I agree with your editorial that the debate about a third Bay Bridge span makes no sense without considering the ominous specter of climate change (”Missing from Chesapeake Bay Bridge debate: impact of climate change,” April 12). I would add that most of the Eastern Shore getaways, second homes and waterfront properties are sustained on the platform of subsidies for federal flood insurance that costs U.S. taxpayers $30 billion a year.
Hopefully, at some point, a prudent budget hawk might ponder whether it is worth giving away $30 billion a year to property owners who are getting inundated with storms and high sea levels with increasing frequency in order to restore their status quo ante. I think the record is someone who has hit up the federal government for 20 some washouts.
And I bet the same folks clamoring for a third Bay Bridge are the same ones that considered the Red Line of light rail through Baltimore to be a boondoggle. We’ll never know since it was never built but the primary goal of the Red Line was to get people to work rather than accommodate the leisure class.
Paul R. Schlitz Jr., Baltimore
Add your voice: Respond to this piece or other Sun content by submitting your own letter.