My position regarding the Shoppes at Apple Greene is that the current set (as of early November 2008) of plans last presented by the developer are inconsistent with the valid concerns expressed by the residents of Apple Greene. I look forward to seeing the next iteration of plans.
Clearly, reasonable people may disagree without being disagreeable. As President of DACCA, I faithfully represented the position of keeping public water and sewer out of Dunkirk. The rationale was consistent with the view of sustaining the rural character of northern Calvert County.
The County Comprehensive Plan and the various Town Center Master Plans envision focusing commercial development within the town centers. These were the rules that were established. This type of development is intended to assist the county small business owners who as we all know are the ones who create employment to the betterment of all.
In my view, it is beneficial to the entire community that the Shoppes at Apple Greene develop sooner rather than later as that will help employment (jobs) particularly during the current economic downturn.
Because of the lack of public water and sewer in Dunkirk, the commercial property owners will install privately owned and maintained water and sewer systems.
Because the initial plans of the commercial development did not appear to accommodate the concerns of those most affected (Apple Greene residents living adjacent to the town center), I sought and will continue to seek a solution that is acceptable to both the residents and developers. That solution is not yet achieved.
It is my experienced belief that an optimum solution can be found, but only by the working together in good faith on part of both the residents who have property rights and the commercial developer who also has property rights.
An alternative path consisting of just opposing the commercial development within the town center, in my view would result in the worse possible outcome for the residents. This alternative would likely result in prolonged legal tussles between the residents and developers. In the end, the developers might end up doing only what is optimum for their development without taking into consideration valid concerns of the residents.
I believe reasonable people agree with my view of charting the correct path of good faith dialogue between the residents and developer seeking a solution that is acceptable to both.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Year 2008 -- Whose Books Anyway?
Some might conclude the following books are/not (you select) appropriate for the Children's books section within the Calvert County Library System:
--- A dark comedy about Nathan Buford Forrest and followers demonstrating their 'nurturing' of minorities;
--- A documentary about non-union teachers preaching Christianity and proselytizing Islamic children into a "truer faith";
--- and a heart warming story depicting Pro-life leaders gently confining a pregnant woman (who wanted an abortion) until delivery of her child. At issue is diversity (of views).
You can view that each of the above stories promote good in nature and teach about subjects in life that may not be available to children at home. Yet, a minority of parents might find such material objectionable. It's like the saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
As taxpayers, these parents fund the Library and deserve to have their views understood. Perhaps a minority of parents believe controversial topics best remain within the Library, but at a more suitably categorized location.
Here in Calvert County, "And Tango Makes Three" book intends to demonstrate to children that having 2 dads is perfectly acceptable. Some parents made requests for relocation of the book to an Alternative Family Section (as in moving elsewhere in the library; not removing as in censorship).
Such a simple request was met with the wrath of an all powerful authoritative autocratic government. This minority of parents were denied reasonable accommodation by powerful government authority.
In spite of outside influences such as the ACLU mounting a "false flag" operation erroneously claiming censorship, citizens still have the right under the U.S. Constitution "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Look for a petition to be circulated.
The Library needs to rethink its position and then create an improved process to make reasonable accommodation for alternative views. It, its contents, and the employee salaries are provided by the taxpayers such as those parents who requested that reasonable accommodation.
Update: December 3, 2008. It appears the library is attempting to provide parents with some additional guidance to assist what their children view. We'll see...
--- A dark comedy about Nathan Buford Forrest and followers demonstrating their 'nurturing' of minorities;
--- A documentary about non-union teachers preaching Christianity and proselytizing Islamic children into a "truer faith";
--- and a heart warming story depicting Pro-life leaders gently confining a pregnant woman (who wanted an abortion) until delivery of her child. At issue is diversity (of views).
You can view that each of the above stories promote good in nature and teach about subjects in life that may not be available to children at home. Yet, a minority of parents might find such material objectionable. It's like the saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
As taxpayers, these parents fund the Library and deserve to have their views understood. Perhaps a minority of parents believe controversial topics best remain within the Library, but at a more suitably categorized location.
Here in Calvert County, "And Tango Makes Three" book intends to demonstrate to children that having 2 dads is perfectly acceptable. Some parents made requests for relocation of the book to an Alternative Family Section (as in moving elsewhere in the library; not removing as in censorship).
Such a simple request was met with the wrath of an all powerful authoritative autocratic government. This minority of parents were denied reasonable accommodation by powerful government authority.
In spite of outside influences such as the ACLU mounting a "false flag" operation erroneously claiming censorship, citizens still have the right under the U.S. Constitution "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Look for a petition to be circulated.
The Library needs to rethink its position and then create an improved process to make reasonable accommodation for alternative views. It, its contents, and the employee salaries are provided by the taxpayers such as those parents who requested that reasonable accommodation.
Update: December 3, 2008. It appears the library is attempting to provide parents with some additional guidance to assist what their children view. We'll see...
Monday, October 20, 2008
Year 2008 -- Rights and Responsibilities
Americans popularly speak about their various Rights as though those Rights are ordained as indivisible and without consequences; that they exist in a vacuum independent of other forces. However, these Rights are passed along from one generation to another (or not, in which case Freedom ceases to exist).
Yet, for each of these Rights as surely as a coin has two sides, Rights have an accompanying Responsibility. Each of the Rights discussed below were identified or enumerated (to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list) in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution.
The Right to vote brings with it the Responsibility to learn about the candidates and issues and to make an informed vote.
Freedom from slavery and involuntary servitude requires the individual to educate oneself and seek improvement, work, prosper, overcome obstacles, and care for others. This is an individual Responsibility that is not dependent upon government.
One's Right to remain silent brings with it the Responsibility to speak truthfully.
Ownership of property carries the Responsibility to properly maintain and repair that property. This is a self-respecting responsibility.
When executing the Right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” one's Responsibility requires providing sound and truthful evidence.
The Right of “people peacefully to assemble” means one has the Responsibility to respect the rights of the opposition to also peacefully assemble.
It is our Right that we are all “created equal,” but it is an individual Responsibility that determines if we excel or not.
Our Right to the “pursuit of happiness” can only be assured through our Responsibility to seek wisdom and purity as our founders intended.
We do have the Right “to alter or to abolish” one form of government and “to institute new Government,” but there is a Responsibility to make changes through peaceable means and to be very careful when organizing the various powers such as our founders did with their system of checks and balances.
We have the Right to “bear arms” and when doing so must ensure the use of weapons is done judiciously.
Our Right to the free exercise of religion brings a Responsibility to provide faithful worship.
Our Right to life brings the profound Responsibility to protect life, especially the most vulnerable among us, the unborn.
For brevity, there were additional Rights identified within the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution to include being secure in one's person, house, papers, effects, and protection against unreasonable searches. Several dwelt upon due process of law, speedy trial and punishments.
Regardless, one can easily identify that each of these Rights brings with it at least one Responsibility.
Yet, for each of these Rights as surely as a coin has two sides, Rights have an accompanying Responsibility. Each of the Rights discussed below were identified or enumerated (to mention separately as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list) in the Declaration of Independence or the US Constitution.
The Right to vote brings with it the Responsibility to learn about the candidates and issues and to make an informed vote.
Freedom from slavery and involuntary servitude requires the individual to educate oneself and seek improvement, work, prosper, overcome obstacles, and care for others. This is an individual Responsibility that is not dependent upon government.
One's Right to remain silent brings with it the Responsibility to speak truthfully.
Ownership of property carries the Responsibility to properly maintain and repair that property. This is a self-respecting responsibility.
When executing the Right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” one's Responsibility requires providing sound and truthful evidence.
The Right of “people peacefully to assemble” means one has the Responsibility to respect the rights of the opposition to also peacefully assemble.
It is our Right that we are all “created equal,” but it is an individual Responsibility that determines if we excel or not.
Our Right to the “pursuit of happiness” can only be assured through our Responsibility to seek wisdom and purity as our founders intended.
We do have the Right “to alter or to abolish” one form of government and “to institute new Government,” but there is a Responsibility to make changes through peaceable means and to be very careful when organizing the various powers such as our founders did with their system of checks and balances.
We have the Right to “bear arms” and when doing so must ensure the use of weapons is done judiciously.
Our Right to the free exercise of religion brings a Responsibility to provide faithful worship.
Our Right to life brings the profound Responsibility to protect life, especially the most vulnerable among us, the unborn.
For brevity, there were additional Rights identified within the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution to include being secure in one's person, house, papers, effects, and protection against unreasonable searches. Several dwelt upon due process of law, speedy trial and punishments.
Regardless, one can easily identify that each of these Rights brings with it at least one Responsibility.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Year 2008 -- Simple Economics
I'll describe the following linked article as simply as possible.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36986
Let's say you run a business that produces a particular product (whatever favorite item you'd like it to be).
Let's say that a friend of yours also produces the identical product.
All else being equal, the only physical difference between these 2 businesses is where the product is made.
Where your friend produces that product, he/she is charged 23% on each sale in which case your friend passes along that cost as part of the selling price.
Where you produce that product, you are charged 40% on each sale in which you pass along that cost as part of the selling price.
Now, at this point, all else being equal, your selling price for the identical product would be 17% higher, right?
Both products are sold side-by-side at stores. At the end of each day, some number of those products will be sold.
Who will make the most amount of money, you or your friend? The answer, obviously lies with decisions made by the buyer, right?
Corporate tax rates offer an even more striking comparison. In the US, our high rate of 40 percent hurts our ability to create jobs and create capital. Those in the European Union slashed the average corporate tax rate from 38 percent in 1996 to just 23 percent today.
Bottom line: Companies do not pay taxes, the consumer does.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=36986
Let's say you run a business that produces a particular product (whatever favorite item you'd like it to be).
Let's say that a friend of yours also produces the identical product.
All else being equal, the only physical difference between these 2 businesses is where the product is made.
Where your friend produces that product, he/she is charged 23% on each sale in which case your friend passes along that cost as part of the selling price.
Where you produce that product, you are charged 40% on each sale in which you pass along that cost as part of the selling price.
Now, at this point, all else being equal, your selling price for the identical product would be 17% higher, right?
Both products are sold side-by-side at stores. At the end of each day, some number of those products will be sold.
Who will make the most amount of money, you or your friend? The answer, obviously lies with decisions made by the buyer, right?
Corporate tax rates offer an even more striking comparison. In the US, our high rate of 40 percent hurts our ability to create jobs and create capital. Those in the European Union slashed the average corporate tax rate from 38 percent in 1996 to just 23 percent today.
Bottom line: Companies do not pay taxes, the consumer does.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Year 2008 -- Shoppes at Apple Greene and DACCA
September 15, 2008
The Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association (DACCA) arranged a meeting August 4, 2008, providing Apple Greene Subdivision representatives an opportunity to express concerns directly to the Developer of Shoppes at Apple Greene (Marrick/Howlin).
The Apple Greene leaders, Lisa Yankanich and Katie McVicker deserve credit and should be commended for leading their community and organizing public awareness. They clearly seek an equitable solution between the developer’s proposal and citizen’s concerns.
DACCA’s stated positions to date supported “in concept” the planned Drip Irrigation system and moving the development date from 10 years to within 3 – 5 years. Most importantly, support was dependent upon the specifics of the submitted plans.
