Lost On The Shore

This and That

No, the Manet painting has nothing to do with today's post, I just like it.  I just wanted to catch up on a couple of items.

CRABS

I think what the two Governors agreed upon was a sensible approach to trying to preserve the crab fishery in the medium term.  To do so in the long term will require some real progress on reducing the pollution levels in the Bay.  This won't be easy, particularly in the context of the growth expected in the region.  Stay tuned for more on this.

Growth

I see they have broken ground on new construction at Fort Meade for the new headquarters of the Defense Information Systems Agency.  More than 4,000 workers will fill this building when it is finished, most coming from Virginia.  The state needs to move quickly to ensure that the local infrastructure is ready for this and thousands of others that will move here as a result of the Base Realignment and Closing (BRAC) program.  In that regard, it's worth noting that the Maryland Department of the Environment STILL has not completed implementing regulations for the Stormwater Management Act of 2007 and they don't expect to finish until December of this year - more than 18 months after the Act was passed.  We've got to do better.

Transportation

Many want to see Maryland take the lead in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.  A significant portion of those come from transportation, yet we seem to be making little progress on putting into place mass transit options and highway improvements that will allow us to reduce the time we spend in commuting as well as the gas we use and the carbon dioxide our cars emit.  Somehow, we have to make better progress on this.  We all want to see a clear return on our tax dollars.  This would be pretty clear.

Energy

With the passage of the bill to reduce our per capita electricity consumption by fifteen percent by 2015, we need to get moving.  Let's hope the Maryland Energy Administration and the PSC don't drag their feet the way MDE has done with the stormwater rules.  I know it's complicated, but it's also important to get it done. It's less than 7 years to 2015, we can't fritter away 18 months on figuring out how we're going to do it.

More later!

Freeze in the Dark

I've written before about the inadequate plan offered by the Maryland Energy Administration and the O'Malley administration to solve Maryland's energy problems.  In the face of inadequate generating facilities (in 2006 we consumed about 63 million megawatt hours (MWH) but produced only 49 million),  and inadequate transmission facilities to bring electricity in from other states (PJM interconnection, which manages power transmission in the mid-atlantic warns of possible rolling blackouts beginning in 2011), the state's energy plan puts all of our energy eggs in the basket of conservation.

Sure, conservation is good; the state has no other plans to lower our energy bills except for getting us to use electricity.  Other facets of the state's energy plan, including a requirement that more of our electricity come from renewable resources (almost all of which will be outside of the state) and auctioning off cap and trade pollution permits, will lead to increases in the cost of electricity, not decreases. 

Now, the Maryland Senate has jumped on the bandwagon with an amendment to the bill that would get a small rebate for customers from Constellation Energy.  The amendment requires that all new generating facilities to be built in Maryland must be regulated by the Maryland PSC.  That means that the PSC will be able to dictate to the owners how much electricity they can produce, to whom they can sell it and what price they can sell it for.

Proponents of the legislation argue that deregulation (which most of them voted for) was wrong, and the way to go is to regulate all new plants.  Apparently they think this will bring cheap electricity back to Maryland.

Well, of course they were wrong when they voted to deregulate and they're wrong now.  It's not possible to put that genie back in the bottle.  The real effect of the amendment will be to ensure that no new generating capacity is ever built in Maryland.  Who would invest a few billion dollars in a plant here when they can build one across the border in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware or other places and sell the electricity on the open market to whomever they like?  And who would voluntarily subject themselves to the vagaries of the Maryland Public Service Commission which seems to blow hot and cold on the whole issue of power generation and apparently believes that ensuring safe and adequate power for Marylanders requires them to be fierce adversaries of those who supply the power. 

So it looks like we won't have any new generating capacity in Maryland.  And we won't have any additional capacity to bring electricity here from other states in the foreseeable future, either.  And, at the same time that the Maryland Energy Administration is saying we don't need either of those, the Maryland Department of Planning is pointing to more than 100,000 new people coming to the Eastern Shore, an influx of jobs and residents from other states due to Base Realignment and Closing (BRAC) and continued growth in Southern Maryland and the Washington area.  I sure hope all these new residents don't expect to use any electricity, because there might not be any.

