Notice: Undefined index: HTTP_REFERER in /home/stparch/public_html/headmid_temp_main.php on line 4394
Newspaper Archive of
Cape Gazette
Lewes, Delaware
HOME Browse Search List Of All Titles New! Global Image Search
Free Search  Subscribe  Sign In
Jim's Towing Service
April 14, 2000     Cape Gazette
PAGE 7     (7 of 104 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Jumbo Image    Save To Scrapbook    Set Notifiers    PDF    JPG
© Cape Gazette. All rights reserved.     Upgrade to access Premium Tools
 
PAGE 7     (7 of 104 available)        PREVIOUS     NEXT      Jumbo Image    Save To Scrapbook    Set Notifiers    PDF    JPG
April 14, 2000
 
Newspaper Archive of Cape Gazette produced by SmallTownPapers, Inc.
Website © 2025. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information
Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Request Content Removal | About / FAQ | Get Acrobat Reader




Continued from page 6 fair market value? Of course, by 1997 the university had shrunk the size of the research park to about 70 acres without gaining prior approval and compensating the federal government, as re- quired by law. Indeed, it still owes the granting agency this tax- payer money which probably amounts to at least $1,000,000, a considerable sum. On behalf of the University, who made the decision to sell the land to Beebe? Was this decision made by an executive session of the University's Board of Trustees like the deliberations on the con- tingent sale to New Road LLC of additional Research Park land? If so, the contract could be tainted, since an executive session of the Board of Trustees to sell land is probably illegal, in violation of Delaware's open meeting law for a public body. If the Attorney General's office determines that this executive session was indeed illegal, this finding will cast doubt on the legality of the sale itself. Mr. Fried also discusses the archeological sites, and Cad- bury's intention to preserve them. He fails, however, to mention that these three sites will not be avail- able to the general public after Cadbury cordons them off with its facilities. The three sites are dis- tinctly different, representing an Indian settlement, a prehistoric area, and a farm in colonial peri- od, yet Cadbury labeled them all as "Indian Artifact Areas" on its draft plan. Cadbury's error of la- beling them all the same only demonstrates an insensitivity to the historical significance of this area, since the information is readily available in the study Beebe paid for. I wonder if any- one from Cadbury or Beebe has even read it? Mr. Fried goes on to say that Cadbury convinced Beebe "of its sensitivity to open-space issues" by its plan to develop only 20 per- cent of the entire acreage, amounting to about 15 acres. The implication is that Cadbury will- ingly declined to develop the re- maining acreage because of this alleged sensitivity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Much of the land cannot be developed because it is "wetlands." And how is he calculating this figure? I wonder if he has seen the draft plan which shows the develop- ment encompassing much more than this supposed 20 percent. This issue is, of course, related to the manner in which Cadbury it- self plots the density for the proj- ect: It is against the entire acreage. Should not the density be plotted only against usable land? Of course, Mr. Fried omitted an- other salient fact: Cadbury still wants to build three-story build- ings that are 50 feet high, exclud- ing any vents or other such struc- tures on the roofs. Cadbury, there- fore, would dominate the skyline with buildings that are out of character with the surrounding single family detached homes and natural wetlands setting. Did he notice that ground level cottages are on a 100-year flood plain, contrary to Lewes code require- ments? Mr. Fried also makes much of the fact "that 50 percent of the people who have put down a de- posit are current residents of Lewes, which shows there is tremendous support for this con- cept by those who want to live out their years in our community." How many Lewes residents make up this percentage? Let him pro- vide an accurate number rather than a nebulous percentage. His implication clearly is that Cad- bury is the only way they can achieve this goal, when indeed there are other options such as re- maining in the houses they presently own. Home care is available and very similar to as- sisted-living, and, since Cadbury will not have a skilled nursing fa- cility, there is not much difference between these options. For the monthly fee paid to Cadbury, these persons could pay for any upkeep of their properties they themselves could not do and home-care assistance. Naturally, Mr. Fried failed to mention the more than 300 signatures of Lewes residents on a petition op- posing both Cadbury and New Road LLC that is at city hall. He also conveniently avoids any dis- cussion of Cadbury's tax-free sta- tus and the concomitant loss of revenue from all taxes associated with the ownership of property, while touting the benefits of Cad- tal's records of the land deals with the University of Delaware and Cadbury to public scrutiny. Oth- erwise, it remains clouded with impropriety. Gerald A. Lechliter Spokesperson Citizens against Town Sprawl Lewes The '60 Minutes' train went wild In the '60s and '70s, we dele- gates to the National Farm Bureau convention road the trains. Desti- nation? Kansas City. We, the col- lective representatives of county farm bureaus from both Delaware and Maryland, rode the same rail- road cars, rented pillows at 25 cents per, slept in our seats as we rounded the mountains of West Virginia, and headed out over the flat plains of the farm belt of the nation. We knew where we were going - we had - in our briefcases, reso- lutions formulated in home meet- ings, honed at county and state levels. The end result, thrashed out in committees at the national level and if credence be given them, the resolutions underwent the