Get unlimited digital access to baltimoresun.com. $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

Storm water fees are unnecessary and excessive

Isn't the storm water tax just another "protect the bay" fee ("The 'rain tax' sham," April 17)? Otherwise, what is the "flush tax" for and where does all this money go?

Your editorial suggests that "for most, the fee is modest. In Baltimore County, for instance, the owner of a single-family home will pay $39 annually."

I am being "modest fee'd" to death. Where are we now, 37 additional taxes, fees or rate increases in the last few years?

I guess we need to establish another bloated government agency with twice as many employees as needed, being paid too much to do as little as possible. Maryland's unemployment rate will then go down, and our legislators for life will look good.

It is no wonder people are retiring and moving out of this state.

Craig Garfield

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
    Related Content
    • Faulty 'rain tax' math
      Faulty 'rain tax' math

      The facts in your recent editorial about the so-called "rain tax" are very selective ("The bogus 'rain tax' repeal," Nov. 21).

    • 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...

    • In rush to cut taxes and fees, lawmakers are sacrificing long-term environmental sustainability
      In rush to cut taxes and fees, lawmakers are sacrificing long-term environmental sustainability

      I was disheartened to read that both Republican and Democratic legislators are already making plans to repeal the stormwater management fees designed to pay for projects that mitigate the only source of Chesapeake Bay pollution that is still on the rise ("After Hogan victory, local...

    • Rain tax exemption not worth the effort
      Rain tax exemption not worth the effort

      When we built our house in Anne Arundel County in 2002, we had to install a $10,000 wastewater management system because we were building within 1,000 feet of a body of water. We found this to be unreasonable but we had no appeal. We were certain that we qualified for an exemption now from...

    • 'Rain tax' sobriquet is misleading
      'Rain tax' sobriquet is misleading

      I find the continued use of the term "rain tax" to be misleading at best ("After Hogan victory, local governments look to cut taxes and fees," Nov. 15).

    • Right as 'rain tax'
      Right as 'rain tax'

      I am not a fan of Gov. Martin O'Malley, but he was right for initiating his so-called "rain tax" ("'Rain tax' sobriquet is misleading," Nov. 19). In a Midwestern state, homeowners are subject to heavy fines if they allow runoff rain water to enter the streets. They must redirect it to their own...

    • 'Rain tax' a drop in Md. tax bucket
      'Rain tax' a drop in Md. tax bucket

      I agree that the repeal of the "rain tax" is bogus ("The bogus 'rain tax' repeal," Nov. 24). But it would be interesting if The Sun put a table in the paper with the typical cost to Maryland residents of all the 40 or so new or increased taxes imposed upon us by the nanny Gov. Martin O'Malley.

    • Time to flush the 'rain tax'
      Time to flush the 'rain tax'

      The Baltimore Sun editorial ("Bogus rain tax repeal," Nov. 24) neglects to mention that in passing the House Bill 987 Stormwater Management-Watershed and Restoration Program, the "rain tax" in response to the 2010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandate aimed at reducing the pollution...

    Comments
    Loading