[The photo, by Friedrich Tellberg, of a windmill and the cooling tower of a nuclear plant, shows old and new means of generating power]

 

A Growing Problem

Is this the future of the Eastern Shore?  The Maryland Department of Planning (MDP) seems to be worried that it is.  In a report released yesterday, they point out some worrisome trends.  From 1973 to 2002, the Shore lost almost 45 thousand acres of agricultural land, 71thousand acres of forest and added almost 117 thousand acres of developed land.  They project an increase of 160 thousand people over the next twenty-five years.

MDP points out, correctly, that growth on the Shore has not been particularly well managed.  A lot of the growth has come on large lots, outside of developed areas and without a whole lot of planning.  This has resulted, as noted above, in the loss of large amounts of farm and forest land and has caused significant problems with water supply and quality and other infrastructure.  MDP says, and I agree, that the towns and counties need to do a better job of planning and focus the growth in or adjacent to developed areas.

There's no question that growth has changed the nature of many of the Shore's small towns.  The problem, of course, is that many jurisdictions on the Shore, counties and towns, see growth asa sort of holy grail that will bring new, wealthier population and will provide badly needed resources to fund strained county and town budgets.  In addition, given the nature of rural politics, many local governments are heavily influenced by the views of developers, builders and others who stand to gain by unbridled growth.  More state oversight and control might add some needed backbone to local politicians when they're faced with demands from developers.

That said, I don't think the situation is quite as bad as some news articles have made it out to be.  A big chunk of the growth projected by MDP is in Cecil county where there is going to be some impact from the expansion at Aberdeen Proving Grounds and near the Bay Bridge where there are some developments popping up for those who commute to the Western Shore to work.

The obvious additional question is what are all these new residents of the Eastern Shore going to do?  While the cost of living here is lower than on the Western Shore, wages here are considerably lower.  There's not really much in the way of significant new industry either. 

Of course, a lot of people buy second homes on the Shore, and that has contributed signficantly to development.  But the bay bridges are growing more and more congested and Maryland has failed so spectatularly at selecting a location for a new bay crossing that no one even talks about it any more. 

Of course, that leaves retirees; and there are more and more retirees coming here.  And they do contribute to the one industry that is showing strong growth here - the medical industry.  Almost every hospital on the Shore is in growth mode, and they employ a lot of people.  But I'd be surprised if that many retirees actually show up here, given the effort other states are making to capture them. 

The real problem, I think, is up the road in Delaware where planning is virtually non-existent and growth controls are laughable.  The recently completed master plan for Sussex County, home to Rehoboth and Bethany, would allow ONE MILLION HOUSES in the county, far exceeding the capacity the infrastructure can support and destroying the natural beauty and rural character of the land.  That is the big threat we have to face here on the Shore.

 

Is Planning a Joke in Maryland?

Two recent bits of news have caught my eye.  Last week the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in a 4-3 decision that master plans or comprehensive plans developed by local jurisdictions or growth management plans enacted by the state basically have no legal effect; counties can ignore them at will. 

The court was reviewing Allegany County's approval of a 4,300 home development in a rural area of the county near Green Ridge State Forest some 30 miles east of Cumberland.  The project was approved by the county despite the fact that it did not conform to the county's master plan or the existing zoning.  The Allegany County Board of Zoning Appeals ignored the question of whether the development was in compliance with the master plan, stating simply that it was 'in harmony' with the plan - a pretty loose standard.

The court also ruled that state laws requiring localities to develop and conform to master plans and steer new development to existing population centers had no effect.  The chief judge, Dale Cathell, said that the use of words 'conform' and 'vision' were never intended to impose strict requirements on localities in their decisions on land use.

The other bit of news was that yesterday, at Aberdeen Proving Ground, the Army began construction on the first major construction related to the Base-Realignment and Closing (BRAC) that will bring thousands of new jobs to Maryland.  The complex being built, which eventually will total twelve buildings on 250 acres will house 5,000 of the 10,000 new jobs coming to the base.  Thousands more jobs will be coming to Fort Meade and the DC suburbs under BRAC. 

To their credit, the O'Malley administration has been proactive in dealing with BRAC-related issues.  The Governor has created a BRAC Readiness Committee and placed Lt. Governor Anthony Brown in charge of it.  The Committee will focus on schools, housing transportation and other areas that will be affected by the thousands of families that will follow the jobs that are coming to Maryland. 