To hear more details of the plans, DACCA’s Board of Directors attended a follow up meeting between the developer and the Apple Greene residents held September 15, 2008. The residents have valid concerns regarding the proposed stormwater management plans and the land application sewage system.
Concern remains with the proposed location of the intended “holding pond” that functions to house treated waste water especially during times when the drain fields are waterlogged. Reportedly, soil conditions preclude relocating the “holding pond” to another location.
As to the viability of using a drip irrigation field, the other two systems within Calvert County experience challenges. Calvert Gateway suffered from groundhog damage. At Marley Run lightning strikes disabled a switch. The Developer of Shoppes at Apple Greene should identify specific Risk Management plans and procedures to mitigate sewage compromise.
The current law requires a minimum of 50 feet between drip irrigation fields and residential areas. The distance for Calvert Gateway and its nearest neighbor is 700 feet. Marley Run may also be 700 feet from one current residence, but is within 50 feet of the nearest not yet developed lot. Additional study may be required to ascertain the correct distance (somewhere between 50 and 700 feet).
The developer identified plans to install multiple berms between drip irrigation fields and the residential area. DACCA encourages additional earthen walls planted with trees that would keep the view of the "holding pond" and all drip irrigation fields away from the residents. This would ensure any spillage remains on site and should strive to provide privacy approximating the current state.
Addressing effective stomwater management and storm drain issues are unresolved. To maximize keeping rainwater on site, the developer, at a minimum, should explore use of bio-retention basins, stormwater swale, “green roofs,” and rain gardens as well as pervious surfaces. Run-off leaving the Shoppes at Apple Greene remains a concern.
Evan Slaughenhoupt
President, Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association (DACCA)
www.daccamd.com
The Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association (DACCA) arranged a meeting August 4, 2008, providing Apple Greene Subdivision representatives an opportunity to express concerns directly to the Developer of Shoppes at Apple Greene (Marrick/Howlin).
The Apple Greene leaders, Lisa Yankanich and Katie McVicker deserve credit and should be commended for leading their community and organizing public awareness. They clearly seek an equitable solution between the developer’s proposal and citizen’s concerns.
DACCA’s stated positions to date supported “in concept” the planned Drip Irrigation system and moving the development date from 10 years to within 3 – 5 years. Most importantly, support was dependent upon the specifics of the submitted plans.
To hear more details of the plans, DACCA’s Board of Directors attended a follow up meeting between the developer and the Apple Greene residents held September 15, 2008. The residents have valid concerns regarding the proposed stormwater management plans and the land application sewage system.
Concern remains with the proposed location of the intended “holding pond” that functions to house treated waste water especially during times when the drain fields are waterlogged. Reportedly, soil conditions preclude relocating the “holding pond” to another location.
As to the viability of using a drip irrigation field, the other two systems within Calvert County experience challenges. Calvert Gateway suffered from groundhog damage. At Marley Run lightning strikes disabled a switch. The Developer of Shoppes at Apple Greene should identify specific Risk Management plans and procedures to mitigate sewage compromise.
The current law requires a minimum of 50 feet between drip irrigation fields and residential areas. The distance for Calvert Gateway and its nearest neighbor is 700 feet. Marley Run may also be 700 feet from one current residence, but is within 50 feet of the nearest not yet developed lot. Additional study may be required to ascertain the correct distance (somewhere between 50 and 700 feet).
The developer identified plans to install multiple berms between drip irrigation fields and the residential area. DACCA encourages additional earthen walls planted with trees that would keep the view of the "holding pond" and all drip irrigation fields away from the residents. This would ensure any spillage remains on site and should strive to provide privacy approximating the current state.
Addressing effective stomwater management and storm drain issues are unresolved. To maximize keeping rainwater on site, the developer, at a minimum, should explore use of bio-retention basins, stormwater swale, “green roofs,” and rain gardens as well as pervious surfaces. Run-off leaving the Shoppes at Apple Greene remains a concern.
Evan Slaughenhoupt
President, Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association (DACCA)
www.daccamd.com
Friday, September 5, 2008
Year 2008 -- Pelosi's Folly
The U.S. Energy Information Administration tracks gasoline prices. During the 1990’s, the weekly U.S. Regular Retail Gasoline Prices hovered in the range of $1.00 - $1.50 per gallon.
From 2000 – 2004, prices remained fairly constant at $1.50 per gallon.
Democrats wanted “change” in part by repealing $4 billion in tax breaks and subsidies from the Energy Policy Act. Nancy Pelosi claimed to have plans to assist the consumers.
Pelosi’s spokesman Drew Hammill said that by controlling congress, Democrat leadership would save the “taxpayers $20 billion over the next 25 years,” and “repeal $8.6 billion in tax loopholes for energy and large oil companies.”
When the previous state and congressional elections (November 2006) occurred, the price was running $2.50 per gallon.
Pelosi's plans did not include increasing the supply of gasoline of which 178 million gallons is consumed each day.
Since the control of the both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives responsibility shifted to the Democrat Party when they became the majority, the price accelerated from $2.50 to over $4.00 per gallon.
To no surprise, taxpayers have not received 1 penny from Pelosi’s $20 billion, only a worsening Pelosi-led economy.
From 2000 – 2004, prices remained fairly constant at $1.50 per gallon.
Democrats wanted “change” in part by repealing $4 billion in tax breaks and subsidies from the Energy Policy Act. Nancy Pelosi claimed to have plans to assist the consumers.
Pelosi’s spokesman Drew Hammill said that by controlling congress, Democrat leadership would save the “taxpayers $20 billion over the next 25 years,” and “repeal $8.6 billion in tax loopholes for energy and large oil companies.”
When the previous state and congressional elections (November 2006) occurred, the price was running $2.50 per gallon.
Pelosi's plans did not include increasing the supply of gasoline of which 178 million gallons is consumed each day.
Since the control of the both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives responsibility shifted to the Democrat Party when they became the majority, the price accelerated from $2.50 to over $4.00 per gallon.
To no surprise, taxpayers have not received 1 penny from Pelosi’s $20 billion, only a worsening Pelosi-led economy.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Year 2008 -- Losing a Golf Course?
July 23, 2008
The future of the Twin Shields Golf Course in Dunkirk appears in doubt. It may close and be replaced by a 51 home subdivision.
The owners have already submitted a subdivision application. It is expected to be presented to the Calvert County Planning Commission by this autumn providing the initial official steps to close what has been a recreation institution for nearly 40 years.
Still to be resolved are issues such as environmental data. Additionally, the owners may need to purchase about 200 Transferable Development Rights (TDR) necessary to the county requirement of 5 TDRs for each additional lot totaling about $1.6 Million.
As property owners, Karen and Diane Shields are well within their rights to make this business decision. The affect upon the community besides the obvious loss of a business, jobs and increase number of housing is not yet fully described.
Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association (DACCA) has previously advised developers of the critical need to quickly inform next door neighbors who would be most affected as a needed remedy to misperceptions. In 2007, Twin Shields sent a letter to their membership advising them of work during the spring 2007, unrelated to the maintenance of the golf course.
In part, the owners described their land as having more value when utilized for real estate development than as a golf course.
During this past year, significant planning was underway which has now matured to where engagement with the county planning staff has begun.
When will the closing occur and housing construction begun? Due to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) which guides subdivision development in concert with the capacity of the local schools to handle the population increase, it could take up to 7 years or more.
In the meantime, Twin Shields has every intention to continue as a golf course. This course was built by Karen and Diane’s father and his twin brother, hence the name Twin Shields.
Evan Slaughenhoupt
www.daccamd.com
President, DACCA
The future of the Twin Shields Golf Course in Dunkirk appears in doubt. It may close and be replaced by a 51 home subdivision.
The owners have already submitted a subdivision application. It is expected to be presented to the Calvert County Planning Commission by this autumn providing the initial official steps to close what has been a recreation institution for nearly 40 years.
Still to be resolved are issues such as environmental data. Additionally, the owners may need to purchase about 200 Transferable Development Rights (TDR) necessary to the county requirement of 5 TDRs for each additional lot totaling about $1.6 Million.
As property owners, Karen and Diane Shields are well within their rights to make this business decision. The affect upon the community besides the obvious loss of a business, jobs and increase number of housing is not yet fully described.
Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association (DACCA) has previously advised developers of the critical need to quickly inform next door neighbors who would be most affected as a needed remedy to misperceptions. In 2007, Twin Shields sent a letter to their membership advising them of work during the spring 2007, unrelated to the maintenance of the golf course.
In part, the owners described their land as having more value when utilized for real estate development than as a golf course.
During this past year, significant planning was underway which has now matured to where engagement with the county planning staff has begun.
When will the closing occur and housing construction begun? Due to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) which guides subdivision development in concert with the capacity of the local schools to handle the population increase, it could take up to 7 years or more.
In the meantime, Twin Shields has every intention to continue as a golf course. This course was built by Karen and Diane’s father and his twin brother, hence the name Twin Shields.
Evan Slaughenhoupt
www.daccamd.com
President, DACCA
Monday, July 7, 2008
Year 2008 -- Affordable Housing
The generally accepted definition of affordable housing consists of a household paying no more than 30 percent of its annual gross income on housing. Housing costs considered in this guideline generally include taxes and insurance for owners, and usually include utility costs.
When the monthly carrying costs of a home exceed 30–35% of household income, then the housing is considered unaffordable for that household.
Another method of studying affordability looks at the regular hourly wage of full-time workers who are paid only the minimum wage (as set by their local, regional, or national government). An ideal is that a full-time worker will be able to afford at least a small apartment in the area that he or she works in. Affordable Housing does not imply homeownership.
Using that definition, a librarian in Prince Frederick worked out some numbers for Calvert County. The minimum wage in Maryland in July 2009, will be $7.25/hour. An individual working full-time making only minimum wage and spending 35% of their income on housing could afford $440/month. In July 2008, the cheapest room (one room in a house) listed in Southern Maryland (somd.com) is $550...with none of those advertised in Calvert County.
The cheapest apartment in Calvert that was listed was $595 excluding utilities. Working full time (40 hours/week) and part time (20 hours/week) would then make it affordable; something not unheard of by those who did such and then also went to night school part time.
Yet, is the purpose of minimum wage to afford housing for today or just when the country is in a Great Depression type economy?
According to Nicole Andrade, Human Resource Advisory Department of the Labor Law Center (http://blog.laborlawcenter.com/2006/09/15/purpose-of-minimum-wage/) posted on Friday, September 15th, 2006, “The purpose of the minimum wage is to provide a base pay rate for employees. That base pay rate is considered to be a fair for the work that the employee agrees to. While many employees choose to pay their employees more than the minimum wage, the purpose of the minimum wage is to protect all employees from any alterations in the economy.
The minimum wage was first developed in the U.S. in 1933... The country needed to find a way to help employees afford food and housing, even when their work was hard to find. The purpose of the minimum wage was to ensure that all employees were able to afford the basic necessities in the bad Great Depression economy.
Over the years, the base rate for the minimum wage has varied. In 1968, the minimum wage was higher than it has even been. Since 1979, however, the minimum wage has been slowly decreasing. While people generally view the minimum wage as helpful to employees, some economists believe that, despite the purpose of the minimum wage, the minimum wage is ultimately hard on the economy.
In the Clinton administration, it was decided that in addition to a national minimum wage rate, each state could adopt its own minimum wage rate. Some states also gave localities within each states that right to decide their own minimum wages.
