Patuxent endorsements...

Patuxent Publishing released endorsements for primary races today. I can’t say if the list is surprising or not, but here are a few of the company’s more noteworthy choices:

House of Delegates District 13
(vote for three)
Democrats: Shane Pendergrass, Neil Quinter, Frank Turner

Quinter exacts some revenge for being left off the hat. But how much of an impact does this endorsement have in a race that’s comprised of pretty well-known folks, aside from Nina Basu, who probably deserves to be more well-known (oh, right, only when it’s her turn)? Also, Guzzone's got way more money than everyone else, and as David Keelan says: "Don't county him out."

County Council District 4
Democrat: Mary Kay Sigaty

I’m not sure if this is her first endorsement, but Sigaty’s generally been passed over by the traditional Democratic endorsees (unions, environmentalists, etc.). Rather than adding clarity, this endorsement confuses things. Will regular voters focus more on the paper’s endorsements or will they align themselves with an interest group of their choice? Or, will they actually learn about candidates and make their own decisions? What about you? Do you have a trusted source for candidate information?

On to some Republican races:

County Council District 5
Republican: Greg Fox

Whoa! The Davids (one and two) are happy. Or, wait, does an endorsement from the liberal media count against you as a Republican? My head hurts.

House of Delegates District 9A
(vote for two)
Republicans: Gail Bates, Warren Miller

And the incumbents take it! This one is actually a little confusing, considering that I think Patuxent generally takes a “slow-growth” stance on things and a story from today included these ideas on growth from the three candidates gunning for 9A:

To ensure that the west does not become overdeveloped, Covolesky would oppose efforts to increase housing density in the district or to extend public water and sewer service west of Route 32, she said.

Miller said he would advocate Howard's use of transferable credits that allow developers to buy land in the western county but develop the housing units that would normally be built on the parcel in areas of the county that already are more fully developed.

Bates said she is developing a bill that would allow farmers who put their land into the state's farmland preservation program 25 years ago to sell parts of their property to developers as the parcels come up for review.

Allowing the farmers to sell portions of their property would ensure that farmers have enough income to keep farming the majority of their land, she said.

Although in terms of pleasing farmers (potential voters) Bates’ suggestion is surely the best, it’s really the worst for Howard County, especially the parts of Howard County that don’t like more growth. What do we have left if we open preserved farmland to more development? Can’t we find ways (more ag preservation money, transferable development rights) that supply farmers with the income needed to continue farming (and preserving) all of their land. If we head down the path of allowing a little bit of additional development here, and a little bit more there, eventually we’ll get to a point where we won’t be able to turn around.

Anyway, read the rest of the endorsements and let me know what you think. I’m also interested in hearing how much stock you put into what a newspaper tells you about who to vote for.