Don't Rush to Incorporate Columbia
There were so many astonishing things in the Dec. 4 Sun for Howard County, between the article on the push to make Columbia a "city" and letters to the editor from Chuck Rees and Charlie Ahalt, that I hardly know where to begin.
The basic difference I have with Rabbi Martin Siegel and his group ("CA, allies resist push for a city," Dec. 4) is that I would like to make a decision as an informed voter -- and I suspect that most Columbia residents would prefer to be knowledgeable on a subject before they make a decision as well. How can you decide anything as important as the future governance structure of Columbia without some idea of the very important questions that face us?
For example, what services would the newly incorporated Columbia be expected to provide, and at what cost? What would happen to the Columbia Association with incorporation? . . . There are many more questions that need to be answered before an informed decision can be made on the future of Columbia's governance.
Why do Rabbi Siegel and his group want to rush blindly into a vote that may force us into a decision that is not in the best interests of Columbia residents? . . . An informed populace is the reason that the Columbia Council is sponsoring a series of public symposiums this spring on governance. The right time to decide on a change in the governance structure is after we have a good idea of the costs and benefits, not before.
While I like Chuck Rees personally, and certainly see a place for a "rebel" on the Columbia Council, I differ with him on a number of the issues he raises.
He asks if Columbians should have a tax-deductible annual charge. Of course we would prefer to have an additional tax deduction, but at what cost? Would we want to save an additional $300 on our taxes at the expense of an additional $1,000 in taxes to a new Columbia city government? . . .
How about one-person, one-vote? Certainly, but again at what cost? There may be less expensive ways of bringing this about than incorporation, maybe by going to the state legislature. Elections at the same time as government elections? Why? How about other "good government" reforms, such as open meetings, freer disclosure of information, open and competitive bidding of contracts?
I would respond that Columbia has more open government, and provides a greater ability to be an active participant in it, than almost any local government I know of. How would the grass-roots governance of the village boards change with incorporation? And what governments are more efficient than CA at providing services to residents? (Perhaps Chuck thought the $1,000 toilet seats procured for the Defense Department were a good example of open and competitive bidding?) What about refinancing the debt? We all would like to, but can't. Legally we are stuck with it no matter how many times Chuck and other
members of the Alliance for a Better Columbia bring it up. . . . Finally, what about the assessment? The Columbia Council has the power to do everything that Chuck wants now, but we have chosen not to for good reasons. If Chuck and others disagree with these reasons, they should fight that battle at the ballot box.
Last, Charlie Ahalt raises a number of false issues that must be responded to. The golf course attendance policy has nothing to do with the covenants and everything to do with good management. The Columbia Council has managed its fiscal affairs prudently, and non-assessment paying users and members subsidize the rest of us to a considerable degree. . . . Nor do I think that they want us to separate ourselves from the rest of the Howard County, although a wall may look good to Charlie. Finally, Charlie accuses us of circumventing the U.S. Constitution. . . . Is he referring to the ability of CA to level an assessment at 50 percent of valuation rather than 40 percent? Perhaps he would like to explain why the courts have declared that this is completely legal?
In conclusion, the Columbia Council continues to manage the bTC affairs of Columbia in a fiscally prudent manner. We plan to have a full public airing of the issues surrounding governance to allow the residents of Columbia to decide what is best for them, and we are not going to surrender this right to know to any group that insists that it knows best. Maybe the best thing for Columbians is incorporation, but let's find out if it's the way to go and not take the opinion of someone else as the truth.
avid W. Berson
River Hill
The writer is vice chairman of the Columbia Council.
Parents' Group on Misbehavior
Re: Kevin Thomas' column, "Black Suspensions: Blame All Around" (Dec. 4):
It is with deep sadness that I learned of the insertion of the word "but" into the statement that was shared at the Black Student Achievement Program/Parent Advisory Council meeting on Nov. 29. At no time was the word "but" used as the parents' statement was being developed and approved.
The insertion of "but" into the quoted statement was erroneous, encouraging negative reactions toward an effort to work in cooperation with the school system to reduce suspensions. . . .
The purpose of the BSAP/PAC meeting was to establish the groundwork for an investigation into the suspension issue by committees of parents. . . . In the discussion, it was stated emphatically that misbehavior is never acceptable. . . .
We are now in the second phase of our work on suspensions. At the BSAP/PAC meeting, the information shared with the students was distributed to parents along with a checklist for parents developed by Marian Wright Edelman. This checklist is designed to promote positive attitudes and behaviors for
students who encounter less-than-positive societal and environmental conditions.
Since you did not attend the BSAP/PAC meeting, it would have been appropriate to have contacted me to verify . . . the quote that was used in your column and a call would have established my correct name. I am enclosing the quote printed in the Columbia Flier which does state exactly what was said.
atalie Woodson
Columbia