When a locality decides its own wage, the purpose of the wage may change. For example, the purpose of the minimum wage in Santa Fe is to provide a living wage for all employees, while the purpose of the minimum wage in other localities and states is simply to ensure that all employees receive fair pay for their work."
The amount one makes (Income) compared to their wants (Desire) and ability equals Reality.
If one leaves high school or college and expects to immediately buy a home comparable to the one they lived in with their parents, while possible, is mostly unrealistic.
Not everybody can afford to live in Beverly Hills, California; Manhattan, New York; nor Calvert County; to think otherwise is unrealistic.
One can increase their income by remaining in the workforce, but increases are not automatic. Individual responsibility includes making proper choices and giving up some things to allow for other things. Life is full of trade-offs. The decisions affect income and the ability to afford wants and desires.
Wants and desires change over time. What one simply had to have when young is not as important when older.
There is nothing in the existing Planning & Zoning ordinances of Calvert County that prevents the construction of affordable housing.
Free markets (supply and demand) determine the price of housing.
The economy of the United States provides an environment where one can buy a modest “starter home.” Over time with resale and potentially moving to other areas, one accumulates wealth (not a negative term). That accumulation of wealth and assets allows one to afford more expensive homes and an improved life style.
It is a fact of life that some who are in financial straits put themselves there by chosing unwisely; ignored education and spent opportunity. They were not simply unlucky, but made bad decisions.
However, there are those truly handicapped or otherwise medically challenged where a compassionate community of family, churches, and charities, with some assistance from the government is warranted.
A partnership among Builders/Developers, Real Estate, County, and Individuals can work together and reduce the cost of housing, but it is unrealistic to think one can buy a million dollar home for a dime.
When the monthly carrying costs of a home exceed 30–35% of household income, then the housing is considered unaffordable for that household.
Another method of studying affordability looks at the regular hourly wage of full-time workers who are paid only the minimum wage (as set by their local, regional, or national government). An ideal is that a full-time worker will be able to afford at least a small apartment in the area that he or she works in. Affordable Housing does not imply homeownership.
Using that definition, a librarian in Prince Frederick worked out some numbers for Calvert County. The minimum wage in Maryland in July 2009, will be $7.25/hour. An individual working full-time making only minimum wage and spending 35% of their income on housing could afford $440/month. In July 2008, the cheapest room (one room in a house) listed in Southern Maryland (somd.com) is $550...with none of those advertised in Calvert County.
The cheapest apartment in Calvert that was listed was $595 excluding utilities. Working full time (40 hours/week) and part time (20 hours/week) would then make it affordable; something not unheard of by those who did such and then also went to night school part time.
Yet, is the purpose of minimum wage to afford housing for today or just when the country is in a Great Depression type economy?
According to Nicole Andrade, Human Resource Advisory Department of the Labor Law Center (http://blog.laborlawcenter.com/2006/09/15/purpose-of-minimum-wage/) posted on Friday, September 15th, 2006, “The purpose of the minimum wage is to provide a base pay rate for employees. That base pay rate is considered to be a fair for the work that the employee agrees to. While many employees choose to pay their employees more than the minimum wage, the purpose of the minimum wage is to protect all employees from any alterations in the economy.
The minimum wage was first developed in the U.S. in 1933... The country needed to find a way to help employees afford food and housing, even when their work was hard to find. The purpose of the minimum wage was to ensure that all employees were able to afford the basic necessities in the bad Great Depression economy.
Over the years, the base rate for the minimum wage has varied. In 1968, the minimum wage was higher than it has even been. Since 1979, however, the minimum wage has been slowly decreasing. While people generally view the minimum wage as helpful to employees, some economists believe that, despite the purpose of the minimum wage, the minimum wage is ultimately hard on the economy.
In the Clinton administration, it was decided that in addition to a national minimum wage rate, each state could adopt its own minimum wage rate. Some states also gave localities within each states that right to decide their own minimum wages.
When a locality decides its own wage, the purpose of the wage may change. For example, the purpose of the minimum wage in Santa Fe is to provide a living wage for all employees, while the purpose of the minimum wage in other localities and states is simply to ensure that all employees receive fair pay for their work."
The amount one makes (Income) compared to their wants (Desire) and ability equals Reality.
If one leaves high school or college and expects to immediately buy a home comparable to the one they lived in with their parents, while possible, is mostly unrealistic.
Not everybody can afford to live in Beverly Hills, California; Manhattan, New York; nor Calvert County; to think otherwise is unrealistic.
One can increase their income by remaining in the workforce, but increases are not automatic. Individual responsibility includes making proper choices and giving up some things to allow for other things. Life is full of trade-offs. The decisions affect income and the ability to afford wants and desires.
Wants and desires change over time. What one simply had to have when young is not as important when older.
There is nothing in the existing Planning & Zoning ordinances of Calvert County that prevents the construction of affordable housing.
Free markets (supply and demand) determine the price of housing.
The economy of the United States provides an environment where one can buy a modest “starter home.” Over time with resale and potentially moving to other areas, one accumulates wealth (not a negative term). That accumulation of wealth and assets allows one to afford more expensive homes and an improved life style.
It is a fact of life that some who are in financial straits put themselves there by chosing unwisely; ignored education and spent opportunity. They were not simply unlucky, but made bad decisions.
However, there are those truly handicapped or otherwise medically challenged where a compassionate community of family, churches, and charities, with some assistance from the government is warranted.
A partnership among Builders/Developers, Real Estate, County, and Individuals can work together and reduce the cost of housing, but it is unrealistic to think one can buy a million dollar home for a dime.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Year 2008 -- More on Signs
June 9, 2008
While Calvert County mulls over the removal of signs that are posted on the State Highways (number routes such as Route 2, Route 4, and Route 2-4), let’s simply study the facts.
In focus are the commercial signs that appear on Friday afternoons and are typically removed by Monday mornings.
Instead of enforcing a regulation, already on the books, to ban all commercial signs from state roads right-of-way, the Calvert County Board of County Commissioners are instead trying something that was tried before, and failed.
The current effort giving the Calvert County Economic Development Commission until July 15 to devise a self-regulation agreement with the offending businesses to lower the number of weekend signs sounds more like the county western song lyrics, “give me just one more last chance.”
President John Adams said that “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Following are stubborn facts.
The signs are illegal. We live in a country based upon the rule of law, not the rule of what is convenient, or solely best for commerce.
In 1999, a voluntary understanding was formed within the business community to “self-regulate” the use of those “Litter on a Stick” signs. If that previous agreement which limited businesses to two signs per intersection and none on highway medians had worked then, the issue would not be arising again.
The state highway right-of-way includes the road and the area essentially up to the line of telephone poles on both sides of the highway. Signs in this right-of-way area can be a distraction to driving, hence considered dangerous.
The proliferation of the signs, the misuse of a previous “Gentleman’s Agreement,” brings the matter to the forefront with the most egregious example when 22 such signs for a Septic Company were posted at one traffic light in Dunkirk (that’s some welcome to Calvert County).
It was reported that one misinformed individual claimed that such enforcement would also affect commissioners up for re-election using a phrase that, ‘‘What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” While any political signs would be covered if placed in the state highway right-of-way, the implication that all political campaign signs are likewise covered is not true. Those running for office are given specific posting instructions that include not placing any signs on the State Highway right-of-way. Such signs are posted on private property; presumably with permission gained first from the owner.
Businesses deserve the right to advertise their business, but doing so in the right-of-way of state highways is not the place regardless of the size.
Evan Slaughenhoupt
www.daccamd.com
President, Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association (DACCA)
While Calvert County mulls over the removal of signs that are posted on the State Highways (number routes such as Route 2, Route 4, and Route 2-4), let’s simply study the facts.
In focus are the commercial signs that appear on Friday afternoons and are typically removed by Monday mornings.
Instead of enforcing a regulation, already on the books, to ban all commercial signs from state roads right-of-way, the Calvert County Board of County Commissioners are instead trying something that was tried before, and failed.
The current effort giving the Calvert County Economic Development Commission until July 15 to devise a self-regulation agreement with the offending businesses to lower the number of weekend signs sounds more like the county western song lyrics, “give me just one more last chance.”
President John Adams said that “Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Following are stubborn facts.
The signs are illegal. We live in a country based upon the rule of law, not the rule of what is convenient, or solely best for commerce.
In 1999, a voluntary understanding was formed within the business community to “self-regulate” the use of those “Litter on a Stick” signs. If that previous agreement which limited businesses to two signs per intersection and none on highway medians had worked then, the issue would not be arising again.
The state highway right-of-way includes the road and the area essentially up to the line of telephone poles on both sides of the highway. Signs in this right-of-way area can be a distraction to driving, hence considered dangerous.
The proliferation of the signs, the misuse of a previous “Gentleman’s Agreement,” brings the matter to the forefront with the most egregious example when 22 such signs for a Septic Company were posted at one traffic light in Dunkirk (that’s some welcome to Calvert County).
It was reported that one misinformed individual claimed that such enforcement would also affect commissioners up for re-election using a phrase that, ‘‘What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.” While any political signs would be covered if placed in the state highway right-of-way, the implication that all political campaign signs are likewise covered is not true. Those running for office are given specific posting instructions that include not placing any signs on the State Highway right-of-way. Such signs are posted on private property; presumably with permission gained first from the owner.
Businesses deserve the right to advertise their business, but doing so in the right-of-way of state highways is not the place regardless of the size.
Evan Slaughenhoupt
www.daccamd.com
President, Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association (DACCA)
Year 2008 -- The Doughnut Story
June 4, 2008
Every election year, you hear politicians say they are for Change. Be wary when they say they support changes, they might leave you with nothing but air.
Take a map and draw a line from the Washington, D.C. Beltway to the most northern end of Calvert. Then draw a line parallel to the beltway essentially creating a circle. Next, use the distance from the beltway to the most southern end of Calvert and draw a second line that also parallels the beltway creating another, but larger circle. What appears looks like a doughnut. The hole is an area from the south (Woodbridge, VA) to the north (Columbia, MD) and from the east (Crofton, MD) to the west (Reston, VA).
Having traveled over many of the roads within this giant doughnut, the areas of higher density, those undergoing heavy development, and congested spaces is well known. It is no surprise seeing areas of less density include the most western area of the doughnut, southern Anne Arundel County, and Calvert County.
Back to politicians and their calls for Change. When politicians say they support changes for Calvert County, they might actually mean they support developers, real estate, and gambling interests who want to eat the rest of the “Sweet Spot” (Calvert) leaving citizens with only a “Hole Full of Air.”
Every election year, you hear politicians say they are for Change. Be wary when they say they support changes, they might leave you with nothing but air.
Take a map and draw a line from the Washington, D.C. Beltway to the most northern end of Calvert. Then draw a line parallel to the beltway essentially creating a circle. Next, use the distance from the beltway to the most southern end of Calvert and draw a second line that also parallels the beltway creating another, but larger circle. What appears looks like a doughnut. The hole is an area from the south (Woodbridge, VA) to the north (Columbia, MD) and from the east (Crofton, MD) to the west (Reston, VA).
Let’s call the part of a doughnut that one eats the “Sweet Spot.” This area representing the length of Calvert County encircles that doughnut hole. Tour the “Sweet Spot” beginning with Calvert County and go counterclockwise. Encounter the Chesapeake Bay where few people live (other than houseboats). Note Calvert and southern Anne Arundel appear rural (not densely populated).
