A Waste Plan

I am writing in response to your June 9 editorial "Trashing Regionalism." I would like to advise your readers that there is a regional solid waste work group consisting of the directors of public works that has a very active effort underway.

This group is working not only to develop a regional solid waste plan but, more importantly, to build regional facilities and programs that are geared specifically to avoid costly, redundant facilities and lower the overall cost of solid waste processing and disposal.

The charge given to us by the executives, commissioners and the mayor, was to proceed with feasible, viable regional projects while the more complex regional waste disposal plan is developed.

This strategy is extremely prudent as the solid waste management business is changing dramatically in this area and the nation. Given the need to make long-term commitments, a careful analysis is needed to develop a prudent plan.

To date, regional efforts have resulted in:

1. From work with the Maryland Environmental Service, a regional yard waste compost facility is being advertised for bids and will be built in Howard County.

2. From work with the Northeast Waste Disposal Authority, proposals are being solicited to market mixed waste paper for recycling.

3. A number of the jurisdictions are working together to improve the efficiency of household hazardous-waste collection and explore ways to reduce costs for a program that is probably the most expensive on a unit price basis.

4. Evaluating new municipal solid waste composting technologies that may be feasible for the region . . .

We believe that the regional solid waste work group is developing thefoundation for a regional solid waste management program in a reasonable and prudent manner for the entire metropolitan community.

James M. Irvin

Ellicott City

The writer is the director of the Howard County Department of Public Works and the chairperson of the Regional Solid Waste Work Group.

Clinton's Problems

It does not surprise me that President Clinton would have the nerve to ask the American public to contribute money to help pay for his legal problems.

It is unfortunate that he has such problems, but it is about time he realize that he is not above the law.

In college I barely have enough funds to cover my own expenses, let alone anyone else's. I work in an office where many of my adult colleagues seem equally outraged.

Why doesn't Mr. Clinton take out a loan, or sell something of great value, instead of asking for a handout?

Mary M. Shaffrey

Towson

Other Victim

In regard to Jann Jackson's remarks, which you felt should be high-lighted within the June 19 article about O. J. Simpson: "There's a lot of sympathy for O.J. While we are watching our hero fall, the real tragedy is a woman has lost her life."

Ms. Jackson's mind-set, which The Sun appears to concur with, is such to be able to ignore and disregard the fact that Ronald Goldman (a male) was also brutally murdered. Isn't a man's brutal death an equal tragedy to that of a woman's, or is that just not politically correct anymore?

Irwin Kramer

Havre de Grace

Simpson Victims

Families of murder victims are appalled by what is taking place concerning the O. J. Simpson case. The alleged murderer is being turned into "the victim."

People waved and cheered him on as he led police around Los Angeles. Can any one of us imagine what it must have been like for the families of the real victims to see this?

I have been an advocate for victims for 12 years, and this is the worst example of "second victimization" imaginable.

It is also incredible and, I hope, embarrassing to most people that such behavior is part of our society, a society that lists crime as its major concern. Perhaps for some people that does not include crime against others, just ourselves.

Yes, our hearts go out to all those involved in this, including O. J. Simpson, but let's remember who are the real victims. These families and the children will carry this grief throughout their lives.

Shirley W. Johnson

Parkville

Reform Liquor Licensing

A month has passed since your May 12 article exposing the patronage at the Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City. Sen. John A. Pica and other politicians immediately called for an appointed committee to review the situation and make recommendations for changes in time for the next General Assembly.

If the review and resulting changes are limited only to the patronage issue, then the citizens of Baltimore will have been done a great disservice.

Only broad reform of the liquor license practices in Baltimore can be acceptable. Here are but three examples why:

First, there are a little over 1,600 licensed premises in Baltimore. No new "bar only" license can be issued so long as the number of all licensed premises is more than one for each 1,000 residents of Baltimore.

This appears to limit the spread of bars, but in practice it doesn't. Rather, restaurant liquor licenses are routinely issued and used to operate bars.

The liquor board definition of a restaurant is woefully lacking. For instance, only one-third of receipts for a restaurant in Baltimore must be from food while two-thirds can be from alcohol. (In the rest of the state, it is 51 percent food. I wonder why?)

Additionally, the liquor board has no consistent and strict method for verifying the percentages. There have been cases where establishments have counted the olive in a martini and the cola in a highball as food. Unfortunately, this farce damages the credibility of legitimate restaurants that wish to operate in the city.

Second, when an applicant wishes to obtain, expand or transfer a liquor license, he must demonstrate that it is necessary for public convenience and accommodation.

Again, this appears to have a moderating impact on the spread of liquor licenses. Again, in practice it doesn't.

For instance, Fells Point below Eastern Avenue has roughly 80 existing liquor licenses. This is an area about four city blocks square. One might think that to gain, expand or transfer a liquor license in this small area, already with an abundance of licenses, would be next to impossible.

Well, it isn't. It happens all the time, even though one would be hard-pressed to go more than a couple of hundred feet in any direction in Fells Point and not come across at least one establishment serving alcohol.

How convenient and accommodating must liquor be is open to a wide range of interpretation, and thus plays nicely into the patronage situation.

Third, if 51 percent of the owners of real estate within 200 feet of a proposed licensed premise protest the issuance or transfer of a license at that premise, then the license can not be issued or transferred.

On the surface, this is a powerful means available to citizens when faced with an unwanted establishment.

In reality, it is a costly, onerous and difficult process favoring the applicant more than the surrounding property owners.

It could be simplified and balanced if the burden fell to the applicant to show proof that 51 percent of the surrounding property owners support or do not oppose his application.

These are just a few of the issues of how the business of liquor licensing is conducted in Baltimore. There are others.

In general, the existing liquor license practices are crafted to give the appearance of public interest while in reality they do not. So while patronage's effect on the liquor board is a serious concern, it is but one of several that must be addressed.

It is time to broadly reform the liquor license practices in Baltimore and to truly do it for the benefit of the city and its citizens and not the liquor lobby or the politicians.

Thomas J. Durel

Baltimore