Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion

Sun treats Neuman badly over stormwater bill

I found your editorial on Anne Arundel County Executive Laura Neuman's decision to veto the storm water bill very unprofessional ("Neuman's reckless stormwater veto," April 29). To disagree is one thing, but to call her decision "reckless" and to say that her action "represents a failure of leadership" is highly insulting.

She had the courage to temporarily veto the bill which would impact her county, but not touch other polluters, such as people in Western Maryland whose runoff from roofs, driveways and parking lots into streams and the Patapsco River can also lead to pollution. Why not make everyone that lives in Maryland pay the fee?

On the other hand, I am not so sure that the Chesapeake Bay is polluted mainly by storm runoff. What about all the tankers and other vessels that sail into the bay and flush their tanks to save money in the open waters? What about the fishermen and crabbers that use the bay as a garbage can? Perhaps we should limit the number of pleasure boats that use the bay, since they probably flush their toilets into the water to save cleaning them at dockside.

Finally, I live in Anne Arundel County and pay my fair share of taxes. To call residents of Anne Arundel County "famously tax-averse" is highly unjust.

Jerry Todd, Linthicum

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
    Related Content
    • Rain tax: Noble goal, unfair execution
      Rain tax: Noble goal, unfair execution

      Kim Coble of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation laments that Maryland county officials are considering rolling back their stormwater remediation fees. ("'Rain tax¿ is rolling back," Jan. 26.) In 2012 the Maryland General Assembly passed HB 987 requiring nine Maryland counties and Baltimore...

    • Rain tax proponents are missing the larger issue
      Rain tax proponents are missing the larger issue

      In her letter to the editor ("The stormwater fee and the will of the voters," March 12), Katherine W. Rylaarsdam has bought into the protecting-the-environment argument too strongly and is ignoring the larger issue.

    • Rubbed the wrong way by the rain tax
      Rubbed the wrong way by the rain tax

      Commentator Mileah Kromer makes it clear that her polls indicate people are dubious of whether stormwater runoff contributes to pollution in the Chesapeake Bay ("The rub of the 'rain tax,'" March 8).

    • The rain tax is unfair because not all pay it
      The rain tax is unfair because not all pay it

      I'm for the stormwater management fee if it is paid by all ("End 'rain tax' ridicule rap, repeal and replace law," Feb. 28). It is ridiculous to tie it some counties and not all. In the state of current dynamics, just about all contribute to the problems, and just about all will benefit from...

    • We all must assume responsibility for the bay
      We all must assume responsibility for the bay

      I think Dan Rodricks' suggestion for a new flush tax is a promising alternative to the storm water management fee —one that would hold us all personally responsible for the health of the Chesapeake Bay ("End 'rain tax' ridicule rap, repeal and replace law," Feb. 28).

    • The voters wanted the 'rain tax' repeal
      The voters wanted the 'rain tax' repeal

      I cannot believe that The House Environment and Transportation Committee voted 14-7 to kill the bill to repeal the "rain tax" ("House panel kills Hogan's stormwater fee repeal," March 6). This was one of Gov. Larry Hogan's platform issues about reducing taxes that helped get him elected, and...

    • The stormwater fee and the will of the voters
      The stormwater fee and the will of the voters

      The House Environment and Transportation Committee rejected Gov. Larry Hogan's proposed repeal of the stormwater management fee ("House panel kills Hogan's stormwater fee repeal," March 6). Proponents of repeal, predictably enough, are complaining that the voters "spoke" last November.

    • Churches should not have to pay stormwater fees [Letter]
      Churches should not have to pay stormwater fees [Letter]

      In response to your paper's recent article about churches paying stormwater fees, I would point out that churches provide heavily discounted space for community groups and that many house affordable kindergarten and nursery school programs and provide food and shelter for at-risk populations...

    Comments
    Loading