The area northward from Annapolis includes Baltimore (from Severn northeast to Perry Hall). Continuing westward includes Olney to Westminster, Germantown to Boonsboro and Leesburg, VA; from Centerville, VA past Warrenton; and as far south as from Woodbridge to Fredericksburg, VA.
The journey around this doughnut concludes by crossing the northern neck of the Potomac back into Southern Maryland (Charles, St. Mary’s and back to Calvert County). Over the years, Charles and St. Mary’s did not employ the same robust controlled growth measures as Calvert.
The journey around this doughnut concludes by crossing the northern neck of the Potomac back into Southern Maryland (Charles, St. Mary’s and back to Calvert County). Over the years, Charles and St. Mary’s did not employ the same robust controlled growth measures as Calvert.
Having traveled over many of the roads within this giant doughnut, the areas of higher density, those undergoing heavy development, and congested spaces is well known. It is no surprise seeing areas of less density include the most western area of the doughnut, southern Anne Arundel County, and Calvert County.
Back to politicians and their calls for Change. When politicians say they support changes for Calvert County, they might actually mean they support developers, real estate, and gambling interests who want to eat the rest of the “Sweet Spot” (Calvert) leaving citizens with only a “Hole Full of Air.”
Year 2008 -- Setting the Record Straight
May 11, 2008
Shoppes at Apple Greene: Setting the Record Straight
Factual Point:
Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association (DACCA) is observing the development details related to the proposed Shoppes at Apple Greene. All members of the DACCA board of directors concur with the following assessment of the Shoppes at Apple Greene and its pending water and sewer development. This assessment sets the record straight so as to clarify some misinformation or miscommunication that is occurring regarding the development and DACCA.
Background:
The Dunkirk Town Center Master Plan (http://www.co.cal.md.us/assets/Planning_Zoning/TownCenters/DunkirkMP&ZO-March25-2008.pdf), last revised March 25, 2008, and subject to a complete rewrite during calendar year 2009, identifies the boundary for the Town Center. Town Centers are intended as the focal point for commercial development within Calvert County. Though a citizens group, DACCA is not anti-business; it does, however, play a role in keeping the reign on commercial development.
The Town Center Master Plan policies included encouragement of commercial development. As far back as 1998, the consulting firm of Wallace, Montgomery & Associates, found that a County-installed and operated water and sewer system for Dunkirk would not be economically feasible. Public water and sewer is not included for Dunkirk, nor is it going to be for the Shoppes at Apple Greene.
Commercial development in Dunkirk Town Center comes under significant constraints to include architectural styles, depth of building fronts, lighting, signs, roofs, use of building materials, landscaping, screening, utility areas, accessory buildings, internal roads, and height of buildings. A process exists for reviewing all development plans that includes participation by the Dunkirk Architectural Review Committee (DARC); DACCA has membership on DARC.
DACCA’s Participation and Positions to Date:
Public Water and Sewer in Dunkirk is a well known “Third Rail of Calvert County Politics.” It is not going to happen.
Planning & Zoning Rewrite:
During 2005, DACCA participated in the rewrite of the County Planning & Zoning ordinance. DACCA members were invited via newsletters to participate in the review and to submit questions, concerns, or suggestions. DACCA forwarded to Planning & Zoning many suggested changes; several were adopted.
Town Center Gateway Shopping Center:
During 2005, DACCA was heavily involved before and during the development of the shopping center housing several stores including Giant and Wal-mart. Note, today, there are still some vacant store pads waiting for tenant occupancy. The number of stores and specific businesses that occupy the store pads are based upon free market conditions, and decisions made by the property owner – the developer.
Drip Irrigation System:
The Town Center Gateway Shopping Center included a Drip Irrigation system which to date appears to be successfully operating. This system is similar to that used in Marley Run Subdivision. Along with the water tower, the shopping center Drip Irrigation was developed using private funds, not public dollars. It is not public water and sewer. Since operation, no complaints pertaining to this system ever came to the DACCA Board of Directors.
Number of shopping centers in Dunkirk:
During the election of 2006, DACCA asked the candidates for County Commissioner the following question, “Since 1990, Dunkirk has added two shopping centers and a third one is planned. How many additional shopping centers do you believe are needed in the Dunkirk area?” Not one candidate advocated development other than the three which included Shoppes at Apple Greene. Not one member of DACCA ever came forward to challenge having the Shoppes at Apple Greene.
Planning Commission:
In 2007, DACCA was public in its involvement in the Water and Sewerage Master Plan review and provided comments to the county. DACCA posted its comments on the DACCA web site at http://www.daccamd.com. No DACCA member or any residents in Apple Greene came forward to express concerns with DACCA’s input. Bordering the Apple Greene Subdivision, the Shoppes at Apple Greene is located at the southernmost end of Dunkirk Town Center.
As part of the Water and Sewerage Master Plan process, the owner of the property intended for commercial development known as Shoppes at Apple Greene, Edward B. Howlin, represented by Marrick Inc. submitted to the Calvert County Planning Commission January 29, 2008, (http://www.co.cal.md.us/assets/4b-WaterSewerageCategoriesPublicHearing.pdf) a request to alter the water and sewer designator from W-5 and S-5 to W-3 and S-3. (Marrick Inc. bought part of Howlin circa 2003).
The DACCA Board of Directors was supportive of the water and sewer designator change since the owner of that property has the right to develop, and the type of development intended was consistent with the county and town center master plans. The request simply reflected a change in the date intended to develop the Shoppes at Apple Greene from “within 10 years” to “within 3 years.”
A Washington Post report (February 3, 2008) did quote the President of DACCA saying it was “a pleasure” to support the change of the development start from 10 years to 3. What the Post did not include was that the President also said DACCA looked forward to seeing the detailed plans (Marrick Inc. has yet to show those to DACCA). Also not publicly reported was a conversation between the DACCA President and Mr. Rick Bailey of Marrick Inc.
As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” The DACCA President encouraged Mr. Bailey that as a developer, he needed to meet with residents as early as possible and provide as much detail as possible. The lack of publicly available information regarding development plans surely causes a negative reaction by those most affected by the development such as neighbors who live directly next to the development.
Board of Appeals:
On February 7, 2008, the Calvert County Board of Appeals heard a request from Howlin Investment Commercial Properties, LLC for a Special Exception to install a Drip Irrigation wastewater treatment facility. The concept of a Drip Irrigation system was the same as that as Town Center Gateway Shopping Center (Wal-mart and Giant). Given the apparent success of this privately developed Drip Irrigation system and the lack of concern expressed by any DACCA members, DACCA spoke in favor only of the concept.
In part, DACCA said, “Once again, we come to express our support for a proposed commercial development. This plan will have an important impact on the Dunkirk Town Center. A drip irrigation is a vital part of the proposal.
We were grateful to have the opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Bailey, to learn, and make suggestions. Specifically, the Dunkirk Town Center calls for a road from Apple Greene to Ward Road and we urge the Board and the developer to include such a road in the plans. This would enable the 128 or so households in Apple Greene to shop, do business, dine, and get medical care without having to go out on MD Route 4. Reducing, even slightly, the number of vehicles crossing or driving that speedway would be a safety improvement.”
Even then, the more specific development plans were not available to DACCA. Results of that Public Hearing are located at:
(http://www.co.cal.md.us/assets/Planning_Zoning/BOA_Agendas/08-3506aApplication&Order.pdf)
DACCA has learned there are more specific draft plans being coordinated between Marrick Inc. and Planning & Zoning. It is not uncommon for such plans to change during the process.
It is also not uncommon for individuals to use partial information, and make accusations about something being “approved under the table” or DACCA “selling out” when in fact, a lengthy public process was underway since as early as October 2002, when DACCA spoke at the Board of Appeals in support of the proposed project, “as it is in concert with the Comprehensive Plan.”
There is a process in place to review development site plans when they are posted on the county Planning Commission web site which DACCA monitors and then participates. Site plans provide detail such as location of retention ponds which are subject to relocation due to engineering and/or environmental concerns. Such activity is not done under the table, or during the dark of night. In fact, the February 7, 2008, Board of Appeals findings identify that, “Groundwater discharge permits from Maryland Department of the Environment are required for this project.” Final approval, which will be done in public, is quite some time in the future.
This Setting the Record Straight article was sent to Marrick Inc.
Evan Slaughenhoupt
www.daccamd.com
President, DACCA
Shoppes at Apple Greene: Setting the Record Straight
Factual Point:
Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association (DACCA) is observing the development details related to the proposed Shoppes at Apple Greene. All members of the DACCA board of directors concur with the following assessment of the Shoppes at Apple Greene and its pending water and sewer development. This assessment sets the record straight so as to clarify some misinformation or miscommunication that is occurring regarding the development and DACCA.
Background:
The Dunkirk Town Center Master Plan (http://www.co.cal.md.us/assets/Planning_Zoning/TownCenters/DunkirkMP&ZO-March25-2008.pdf), last revised March 25, 2008, and subject to a complete rewrite during calendar year 2009, identifies the boundary for the Town Center. Town Centers are intended as the focal point for commercial development within Calvert County. Though a citizens group, DACCA is not anti-business; it does, however, play a role in keeping the reign on commercial development.
The Town Center Master Plan policies included encouragement of commercial development. As far back as 1998, the consulting firm of Wallace, Montgomery & Associates, found that a County-installed and operated water and sewer system for Dunkirk would not be economically feasible. Public water and sewer is not included for Dunkirk, nor is it going to be for the Shoppes at Apple Greene.
Commercial development in Dunkirk Town Center comes under significant constraints to include architectural styles, depth of building fronts, lighting, signs, roofs, use of building materials, landscaping, screening, utility areas, accessory buildings, internal roads, and height of buildings. A process exists for reviewing all development plans that includes participation by the Dunkirk Architectural Review Committee (DARC); DACCA has membership on DARC.
DACCA’s Participation and Positions to Date:
Public Water and Sewer in Dunkirk is a well known “Third Rail of Calvert County Politics.” It is not going to happen.
Planning & Zoning Rewrite:
During 2005, DACCA participated in the rewrite of the County Planning & Zoning ordinance. DACCA members were invited via newsletters to participate in the review and to submit questions, concerns, or suggestions. DACCA forwarded to Planning & Zoning many suggested changes; several were adopted.
Town Center Gateway Shopping Center:
During 2005, DACCA was heavily involved before and during the development of the shopping center housing several stores including Giant and Wal-mart. Note, today, there are still some vacant store pads waiting for tenant occupancy. The number of stores and specific businesses that occupy the store pads are based upon free market conditions, and decisions made by the property owner – the developer.
Drip Irrigation System:
The Town Center Gateway Shopping Center included a Drip Irrigation system which to date appears to be successfully operating. This system is similar to that used in Marley Run Subdivision. Along with the water tower, the shopping center Drip Irrigation was developed using private funds, not public dollars. It is not public water and sewer. Since operation, no complaints pertaining to this system ever came to the DACCA Board of Directors.
Number of shopping centers in Dunkirk:
During the election of 2006, DACCA asked the candidates for County Commissioner the following question, “Since 1990, Dunkirk has added two shopping centers and a third one is planned. How many additional shopping centers do you believe are needed in the Dunkirk area?” Not one candidate advocated development other than the three which included Shoppes at Apple Greene. Not one member of DACCA ever came forward to challenge having the Shoppes at Apple Greene.
