HEAD ON WITH NATURE

From: Robert Gardner

Ellicott City

On Saturday, Dec. 14, I was walking my dog, Sasha, along Deep Run Creek. This is a wetland area behind the village of Montgomery Run in Ellicott City where there has been much debate over the location ofthe proposed Route 100.

To my surprise, surveyors had been through the area, placing markers and leaving a straight path from Montgomery Run to the University of Maryland Horse farm. For those familiar with Route 100, the trail appears to be the center line for the original alignment agreed in 1987.

When we found the path, we followed it east, through Deep Run Creek. When we came out of the woods and back on to higher ground, the terrain was full of briars that the surveypath had cut through.

I took the path and Sasha cut through the briars, but on the other side came a 10-point buck. Sasha, still beinga puppy, wanted to play with the deer. When the buck saw me, over the hill he went with Sasha right behind him.

When I got to the crest of the hill, the animals were in the creek. The buck kept charging at my dog, keeping her out of the creek, wanting nothing to do with her. I kept yelling at Sasha and, of course, she didn't listen.

Sasha was giving the deer so much interference I was able to walk within20 feet of the creek. I could see a wound on the left side of his chest. The buck saw me and charged upstream behind more briars, only tohave a playmate tag along.

I continued to yell, moving to the edge of the creek. The buck turned and ignited downstream only to see meeye to eye. He hesitated, then continued, since Sasha was coming.

I finally grabbed Sasha, shook her out of her trance and attached her leash.

The buck was gone, jumping briars, fences and the creek knowing his little pest was captured. Sasha, knowing I was angry at her, behaved every step of the way home. But how can I be upset at a pup who is exploring nature? There is such little left.

If Route 100is built where the survey markers are placed, the buck will be gone along with Deep Run Creek, the woods, the briars and the other animals that live here.

CALL TO RESISTANCE

From: L. Scott Muller

Ellicott City

Recently, this paper published a letter by Don Gill warning residents of western Howard County of plans to nearly double the size of the Alpha Ridge landfill and to continue operating the landfill until 2020.

Since that letter, newspaper articles have chronicled the fight that residents of Allegany and Frederick counties have mounted against the operation of their landfills and the fight residents of Montgomery County are waging against a trash incinerator in a predominantly rural area of that county. Why are the residents of Howard County complacent in allowing the county to expand the Alpha RidgeLandfill without considering other trash disposal alternatives?

The expansion of Alpha Ridge landfill affects all county residents, not only those in the area of the landfill.

Before the county selected Alpha Ridge as the site for the new landfill in 1978, a state official examining the potential sites for a landfill wrote that Alpha Ridge was the worst site of the possible landfill locations due to topography, proximity to streams and rivers, and the potential for groundwater pollution.

Expansion of this ill-conceived landfill makes the present situation worse, further threatening not only the ground water that provides drinking water to the 300 homes within a mile of the landfill (a vast increase in the number of homes since the landfill was established), but also the surface water that supplies the Little Patuxent River.

The state permits runoff and partially treated leachate from the dump to run into the Little Patuxent, through the county (including neighborhoods like Turf Valley, Font Hill, Centennial, Dorsey Hall and Running Brook), into Lake Kittamaqundi in Columbia, and eventually into the Chesapeake Bay. Expanding the landfill willalso deny county residents access to a long-planned park at Alpha Ridge, and scar the "greenbelt" established in the county's 1990 General Plan.

Frederick and Allegany counties are fighting landfills, despite the fact that the impact of landfills are much less severe in those counties than in Howard County. Both counties have much larger land areas, and few households with well water that would be threatened by the landfill.

Why are Frederick and Allegany residents more protective than those in Howard County when it comes to protecting theenvironment?

Perhaps because the vast majority of Howard County residents rely on public water and do not consider the threat to otherresidents' drinking water. Perhaps because the residents do not realize that runoff from the landfill makes fishing, boating or swimming in area streams, lakes (especially Kittamaqundi) or the bay hazardousto their health.

We hope all concerned citizens will contact Dr. Charles Ecker, the county executive, and their County Council member and express the need for the county to examine alternatives for solidwaste disposal and alternative sites where pollution of ground waterand area rivers and streams is less of a threat to residents of Howard County.

MANGIONE FINE WEAK

From: David H. Pardoe

Columbia

A recent article reported that developer Nicholas Mangione was convicted and fined for violating state environmental laws protecting flood plains (Howard County Sun, "Man fined for violating flood plain protections," by Jackie Powder, Dec. 15).

The prosecutor who successfully handled the case was reported to have said, "We hope that this will send a message to other people that the courts are taking these things pretty seriously."

Unfortunately, it would seem that the "message" was just the opposite. The judge granted probation before judgment and then dropped 90 percent of the fine, resulting in an economic slap on the wrist that is not likely to deter any developer in the future.

The "message" therefore is to ignore the environmental laws, complain about harassment of business people by bureaucratic red tape, and pay the nominal fine after the fact -- and take your profitsand run. Until the criminals who violate the law are treated like the arrogant criminals they are and fines are levied of a magnitude to strip their ill-gotten profits while suspending them from further business for a couple of years, there is no incentive for them to stop laughing at the law on their way to the bank.

The prosecutor did her job; unfortunately, the court, in my opinion, did not.

CABLE: NOW LESS FOR MORE

From: Christine E. Rebbert

Elkridge

An open letter to Howard Cable Television:

I am writing to comment on the "Special Notice About Your Cable Service" that came with our last cable bill.

