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

'Rain tax' is a sham

I was quite amused by The Sun's efforts to set the record straight concerning the rain tax ("The 'rain tax' sham," April 17). After reading your editorial, one can only conclude that any sensible individual interested in curbing pollution must be for the rain tax and anybody against the tax must favor pollution. Really? The vast majority of your readers, if not all, favor reducing pollution. My hunch, however, is that the majority of readers do not support the rain tax and for good and just concerns.

The real sham here is trying to convince the public that a tax will ever meaningfully reduce pollution. The use of the newly-raised funds is ambiguous — it covers monitoring, inspecting, permitting oversight, public education and grants to non-profits — not strict pollution reduction targets and measures to attain them with real penalties for having fallen short. It is simply a large, expensive bureaucratic initiative wrapped around a noble cause.

Would the editorial board like to make a friendly wager whether the rain tax will actually ever have a demonstrable impact on reducing pollution resulting from storm water? I sincerely hope I would lose such a bet but believe it to be a sure way to offset my rain tax bill.

Dan Hudson, Sparks

  • 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