Without a comprehensive plan at the state level, the effect of this growth could easily overwhelm the existing infrastructure and sprawl could add significant further damage to an already damaged Bay and environment.  We'd end up with even more congested roads, failing water and sewer systems, inadequate schools and a more polluted Bay.  But, with the court decision, it seems like such a comprehensive plan would be just so much hot air.

So we need legislative action to establish an aggressive smart growth strategy that will focus growth in older areas with existing infrastructure and will provide an effective transportation system to meet the needs of both existing and new residents.  And the General Assembly needs to pass legislation that states unequivocally that local master plans must conform to smart growth principles, must be comprehensive and must be enforcable and enforced.  We're too small a state to allow uncontrolled development to degrade the quality of life for all of us.

[note:  the illustration is of the 'Phoenix Line Safety Coaches' which were used around 1830 to provide swift and regular 'mass transit' between Baltimore and Washington - only five hours!]

   

No Easy Solution

The number of foreclosures in Maryland continues to climb as the housing market deteriorates.  While the problem is widespread, the number and rate of foreclosures varies considerably throughout the state.  In Kent County on the Upper Shore, there were 52 foreclosures filed in 2007, a 4 percent increase over the previous year.  Of course, though, the level of real estate activity in Kent County is small, only 230 sales were reported during the same period. 

On the other hand, there were 6,435 foreclosure cases in Prince George's County last year - up 89 percent, almost equal to the number of houses sold - 7,568.  In Montgomery County, foreclosure actions were up 129 percent to 2,980 compared to 10,360 houses sold in Montgomery during the same period. 

The root causes of the problem are the same everywhere.  In many cases, people took out mortgages with adjustable rates, hoping to refinance before the rate adjusted upward to a level they couldn't afford.  In other cases, people have been overwhelmed by increases in the cost of energy and food and haven't been able to meet their mortgage payments.  Some bought houses that they couldn't afford in the hopes that they would be bailed out by an increase in the value of the property - something that seemed a sure bet at the time.

In retrospect, it's easy to see that housing prices couldn't keep increasing at such a rate; incomes weren't increasing fast enough to support it.  And we're now seeing the correction.  Home prices are dropping across the state, although not as fast here as in many other states.  In many cases, houses are now worth less than the mortgages they secure.  As homeowners are unable to make payments on their mortgages, the banks, hedge funds and other investors that own the mortgages are taking significant, sometimes spectacular losses.  And, of course, with home prices down and a glut of homes on the market, construction of new homes has suffered a significant decline, leading to job losses and still more foreclosures. 

So, homeowners and lenders are both losing money.  Where did all the money go?  Well, mostly it went to us.  It went to us when we happily sold houses at very high prices and pocketed the proceeds, and when we used the inflated value of our houses to take out home equity loans to buy cars or boats or second homes or send our children to college. Mortgage brokers, builders, real estate agents and brokers, banks, hedge funds and others also profited handsomely.  Now things are looking grim.

Everyone, of course, is looking for a solution to the problem.  But it's not easy, since not only do many people owe more on their homes than they're worth, but, with the economy worsening and prices of energy and food rising, people are finding it more and more difficult to keep up with current payments, much less the higher payments that many will face when a record number of adjustable mortgages resets to higher rates this year and next.

In the Maryland General Assembly, three bills to address the problem have cleared committee this week and, with broad support, should be passed easily.  The first extends the time required to foreclose on a property in Maryland from fifteen days - one of the shortest in the nation - to four months.  The idea is that this longer period will provide more time to try to work out alternatives to foreclosure.

The second bill makes mortgage fraud a separate crime, punishable by fines and significant jail time.  it also allows those victimized by mortgage fraud collect punitive damages.  The third bill targets 'mortgage rescue' firms that takes houses away from people on the pretext of 'saving' them from foreclosure.  These all make sense to me.

Nationally, there's been very little action.  The Bush administration has announced a voluntary plan under which lenders will freeze rates for some subprime mortgages, but few are expected to benefit.  The Senate is considering a bill which would allow bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage amounts or interest rates on certain mortgages.  Republicans have filibustered the bill, though and the President has opposed the bill.  The Senate bill would also authorize the states to use bonds to finance the purchase of foreclosed homes, thus helping keep home prices from deteriorating further.   