We have been subscribers to cable since we moved here in 1986. As you know, the rates have just gone up and up since then. We have the basic service, one additional outlet (with converter), and two premiums (HBO and Showtime -- or in the spring, we switch to Home Team Sports until the Orioles season is over).

Our current bill had been a little over $48 a month, but we just added the Disney Channel as a result of a phone call directly from them -- a special offer of $4.95 a month for six months. So that will bring our bill to over $53 a month.

Now you are raising rates again. And what are we getting for our extra money?

The Nostalgia Channel, which I don't ever expect to watch. I have been checking the listings for this in the Baltimore Sun TV magazine, and am far from impressed.

But hey! We also get two more pay-per-view networks. In other words, we're apparently being asked to pay more for the privilege of being able to pay even more for PPV movies.

I wouldn't be so upset if the choices you'd made for additional channels were good ones. Why can't we have AmericanMovie Classics? Or Bravo? Or Channel 50? (For that matter, why do wehave HTS as a premium when it's part of the basic service in neighboring counties?)

Why do we need two "home shopping networks" (although it is in keeping with your apparent trend toward having your subscribers pay more the privilege of spending even more money).

In economic times such as these (I am a county employee being furloughed later this month, etc.), we as a family must weigh more seriously our expenses for necessities vs. luxuries -- and cable TV is definitely aluxury. It becomes even more of a luxury when the price continues togo up while the quality of the offerings represented by your new channels continues to go down.

My basic point is that when comparing the price of the service to the channel offerings, the value of the subscription has gone down. There was a point when we felt the cable was a good value even though we didn't enjoy or even watch every single channel available. Now it seems we're just having to pay more to get more channels we never watch. What's the value of that?

OPTIONS FORROUTE 100

From: Valerie McGuire

Ellicott City

The upheaval concerning the Route 100 alignment between Old Montgomery Road and Route 104 has not been fairly dealt with recently. Newspaper sensationalism has misconstrued the purpose and intention of the Hunt Country Estates residents, and I wish to clarify this.

The residents' proposed concept plan for Route 100 was in response to the State Highway Administration (SHA) dilemma concerning the use of wetlands. Due to 1990 EPA restrictions regarding wetland impact, it no longer found the Route 100 alignment over Deep Run Creek acceptable. As one of the fewhealthy streams to survive development in Howard County, Deep Run iscritical to Chesapeake Bay.

Consequently, SHA revealed a northernshift of Route 100 to eight homeowners in Hunt Country Estates. Thisplan would demolish two homes and serverely affect six others, no noise or sight barriers would be provided, and finally, Snowden River Parkway's location in the wetlands was not dealt with at all.

Although SHA officials revealed that "other" studies would be considered, this was the only plan presented to us on Sept. 30.

We found the new northern shift to be unacceptable and took it upon ourselves to address EPA's request of avoiding the impact to the wetlands of Deep Run. The result was our engineers' concept plan which:

1. Took into account the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) conclusion that in orderfor Route 100 to achieve what it is supposed to, Route 108 will needto be widened.

2. Complies with EPA's request of realigning the road out of the wetlands.

The concept plan presented on Nov. 23 to various federal, state and county officials is a good alternative insofar as it achieved our purpose; the alternative is consistent with the "avoidance first concept" with regard to wetlands. EPA's request was successfully dealt with -- even to the point of locating a controlled access road for the communities of Ashton Woods and Montgomery Run, as well as realigning the Snowden River Parkway interchange out ofthe wetlands.

One final thought concerns the Hunt Country Estatesconcept plan. While I feel the plan is a viable solution to EPA's strict guidelines, it does have a drawback: Four homes would be displaced.

This does not sit well with us because it parallels our own community's predicament. We have tried to address this problem with another plan. The SHA administrator, Hal Kassoff, received a second alternative south of Deep Run on Dec. 4. The plan aligns Route 100 between the village of Montgomery Run and Hunt Country Estates. This "Lazy S" alternative saves all residences while still reducing the impact to the wetlands area.

Hopefully, this concept plan can be a viable solution under SHA and EPA's standards while better satisfying the communities at large.

RECONSIDER EXPANSION

From: Don Swan

Ellicott City

As a resident of Howard County, a homeowner in Burleigh Manor and, more importantly, a parent, I am writing to voice my concern about the four-lane highway expansion of Centennial Lane.

I am surely not against highway improvement, but to have a four-lane highway in front of three schools is alarming and a bit ludicrous.

A few years ago, the homeowners of Burleigh Manor were told by (former County Executive) Liz Bobo and her staff that the four-lane expansion to Centennial Lane would only consist of Phase I, that part of CentennialLane bordering the three schools (Centennial Lane Elementary, the new Burleigh Manor Middle School, and Centennial High School), which would be delayed and reconsidered in 1994 so that further studies couldbe made regarding traffic volume and safety (vehicle, pedestrian andstudent).

Needless to say, I was shocked to learn that you and your highway staff have decided to go ahead with Phase II expansion without considering the commitment that was made by the prior Bobo administration and, more importantly, jeopardizing the safety of our children.

Already car speed exceeds 50 mph on Centennial Lane. Several accidents have occurred and just this year, a student traffic fatality occurred.

I can appreciate the fact that federal monies are appropriated each year for highway improvement. I also understand that ifthe appropriated monies are not spent during the fiscal year, they are then totally gone.

It seems to me that in these poor economicaltimes, the $1.6 million appropriated for the Centennial Lane expansion could be better utilized in other parts of the county government or other highway projects.

On behalf of our children's safety, I ask you to put on hold the Centennial Lane expansion until further traffic studies can be conducted and every possible safety precaution considered.

Editor's note: The above is an open letter to County Executive Charles I. Ecker.