sides of the aisle, and admitting you don’t know the facts. Hypocrisy, thy name is Chicken Bob.
So Bob of the MOB, you have given no real facts to back up your claims of ethical impropriety, other than “YOU” wouldn’t have done it. Well I guess we could call the Pope to see what he would have done.
Try this Bob, did Dave Wilson break any laws? Did any other farmer not receive FP money because Dave Wilson did? Did Dave Wilson receive any preferential treatment of any kind by the FB board? Has anyone brought any charge against Dave Wilson who are not running against him in a primary?
Wake up Bob, you were pulled into a race you can’t win for the wrong reason. The honorable thing to do, is to remove yourself from the race, ask Billy Carroll to give you your filing fee back, and save what little integrity you have left.
Can a sitting Legislator visit a Library, Cheer Center, attend University of Delaware, Del Tech, vist a Fire Hall, live in a Town receiving State funding, have children attend public school, etc…..?
You can’t just throw around accusations.
What are talking about? Read Article 2 S 20;
Article 2, Section 20 of the Delaware State Constitution states: “Any member of the General Assembly who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill pending in the General Assembly shall disclose the fact to the House of which he or she is a member and shall not vote thereon.”
What do you think the purpose of the statute is? To keep legislators out of libraries?
As an aside, it’s no wonder the state is always broke. Paying people not to sell their land? Ridiculous.
Rick, first of all I am not defending FP, since Bob is not attacking it, I agree it is. Bad program. Bob is trying to cast doubt about Dave Wilson’s integrity.
As for Article II sec 20, it is not applicable due to the time line. Again, Bob is desperate to make any connection.
Frank, I was commenting on this absurd post;
Can a sitting Legislator visit a Library, Cheer Center, attend University of Delaware, Del Tech, vist a Fire Hall, live in a Town receiving State funding, have children attend public school, etc…..?
It should be obvious why this clause was put in the Delaware Constitution. It should also be obvious that the intent was not to deny legislators access to libraries or schools.
Since I don’t live in the 35th, I don’t have a horse in this race. However, due to the supposed omnipotence of the Greenwood MOB, Mitchell must be a shoo-in. Right?
Rick,
What is the difference between attending Del Tech and receiving easement money?
Both benefit the recipient, at the cost of millions to the State. Both are completely separate organizations, and are not State agencies. What you fail to comprehend, is that funding a program, does not mean a completely separate Board of Directors will buy easements off you. Why would you abstain from a $477,000,000 bond bill, that funds a $10,000,000 foundation, that you have been in the process of dealing with for 10 years.
If you think my point on libraries and State subsidized schools is “absurd”, I think the whole post is.
So, I notice Chicken Bob has once again completed his drive by shooting. He makes a baseless accusation, with no facts to back them up, and once people put his so called argument to lie, he runs back to the coop.
And Bob says school funding isn’t the same thing. Well I looked at spending per student in Delaware for 2013, the year Bob pointed to, it was an average of $13,833.00 per student. Now if we multiply that by 13 years, K-12, we come up with $179,829.00 per student, nearly two-hundred thousand dollars that legislators fund for their children. http://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-per-pupil-data.html
You see, Bob doesn’t care about the money, he doesn’t care about the ethics, Bob is making a political argument, because he chose to only point out the legislator he is running against, he is a hack.
He said in his article he was researching FP to learn more about it, yet he gave no facts about FP, he pointed only to Dave Wilson’s participation. And if truth be known, he most likely was handed the information by someone else, like Cindy Green, Jordan Warfel, or maybe Sam Wilson.
What’s the matter Chicken Bob? Did you get the stroke from your clan, and now you are back in the damp crevice you crawled out of?
Frank, I do not know you, but politics aside, you are a real piece of work. You must be a really sad, lonely person to spend this much of your life on sites like this doing nothing but insulting people you probably don’t even know. You are real hack here Frank. The name calling makes you out to have the maturity of about a 6 year old boy. And if you think Bob Mitchell has absolutely zero chance of winning his political race, why the heck are you so adamant about trying to prove him wrong? Scared? No other reason makes sense than that. Maybe for once you could argue your point and pretend that you aren’t wearing Huggies pull-ups ok? I’m sure everyone would appreciate that. Just be respectful.
Phillip, if you have followed along both here and in Facebook, you will know that the conversation between Mitchell and myself went downhill when he called me a liar for repeating what he had said in front of several people about the fact he was running to settle the score about Cindy Green’s race.
He is a thin skinned wanna be. He is nothing more than Don Ayotte in slightly better clothes. But thank you for reading.
No Frank you are incorrect. I have followed along with the Facebook discussions as well as this one. Things went downhill when you started throwing accusations around and treating Bob Mitchell like he was a fifth-grade boy. You are the culprit of everything that has gone on to this point. I do not know if Bob really called you a liar or not, but if that’s the worst thing you’ve been called since this whole thing got started, then I’d say you should be pretty pleased. You’re just a person that goes around stirring up trouble. You have absolutely zero respect for your fellow man, unlike Mr. Mitchell, Who has responded to you and treated you with nothing but respect, even after all the bashing you have done towards him for no apparent reason.
Rick,
What is the difference between attending Del Tech and receiving easement money?
Let’s revisit the Delaware Constitution, cited by Mitchell;
“Any member of the General Assembly who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill pending in the General Assembly shall disclose the fact to the House of which he or she is a member and shall not vote thereon.”
In your opinion, what was the intent of the legislature when they included this clause in the Delaware Constitution?
According to Mitchell, Wilson voted for a bill that put nearly $400k in his pocket. It is not the same thing as voting for an overpass or a sewer district.
Again; Assuming Article 2 Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution has a purpose, what would that purpose be, if not to prevent legislators from lining their own pockets?
Philip if you think calling someone a liar is showing respect, well that is your opinion. I give Bob Mitchell respect for being a good citizen, what seems like. Good father and husband. But as a candidate he deserves no respect. He is running for one reason and one reason only, to settle the score for Cindy Green. That is not a good enough reason to make baseless accusations against one of the most respected legislators in Dover. It’s childish.
Rick, Rep. Wilson did note vote to put anything in his pocket. FP was in place long before he was elected. He simply took advantage of a program like any other farmer.
Rick,
You can’t seem to grasp 3rd party.
And you can’t seem to grasp the significance of A2 S20 of the Delaware Constitution.
Again; what was the intent of the aforementioned section?
Any member of the General Assembly who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill pending in the General Assembly shall disclose the fact to the House of which he or she is a member and shall not vote thereon.”
What measure or bill bought the development rights?
What was the intent of A2 S20?
You can not explain how it applies here. Its intent is clear, your reference of it is careless.
How do pensioned State employees, holding elected office, vote regarding State benefits?
Again- what was the intent of A2 S20?
To prevent personal gain using your position in office. I played your game. Now rather than continue your BS game, apply its intent with the topic. You can reference anything; but you have yet to show any gain from any bill voted on, because you can’t.