Frankly, I think the Senate bill sounds good given the current situation, but it wouldn't be a panacea and the odds are against it becoming law anytime soon.  The President says "Why don't we let stimulus package one have a chance to kick in?" referring to the plan to distribute $150 billion worth of incentives, notably a tax rebate worth up to $1,200 for a married couple. 

That's scary; if the price of houses declines so much by May that we can buy a house for $1,200, then we're in worse trouble than we thought.

Taking Responsibility - Part Three

This is the third in our series on how we can each take individual responsibility for the consequences of our actions and, in the process, help save the Chesapeake Bay.

Traditionally, we have thought of air pollution and water pollution as two separate things.  We now, however, have a better understanding of the link between these two kinds of pollution.  Pollutants released into the air eventually make their way down to the ground.  When these pollutants reach the ground in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, they are transported into streams or rivers by runoff or groundwater flow and eventually find their way in to the Chesapeake Bay.  Each year, roughly 97 million pounds - about one third of the Bay's total nitrogen load - comes from air deposition.

Most of this nitrogen comes from power plant smokestacks and vehicle tailpipes.  Let's look at each.

Power plants are the source of more than 20% of the nitrogen oxide pollution in the Chesapeake Bay area.  Given the prevailing winds, much of the pollution is blown in from power plants in Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana in addition to local generation.  Much of the nitrogen oxide is formed during the burning of coal, which includes a significant amount of nitrogen.  In addition to polluting the Bay, nitrogen dioxides react with volatile organic compounds to form photochemical smog.  Nitrogen dioxides also contribute to acid rain when they combine with moisture in the atmosphere.

In addition to releasing large amounts of nitrogen oxides, coal-fired power plants release significant amounts of mercury into the environment - approximately 40% of all mercury emissions.  Mercury, particularly organic mercury compounds such as methylmercury, are highly toxic.  Methylmercury tends to concentrate in fish, particularly fish high on the food chain. 

While federal regulation has had some impact on reducing nitrogen oxide and mercury emissions, the EPA has generally resisted calls for tighter regulation, particularly during the Bush Administration.  To take up the slack many state, including Maryland, have passed laws which sharply limit nitrogen oxide and mercury emissions.  These laws and regulations have no effect upon the upstream polluters in the Ohio Valley, though. 

As consumers and as voters, we should urge our legislators and regulators to sharply limit power plant pollution and prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants in favor of alternatives.  I personally prefer the construction of nuclear power plants, but I recognize there are different problems there.  In addition, we should do what we can to conserve electricity, thus protecting not only the Bay and our lungs, but also our wallets. 

The Washington-Baltimore area has some of the worst traffic in the country.  Each workday, millions of cars sit in traffic jams spewing pollution from their tailpipes.  In addition to generating needless air pollution, traffic congestion wastes the time of motorists and passengers, consumes additional fuel and contributes to road rage.  The Texas Transportation Institute estimated that, in 2000, traffic congestion cost each motorist in large cities about $1000.  In the Baltimore-Washington area, with the second-most congested roads in the country, the cost is much higher.

Further, the population of the area is increasing.  The Base Realignment and Closing program of the Defense Department will bring thousands of new jobs to Maryland over the next several years.  We need now to begin construction of mass transit and new highways not only to reduce pollution but also to make our lives easier.  Additional mass transit in the area is particularly important because it not only reduces pollution significantly, it also encourages increased density in our communities thus reducing the runoff that we discussed in Part Two.  We need to tell our legislators that we want more and better transportation funding now and we're willing to pay for it.  After all, it will save us money in the long run.

There are many other ways we can reduce air pollution in the region:

• Turn off your engine if waiting more than 1 minute at the drive-through or to pick someone up (more fuel is wasted when idling than restarting).
• Stay alert in traffic. Take alternate routes ones with few stop signs and lights to eliminate idling.
• Warm up vehicle for one minute.
• Accelerate gently and evenly, and use your cruise control to maintain a steady speed.
• Use vehicle's flow through vents instead of air conditioning (which decreases fuel efficiency by 21%) or opening window.
• Check car's cooling system thermostat. If this is stuck open it can reduce engine efficiency by 7% ($3.20 a month).
• Keep car engine tuned. A poorly tuned car wastes 15% more fuel. Again more fuel equals more pollution and travel fewer miles.
• Properly inflate & align tires to save gas & to reduce wear on tires over time.
• Reduce the amount of miles you drive. Fewer mile driven equals less gas, which equals fewer polluting emissions created. Walk or ride a bike!
• Planning trips carefully which will result in reductions in the amount of nutrients and toxic substances entering the watershed.
• Purchase fuel efficient automobiles: you'll get farther on less gas and keep more $ in your pocket.
• Follow state guidelines on emissions testing & maintain any pollution-control devices. Car will be more efficient, use less gas, produce fewer emissions.
• Consider telecommuting for work.
• Use public transportation when available.
• Conserve electricity, including turning off lights when not in use and keeping your thermostat at regular temperatures in winter (68) and summer (80). If 1% of the nation's consumer switch to energy efficient appliances it would equal eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from 1.5 power plants.
• Participate in recycling programs AND purchase products that are packaged and/or made from recycled and recyclable materials.Recycling conserves energy which equals less power plant emissions equals less air pollution. It also conserves natural resources.
• Consider using an electric lawn mower instead of a gas-powered one and use a rake to collect leaves - it's good exercise! Lawn and handheld gardening engines account for 10% of mobile source hydrocarbon emissions. Running a gas powered lawn mower for one hour equals the emissions released when driving your car 350 miles!!!!

[Note:  The photo was found in Wikimedia commons and is licensed under the Gnu Free Documentation License.  The photo was taken in South Africa]

Taking Responsibility - Part Two

When it rains, water that falls on impervious surfaces such as roads, sidewalks, driveways, roofs and parking lots accumulates. Rather than soaking into the ground, this water runs off into our streams and waterways either directly or through storm drains that have been built for the purpose.  The runoff carries with it all the contaminants that have built up on the surface including sediment, phosphorus, nitrogen, toxic metals, herbicides and pesticides, organic materials, oil compounds, soaps and detergents.  In the Chesapeake Bay watershed, all of this eventually ends up in the Bay.

Urban storm water runoff is responsible for about 16% of phosphorus, 11% of nitrogen and 9% of sediment load reaching the Bay.  Paved surfaces prevent infiltration of water into the ground, adversely affecting groundwater levels.  During rainstorms, paved surfaces discharge large quantities of water at high volumes into waterways scouring stream beds, destablilizing stream contours and muddying water.  Sediment from erosion becomes suspended in the water, blanketing the aquatic habitat, destroying aquatic vegetation and the animals that depend on it.  Finally, and not least, runoff from impervious surfaces contributes significantly to stream flooding during rain storms placing life and property at risk.

The vast majority of land developed more than twenty years ago lacks any form of storm water quality controls; runoff was just channeled to the nearest stream and the consequences were ignored.  Beginning about twenty years ago more attention has been paid to reducing the impact of sudden surges in storm water through the construction of storm water ponds and retention basins.  More recently there has been more attention paid to the quality as well as the quantity of storm water runoff.

So what can we do?  There are three areas where we can have an impact.  First, we must ensure that new development incorporates the latest and best techniques for reducing the impact of storm water runoff.  This starts with planning and zoning to focus development in already developed areas rather than paving over previously undeveloped land and steering development away from sensitive areas and watersheds.

New developments should include the least amount of impervious surface possible so that rainwater can infiltrate the ground rather than runoff.  Requirements for wide streets and sidewalks should be eliminated and use of pervious material for driveways should be encouraged.  Where runoff is unavoidable, techniques that allow stormwater to infiltrate the ground should be used.  Structural stormwater abatement techniques such as stormwater holding ponds, grassy swales and stormwater filters should be used.  We must strongly encourage our local and state governments to require these techniques in all new development.

Second, we need to initiate efforts to retrofit these techniques into existing urban and suburban areas.  Yes, this will cost money.  But as I said earlier, stormwater runoff already contributes significantly to the pollution of the Bay.  Preventing additional runoff is important, but dealing with the existing problem is critical.  Some have proposed a small real estate tax based on the amount of impermiable surface, perhaps with some kind of credit for mitigation efforts.  This makes sense to me since it would both target those that are contributing to the problem while providing incentive for reducing the amount of impermiable surface.  It would be important that the proceeds from such a tax be dedicated solely to improving existing stormwater management systems.

