| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Published Material from Baltimore County Members
These views are not necessarily the views of the organization as a whole.
Democrats deserve blame for price hike
As Maryland waits for a 72 percent increase in its electricity bills, the Democratic Party is quick to place blame in its attempts at damage control ("Scrambling for energy plan," March 20).
The General Assembly leadership as well as the state Democratic Party are quick to point at Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
It seems as though the Democrats have forgotten how this situation came to be.
Did they forget that it was under the leadership of the prior governor that, in 1999, the Democratic-led Assembly crafted a bill that was supposed to increase competition and lead to lower prices?
Little did they know what forces they had set in motion.
Now, instead of trying to place blame where it does not belong, the Democratic leadership should be working with the governor to come up with a plan that will mitigate the hardship many citizens of Maryland will feel.
But the Democratic spin-masters will continue weaving their misinformation and the fighting will continue in Annapolis.
Let's hope that somehow the truth will come out and that Marylanders will be able to sort fact from fiction.
Paul Bunting
Arbutus
Repeal energy tax to aid ratepayers
To no one's great surprise, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley has used the impending electric rate hikes as an opportunity for political posturing and attacks on Governor Ehrlich.
The cost of electricity is directly tied to the cost of the fuel used to produce it. Like it or not, the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company is not a charity and has to make a profit in order to survive. To sell product at a loss is not, to use a favorite liberal buzzword, "sustainable".
Unless he is single-handedly capable of lowering the cost of coal, oil and natural gas, there is nothing that Mr. O'Malley can do about the price of fuel, and hence, the price of electricity.
There is, however, something that Mr.O'Malley can do if he is truly interested in reducing the cost of electricity for the citizens of Baltimore. The city imposes an energy tax, which could be repealed, thus reducing the bills of Baltimore's electric users.
Mr. O'Malley prides himself on being a man of action. Repealing the city's energy tax would give him an easy opportunity to prove himself.
Gary A. Smith
Campaign donations are misuse of tithes
Recently, we witnessed a shameful display of state legislators hastily returning campaign contributions from local religious institutions to prevent the possibility that those churches might lose their tax-exempt status ("3 more to return funds," March 8).
What I find fascinating is that most of these politicians seem only to darken the hallowed doors of these churches during an election year.
Even more mind-boggling is the willingness of the ministerial leadership to shell out any portion of the tithes and offerings of their congregants.
If the members of these congregations wish to individually "cast their pearls" into the troughs of our gluttonous state legislators, so be it. That is their right. However, when it is done collectively from the collection till, that is a different matter.
Shame on the elected and shame on the "selected."
Melvin A. Thomas
Randallstown
Party Line (R)
Sen. Harris bill would protect property rights
By Chris Cavey
Hold on to your property rights, good citizens of Baltimore County - eminent domain is again on the front burner.
Sen. Andy Harris has presented Senate Bill 35, a Constitutional amendment to further clarify what the definition of "public use" will mean for Baltimore County.
The Fifth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution states: "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation ..." Our government has used this for the building of ports, airports, defense plants, interstate highways and public works such as water facilities and sewer systems.
Just compensation was also given for these public takings, mostly defined as the "fair market value" of any given property at the time of the taking.
But June of 2005 brought about a change in the view of the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Kelo v. City of New London case indicated two important ideas.
First, that local government had the ability to determine what public use is. This allowed an open door for widening the definition to include economic development and positive community development.
Secondly, it allowed individual states to limit the purpose to which eminent domain could be used. Thus we have Sen. Harris and SB 35.
The good senator wants to redefine the term "public use" in Baltimore and Harford counties to mean public ownership or control, or physical use or access by the general public.
Under the bill, public use would not include use for economic development purposes, including: (1) urban renewal; (2) community revitalization or redevelopment; (3) commercial or industrial development; (4) job creation or (5) generation of tax revenue.
Guess who is not supporting Sen. Harris and the property owners of Baltimore County? Yep... our County Executive Jim Smith. I guess he hasn't spoken with Dutch Ruppersberger lately, who several years ago lost his battle to implement the SB 509 revitalization bill in Baltimore County.
Why would anyone support taking your property to put up a strip mall or a movie theater? Where is the public good?
Perhaps there are some wealthy and politically powerful forces whispering in the county executive's ears. Perhaps he wants to increase the commercial and industrial development in your neighborhood to increase revenues in the county coffers. Maybe he just wants to clean up the "hood" because your house doesn't meet his standards.
No matter - all answers are wrong. We've witnessed an economic renaissance in northeast Baltimore County, not because the "Smith Gang" came in and grabbed land, but because state government, under Republican leadership, did it right.
Support such as revitalization and streetscape money, plus a solid infrastructure - all are happening in front of Jim Smith's eyes on Route 43, and its working, the Republican way - go take a look.
Sen. Harris knows that public ownership does not equal economic growth. Everything that is publicly owned either costs tax dollars to support or will be sold for a profit because local government undervalued your fair market value to turn your lost potential profit into their political power. He wants to limit what your government can deem "public use."
Property owners have a champion in Sen. Harris, and they should let the county executive know it.
Only one right side in terms of supporting the president
Those on the political left are fond of stating that hatred is not one of their values. Their hypocrisy can be easily unmasked by the mere mention of the name George W. Bush, which will evoke some of the most fiery expressions of hatred known to man.
In recent weeks, there have been several letters in this newspaper which, to me, expressed a seething, visceral hatred of President Bush.
As a conservative, I will admit that I was less then thrilled with the Clinton presidency, but never once did I ever express, nor did I ever hear anyone make comments as vile and hateful as those which I have heard and read regarding President Bush.
Judging from other comments made in those same letters, it would appear the same hatred extends to the United States of America. Sarcastic nicknames for our nation are not expressions of love of country.
The president and our nation are not perfect, but we are far safer than we would have been had either of his opponents won.
At the other end of the scale is the naive left, those who believe that terrorism will end if we would just stop being so nasty to the terrorists.
This is known as pacifism, or its synonym, appeasement.
When someone is trying to kill you, you do not invite them over for tea. You stop them by any means necessary.
We are a nation at war.
Our nation faces a threat from individuals who have a problem with our very existence and wish to kill or subjugate us.
In the years following the Vietnam War, several former North Vietnamese leaders stated that they drew encouragement from the actions of the anti-war protesters.
Is anyone naive enough to believe that the terrorists are not drawing encouragement from the acts of those opposed to the war in Iraq?
During the Vietnam War, those opposed to the war supported neither the troops nor the mission. Today, they profess to support the troops but not the mission.
Hopefully, there will not be a third time, but one hopes that they will then get it right. Where would we be today had there been such individuals during World War II?
Like those who have recently written, I grieve for those who have died in this war, but they were not killed by the president. They were killed by enemy terrorists.
Shortly after 9/11, President Bush stated that "You are either with us, or you are against us."
This American believes that this statement still applies. Well, what are you?
Gary SmithCatonsville
This page last updated March 24, 2006
Site designed and developed by Sheila Faulstich