voting process. Result - farm bureau policy. I remember well in retrospect a dear five-foot-tall, white-headed lady from New Mexico. She arose to address the coyote situation. Unending numbers of sheep and lamb were being devoured be- cause of federal laws favoring, of course, the coyote. When asked to declare the location of her ranch - her reply: "The sun sets between my house and town." Big ranches, small farms, every- one who had a ease had an audi- ence. This describes the farm bu- reau I knew - the conservative's conservatory, where issues like the one in New Mexico were met head on and dealt with effectively. It was - and still is proof of the • workability of the system. Whenever farmland preserva- bury to Lewes. Who really bene- tion policy veers off - proposing fits, the citizens of Lewes or just statutes and bylaws (to favor the residents of Cadbury who can afford the high entrance payment and monthly fees and Cadbury it- self? How much do the execu- tives of this non-profit business earn? What is the connection between Beebe and Cadbury? Is not the senior executive of Cadbury in charge of marketing and develop- ing Cadbury at Lewes a former employee of Beebe? What role did this "connection" play in striking the "deal"? Finally, if Mr. Fried really wants us to believe that Beebe's "motives have always been above board," let him open all the hospi- those in Growth Areas) leaving those who have kept with the pro- gram, having struggled to help keep the program afloat with far less in the end result. Farm bu- reau barks and barks loud - loud enough to be heard. Why didn't "60 Minutes" in- clude that in their critique? The Product Service to Mem- bers' concept - yes, farm bureau recognized the individual mem- bers' need for cost-wise distribu- tion of farm supplies. SAFE- MARK was born. Tires, feeds, oils, lubricants, looking after the basic seasonal and year-round needs of the farms and ranches. Why didn't Mike Wallace think of that? Attacking issues, that's none of our business? Wait a cotton-pick- ing minute, Mr. Wallace. At the grassroots level of Americana from where we came, what, pray tell, isn't our business? Religion, for instance. Touchy subject? Not when basic principles are at Continued on page 8 CAPE GAZETI, Friday, April 14 - April 20, 2000.7 Indian Mission School provided a school for Nanticoke Indian children in Sussex This column was first published a few years ago as part of a series of columns titled Sussex Places. INDIAN MISSION SCHOOL From the 1920s until 1961, this building and an earlier wooden building on the same site provided the first eight grades of education for Nanticoke Indian children in Sussex County. According to Kenneth Clark, current chief of the Nanticoke In- dian tribe, the original Indian Mis- sion School building burned around 1949 and was replaced with the existing block structure. The location is a mile or so south of the Rt. 5 and Rt. 24 intersection where the Nanticoke Indian Mu- seum.exists today in the former Harmon School. The simple block building, painted white, houses the fed- erally recognized Nanticoke Indi- an Association which has helped maintain the Indian tribe identity of the people since 1922. That was the year when the Nanticoke Indi- an Association received an official charter of incorporation from the state of Delaware. According to Chief Clark, the Nanticoke Indian Association building hosts monthly meetings of the Association and serves as tribal office for the Nanticokes. A federal job training program for people of Indian heritage is also administered through the office. The Nanticoke Indian Associa- tion building, and the official functions it houses, are a monu- ment to the persistence and re- silience of the Nanticokes in pre- serving their identity amidst the overwhelming white culture that spread across this continent over the past 350 years. Frank W. Porter III directed the publication of a book in 1987 called "The Nanticoke". The book is on sale in the Nanticoke Indian Museum. Mr. Porter's work provides a review of the Nanticoke Indian heritage and culture and gives a recent histori- cal accounting of the events lead- ing up to construction of the Indi- an Mission School some time in the 1920s. The chronology presents some insight as to why the Indian Mis- BAREF00TIN' government was providing build- ings and teachers for others. According to Mr. Porter's book, the N.anticoke people, living on land just north of Indian River, maintained separate and inde- pendent schools for their children during the middle 1800s' without governmental interference. Their official school struggles began in 1875 when Delaware passed the "Act To Tax Colored Persons For Support Of Their Schools". Since the Nanticokes were officially classified as "col- ored" persons, this new law meant they were going to be taxed for schools their children didn't at- tend. Representatives of the Nanti- cokes, according to Mr. Porter, worked to have their people ex- empted from the 1875 tax. On March 10, 1881 they were suc- cessful. Delaware officially rec- ognized the group as the "Incor- porated Body" but stopped short of recognizing its members as Nanticokes or as Indians. The of- ficial language recognized the In- corporated Body as "The Indian River School District for A Cer- tain Class Of Colored Persons." The incorporation was enough to ensure schools separate from schools for whites and blacks. Mr. Porter tells us that the group then began work on two one-room schools for children of Nanticoke families. One was the Hollyville School and the other was the War- wick School. "Each school had one white teacher whose salary was paid by the Incorporated Body," writes Mr. Porter. sion School was built and main- In 1903 the Nanticokes went tained with funds raised by the back to the Delaware legislature Nanticokes at a time when state Continued on page 8 Hoenigmann photo This building on Rt. 24 was built to house the original Indi. an Mission School for the Nantieoke Indian tribe.