Finally, there are things we can do ourselves.  Install rain barrels or rain gardens in our yard to reduce runoff and allow rainwater to infiltrate into the ground.  Use crushed stone or mulch for walkways or driveways to allow rainwater to soak into the ground.  Use natural alternatives to chemical fertilizers or pesticides.  If you must use chemical fertilizers, have your soil tested to determine the appropriate amount.  Plant trees, shrubs and groundcover.  These will absorb up to fourteen times more rainwater than grass and they don't require fertilizer.

Wash your car at a commercial car wash rather than washing it in your driveway.  Commercial car washes either recycle their water or direct their wastewater to a wastewater treatment plant that removes much of the contaminants.  If you organize or participate in a car-washing fundraiser, take a look at this guidance for having a low impact car wash.  It will make a difference.

Finally, we need to keep the pressure on our lawmakers and political leaders and hold them accountable for their actions...or lack of action.  They need to know that we care about the Bay and want something done.  Maryland passed a new stormwater management law this year which will significantly strengthen controls on new development.  Virginia is lagging, though and Pennsylvania is far behind in requiring modern stormwater control techniques.  If our political leaders think we really care, they will do something, otherwise, they will just give lip service to Saving The Bay.

{The photo was taken by Robert Lawton and is licensed under the Creative Commons Sharealike 2.5 license]      

Chesapeake Bay Health - No Surprises

This swan has made it's nest out of discarded plastic trash bags.  A beautiful sight, isn't it.  I imagine we'll see a lot more like it.

To almost no one's surprise, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, in their annual State of the Bay Report, told us that the health of the bay had once again declined.  The Foundation gave the bay a score of 28, down from 29 last year, out of a possible 100.  It was clear, as I pointed out a couple of months ago, that almost every indicator of bay health was declining.  The modest goals which had been set for 2010 were clearly out of reach already.

In response to the announcement, the governors of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the may of the District of Columbia did what they do best; they had a meeting and then a press conference.  They promised that now they were going to get serious about cleaning up the Bay.  The governor of Pennsylvania was particularly impressive, promising to start doing something about the immense amounts of pollution that sweep down the Susequehanna River into the Bay - as long as someone else pays for it. 

Back in October, I asked the question: "Do we care enough to save the Bay?"  Sure, we all SAY we care.  Many of us put bumper stickers on our cars, we talk about how wonderful the Bay is and, at the end of the year, we contribute a few bucks to some non-profit that says they want to save the Bay.  Do we really think that these actions will clean up the Bay and restore it to its former glory?  I doubt it, but it makes us feel good.

It seems simple to me.  Morally and ethically, we should each be responsible for the consequences of our actions.  We should be responsible for ensuring that our sewage is treated and disposed of in a manner that protects the public waters and air, we should be responsible for ensuring that our trash and garbage is disposed of safely and, again, without damaging the public water or air.  We should ensure that runoff from our houses, lawns, driveways and the roads that service us does not pollute the land or water.  We should ensure that the plants that provide us with electricity do not pollute the air or water.

Now, for the most part, we can't do this individually.  As a society, we've organized ourselves into political units and elected governments to do these kind of things collectively.  That means that we have to ensure that the people we choose to run these governments do what is necessary for us to fulfill our responsibilities to protect the air and water around us.  And, since we can't do most of these things individually, we must be responsible for providing the resources necessary to do these things collectively.  Yes, that means fees and yes, that means taxes --- but we need to do it and we need to do it now.  After all, if we don't take responsibility, who will?

    

This and That

Just catching up on a few things....

First District Race

Former Governor Ehrlich last night endorsed conservative State Senator Andy Harris in his primary race against nine-term Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest.  Further muddying the waters, Robert Banks, a former Ehrlich appointee, recently filed papers to enter the race.  Banks does not live in the district, but apparently feels that is no impediment.  Congressional candidates must live in the state they represent but are not legally required to live in the district.  Banks believes he represents a middle ground between conservative Harris and moderate Gilchrest. 

Gilchrest, meanwhile, in a vote sure to infuriate his conservative opponents, voted to override the President's veto of the SCHIP authorization.  Gilchrest seems to have the support of the Republican establishment in Washington, receiving contributions from the House Minority leader and other Republican leadership.  He's attending a meeting with President Bush in Easton this weekend.