Planning Commission:
In 2007, DACCA was public in its involvement in the Water and Sewerage Master Plan review and provided comments to the county. DACCA posted its comments on the DACCA web site at http://www.daccamd.com. No DACCA member or any residents in Apple Greene came forward to express concerns with DACCA’s input. Bordering the Apple Greene Subdivision, the Shoppes at Apple Greene is located at the southernmost end of Dunkirk Town Center.
As part of the Water and Sewerage Master Plan process, the owner of the property intended for commercial development known as Shoppes at Apple Greene, Edward B. Howlin, represented by Marrick Inc. submitted to the Calvert County Planning Commission January 29, 2008, (http://www.co.cal.md.us/assets/4b-WaterSewerageCategoriesPublicHearing.pdf) a request to alter the water and sewer designator from W-5 and S-5 to W-3 and S-3. (Marrick Inc. bought part of Howlin circa 2003).
The DACCA Board of Directors was supportive of the water and sewer designator change since the owner of that property has the right to develop, and the type of development intended was consistent with the county and town center master plans. The request simply reflected a change in the date intended to develop the Shoppes at Apple Greene from “within 10 years” to “within 3 years.”
A Washington Post report (February 3, 2008) did quote the President of DACCA saying it was “a pleasure” to support the change of the development start from 10 years to 3. What the Post did not include was that the President also said DACCA looked forward to seeing the detailed plans (Marrick Inc. has yet to show those to DACCA). Also not publicly reported was a conversation between the DACCA President and Mr. Rick Bailey of Marrick Inc.
As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details.” The DACCA President encouraged Mr. Bailey that as a developer, he needed to meet with residents as early as possible and provide as much detail as possible. The lack of publicly available information regarding development plans surely causes a negative reaction by those most affected by the development such as neighbors who live directly next to the development.
Board of Appeals:
On February 7, 2008, the Calvert County Board of Appeals heard a request from Howlin Investment Commercial Properties, LLC for a Special Exception to install a Drip Irrigation wastewater treatment facility. The concept of a Drip Irrigation system was the same as that as Town Center Gateway Shopping Center (Wal-mart and Giant). Given the apparent success of this privately developed Drip Irrigation system and the lack of concern expressed by any DACCA members, DACCA spoke in favor only of the concept.
In part, DACCA said, “Once again, we come to express our support for a proposed commercial development. This plan will have an important impact on the Dunkirk Town Center. A drip irrigation is a vital part of the proposal.
We were grateful to have the opportunity to ask questions of Mr. Bailey, to learn, and make suggestions. Specifically, the Dunkirk Town Center calls for a road from Apple Greene to Ward Road and we urge the Board and the developer to include such a road in the plans. This would enable the 128 or so households in Apple Greene to shop, do business, dine, and get medical care without having to go out on MD Route 4. Reducing, even slightly, the number of vehicles crossing or driving that speedway would be a safety improvement.”
Even then, the more specific development plans were not available to DACCA. Results of that Public Hearing are located at:
(http://www.co.cal.md.us/assets/Planning_Zoning/BOA_Agendas/08-3506aApplication&Order.pdf)
DACCA has learned there are more specific draft plans being coordinated between Marrick Inc. and Planning & Zoning. It is not uncommon for such plans to change during the process.
It is also not uncommon for individuals to use partial information, and make accusations about something being “approved under the table” or DACCA “selling out” when in fact, a lengthy public process was underway since as early as October 2002, when DACCA spoke at the Board of Appeals in support of the proposed project, “as it is in concert with the Comprehensive Plan.”
There is a process in place to review development site plans when they are posted on the county Planning Commission web site which DACCA monitors and then participates. Site plans provide detail such as location of retention ponds which are subject to relocation due to engineering and/or environmental concerns. Such activity is not done under the table, or during the dark of night. In fact, the February 7, 2008, Board of Appeals findings identify that, “Groundwater discharge permits from Maryland Department of the Environment are required for this project.” Final approval, which will be done in public, is quite some time in the future.
This Setting the Record Straight article was sent to Marrick Inc.
Evan Slaughenhoupt
www.daccamd.com
President, DACCA
Year 2008 -- Contemptible Court
April 7, 2008
Marking the foundation of our country, the Second of 33 paragraphs of the United States Declaration of Independence included the phrase, "...that we are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Our founders created a governmental system of “shared powers” called Federalism. That means the Federal Government consists of three parts, National, State, and Local. Too often, people say Federal when they mean (or should mean) National. This is not just semantics, because the difference has real meaning. Shared power means that certain topics are the purview of different levels of the federal government.
Our original founders articulated right of “Pursuit of Happiness” was not meant for citizens to do whatever they wanted regardless. It meant gaining wisdom and purity, because doing so would bring happiness.
Communities are the level where democracy is the closest to the citizens. These entities are the closest many citizens participate in the democratic process. Be they neighborhood watches, homeowners or civic associations, or just on the street talking, communities at a minimum display the attitude of its residents. For instance, homeowners who neglect simple home and yard appearance essentially say, “I don’t care what happens here.”
Citizens who don’t care have made a choice to not get involved leaving themselves and their neighbors vulnerable to nefarious individuals. These permissive attitudes permit the growth of a culture that nourishes evil. Where evil exists, drug use and crime is easily found.
Communities are also where citizens vocalize expectations of themselves and those who represent them. County and Town Center Master Plans are the Citizens Voice/Expressed Vision for their community. While these are high level visionary documents, they form the foundation for creating local zoning ordinances. These foundational documents are periodically updated to reflect growing or changing attitudes of the owners and funders of the local government.
A March 11, 2008, ruling by the State of Maryland Court of Appeals in the Civil Case # 01-C-05-025779(L) David Trail, et al. v Terrapin Run, LLC, et al rejects that citizens have a say about their communities. In a play on words, that court is in contempt of Maryland Citizens.
The court declared that local county governments do not need to use the various master plans or state growth-management policies in making decisions about developments. The case focused on whether the local zoning board should decide whether a particular development "conformed" to the county's comprehensive plan. Using legal technicality rather than rational thought, these “judges” decided that words 'conform' and 'visions' were not intended by the legislature as an absolute requirement on local governments for land use programs.
The ruling is destructive to the self government precept under which the United States was created. That non-elected body is so out of touch to not realize that the citizens are the employer of the government, the customer and consumer, and its owner.
Locally, this ruling undermines decades of controlled-growth within Calvert County and puts the county communities vulnerable to rapid overdevelopment by those who never saw open space as anything other than profit dollars per acre. Recalling the Declaration of Independence that immediately followed the words life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
“… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Judge Dale Cathell, who wrote the Appeals Court decision, takes the position that citizens need to continually fight the battle instead of having legal protection. According to the Baltimore Sun, March 13, 2008, Judge Cathell said, “Whatever happened to the traditional way these battles were fought between environmentalists and developers? You kick their bums out [of elected office], and after four years they kick your bums out.”
Citizens deserve better. Look for continued challenges at Calvert County Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals. Stay informed and let your elected and appointed officials (http://www.co.cal.md.us/) know if they want to stay in office, they need to follow the guiding documents (from the Declaration of Independence to the Town Center Master Plans). Learn more about the court ruling: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions.html
Evan Slaughenhoupt
President, Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association
Marking the foundation of our country, the Second of 33 paragraphs of the United States Declaration of Independence included the phrase, "...that we are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Our founders created a governmental system of “shared powers” called Federalism. That means the Federal Government consists of three parts, National, State, and Local. Too often, people say Federal when they mean (or should mean) National. This is not just semantics, because the difference has real meaning. Shared power means that certain topics are the purview of different levels of the federal government.
Our original founders articulated right of “Pursuit of Happiness” was not meant for citizens to do whatever they wanted regardless. It meant gaining wisdom and purity, because doing so would bring happiness.
Communities are the level where democracy is the closest to the citizens. These entities are the closest many citizens participate in the democratic process. Be they neighborhood watches, homeowners or civic associations, or just on the street talking, communities at a minimum display the attitude of its residents. For instance, homeowners who neglect simple home and yard appearance essentially say, “I don’t care what happens here.”
Citizens who don’t care have made a choice to not get involved leaving themselves and their neighbors vulnerable to nefarious individuals. These permissive attitudes permit the growth of a culture that nourishes evil. Where evil exists, drug use and crime is easily found.
Communities are also where citizens vocalize expectations of themselves and those who represent them. County and Town Center Master Plans are the Citizens Voice/Expressed Vision for their community. While these are high level visionary documents, they form the foundation for creating local zoning ordinances. These foundational documents are periodically updated to reflect growing or changing attitudes of the owners and funders of the local government.
A March 11, 2008, ruling by the State of Maryland Court of Appeals in the Civil Case # 01-C-05-025779(L) David Trail, et al. v Terrapin Run, LLC, et al rejects that citizens have a say about their communities. In a play on words, that court is in contempt of Maryland Citizens.
The court declared that local county governments do not need to use the various master plans or state growth-management policies in making decisions about developments. The case focused on whether the local zoning board should decide whether a particular development "conformed" to the county's comprehensive plan. Using legal technicality rather than rational thought, these “judges” decided that words 'conform' and 'visions' were not intended by the legislature as an absolute requirement on local governments for land use programs.
The ruling is destructive to the self government precept under which the United States was created. That non-elected body is so out of touch to not realize that the citizens are the employer of the government, the customer and consumer, and its owner.
Locally, this ruling undermines decades of controlled-growth within Calvert County and puts the county communities vulnerable to rapid overdevelopment by those who never saw open space as anything other than profit dollars per acre. Recalling the Declaration of Independence that immediately followed the words life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,
“… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Judge Dale Cathell, who wrote the Appeals Court decision, takes the position that citizens need to continually fight the battle instead of having legal protection. According to the Baltimore Sun, March 13, 2008, Judge Cathell said, “Whatever happened to the traditional way these battles were fought between environmentalists and developers? You kick their bums out [of elected office], and after four years they kick your bums out.”
Citizens deserve better. Look for continued challenges at Calvert County Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals. Stay informed and let your elected and appointed officials (http://www.co.cal.md.us/) know if they want to stay in office, they need to follow the guiding documents (from the Declaration of Independence to the Town Center Master Plans). Learn more about the court ruling: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions.html
Evan Slaughenhoupt
President, Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association
Year 2008 -- Traffic Improvement on Route 4
March 20, 2008
Deaths of two teenagers in November 2007, at Route 4 and Briscoes Turn/Skinners Turn Road intersection as well as tragic deaths at Route 4 and Brickhouse Road have more in common than loss of life.Both intersections have an at-grade (or surface-grade) crossover that forces drivers to place their vehicle perpendicular to oncoming highway traffic.
The Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association (DACCA) Board of Directors reviewed the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) evaluation of Route 4 and Briscoes Turn/Skinners Turn Road intersection proposal. DACCA concluded that SHA is offering only a partial solution that will not sufficiently improve safety.
SHA evaluation is posted at:
http://www.sha.state.md.us/keepingcurrent/performTrafficStudies/studies/Intersection%20Study%20MD%204%20at%20Briscoes%20Turn%20Rd%20(Calvert%20County).pdf
SHA plans to channel east bound Briscoes Turn Road traffic southbound to prevent one dangerous crossover of Route 4 south- and north-bound traffic. This part of the plan is sound as it will permit traffic to continue flowing while preventing some traffic from crossing Route 4.
