Upper Milford Board of Supervisors Field Narrowed to Two

Republican Carl R. Stevenson and Democrat George DeVault will square off in November general election.

In the primary bid for Upper Milford Supervisor, there were four candidates for one open seat – two Republicans and two Democrats. Two candidates were eliminated in today’s primary vote, leaving two to go head-to-head in November.

Patch’s numbers -- which are unofficial until certified by Lehigh County -- are as follows:

, Republican - 385 votes

, Republican – 211 votes

, Democrat --166 votes

, Democrat -- 219 votes

That means that in the fall, Stevenson will again face DeVault in the general election on Nov. 8. They will vie for a single vacant seat and the winner will serve a six-year term.

Current Supervisors Chairman Steven Ackerman lost his bid for reelection.

According to voter registration statistics found on the Lehigh County elections and voter registration Web site, there were 2,437 registered Republicans and 2,018 registered Democrats eligible to participate in today’s primary election in Upper Milford Township.

Carl Stevenson May 18, 2011 at 05:42 PM
If you have one of my yard signs on your property that I haven't picked up, please e-mail me at carl@vote4carl.org and I'll pick it up ASAP. Thanks to ALL of the folks who hosted yard signs!!!!!
Adam May 19, 2011 at 12:30 AM
It was a pleasure to vote in such a nice place yesterday and to have such a location available for township residents. I hope that our future supervisors continue to have the vision and wisdom that was necessary to renovate the old school into our modern township building. Imagine if the township building were still to be in the place that it was. It would be like having the high school still where it was 50 years ago....oh, I forgot. It still is. And it is woefully inadequate. Keep looking forward.
Scott Bieber May 19, 2011 at 01:20 AM
I wonder if Mr. Stevenson, who has called the new twsp building a Taj Mahal, (meaning it was a big unnecessary expenditure ) still thinks that way. I hope Mr. Stevenson is not an anti-government person who wants to tear down local government. If he wants it to be responsive to the public, that is good. If he is a political novice, I hope he reads some political philosophy to learn about the theory and purpose of government. Common sense is a big attribute in running government. Real public servants realize that they are paid servants of the public.
Carl Stevenson May 19, 2011 at 02:07 PM
Scott, Yes, I do still think that the new township building was a big, unnecessay expenditure in light of the state of our township roads and bridges and other, more important issues. (Please explain to me why it was "necessary.") I wonder if you saw my ad/article in the Commentator, or if you've perused my website at http://vote4carl.org to gain a better understanding of my views? I don't want to "tear down local government," but simply to restrain it to its proper role and prevent it from becoming inappropriately restrictive on our rights as individual citizens. As far as reading political philosophy, I'm quite well read and familiar with the Constitution, the principles of the Founding Fathers (and those who influenced them), and the threats posed to our liberty by big "progressive" (restrictive) government. As far as "Common Sense" goes, I would recommend Thomas Paine to you. (I have my own common sense, but Paine was quite eloquent.) And finally, if you (had) read my website or the ad/article in the Commentator, you'd know that I *do* fully realize and completely believe that public servants are supposed to SERVE, not RULE, over the citizenry.
Scott Bieber May 19, 2011 at 05:07 PM
I like your well-said responses, though I do think the new twsp building was the right thing to do. The only things necessary in second class township government is to fix the roads, regulate sewage, stormwater and bldg. construction, as mandated by the state, and collect taxes and fees to pay for these services. Let's see... what else is there? Anyway, no the new building was not necessary but it was desirable. I believe government is a hallowed institution and deserves nice buildings befitting their status. This has always been evident in this nation where all government buildings, local, state and national, were built with the fine materials and respect due these institutions. Having a dreary municpal buidling, as Upper Milford did, does not engender respect for government. I am willing to give a little more in taxes to provide a decent government building I can be proud of, like the new Upper Milford building. I also think they should have installed a new board table instead of the used desks that are bush league. But they were trying to be sensitive to the taxpayer in that regard.
Very Concerned Resident May 19, 2011 at 09:49 PM
