Posted by Phil Lee (216.250.238.161) on February 10, 2001 at 12:41:
Conservation Report
Vol. 26, No. 13
Mar. 30, 2000
Editor: Anneke Davis / 410-367-0567
5. Dutch Strikes Back
by Isaac Opalinsky
Alone, Dutch Ruppersburger walked onto the campus of St. John’s College to face the annual production of "Legislative Follies." A single protester stood before him carrying a sign reading "SB 509: THE TRUE LEGISLATIVE FOLLY; VOTE NO SB 509" Thus ended a long day of lobbying for both opponents and proponents of the Baltimore County Land Grab.
The evening of March 29 was full of tension among legislators who have risked their own bills to oppose SB 509 and those few who were still uncommitted on the issue. Legislative staffers entered the lobby, laughing and quietly encouraging the protester. One mentioned to a colleague, "That 509 thing is everywhere." A few Delegates voiced their disgust at the politics of the bill, including one Harford County Delegate who described how bond money for a Police Athletic League Center in Edgewood had been killed in retribution by the bill’s proponents. Members of the Baltimore County Delegation huddled together before silently entering the theater.
On the final day before the House Commerce and Governmental Matters Committee was set to vote on SB 509, Janice Hunt and other residents of the Essex-Middle River community were urging the committee members to vote the bill on its merits, rather than local courtesy. Indeed, local courtesy has proven the most contentious issue in the lobbying effort against the bill. Michael Dobson (D-Baltimore City) contended with a group of protesters outside the State House, trying to defend the tradition of local courtesy. "What happens when I can’t get state funding for a sewer bill, and the mayor comes to me because I made enemies with the Baltimore County Delegation? I’m looking out for my constituents when I vote on this bill."
"This is politics at its ugliest," said the Harford County Delegate. The mixture between politics and principles is rarely so obfuscated as by SB 509. Many legislators have been reluctant to discuss the merits of the bill with lobbyists and protesters, confining themselves to a justification of local courtesy. The words "public interest" were rarely heard.
The follies continued on Thursday afternoon in the meeting room for the House Commerce and Environmental Matters Committee.
In the debate before Thursday’s voting, the entire committee was loathe to mention the words "public interest," with the exception of a few leaders among the Delegates on the committee, including Del.’s Bobo, Brinkley, DeCarlo, Kittleman, Riley, Shank, Snodgrass, and Sophocleus.
Discussing an amendment to affirm the duty of the county to charge developers a fair price for the property, Del. Riley argued, "The good of enterprise is not good for everybody. . . . If we’re going to violate the rights of these people, we need to guarantee them a fair price." Del. Wood countered, "The property owner is taken care of pretty well.
On an amendment to guarantee the public a right to a referendum on SB 509, Del. Arnick argued against in favor of powers of legislators and public servants to determine fate of their constituents: "We are an elected body with elected powers. Let this body make its decisions." The current referendum process would be appealed under SB 509.
Reaffirming the tyrranies of officials removed from their constituents, Del. Arnick also argued against an amendment that would require Baltimore County officials to distribute informational literature to property owners who would lose their property under eminent domain. He argued that such an amendment would subvert the efficiency of the bill, apparently in agreement with an opponent of the bill who argued, "The survival of this bill depends on the ignorance of the community." Del. Shank countered, "We spend millions of dollars on prison law libraries so convicts can appeal their convictions, what is the problem with this amendment?"
The bright spot of the discussion on amendments was an alteration of the section that would exclude developers from building multi-family housing on properties acquired through eminent domain. Developers would now be allowed to build such housing under the bill.
The discussion in committee turned to the bill as amended with eight representatives of the Essex-Middle River community in attendance, looking for a sense of leadership among the Delegates. There was none to be found in Virginia Clagett, who justified her support of the bill by saying that she had driven up to the Essex community on the previous day. "It is not a slum. I have more questions after seeing it than before, but there is no substitute for the people who live there and their representatives," she said, looking into the eyes of those residents.
Nor was there any leadership in Barry Glassman, who argued that if the state is going to get serious about smart growth, it must trust the implementation of smart growth policies to the counties.
Chairman Wood praised Baltimore County Del. DeCarlo for her leadership in opposing SB 509 after tallying up the final vote: 8 opposed, 13 in favor of passing SB 509.
Indeed, the irony ran deep in the room, with Jigantree Parsram tearfully exclaiming, "God bless every one of you, for he has given you the power to take my home," referring to a $200,000 home built under a Baltimore County permit 5 years ago. Del DeCarlo passed around photographs of ramshackle buildings and outhouses on Del. Nancy Huber’s property, which is not named in SB 509 and is adjacent to a $600,000 property that is named on the bill. The reason, according to Del. Riley? So that a developer across the street can advertise a waterfront view.
The bottom line for the opponents of bill is, to Del. DeCarlo, "It stinks. A bad bill doesn’t deserve local courtesy." Del. Brinkley expressed his disgust at the arrogance of a Baltimore County executive who has argued "That the committee needs a lesson in local courtesy." Del. Sophocleus quoted the current Baltimore County leadership to describe their isolation from constituents: "We don’t talk to the people because they don’t share our vision."
The bottom line for Del. Arnick was, "The positives outweigh the negatives." Few others who supported the bill in committee were as principled Del.’s Benson (Prince George’s), Bronrott (Montgomery), Clagett (Anne Arundel), Dobson (Baltimore City), Dypski (Baltimore City), Glassman (Harford), Mandel (Montgomery), Paige (Baltimore City), Parrott (Harford), and Swain (Prince George’s), felt that they were unqualified to judge between a good bill and a bad bill.