The Fallacy of the Sussex NIMBY's

Since Thurman Adams introduced SB 304, a bill to add two seats to County Council following the 2010 census, and the NIMBYs responded with a 'that's not good enough' attitude, it allows me to bring up once again the fallacy of the argument of the 'Citizens for a Better Sussex.' They mention several times on their web site the term "fair representation." They have a petition, wherein they say

"For years Sussex County Council districts favored western councilmen over eastern councilmen -- permitting 2 councilmen to both come from Laurel and one from Greenwood, giving the west control -- with 3 out of 5 votes.

However, 2004 voter data reveals that at least 67% of the county actually resided East of U. S. Route 113--not West.

With numbers like that in 2004, eastern Sussex should now have 4 council representatives, but still has only 2.

Furthermore, 5th district lines capture nearly all of southeastern Sussex waterfront land in one place, giving those voters just one council vote, resulting in frequent 4 to 1 losses."

The argument is that although 67% of the citizens of the county are east of Rt. 113, 60% of the council is from Western Sussex, and that is unfair. What they don't tell you is that two of the districts are entirely or nearly entirely in Eastern Sussex, and a majority of the voters in the 5th district are in Eastern Sussex.

According to the Delaware Coast Press, in 2002, "former Fenwick Island mayor Peg Baunchalk ran for County Council against Councilman Vance Phillips, R-Laurel, whom she took to task over his pro- growth voting record. One might think Democrat Baunchalk would have found a friendly reception for his position, at least in the east. According to the 2000 census, 56 percent of the voters in Phillips' district resided east of Route 113 -- a number that has certainly increased in six years. But Phillips garnered 63 percent of the vote against Baunchalk, who beat him only in her own polling place and only by a meager eight votes."

Lynn Rogers sought his re-election in 2004 against Republican Judson Bennett, who took a rabid anti-growth stance and ran right at Rogers as being in the pockets of developers, in the Eastern Sussex growth area of Milton and Lewes. Rogers won. He won by the slimmest of margins, but he won nonetheless.

Therefore, the people of Eastern Sussex have had ample opportunity to put anti-growth councilmen into, yet they failed to do so. The silent majority thinks, basically, that although there are more people, more houses and more cars, there are also more opportunities, more restaurants and grocery options and more to do. They are basically okay with it, or else Rogers and Phillips would have lost. Had Baunchalk won the 2002 race against Phillips, the NIMBY's would not be crying foul, yet the circumstances would be the same. So, in reality, the people of Eastern Sussex have had fair representation, and they have more votes than those in the West. They exercised those votes, and chose to keep the council intact. I predict they will do the same this year.

cross-posted at delathought