Reducing dangerous conditions without impeding traffic flow can and should be the objective. While one might react emotionally to tragic deaths by calling for traffic lights, installing full color traffic signals fails to achieve this two part objective.
Traffic lights won’t correct the root cause of the danger. Crossover traffic at traffic light intersections can still be subject to horrific accidents. Traffic lights also impede the traffic flow which then causes a ripple affect decreasing safety elsewhere on the road.
Unfortunately, the SHA plan still permits one dangerous crossover of west bound traffic of Route 4 north- and south-bound from Skinners Turn Road.
The optimum solution calls for also constructing “channeling” at Skinners Turn Road. Most importantly, this solution should include removing that surface-grade crossover (that surfaced area in the median strip).
Evan Slaughenhoupt
President, DACCA
Dunkirk, Maryland
Deaths of two teenagers in November 2007, at Route 4 and Briscoes Turn/Skinners Turn Road intersection as well as tragic deaths at Route 4 and Brickhouse Road have more in common than loss of life.Both intersections have an at-grade (or surface-grade) crossover that forces drivers to place their vehicle perpendicular to oncoming highway traffic.
The Dunkirk Area Concerned Citizens Association (DACCA) Board of Directors reviewed the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) evaluation of Route 4 and Briscoes Turn/Skinners Turn Road intersection proposal. DACCA concluded that SHA is offering only a partial solution that will not sufficiently improve safety.
SHA evaluation is posted at:
http://www.sha.state.md.us/keepingcurrent/performTrafficStudies/studies/Intersection%20Study%20MD%204%20at%20Briscoes%20Turn%20Rd%20(Calvert%20County).pdf
SHA plans to channel east bound Briscoes Turn Road traffic southbound to prevent one dangerous crossover of Route 4 south- and north-bound traffic. This part of the plan is sound as it will permit traffic to continue flowing while preventing some traffic from crossing Route 4.
Reducing dangerous conditions without impeding traffic flow can and should be the objective. While one might react emotionally to tragic deaths by calling for traffic lights, installing full color traffic signals fails to achieve this two part objective.
Traffic lights won’t correct the root cause of the danger. Crossover traffic at traffic light intersections can still be subject to horrific accidents. Traffic lights also impede the traffic flow which then causes a ripple affect decreasing safety elsewhere on the road.
Unfortunately, the SHA plan still permits one dangerous crossover of west bound traffic of Route 4 north- and south-bound from Skinners Turn Road.
The optimum solution calls for also constructing “channeling” at Skinners Turn Road. Most importantly, this solution should include removing that surface-grade crossover (that surfaced area in the median strip).
Evan Slaughenhoupt
President, DACCA
Dunkirk, Maryland
Year 2008 -- Global Warming Gone, Time to Freeze
Global Warming’s Over – Get Ready to Freeze
February 27, 2008
There are several reasons to stop Maryland’s attempt to take more of your money and build a new department-level institution to enforce laws against nature also known as Senate Bill 309 and its companion House Bill 712 “Global Warming Solutions – Reductions in Greenhouse Gases” http://mlis.state.md.us/2008RS/billfile/sb0309.htm.
When the next global cooling era begins (and it will), those who now proclaim Global Warming will, within a decade or two, provide dire warnings of the impending Ice Age. They already began changing their vocabulary by using the buzz phrase “Climate Change.”
A cooling trend will naturally occur, and the alarmists will sound the predictable alarms; just as many did during the last cooling period of the 1950’s – 1960’s.
Besides temperature, popular views of Global Warming include “minor greenhouse” gases such as Carbon Dioxide and the levels emitted into the atmosphere. Most climate models assume that Carbon Dioxide will increase in concentration forever; a questionable assumption not based upon measured data.
Who is willing to read the proposed legislation, just one book, and then let their own conclusions be known to the state legislatures? A list of the legislatures may be found at: http://mlis.state.md.us/index.html#subs.
An earlier letter raising concerns about this potential legislation resulted in the expected responses. Clearly, some individuals decided to take the easy route by expressing an uninformed opinion rather than studying both the legislation and just one suggested text book.
How does one know what data source is credible? Look more closely at the science used by those who crafted the proposed legislation. Compare that look with views of those less informed. The result yields specific flaws with the foundational Global Warming argument.
Hopefully, one such individual who responded is not an attorney. That individual found the arguments favoring Man Made Global Warming so persuasive it was difficult to believe there are people burying their heads in the sand and denying it. Expressing such a closed-minded view to not even review countering evidence would have left a defendant questioning the veracity of such an individual defending them in a case.
Another individual even suggested consulting “a free online source called Wikipedia.org - it is a community based online encyclopedia that sites [cites] many sources on this subject matter.”
Wikipedia is today’s version of yesterday’s encyclopedia. While everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice, not all material is attributed. Years ago the encyclopedia was never accepted by reputable teachers and professors as a reference source.
Wikipedia should not be a Primary Source of information due to its lack of credibility.
Nonetheless, looking at that type of information reveals several commonly used charts discussed within the book “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media”, by Patrick J. Michaels, Cato Institute, Washington, DC. 2004, second printing 2007.
One such chart speaks to the global temperature rising from 1912 to 1953 by 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit. Those temperature rises are consistent with a plus/minus 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over millennia that are attributable to solar outputs.
While the surface temperature average appears to display this slight increase in temperature, much of that warming occurred during the first half of the century (before the proliferation of those dreaded automobiles).
Climate models populate other charts that contribute to the hype of Global Warming. They are used to claim the polar ice caps are melting. Surely they melt during late summer, but refreeze again during the winters. Earlier reporting of “thinning ice caps” used measurements made by submarines taken coincidently where the ice was thinning, but did not include areas the submarines did not travel – areas where thickening occurred.
Some models used by those who tout Global Warming are typically flawed as they do not portray reality. Actual measured temperatures from the past show their simulations if applied over the last 100 years would have erred as much as 300 percent.
Much is needed to clean the waterways and can come from the private sector through proper incentives. Large government programs are not needed. When will the Global Warming Alarmists stop their misguided efforts and let real solutions begin? I assert it will be after informed citizens do a little research and voice their views to the elected officials.
Evan Slaughenhoupt
Dunkirk, Maryland
February 27, 2008
There are several reasons to stop Maryland’s attempt to take more of your money and build a new department-level institution to enforce laws against nature also known as Senate Bill 309 and its companion House Bill 712 “Global Warming Solutions – Reductions in Greenhouse Gases” http://mlis.state.md.us/2008RS/billfile/sb0309.htm.
When the next global cooling era begins (and it will), those who now proclaim Global Warming will, within a decade or two, provide dire warnings of the impending Ice Age. They already began changing their vocabulary by using the buzz phrase “Climate Change.”
A cooling trend will naturally occur, and the alarmists will sound the predictable alarms; just as many did during the last cooling period of the 1950’s – 1960’s.
Besides temperature, popular views of Global Warming include “minor greenhouse” gases such as Carbon Dioxide and the levels emitted into the atmosphere. Most climate models assume that Carbon Dioxide will increase in concentration forever; a questionable assumption not based upon measured data.
Who is willing to read the proposed legislation, just one book, and then let their own conclusions be known to the state legislatures? A list of the legislatures may be found at: http://mlis.state.md.us/index.html#subs.
An earlier letter raising concerns about this potential legislation resulted in the expected responses. Clearly, some individuals decided to take the easy route by expressing an uninformed opinion rather than studying both the legislation and just one suggested text book.
How does one know what data source is credible? Look more closely at the science used by those who crafted the proposed legislation. Compare that look with views of those less informed. The result yields specific flaws with the foundational Global Warming argument.
Hopefully, one such individual who responded is not an attorney. That individual found the arguments favoring Man Made Global Warming so persuasive it was difficult to believe there are people burying their heads in the sand and denying it. Expressing such a closed-minded view to not even review countering evidence would have left a defendant questioning the veracity of such an individual defending them in a case.
Another individual even suggested consulting “a free online source called Wikipedia.org - it is a community based online encyclopedia that sites [cites] many sources on this subject matter.”
Wikipedia is today’s version of yesterday’s encyclopedia. While everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice, not all material is attributed. Years ago the encyclopedia was never accepted by reputable teachers and professors as a reference source.
Wikipedia should not be a Primary Source of information due to its lack of credibility.
Nonetheless, looking at that type of information reveals several commonly used charts discussed within the book “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media”, by Patrick J. Michaels, Cato Institute, Washington, DC. 2004, second printing 2007.
One such chart speaks to the global temperature rising from 1912 to 1953 by 0.74 degrees Fahrenheit. Those temperature rises are consistent with a plus/minus 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit over millennia that are attributable to solar outputs.
While the surface temperature average appears to display this slight increase in temperature, much of that warming occurred during the first half of the century (before the proliferation of those dreaded automobiles).
Climate models populate other charts that contribute to the hype of Global Warming. They are used to claim the polar ice caps are melting. Surely they melt during late summer, but refreeze again during the winters. Earlier reporting of “thinning ice caps” used measurements made by submarines taken coincidently where the ice was thinning, but did not include areas the submarines did not travel – areas where thickening occurred.
Some models used by those who tout Global Warming are typically flawed as they do not portray reality. Actual measured temperatures from the past show their simulations if applied over the last 100 years would have erred as much as 300 percent.
Much is needed to clean the waterways and can come from the private sector through proper incentives. Large government programs are not needed. When will the Global Warming Alarmists stop their misguided efforts and let real solutions begin? I assert it will be after informed citizens do a little research and voice their views to the elected officials.
Evan Slaughenhoupt
Dunkirk, Maryland
Year 2008 -- Maryland and Global Warming?
Februrary 20, 2008
Improving the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, and the rivers and streams that feed the bay should be a high priority for Maryland residents. What is debatable is how best to make improvements. The current state administration is missing a wonderful opportunity by relying upon old unsuccessful approaches of building bureaucratic institutions, using threats instead of incentives, and using selected and partial data.
The Governor supports Maryland Senate Bill 309 and its companion House Bill 712 “Global Warming Solutions – Reductions in Greenhouse Gases” http://mlis.state.md.us/2008RS/billfile/sb0309.htm.
The 7 items listed within the General Assembly Findings are without substantiation. As just one example, Finding # 3 speaks to the threat global warming has on rising sea levels. The truth, in fact, is a misperception based upon the myth that polar ice caps are melting (they are not). In fact, there are coastal areas that are sinking, hence the appearance of rising sea levels.
I too want to see environmental improvements. Given my own education and background, I took a rational look at the proposed bills as well as opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately, the state proposed approach is to pollute water clean-up efforts with discredited data associated with Global Warming.
Want to learn for yourself? Read the book “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media”, by Patrick J. Michaels, Cato Institute, Washington, DC. 2004 second printing 2007.
Reading “Meltdown” will make you more informed and able to see through the false claims of the “Global Warmists.” Be forewarned, the book is complete with charts and graphs. If it is not a current text book in schools, it should be.
Too often symbolic gestures commonly noted these days to “raise global warming awareness” such as the students in St. Mary’s City taking the “Polar Plunge to Raise Global Warming Awareness” February 1, 2008, and the upcoming March 29, 2008, worldwide city blackouts for "Earth Hour" in cities such as Atlanta, San Francisco and Phoenix.
