Don't allow housing to fill tract in county

I feel for the residents of the Hampton area ("Hampton residents fight development," Feb. 18).

As a long-term resident of the Greenspring Valley, I have been involved in many battles with nonprofits groups like the Towson United Methodist Church - the group that is, in this instance, seeking to sell and rezone land for more dense use.

These nonprofits (often schools) have benefited from tax breaks over the years and often got their original land free of charge or at a low price.

The land they want to develop or expand into is often an easy target because it is usually open space.

We have always been assured by the county that these developments will have a negligible impact on our quality of life.

But now I can hardly get out my driveway because of the traffic, much less enjoy the calm and quiet that existed prior to these developments.

I have also heard the "needed service and good company" argument for a development many times. But what is so good about a company that takes advantage of a community to fill its pockets?

The best place for this kind of housing is in the heart of Towson, where residents could easily enjoy the area's amenities.

The only way to stop sprawl is to put new developments in places where public services already exist.

I constantly wonder when we will elect representatives who really represent our best interests, not those of the developers.

Deirdre Smith

Lutherville

The writer is a member of the Valleys Planning Council.

Compromises create solutions for county

The Sun's editorial regarding impact fees was riddled with inaccuracies ("C is for compromise," Feb. 19).

The statement that members of the Anne Arundel County Council "weren't consulted" on these fees is false; council members were given an opportunity before the impact fee legislation was introduced to make recommendations regarding fee levels but chose not to do so.

The statement that I am not "exactly the compromising kind" is amply contradicted by my record.

As a member of the General Assembly for 20 years and during my tenure as county executive, I have forged a strong record of bipartisan problem-solving that has resulted in the enactment of more than 50 pieces of legislation.

This kind of record cannot be created without an ability to compromise.

Legislation regarding panhandling, school board selection reform and disability parking abuse are just three examples of successful compromises during my tenure as county executive.

The editorial states that "a half-penny increase in property transfer tax ... would raise $25 million a year."

In fact, the proposal offered by the County Council called for a 50 percent increase in the current 1 percent transfer tax; this proposal, which would have increased the transfer tax on county homeowners and sellers by thousands of dollars, was promptly rejected by the Anne Arundel delegation in the General Assembly.

John R. Leopold

Annapolis

The writer is county executive of Anne Arundel County.

Giving government funds to protect us

It is disturbing that it took a group of private citizens to point out that a meatpacker had apparently sneaked tons of potentially harmful beef past the inspectors of the U.S. Department of Agriculture ("U.S. announces largest beef recall ever," Feb. 18).

It is equally disturbing that mortgage brokers were able to put through thousands of risky subprime mortgages, which have caused significant disruption to the financial markets in addition to the heartache suffered by the borrowers whose houses have been foreclosed upon, and that our commercial aviation system is in crisis as it tries to cope with ever-more planes with an antiquated air traffic control system.

These are but three examples of cases in which the federal government is letting us down.

Some people rail against "big government," and no one likes to pay taxes. Nevertheless, in our complex world, we need diligence and competence from the people whose responsibility it is to protect us.

Today we have a president who is prosecuting a senseless and dangerous war, which is causing an ever-larger federal deficit, while ignoring serious domestic problems and heading an administration that often lacks the funding, the competence and the will to deal effectively with problems government must manage.

We should seriously consider any presidential candidate who can make a credible case that he or she is not afraid to tax us equitably to the extent necessary to protect us and will appoint and effectively manage men and women who will give us cause to feel confidence in our government.

Thomas Spencer

White Hall

Obama's supporters know his platform

I took a little offense at the ill-informed letter "Too late to inquire of Obama's agenda" (Feb. 17) in which the writer stated that he had "no doubt that hundreds of thousands of Maryland Democrats cast their votes" for Sen. Barack Obama in the Feb. 12 primary "without having a clue as to his positions on issues."

After initially supporting the socially conscious John Edwards and then considering the brilliant Sen. Hillary Clinton after Mr. Edwards dropped out of the race, I decided to cast my primary vote for the eloquent Mr. Obama, who is ready to lead our country for at least the next four years.

And how do I know this?

Well, contrary to the letter writer's rash generalization, I have learned quite a bit about Mr. Obama, not only by reading The Sun and other publications but also by visiting his Web site; checking out his Grammy-award winning video; reading articles on MSNBC, Fox News and other online news sites; and even comparing the Democratic (and Republican) candidates online as to where they stand on the issues.

I am the most informed I have ever been about a candidate, and I can assure any potential voter that not only does Mr. Obama understand the most important issues for the general election but his millions of supporters know him and know what he stands for.

Chris J. McGloin

Catonsville

Global warming bill only hurts citizens

The global warming initiative by Gov. Martin O'Malley will have the impact on the environment that a flea has by landing on an elephant.

The Sun's article "Pollution bill attacked" (Feb. 20) should be required reading for all our politicians.

It is time for the burdens of big government to be lifted from the back of taxpayers and businesses.

After all, where do those people sitting in Annapolis think their salaries come from?

Richard Jendrek

Berlin

Safety of phthalates still open to debate

We were dismayed to read the letter "No reason to fear products for babies" (Feb. 11).

The current understanding of the potential adverse effects of phthalates comes from laboratory animal and human epidemiological studies.

More than 100 studies have raised concerns that exposure to phthalates is associated with health outcomes such as genital birth defects in males, decreased testosterone production in boys and decreases in male fertility.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have discovered the presence of phthalates in body fluids of almost 100 percent of Americans.

Studies have even shown that babies have phthalates circulating in their bodies at birth, giving us a "pre-polluted baby."

While we do not have all of the answers that we would like to have about the effects of these chemicals, until we get those answers, we need public policy that will reduce their potential harm to children.

We must not use uncertainty as an excuse to falsely reassure parents and consumers.

Brenda M. Afzal Robyn Gilden Baltimore

The writers are, respectively, the director of health programs and a program manager for the Environmental Health Education Center at University of Maryland School of Nursing.