Getting the Shaft on Emissions Tests
Regarding your Nov. 27 article on Maryland's new emissions program, the writer put forth the question as to whether the lack of opposition to the program is due to the population's willingness to do what's right for the environment or that it simply has not been well-informed about the program. While all concerned citizens are interested in the former, clearly the overwhelming silence is due to the latter.
Some questions:
* The dynamometer in your picture appears to have only one set of rollers. How will full-time four-wheel-drive cars such as the Subaru SVX and Audi Quattro be tested?
* Our cars are second only to our homes in terms of capital outlay for purchase and upkeep. In home maintenance, we may demand that a repairman be both bonded and in possession of a Maryland Home Improvement Commission (MHIC) number. What similar assurances does the new program provide that people operating our cars are licensed to do so and that they are technically competent to perform even basic assembly/disassembly procedures under the hood? One might be tempted to compare this with the current auto inspection program, but it's apples and oranges. Auto inspection stations are on virtually every corner and one can usually find a neighborhood garage with qualified mechanics to perform the inspection. We will be limited as to where our cars are emissions-tested.
* The evaporation test seems simple. On my car, it requires a trained mechanic approximately a half-hour to disassemble a portion of the car just to get to the evaporation system. I am sure many other cars will be equally challenging. Again,
what assurances do we have of technical competence on the part of the people doing the work?
* Because the new program requires the tester to both operate the cars and perform some invasive procedures, there will be occurences, however infrequent, of damage to vehicles by testers. Who is liable? Surely, we won't have to sign a waiver of responsibility on the part of the inspection station?
* Will we be able to examine the operator's driver's license to ensure he or she may legally drive the car? If I'm liable for damages, my insurance company won't pay if the driver isn't licensed. I should have a right to see the license before turning over my keys.
In short, this program is a disaster waiting to happen. I, for one, intend to show up at each test with a video camera and my lawyer to protect my property rights. People of Maryland, we're getting the shaft again.
Todd L. Brace
Ellicott City
GOP Promises
. . . From Congress to the State House to local seats of power, the Republicans promised that if elected, cutting taxes on the national level, cutting taxes in Annapolis on the state level, and cutting taxes locally will be their goal. Who will suffer in the end? You and me. Everyone's income taxes may be less, but our property taxes will go up. . . .
Our schools are overcrowded already, and police and fire/rescue services will be stretched so thin. . . . What about trash pickup? . . . This is just a continuation of applying the failed "trickle-down, voodoo economics" of the 1980s to the reality of the 1990s. . . .
Al Liebeskind
Columbia
Columbia's Future
Rebel? Benedict Arnold? Thanks for your article several weeks ago about my role on the Columbia Council. But why should my ideas about Columbia be in the minority?
Shouldn't Columbia have the benefits of public governance -- a tax-deductible annual charge? One-person, one-vote? Municipal bond interest rates for borrowings? Elections at the same time as government elections?
Doesn't Columbia need other "good government" reforms -- more open meetings of the council and its committees? Freer disclosure of information? Open and competitive bidding of contracts?
Doesn't Columbia also need to refinance its $86 million debt, with an average interest rate over 10 percent? Shouldn't property owners be assessed fairly, on the same basis as the county, which assesses at 40 percent (not 50 percent) of market value, phases in a new assessment over three years, and "caps" any increase of assessment at 5 percent?
I would be glad to hear from your readers.
Chuck Rees
Columbia
The writer is a member of the Columbia Council.
The Columbia Association has been very aggressive recently, prosecuting property owners for violation of covenants. Yet the association does not hesitate to ignore or violate them at will.
Two years ago, the board, after hours of debate, decided to restrict the golf course to property owners and residents in compliance with Articles IV and V of the covenants. . . . Now, the present board has decided to ignore the covenants and make it a public course, the property owners and residents be damned.
Leasing the Horse Center to a private organization for 10 years was fraudulent. Article V restricts any such transfer to a public body. The covenants are precise: Money raised by the lien is restricted to providing facilities and services for property owners and residents.
To circumvent the U.S. Constitution, the Columbia Association has tried to change its identity from a private organization to a quasi-governmental one. But the covenants do not permit this. CA had the Howard County state representatives place an amendment in the state tax code to try to circumvent Article II of the covenants. This adds 20 percent or more to the cost of the lien each year.
If all this money was really invested in the organization it would be commendable, but the truth is, the money goes to maintain a huge bureaucracy and the facilities are financed by a $90 million debt.
Last month, we had a national election and the majority of the voters told the government in no uncertain terms they were tired of having a bureaucracy arbitrarily take their property to distribute to others. The property owners of Columbia will "wake up" one day and demand the covenants be complied with or the association must be replaced.
Charles W. Ahalt
Columbia