More rational solutions can be found other than that contained in the proposed legislation. Perhaps our high school and college students should be required to read “Meltdown.”
Let’s suggest a different approach over that being proposed by the Maryland Legislature. With focus especially upon the Patuxent watershed and its total maximum daily load (basically the amount of pollution tolerated by the water) permissible to sustain water quality, incentives will work.
We know that nitrogen entering the watershed contributes to unhealthy water. Rather than penalizing polluters, give tax incentives for minimizing pollution. For example, each citizen of Calvert County using a septic tank could receive a $10,000 tax credit and be encouraged to replace their current septic tank to a nitrogen removing system.
Businesses should be offered tax credits to create and install water treatment or clarification methods. American initiative and ingenuity would result in new technology that more efficiently cleans the waterways.
Incentives could be created to those who depend upon the water for living such as "oyster farmers" who raise oysters using off-bottom culture techniques to create new oyster communities.
Boundless incentives could be conceived to include ways to reduce nitrogen fertilizer used on our yards as well as incentives for developing energy sources other than oil thereby helping our country become energy independent.
Tax incentives would keep more money within the local economy controlled by the citizens rather than squandered by bureaucrats. Less money for the state to waste is a good thing for the citizens.
Is there global warming? Yes, but not man-made. This past decade includes a slight increase in average temperature. The same type of increases occurred during the 1930’s, which was followed by decades of a cooling trend. Since ancient times, this cyclic warming and cooling occurs naturally. Despite all your dollars taken by a “Don Quixote” state to throw at windmills (pun intended), the cycle will continue.
If Maryland passes the proposed legislation, our tax dollars are more obtainable by the state to create new institutions, harm businesses, and spend on ad agents claiming how their effort is noble to make everyone “feel good.”
What motivates those who proclaim man-made (and therefore man must fix) global warming? Money – specifically, research dollars for studies. There is no coincidence that we hear daily about recent studies that make claims on a host of topics. Gone are the days of serious critical reviews of studies before publication.
Typically today, studies are reviewed by individuals who already support a particular view rather than ones who would challenge the finds and conclusions. No doubt the studies used to formulate the proposed Maryland legislation did not receive truly critical reviews. There is simply no evidence that demonstrates mankind is affecting this current global warming cycle one way or the other.
When reviewing the proposed legislation, pay particular attention to page 1 Line 5 prohibiting all money… being transferred to the General Fund. Then page 3 line 26, under Article – Environment, paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (c) (4) [When the Fund equals or exceeds… additional moneys received for the Fund by the Department shall be deposited to the General Fund.] Sound like “double talk” to you? It surely does to me.
Contact the sponsors of the proposed legislation (Calvert Delegate Sue Kullen was one) and tell them their proposed law is flawed at its foundation, harmful to businesses, won’t achieve measurable success, and won’t fix a naturally occurring phenomena that mankind did not cause.
For independent thinkers, take some time and read both the proposed legislation and the book “Meltdown”. Then draw your own conclusions. As for me, while I bought the book, I’m not buying what the bill sponsors are selling.
Evan Slaughenhoupt
Vocalcalvert@aol.com
Dunkirk, Maryland
Improving the water quality of the Chesapeake Bay, and the rivers and streams that feed the bay should be a high priority for Maryland residents. What is debatable is how best to make improvements. The current state administration is missing a wonderful opportunity by relying upon old unsuccessful approaches of building bureaucratic institutions, using threats instead of incentives, and using selected and partial data.
The Governor supports Maryland Senate Bill 309 and its companion House Bill 712 “Global Warming Solutions – Reductions in Greenhouse Gases” http://mlis.state.md.us/2008RS/billfile/sb0309.htm.
The 7 items listed within the General Assembly Findings are without substantiation. As just one example, Finding # 3 speaks to the threat global warming has on rising sea levels. The truth, in fact, is a misperception based upon the myth that polar ice caps are melting (they are not). In fact, there are coastal areas that are sinking, hence the appearance of rising sea levels.
I too want to see environmental improvements. Given my own education and background, I took a rational look at the proposed bills as well as opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately, the state proposed approach is to pollute water clean-up efforts with discredited data associated with Global Warming.
Want to learn for yourself? Read the book “Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media”, by Patrick J. Michaels, Cato Institute, Washington, DC. 2004 second printing 2007.
Reading “Meltdown” will make you more informed and able to see through the false claims of the “Global Warmists.” Be forewarned, the book is complete with charts and graphs. If it is not a current text book in schools, it should be.
Too often symbolic gestures commonly noted these days to “raise global warming awareness” such as the students in St. Mary’s City taking the “Polar Plunge to Raise Global Warming Awareness” February 1, 2008, and the upcoming March 29, 2008, worldwide city blackouts for "Earth Hour" in cities such as Atlanta, San Francisco and Phoenix.
More rational solutions can be found other than that contained in the proposed legislation. Perhaps our high school and college students should be required to read “Meltdown.”
Let’s suggest a different approach over that being proposed by the Maryland Legislature. With focus especially upon the Patuxent watershed and its total maximum daily load (basically the amount of pollution tolerated by the water) permissible to sustain water quality, incentives will work.
We know that nitrogen entering the watershed contributes to unhealthy water. Rather than penalizing polluters, give tax incentives for minimizing pollution. For example, each citizen of Calvert County using a septic tank could receive a $10,000 tax credit and be encouraged to replace their current septic tank to a nitrogen removing system.
Businesses should be offered tax credits to create and install water treatment or clarification methods. American initiative and ingenuity would result in new technology that more efficiently cleans the waterways.
Incentives could be created to those who depend upon the water for living such as "oyster farmers" who raise oysters using off-bottom culture techniques to create new oyster communities.
Boundless incentives could be conceived to include ways to reduce nitrogen fertilizer used on our yards as well as incentives for developing energy sources other than oil thereby helping our country become energy independent.
Tax incentives would keep more money within the local economy controlled by the citizens rather than squandered by bureaucrats. Less money for the state to waste is a good thing for the citizens.
Is there global warming? Yes, but not man-made. This past decade includes a slight increase in average temperature. The same type of increases occurred during the 1930’s, which was followed by decades of a cooling trend. Since ancient times, this cyclic warming and cooling occurs naturally. Despite all your dollars taken by a “Don Quixote” state to throw at windmills (pun intended), the cycle will continue.
If Maryland passes the proposed legislation, our tax dollars are more obtainable by the state to create new institutions, harm businesses, and spend on ad agents claiming how their effort is noble to make everyone “feel good.”
What motivates those who proclaim man-made (and therefore man must fix) global warming? Money – specifically, research dollars for studies. There is no coincidence that we hear daily about recent studies that make claims on a host of topics. Gone are the days of serious critical reviews of studies before publication.
Typically today, studies are reviewed by individuals who already support a particular view rather than ones who would challenge the finds and conclusions. No doubt the studies used to formulate the proposed Maryland legislation did not receive truly critical reviews. There is simply no evidence that demonstrates mankind is affecting this current global warming cycle one way or the other.
When reviewing the proposed legislation, pay particular attention to page 1 Line 5 prohibiting all money… being transferred to the General Fund. Then page 3 line 26, under Article – Environment, paragraph (2) sub-paragraph (c) (4) [When the Fund equals or exceeds… additional moneys received for the Fund by the Department shall be deposited to the General Fund.] Sound like “double talk” to you? It surely does to me.
Contact the sponsors of the proposed legislation (Calvert Delegate Sue Kullen was one) and tell them their proposed law is flawed at its foundation, harmful to businesses, won’t achieve measurable success, and won’t fix a naturally occurring phenomena that mankind did not cause.
For independent thinkers, take some time and read both the proposed legislation and the book “Meltdown”. Then draw your own conclusions. As for me, while I bought the book, I’m not buying what the bill sponsors are selling.
Evan Slaughenhoupt
Vocalcalvert@aol.com
Dunkirk, Maryland
Year 2008 -- Rule of Law or Stone Wall?
CALVERT COUNTY - 2/9/2008
By Evan Slaughenhoupt, Dunkirk
The following will be read into the record at a public hearing being held Tuesday, Feb. 12, at 7:00 p.m. in the 1st Floor Hearing Room of the COURTHOUSE SQUARE OFFICE BUILDING, 205 Duke Street, Prince Frederick. I am sending this copy to fellow neighbors and residents who live off Lyons Creek Road.
Beside those who live near Lyons Creek Road, results of the public hearing could affect anyone living in Calvert County especially if you drive through Dunkirk on Route 4 as well as anyone interested in citizenship principles and the rule of law. You may want to express your views directly to the county Planning and Zoning either through e-mail (PZ@co.cal.md.us) or by attending the public forum.
As a private citizen, I intend to read the following into the record:
As the “rick” in Marrick Inc., no doubt Mr. Rick Bailey, would include public image as an attribute to Marrick Inc. As such, entrance signs offer an attractive way to identify a Subdivision. Marrick Inc. has previously constructed such signs.
In an exception to the rule, construction of a stone-walled structure at 3010 Dunleigh Lane to house an entrance sign began several months ago at the entrance to Lyons Creek Road and its intersection to Route 4 South. The public image it portrays is inconsistent with other Marrick Inc. Subdivisions as it appears much more grandiose and is not at the entrance to the Subdivision.
The proposed ordinance change (Case number 07-10b) for Subdivision Entrance Signs under Article 6-8 improves clarity and is a positive change as it would provide Marrick Inc. the opportunity to remove the stone-walled structure that was inappropriately placed.
Proposed changes also clarify the placement of Subdivision Entrance Signs which will be helpful for residents (other than Lyons Creek Overlook) who live off Lyons Creek Road. Those residents are likely to take exception to seeing a sign that gives the appearance they now live in Lyons Creek Overlook. Besides Lyons Creek Road, these streets include Lexington Drive, King Drive, Crown Drive, Regall Lane, Elsie Lane, Lyons Glen Court, Steven Lane, Palisades Drive, Patuxent Court, Luray Lane, Riverview Court, Lakeview Drive, Rivershore Drive, Aquia Court, and Ashwood Drive.
The Lyons Creek Overlook Subdivision entrance is Longleaf Drive and Lyons Creek Road. Various residents own the properties at the entrance. The current location of this stone-walled structure, corner of Lyons Creek Road and Route 4 South is not the Subdivision Entrance to Lyons Creek Overlook.
The stone-walled structure as currently under construction might give the appearance of arrogance not intended by Marrick Inc. Fortunately; the proposed ordinance change would allow Marrick Inc. to avoid that fate.
The sign itself is not the issue, the stone-walled structure’s appearance, design, and attractiveness is not the issue. What is at stake is the principle of adhering to the rule of law (in this case zoning requirements) pertaining to size and location. The entire stone-walled structure and sign is comparable in size to a Cape Cod house and is not located at the entrance to the Subdivision.
Copies of the drawings provided to the Lyons Creek Overlook residents as submitted when applying for the permit did not have road identification markings – no Route 4, no Lyons Creek Road, and no Longleaf Drive. One set of drawings showed an artist’s conception without any dimensions, or location specificity.
A second set of drawings included the dimensions of the stone-walled structure, but no location information. It is my understanding that Marrick Inc. needed to likewise provide the county with a second set of drawings to clarify their construction intent.