And finally, if you (had) read my website or the ad/article in the Commentator, you'd know that I *do* fully realize and completely believe that public servants are supposed to SERVE, not RULE, over the citizenry. Oh really Mr. Stevenson, the zoning ordinances are in place because of people like you. And the township is serving the residence not ruling them. You have to have common ground so that all residential property owners are treated equal.
Very Concerned Resident May 19, 2011 at 10:30 PM
Well said Mr Bieber Key word respect for government. I am amazed at how often people who are an anti government run for government positions....sounds personal to me.
Carl Stevenson May 20, 2011 at 01:08 AM
Scott, 1st, please call me Carl ... I don't require (or desire) formalities. I believe we are equals. Only someone who believes themselves to be another's better would require such formalities as "Mr. Stevenson." If you'll refer to my website, you'll find that I acknowledge the need for some reasonable, limited zoning ordinances. The quote, for your convenience, is: "Do we need some zoning rules? Yes ... those legitimately related to health and safety. But, we have a HUGE, onerous zoning code that goes FAR beyond what's reasonable and needs to be "put on a serious diet" to return our freedom and property rights to us, rather than creating restrictions to raise more money for the bureaucrats." (more in next post ...)
Carl Stevenson May 20, 2011 at 01:08 AM
(continuing to Scott) In short, restrictions on our property and personal rights should be the *minimum* necessary to meet the *legitimate* functions of government. The quote for that is: "The sole legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights, not to seek an endless number of ways to restrict them because politicians and bureaucrats believe they can run our lives better than we can. That is an elitist attitude that has NO place in the minds of those who are supposed to SERVE us, NOT rule us. I don't believe that the vast majority of people need or want someone who seeks to rule over them, restrain them, or control them. People, generally speaking, are perfectly capable of - and want to - run their own lives and personal affairs themselves. We can, and should, peacefully and amicably resolve most issues with our neighbors, without the intervention of a "nanny state" authority, by simply being good neighbors." It appears that my message has struck a chord with the voters, since I received almost twice the votes of the nearest competitor (from either party, with the incumbent coming in dead last by a margin of 2.32:1). I don't operate in a vacuum. I have years of leadership experience, dealing with large, diverse groups of people from around the world (again, I would refer you to my website ... I'd suggest the "about Carl" link from the main page). In developing my platform, I relied on input from MANY people. It seems to work for the voters.
Carl Stevenson May 20, 2011 at 01:11 AM
I am not "anti government" I simply believe (firmly) that government should operate within the appropriate limits. "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government." -- Thomas Jefferson"
Robert Sentner May 20, 2011 at 01:29 AM
Scott, The problem here is that if you don't understand local government, regulations both State and Federally its very easy to to say that the zoning we have is too large. The Township just re- wrote the entire Zoning and SALDO books. This was an open door anyone was able to participate format, and we did have some residents voice there opinions. My question to you Mr. Stevenson is why didn't you participate in the re- writing of the zoning and SALDO ??? It was advertised and I personally reminded everyone that attended township zoning meetings. It was also advertised on the township website. I have attended virtually every Zoning, Planning and Supervisor meeting for roughly the last 4 years. I have been a township Supervisor for 1 1/2 years, Planning Commission member, Open Space Committee member, and I started the Upper Milford Farmers Market with the help of other residents. I became a Supervisor because I wanted to help and make our community a better place. I hope that you are doing this for the same reason. Robert Sentner
Amey May 20, 2011 at 11:44 AM
I am confused as to how Carl Stevenson accumulated so many votes. All I can think of is that he is as good a liar as most politicians and people once again are fooled into thinking he is going to make his promised changes. What a joke. This man doesn't even attend township meetings and when he did for his first time two weeks ago, did not even remove his hat from his head to pledge allegiance to our flag. Wow. Us voters need to do the research before voting again. Mr. Stevenson reminds me of Obama....very nice words and no real action.
Carl Stevenson May 20, 2011 at 11:56 AM
