In several communications, Mark Schaeffer credits himself, and his supporting PAC credits him, with stopping Royal Farms’ plan in Angola. He also mentioned that the parcel presented environmental concerns. Both Schaeffer and the PAC are calling it a win for preservation. But since those communications, Schaeffer has backpedaled, saying that it was more a question of roadwork and timing, and will likely be resubmitted in the future.
Landowner Dick Ennis’ Oct. 4 letter tells us that, yes, his private discussions with Schaeffer influenced withdrawal of the ROFO application. Schaeffer acknowledges private discussions with both the CEO and attorney for Royal Farms as well.
The county and voters should be concerned that Schaeffer held private discussions with the parties in the ROFO application, some of whom are lifelong friends by his account, while the application was pending. The county has told the public time and time again about its strict operating rule prohibiting private discussion of pending applications. When local citizens asked to speak to Schaeffer about the ROFO application, he refused, citing that county rule.
So is the ROFO withdrawal really a win for preservation? Or is it a time-out until the road infrastructure is upgraded? Expecting resubmission down the road is hardly a win for preservation. And what about the environmental concerns previously mentioned that seem to fall by the wayside in this Schaeffer shuffle?
We are left to wonder, did Schaeffer promise something in return for the application’s withdrawal to bolster his campaign? We’ll never know because there is no public record of those discussions held out of earshot and eyesight of the public. He tells us he knows people, and this is how he operates. Does he also hold private discussions with other developers who have pending applications?
Two other concerns are also troubling. Delaware has strict laws prohibiting any consultation or cooperation between a PAC and a candidate. It’s simply not allowed. Schaeffer publicly claimed credit for stopping ROFO’s plan on a radio show aired Sept. 13. But, the day before that announcement, a PAC mailer landed in voters’ mailboxes lauding Schaeffer’s success in stopping ROFO. Campaign mailers can take a few days to be designed, printed and mailed. So, did the PAC know that Schaeffer had stopped the ROFO plan before the public was told? Were there more private conversations?
And what to make of a Schaeffer campaign newsletter that followed where he provided a personal email address with the very same domain name as the developer-supported PAC’s name, mark@preservesussex.com? How is that possible without some communication with the developer-backed PAC? Voters deserve answers.
-
A letter to the editor expresses a reader's opinion and, as such, is not reflective of the editorial opinions of this newspaper.
To submit a letter to the editor for publishing, send an email to newsroom@capegazette.com. Letters must be signed and include a telephone number and address for verification. Please keep letters to 500 words or fewer. We reserve the right to edit for content and length. Letters should be responsive to issues addressed in the Cape Gazette rather than content from other publications or media. Only one letter per author will be published every 30 days. Letters restating information and opinions already offered by the same author will not be used. Letters must focus on issues of general, local concern, not personalities or specific businesses.