The lack of clarity in the application drawings, and the likely size and location assumptions by those issuing the permit appears to have contributed to the original permit being inappropriately approved. Therefore, the county should void Permit number 63702 previously issued Aug. 25, 2006.
Circumstances might arise where some Subdivisions will not have entrance signs. Lyons Creek Overlook may be just such a development. As a private citizen opposed to this structure’s location and size, and to paraphrase President Reagan in Germany during the 1980’s, “Mr. Bailey, Tear Down This Wall.”
By Evan Slaughenhoupt, Dunkirk
The following will be read into the record at a public hearing being held Tuesday, Feb. 12, at 7:00 p.m. in the 1st Floor Hearing Room of the COURTHOUSE SQUARE OFFICE BUILDING, 205 Duke Street, Prince Frederick. I am sending this copy to fellow neighbors and residents who live off Lyons Creek Road.
Beside those who live near Lyons Creek Road, results of the public hearing could affect anyone living in Calvert County especially if you drive through Dunkirk on Route 4 as well as anyone interested in citizenship principles and the rule of law. You may want to express your views directly to the county Planning and Zoning either through e-mail (PZ@co.cal.md.us) or by attending the public forum.
As a private citizen, I intend to read the following into the record:
As the “rick” in Marrick Inc., no doubt Mr. Rick Bailey, would include public image as an attribute to Marrick Inc. As such, entrance signs offer an attractive way to identify a Subdivision. Marrick Inc. has previously constructed such signs.
In an exception to the rule, construction of a stone-walled structure at 3010 Dunleigh Lane to house an entrance sign began several months ago at the entrance to Lyons Creek Road and its intersection to Route 4 South. The public image it portrays is inconsistent with other Marrick Inc. Subdivisions as it appears much more grandiose and is not at the entrance to the Subdivision.
The proposed ordinance change (Case number 07-10b) for Subdivision Entrance Signs under Article 6-8 improves clarity and is a positive change as it would provide Marrick Inc. the opportunity to remove the stone-walled structure that was inappropriately placed.
Proposed changes also clarify the placement of Subdivision Entrance Signs which will be helpful for residents (other than Lyons Creek Overlook) who live off Lyons Creek Road. Those residents are likely to take exception to seeing a sign that gives the appearance they now live in Lyons Creek Overlook. Besides Lyons Creek Road, these streets include Lexington Drive, King Drive, Crown Drive, Regall Lane, Elsie Lane, Lyons Glen Court, Steven Lane, Palisades Drive, Patuxent Court, Luray Lane, Riverview Court, Lakeview Drive, Rivershore Drive, Aquia Court, and Ashwood Drive.
The Lyons Creek Overlook Subdivision entrance is Longleaf Drive and Lyons Creek Road. Various residents own the properties at the entrance. The current location of this stone-walled structure, corner of Lyons Creek Road and Route 4 South is not the Subdivision Entrance to Lyons Creek Overlook.
The stone-walled structure as currently under construction might give the appearance of arrogance not intended by Marrick Inc. Fortunately; the proposed ordinance change would allow Marrick Inc. to avoid that fate.
The sign itself is not the issue, the stone-walled structure’s appearance, design, and attractiveness is not the issue. What is at stake is the principle of adhering to the rule of law (in this case zoning requirements) pertaining to size and location. The entire stone-walled structure and sign is comparable in size to a Cape Cod house and is not located at the entrance to the Subdivision.
Copies of the drawings provided to the Lyons Creek Overlook residents as submitted when applying for the permit did not have road identification markings – no Route 4, no Lyons Creek Road, and no Longleaf Drive. One set of drawings showed an artist’s conception without any dimensions, or location specificity.
A second set of drawings included the dimensions of the stone-walled structure, but no location information. It is my understanding that Marrick Inc. needed to likewise provide the county with a second set of drawings to clarify their construction intent.
The lack of clarity in the application drawings, and the likely size and location assumptions by those issuing the permit appears to have contributed to the original permit being inappropriately approved. Therefore, the county should void Permit number 63702 previously issued Aug. 25, 2006.
Circumstances might arise where some Subdivisions will not have entrance signs. Lyons Creek Overlook may be just such a development. As a private citizen opposed to this structure’s location and size, and to paraphrase President Reagan in Germany during the 1980’s, “Mr. Bailey, Tear Down This Wall.”
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Year 2008 -- Greater Citizen Involvement
Greater Citizen Involvement
January 22, 2008
Taking your next drink of water just might determine the future of Calvert County. What is the maximum number of citizens that our Aquia and Piney Point/Nanjemoy Aquifers can provide Ground-Water and still remain viable? Current Calvert County Water & Sewer Plan, viewable at http://www.co.cal.md.us/government/departments/planning/default.asp identifies population growth figures of 91,000 by 2010; 96,000 by 2020; and 100,000 by 2030. The 100,000 figure is associated with a term called Build-Out. Experts estimate the aquifers can sustain themselves while serving 37,000 households (100,000 – 105,000 citizens).
Think of an aquifer as large underground sponges made of rock. To view the monitoring of the aquifer water levels, visit web site http://md.water.usgs.gov/groundwater/calvert. A cooperative program among the Calvert County Department of Public Works, Bureau of Utilities, the Maryland Geological Survey, and the U.S. Geological Survey monitors Ground-Water levels. Approximately 42 wells (deeper, confined aquifers) most affected by local and regional ground-water withdrawal are monitored. The various monitoring graphs show declining water levels.
Does having a well monitoring program mean no concerns exist about drinking water and the aquifers? No. A need exists for citizens to step-up to a greater sense of involvement that may compete against watching television, playing video games, or other fun stuff. Simply consuming or enjoying what Calvert County offers is not enough. Calvert County remains unique in that citizens still control the county’s destiny, but only if/when involved. Greater citizen awareness and involvement is needed.
BACKGROUND
Since the 1970’s, “Maryland’s Best Kept Secret” (Calvert County) became a secret no more. Its Quality of Life attracted residents due to open spaces, low crime, good schools, recreation, and close proximity of major highways to Metropolitan area employment. However, the more people and businesses moved here, the more water was drawn from the aquifers. Quality of Life has a balanced blend of: population density, crime rate, business opportunities, school system, transportation, affordability, civic pride, income, morality, shopping, recreation, and family unity.
Since the early 1980’s, citizen involvement became vital in establishing the goals and direction for county leaders and institutions. Principles were identified within the various County and Town Center Master Plans. Master Plans are most important since they represent the citizens’ voices, and form the foundation for planning. Those plans guide the creation of laws (ordinances). In concert with scientists and geologists, these plans directly affect the amount of water that may be drawn from the aquifers.
CHALLENGE
The Build-Out of 37,000 households, predicated upon a sustainable aquifer water supply, impacts businesses and citizens. Local businesses are unrealistic if they project (their Business Plans) business growth that serves greater than 37,000 households. Individuals moving to Calvert County desiring the same type of large shopping center conveniences and business park communities accustomed to elsewhere also have unrealistic expectations. After reaching Build-Out, what happens to others who want to move here? What happens to property values and associated tax assessments?
OPPORTUNITY
A grand opportunity is underway to address the myriad issues and concerns regarding Calvert County’s Quality of Life. Various Town Center Master Plans are being updated. Solomons, Lusby, and St. Leonard communities are underway followed soon by Prince Frederick, Huntingtown, Owings, and Dunkirk. Completion of these master plans is intended by the end of 2009. If you are unfamiliar with the individual citizens in your community who are involved with these updates, perhaps you need a little more involvement; taking on some individual responsibility.
So, the next time you have a drink of water, think about its source; think about your future and the future of Calvert County. To become more involved, contact the county Planning and Zoning office Phone: (410) 535-1600, ext. 2356 or (301) 855-1243, ext. 2356 (PZ@co.cal.md.us).
Evan Slaughenhoupt
Vocalcalvert@aol.com
Dunkirk, Maryland
January 22, 2008
Taking your next drink of water just might determine the future of Calvert County. What is the maximum number of citizens that our Aquia and Piney Point/Nanjemoy Aquifers can provide Ground-Water and still remain viable? Current Calvert County Water & Sewer Plan, viewable at http://www.co.cal.md.us/government/departments/planning/default.asp identifies population growth figures of 91,000 by 2010; 96,000 by 2020; and 100,000 by 2030. The 100,000 figure is associated with a term called Build-Out. Experts estimate the aquifers can sustain themselves while serving 37,000 households (100,000 – 105,000 citizens).
Think of an aquifer as large underground sponges made of rock. To view the monitoring of the aquifer water levels, visit web site http://md.water.usgs.gov/groundwater/calvert. A cooperative program among the Calvert County Department of Public Works, Bureau of Utilities, the Maryland Geological Survey, and the U.S. Geological Survey monitors Ground-Water levels. Approximately 42 wells (deeper, confined aquifers) most affected by local and regional ground-water withdrawal are monitored. The various monitoring graphs show declining water levels.
Does having a well monitoring program mean no concerns exist about drinking water and the aquifers? No. A need exists for citizens to step-up to a greater sense of involvement that may compete against watching television, playing video games, or other fun stuff. Simply consuming or enjoying what Calvert County offers is not enough. Calvert County remains unique in that citizens still control the county’s destiny, but only if/when involved. Greater citizen awareness and involvement is needed.
BACKGROUND
Since the 1970’s, “Maryland’s Best Kept Secret” (Calvert County) became a secret no more. Its Quality of Life attracted residents due to open spaces, low crime, good schools, recreation, and close proximity of major highways to Metropolitan area employment. However, the more people and businesses moved here, the more water was drawn from the aquifers. Quality of Life has a balanced blend of: population density, crime rate, business opportunities, school system, transportation, affordability, civic pride, income, morality, shopping, recreation, and family unity.
Since the early 1980’s, citizen involvement became vital in establishing the goals and direction for county leaders and institutions. Principles were identified within the various County and Town Center Master Plans. Master Plans are most important since they represent the citizens’ voices, and form the foundation for planning. Those plans guide the creation of laws (ordinances). In concert with scientists and geologists, these plans directly affect the amount of water that may be drawn from the aquifers.
CHALLENGE
The Build-Out of 37,000 households, predicated upon a sustainable aquifer water supply, impacts businesses and citizens. Local businesses are unrealistic if they project (their Business Plans) business growth that serves greater than 37,000 households. Individuals moving to Calvert County desiring the same type of large shopping center conveniences and business park communities accustomed to elsewhere also have unrealistic expectations. After reaching Build-Out, what happens to others who want to move here? What happens to property values and associated tax assessments?
OPPORTUNITY
A grand opportunity is underway to address the myriad issues and concerns regarding Calvert County’s Quality of Life. Various Town Center Master Plans are being updated. Solomons, Lusby, and St. Leonard communities are underway followed soon by Prince Frederick, Huntingtown, Owings, and Dunkirk. Completion of these master plans is intended by the end of 2009. If you are unfamiliar with the individual citizens in your community who are involved with these updates, perhaps you need a little more involvement; taking on some individual responsibility.
So, the next time you have a drink of water, think about its source; think about your future and the future of Calvert County. To become more involved, contact the county Planning and Zoning office Phone: (410) 535-1600, ext. 2356 or (301) 855-1243, ext. 2356 (PZ@co.cal.md.us).
Evan Slaughenhoupt
Vocalcalvert@aol.com
Dunkirk, Maryland
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