Amey, As I told Scott, it appears that my platform resonates with a majority of voters. That's not really surprising, since I formulated it with much input from them. (As I've said, I believe that government officials are servants, not masters, so it's essential to listen to the voters.) As I told Rob when he mentioned it after the meeting, I only recently began wearing a hat and I simply forgot I had it on. Several other people pointed it out to me afterwards, and I appologized for my mistake. I resent your unfounded accusation that I am a liar. If you want to debate issues, I'll be happy to listen to your point of view and give it the same consideration I give to the views of others, but unsubstantiated personal attacks are not appropriate.
Carl Stevenson May 20, 2011 at 12:01 PM
Rob, You are correct about my past attendance record. Until recently, I haven't been to a meeting in some time, but I think I had a pretty good reason.. Early last year I had a very serious accident. I'm actually lucky to be alive and walking. I wasn't able to do much of anything during many months of recovery. Fortunately, I've recovered well and now have the time and ability to participate. I'm not looking for any sympathy, just explaining.
Robert Sentner May 20, 2011 at 12:07 PM
Now Mr. Stevenson, let me set the record straight, I am the one that came out after the meeting to inform you that in Upper Milford meetings when we pledge the flag we remove our hats, never did you apologize for your supposed miscue to me, and you wouldn't owe me an apology you would owe everyone an apology, especially the men and women that died for our country fighting for what they believed in. I have been informed by staff that it is your right not to remove your hat if that is your choice, so I apologize for telling you you have to remove it. And as far as debate that sounds like a great idea, lets find a neutral person and have a debate between the candidates. I'll personally rent the township building for that night. Like I said before hope your doing this to improve an already great township that has been governed by some fantastic leaders in the past.
Carl Stevenson May 20, 2011 at 12:09 PM
"Common ground" does not mean "restrict the rights of all excessively because there may occasionally be a 'bad apple'." There are ways to deal with 'bad apples' if things are done right, without unduly restricting the rights of all. And, if you'd like to debate me in a public forum, it would be appropriate to do so, as does Scott, in the open without the cloak of annonymity of a pseudonym.
Carl Stevenson May 20, 2011 at 12:09 PM
One more thing: If you're going to mix my words with yours, please use proper quotes around my words so that the attribution isn't confused for other readers.
Carl Stevenson May 20, 2011 at 12:30 PM
Rob, As I told Scott (and for the same reasons), please call me "Carl." I did appologize to you (and others) for my unintentional failure to remove my hat. It was an honest mistake, as I stated. You owe me no appology for pointing out my mistake to me. It was my mistake and I take full responsibility for it. However, please don't insult my degree of patriotism through vague inuendo. As far as a debate goes, I'd welcome a debate with my opponent, George DeVault. I think it would be a good thing to provide interested voters with an opportunity to hear both of our views and to have some time for Q&A. In fact, I will talk to George about it and see if we can arrange something for a few weeks before the general election in November. (I may have already mentioned the possibility to George, but I can't remember if I actually did or not.) George and I have spoken several times since we both filed our papers to run for supervisor, and I'm sure that he and I could have a cordial and civil debate/discussion of issues in such a public forum. As far as "renting" the township building goes, I think that the township should allow the use of the (public) facility for such an event without charge, in the public interest.
Robert Sentner May 20, 2011 at 12:45 PM
Upper Milford Township has policy for use of the building, but I will ask the Supervisor's if they would be interested in hostingthe debate free of charge. and maybe the 2 candidates that are not in the race anymore could be moderators.
Very Concerned Resident May 20, 2011 at 12:47 PM
I agree with Mr. Sentner and I have heard it from my friends and neighbors with in the township as well. Are you in this for the right reasons Mr. Stevenson? If zoning were different and you could have as many chickens as you wanted on your property would you have even ran for a seat. I have several friends and neighbors that were approached by you several times with papers and write ups that are clearly your opinion. You should take the time to go on the Upper Milford website and read the ordinances and what constitutes a farm and a residental property. And as Mr. Sentner stated we do have a reat township that has been governed by some fantastic leaders that work for the people and with the people.
