|
|
Request On Council Agenda NOTE: Sussex Beat is a mix of news, analysis and commentary by Eric Magill, publisher of Sussex County Online.
 Photo: The Seacoast Speedway location on U.S. 113 sits next to nearly 30 homes south of Georgetown. on the Seacoast Issue I used to go to horse tracks all the time in my younger days. Spent a whole summer at Ocean Downs one year, in fact. I loved the excitement, loved poring over the charts to try to figure out the next race's winner, even when I wasn't betting. I never saw some of the many vices attributed to the sport by so many opponents of a proposed harness racing track with pari-mutuel wagering at Seacoast Speedway on U.S. 113 south of Georgetown. But I wouldn't want to live next to a horse track, either. The controversial request by Al and Bunnie Williams, the owners of Seacoast Speedway, is on the agenda for Sussex County Council's regular meeting on Tuesday, June 6, 2000. The county's Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the request on May 25, citing legitimate concerns about the dramatic expansion of a facility next door to some 30 homes and the project's impact on the quality of life and property values of those homeowners. According to plans filed with the Planning & Zoning office, the Williams want to build a 1/2-mile track around the existing 3/8-mile stock car track, a 600-seat enclosed grandstand, a 60-horse paddock and exhibit building, and two barns. Also on file in the Planning & Zoning office are petitions with more than 330 residents favoring the proposal compared to more than 850 signatures opposed to it. The file contains letters of support from the United States Trotting Association and a couple dozen local businesses and letters of opposition from local churches and the Sussex Citizens Against Gambling Expansion. Besides the project's impact on the area, the commission also expressed concern about the feasability of the proposal given that harness racing has been in decline for 20 years, given that two other Delaware harness tracks have only survived because of the addition of slot machines, and given that there are those two tracks and Ocean Downs in Maryland within an hour of the Williams' proposed track. The commissioners correctly fear that slot machines will eventually be needed to save the harness operation and that the county would be turning over that land use decision to the state of Delaware, which has jurisdiction over slot machine operations. And the Williams, who sought slot machines in their original proposal before eliminating them from the current application, will not rule out eventually applying for slots. All they'll say is slot machines are "not in their plans". Well, plans change. The Williams complain that their property rights are being violated, that the county should only be concerned with land use issues and not moral issues in considering the request, and that the county shouldn't be considering the feasability of the project. In this case, though, the moral, land use and feasability issues are all intertwined. Gambling does bring with it an atmosphere that is not suitable for a residential neighborhood with families and kids. Plus, the impact of a casino would be far greater than what the Williams propose now, to the point that DelDOT has asked to be informed if the Williams ever do request a conditional use for slots. The Williams say it's unfair to look at their proposal's financial feasability if the county wouldn't do the same with a Wal-Mart. But Wal-Mart has a proven track record of spectacular financial success, while the Williams admit that one reason they want the harness track is to prop up their ailing stock car track. The Williams probably didn't expect the stock car track to have financial difficulties when they purchased it, either, but dirt track racing was in decline when they bought the track in 1990, just as harness racing has been in decline for years. And certainly, the track's neighbors didn't expect to some day live next to a harness track or casino. The Williams, meanwhile, live in Seaford a half-hour away from the impact of what they propose. While the Williams certainly have property rights, those rights only allow them to employ uses on their property within legal boundaries defined by zoning laws. Those zoning laws are in place to protect the rights of all property owners in the area, rights that are every bit as important as the Williams'. County attorney Eugene Bayard wrote a letter to council June 2 stating that it better have compelling reasons for its decision, pro or con. In my view, the reasons that led the Planning & Zoning commission to deny the Williams' conditional use application are compelling enough.
The Seaford Police Department ranks first in the state of Delaware in clearing crimes, according to a study by the Delaware Justice Center's Statistics Analysis Center. The study, conducted in 1999 for the year 1998, ranked Seaford police first in clearance of Part I crimes at 48.9 percent, Part I Violent crimes at 82.1 percent, and Part I property crimes at 43 percent. Seaford cleared 67.3 percent of all of its crimes compared to the statewide average of 63.2 percent. Seaford police also cleared 73.2 percent of Part II crimes and 91.2 percent of narcotics violations, both slightly above state averages.
You can voice your opinion on county issues in the Sussex County Online Forum or cast your vote on various Sussex County issues on our online poll. Just follow the links below to make your voice heard and your vote count:
The Sussex County Code Book detailing county building codes, procedures and regulations is available in its entirety on the Sussex County web site. Just click the link to search it. Local News Index | News Index |
 iSyndicate® Headlines |
|
Sussex County Online Copyright © 1999-2000 Sussex County Online |