Frankly, the whole thing mystifies me.  It seems as though the Republicans have been making a concerted effort to purge themselves of the moderate wing of the party.  Of course, some in the Democratic party have been trying to do the same thing to their own moderates.  One of the keys to the Democrats success this past election was the ability of Rahm Emmanuel, Steny Hoyer and others to successfully recruit and support moderate Democrats to run in districts where a liberal Democrat couldn't win.  I suppose, though that many progressive Democrats and conservative Republicans believe it's better to be ideologically pure than to have the majority in Congress.

Slot Wars

The Washington Post's Maryland Moment reports that Maryland Senate President Mike Miller and Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot had a little sparring match at the Rural Maryland Council's annual awards banquet last night.  Miller left the room when Franchot arrived, refused to talk to him and then criticized Franchot for the public comments he has been making regarding O'Malley's plan for slot machine licensing.  The Baltimore Sun reports that slot machine referendums, of the type that Governor O'Malley is considering, tend to fail. 

The Associated Press reported today that Pennsylvania has recorded more than $1 Billion in slots revenue since authorizing slot machines three years ago, even though three of the largest planned casinos won't open until 2009.  This is sure to provide fodder for those pushing slots for Maryland, particularly since a good portion of that revenue probably came from Marylanders.  I'd be happy to see some of that revenue staying in Maryland.

Growth and Sprawl

The Sun reports today that a poll of Marylanders finds that a majority of Marylanders believe the state is growing too fast with traffic congestion a major concern.  More than two-thirds disagreed with the idea that Maryland has enough open space and most felt the public has too little input to planning decisions.  While the poll is a bit suspect, being commissioned by an organization that supports 'smart growth' the results do echo findings from a number of earlier polls. 

It would be good if the state and the local governments actually listened to their citizens on this issue, but I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen.

 

Follow-Up

I just thought I'd take a moment to post some brief updates to some of my earlier posts.

Save The Bay?

As I posted earlier. we all say we want to 'Save The Bay', but we don't seem at all willing to take the steps necessary.  On Wednesday, The Capital reported that Anne Arundel County engineers had calculated that removing existing pollution and retrofitting stormwater systems to prevent new pollution in county waterways would cost about $5 billion - that's billion with a 'b'. Anne Arundel's current storm drainage fee generates about $300,000 a year.

Today The Sun reports that a fee on new development proposed by the county executive, which would generate about $5 million a year is in trouble.  A competing proposal by environmentalists which would levy an annual fee on all property owners and raise about $30 million is not under consideration.  Republican Councilman C. Edward Middlebrooks agreed that more resources are needed but suggested that the fee proposed by the county executive might be a dreaded "TAX".

Well, of course it is.  Taxes are the way we collectively raise money to address common needs.  It always amazes me how those who champion 'personal responsibilty' don't feel we should be responsible for addressing the effects of dumping our wastes in the public air and waterways. 

As I said in my earlier post, Marylanders like to say that we love our environment and want to 'Save The Bay', but our actions would indicate otherwise.

How Much Is Enough?

In an earlier post I discussed how educators expect all of their budget requests to be fully-funded, without question.  Governor O'Malley has had the nerve to propose a freeze on the inflation index in the Thornton Plan, which would reduce education funding by the state by about two percent. 

Now the inflation index used for the Thornton Plan bears little relation to the CPI index published by the Federal Government; for the current year, it's 5.7%.  State spending on K-12 education has increased from $3.12 billion in 2003 to $5.16 billion in the current fiscal year, an increase of about 65% in five years.  That's a lot of money.

Every problem with education can, in the eyes of educators, be solved only by throwing more money at it, but they balk at telling us what we will get for it in terms of performance.  Apparently educators' performance can't be measured.  Compare that to the proposal by Comptroller Peter Franchot that an additional $30 million be allocated to his office for improved information technology and some additional staffing.  With that, he says, he can collect an additional $200 million in unpaid taxes over the next four years.  Sounds like a good investment to me.

Special Session

It seems clear that our Governor is going to call a special session of the legislature.  The Washington Post reports that the Governor has decided to call a special session to consider his tax and revenue proposals, perhaps beginning as early as late October.  I think this is a risky move for him.  The result could be passage of one or two items on which there is general agreement (at least among the democratic majority) and the rest will be discussed to death.  This could leave us with the worst of both worlds, a higher sales tax but no income tax reform, no property tax reductions, no low-income tax credits and, of course, no slots.  Let's hope he gets some solid proposals together before the session so there can be a fair and open debate on the proposals.