Carl Stevenson May 20, 2011 at 12:50 PM
Perhaps more "disinterested" parties would be better choices for moderators? Maybe the LWV?
Amey May 20, 2011 at 01:20 PM
Mr. Stevenson, 'Essential to listen to voters'....I am a voter. I see nothing but 'words'. I've seen no action. You mention you were in an accident early last year and I am sorry for that and glad you made it through but why weren't you at the Supervisor's meeting last night? I do hope, as a proud American, that you do have respect for our flag and it was a mistake. 'Unsubstantiated personal attacks are not appropriate'....You have put yourself in the political atmosphere....Welcome to personal attacks. I feel you speak many words and have shown no action. Just my opinion.
Carl Stevenson May 20, 2011 at 01:38 PM
Amey, I am listening to you, but all I've seen from you thusfar is an attack. You say you've seen no action from me. What would you have me do? I've gone through all of the work to gather and file far more than the required number of signatures to get on the ballot. I've talked to many, many people in formulating my positions. I've put up a website, run ads, bought and installed signs, and worked at campaigning. (Please remember that I am not in a position to do a lot more, other than express my views, unless/until I win the election.) As for last night, I had something else I had to do ... had I been one of the supervisors, I'd have had an obligation to make sure (to the degree humanly possible, barring exceptional circumstances) to have been at the meeting. I plan to make it to as many meetings as possible between now and election time, and you can rest assured that, if elected, I will fulfill all of the obligations of the office. As for personal (character) attacks (rather than disagreement on issues), I am not thin-skinned and will not let them disuade me, but I also still think that it's legitimate to state that they are unnecessary and inappropriate.
L9 May 20, 2011 at 01:40 PM
Really? Whether or not the man left his hat on during the pledge is the main issue? Or any indication of his ability to serve? I'm not saying that I support Mr. Stevenson, just that I'll base my decision to support or not support on something more substantial.
Carl Stevenson May 20, 2011 at 01:45 PM
L9, Thank you. As far as your support goes, I have to earn that. Please feel free to vist my website at http://vote4carl.org, read my position, and contact me by e-mail with any questions, comments, or suggestions you have, or if you'd just like to chat and get to know me and my qualifications better. (Obviously, this goes for all of the voters.)
Robert Sentner May 20, 2011 at 01:58 PM
No the hat issue just hits a spot with me, has nothing do to with the ability for someone to serve, nor did I ever say that. Has everything to do with respect. Too many people have died protecting that flag and I think it should be honored with at the least removing your hat. Mr. Stevenson has apologized so we can move on. Anybody that knows me knows that I am passionate about anything I believe in......JMO
Amey May 20, 2011 at 04:28 PM
Sorry if you feel you are being attacked. The actions I am referring to are showing up at township meetings and getting involved in what is happening in our area, making more than one appearance. And being you are so interested in becoming a Township Supervisor, I would think that would just be par for the course. Not the effort/work you have put in to campaigning. I am looking forward to the upcoming debate.
Carl Stevenson May 20, 2011 at 04:56 PM
Amey, Perhaps I was too sensitive to your comments. Please excuse my defensiveness. It seemed that several folks were jumping on me without really knowing me or what I stand for. I hope that you'll meet me half-way and make the effort to base your judgement of me on substantive facts. I fully intend to attend the meetings (I couldn't make it last night, but certainly will arrange my schedule to maximize attendance between now and the election in Nov, and, if elected, will, of course be in attendance, barring some dire circumstance).
Very Concerned Resident June 07, 2011 at 02:48 PM
The sewer project is on its way, there was a ground breaking several weeks ago in Vera Cruz which was in the paper. By the time this election is done and the new elect is in office the project will be close to completion. I think the Township has done an excellent job reducing the cost to residence. They pushed for help and they got it for you. If you still have concerns as a resident you should direct them to the township or maybe attend a township meeting. I have had questions being a long time resident and they have been very helpful. And if you don't understand something they will explain.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »