February 2011 – Page 4

McDermott’s state of the state

While he is a freshman in the Maryland General Assembly, Mike McDermott has had to deal with the O’Malley administration for the last four-plus years as mayor of Pocomoke City – he used the experience to move on to his current job.

So I found his response interesting and I asked Mike if I could use it here. (I took the liberty to fix a couple minor grammatical errors in the meantime.) I told the Delegate I agreed with much of it, although I have a few more comments after his.

Today, the full body of Maryland’s General Assembly heard from Governor O’Malley about his vision for Maryland, and his interpretation of the past year. The Governor stated in his speech, “Everything has a cost…” Well, the question Marylanders are asking is, “How much?”

His proposed budget holds our deficit at $1.2 billion while actually increasing spending by over $2 billion. There are several fund raids conducted from the Transportation Trust Fund ($120 million) and the Chesapeake Bay Trust Fund ($90 million) with additional tax increases to replace the raided funds. At the same time, the governor plans to increase our debt through the issuance of bonds. This will further push our debt ceiling to the edge.

We cannot afford bonuses for all state employees ($750.00), nor the five additional paid holidays he is offering. We cannot afford to continue cutting Medicaid reimbursements while, at the same time, taking our enrollment up over a million Marylanders (20% of our population). We simply cannot afford to extend ourselves at a time when the revenues from our citizens are contracting.

Today the governor spoke about the state creating winners and losers when it comes to business and industry. If you are about “green” jobs, you’re a winner; if not, you’re a loser. When the state predicates tax incentives and government backed funding sources to favored industry, it is akin to the king extending the scepter to whomever he wishes. Wind farms may be a great idea, but they need to stand on their own as a business endeavor. When the governor talks about “investments”, he should be talking about the private sector, not tax dollars.

We heard about the governors desire to place a moratorium on septic systems in rural developments, with no regard of the chilling effect this could have on land values, private property rights, and development on the Eastern Shore. He stated that “where we eat, sleep, and live…” is affecting our environment as if this, too, is something the government should control.

The governor stated we were “moving forward”, while his budget anchors us to our indebtedness. He called us a grand “experiment in self government”, while he offers only additional regulations, fees, and taxes on the business community. He says, “It’s all about jobs”, as if the government is the one who creates those jobs. The “ghost of disconnect” continues to haunt Maryland policy.

The bottom line is the governor expressed more visible outrage over the recent power outages in Prince George’s County than he did about the dismal state of our economy, and our failure to address critical budget areas when time was of the essence.

Governor O’Malley wants us to move toward a “knowledge based” economy. Well, that begins with a wisdom based budget, and that was sorely missing from the State of the State Address I heard today.

Obviously McDermott looks at the budget mostly from the standpoint of fiscal conservatism, but the part of O’Malley’s address which stood out to me was the effort to ban the use of septic systems. Yesterday, he bleated about those devices, which:

“…by their very design are intend to leak sewage into our Bay and water tables.

You and I can turn around this damaging trend by banning the further installation of septic systems in major Maryland housing developments. This is common sense, this is urgently needed, this is timely, and for the health of the Bay we need to do what several rural counties have already had the good sense to do.”

That “good sense” is actually law mandated by the General Assembly, and passed over the objection of Delegates and Senators from both parties. In fact, such a ban would essentially halt residential development within the Bay’s watershed unless a municipality extends sewer lines to the new plat. (Of course, that’s the overarching goal of those who advocate so-called “smart growth” anyway.) The state already can’t pay for all those who have septic systems but are forced by regulation to install nitrogen reduction units, even though they promised to help.

So “investment” (read: taxpayer subsidy) in “green” jobs in other countries (where they make components for wind turbines and solar panels) are okay, but home construction jobs on the Eastern Shore are verboten. Is that the way it works, Governor?

Then again, he and the Democrats tend to believe in the “One Maryland” theory while I contend there’s actually at least three: the Eastern Shore has more in common with rural Delaware while the western end of the state has a mindset like the rest of Appalachia. It’s those along the I-95 corridor between Baltimore and Washington who are arrogant enough to believe the rest of the state should be like them – on the other hand, it’s my impression those of us on the Eastern Shore wouldn’t be all that unhappy if the Bay Bridge suddenly collapsed into the Chesapeake. Policy dictated to us from on high in Annapolis doesn’t fly well here – wonder why?

While Delegate McDermott probably already knew all he wanted to know before taking the job, he’s getting a firsthand look at the situation now.

By the way, I was hoping to get a second perspective on Mike’s remarks but haven’t received it yet. I’ll either add the remarks here or make a second post, depending on how I think they’ll work best.

Questioning the Salisbury City Council candidates – part 2

This time the questions will deal with crime – which to all candidates responding was their most important issue – and infrastructure.

Since this is the second part, I shouldn’t need any updates for late responses unless Michael Taylor decides to respond. In that case I’ll add him to both this part and part one I revealed Tuesday evening.

We all know crime is a major issue. Do you feel that Mayor Ireton’s ‘Safe Streets’ program, which addresses the issue from the standpoint of reforming zoning laws and strengthening code compliance, is a valid approach to the problem? Why or why not?

Boda: The root cause of crime is Education, Economic Opportunity and a need for a stronger role from our Faith Based Community to offer programs, volunteers and mentors. These are the three pillars of creating a healthy and strong community, with a message that criminal behavior is unacceptable and not welcome here. That message must be backed up with strong action and prosecution of major offenders to the fullest extent of the law.

As far as the Safe Streets Legislative package that has been presented, I do not believe more regulation is necessary. We already regulate the relationships of individuals living in residences in certain areas of our city. How much more regulation can we stand?

The other part that concerns me is that someone who is accused must prove their innocence of code violations. Specifically, on the Non-Conforming use issue, the government has thrown out all of the records from years past. So you are “Guilty until proven innocent” and the government has thrown out all of the evidence, that sounds like a stacked deck to me.

Another concern with this legislation is forcing property owners to convert these old homes back into single family home. This presents several problems. First, where are all these people going to find affordable housing. Second, the sheer cost of converting these homes back is a huge obstacle. Third, if they unable to afford conversion, they will be unable to sell a home that needs thousand of dollars of work done, required by the government. Fourth, who will be able to afford to live in such a large home, specifically the electric bill and heating bill because many of these homes are not energy efficient.

These are serious concerns that would need to be addressed before this legislation can move forward. However, I do believe the council needs to at least bring it to their work sessions to discuss, after that is what they have been elected to do.

Ford: The social value of home ownership is well established through scholarly studies and research. Home ownership creates stable neighborhoods. Home owners have financial interest in their homes and the homes around them and are more likely to report crime and deter negative behavior in the occupants of their own homes as well as that of their neighbors. Homeownership correlates to lower levels of crime, teen pregnancy and social disorganization, and to higher educational achievement, property values and quality of life ratings.

While homeownership rates for minorities have increased over the past decade, they still lag far behind white homeownership rates. Some sociologists draw a connection between lower homeownership rates in African American and Hispanic communities and higher rates of crime victimization and illness in those populations. I feel strongly that any situation that keeps minorities from owning their own homes should be addressed. In my opinion, Salisbury has a dysfunctionally high rate of rentals to home ownership that is contributing to violent crime and blight.

This is NOT to say that I seek to displace renters or feel that renters are the cause of crime and blight. I, like most young adults, rented apartments myself for years. I do, however, feel that having large blocks of rentals in what should be or have been residential neighborhoods creates pockets of what sociologists call “social disorganization” which again lead to higher crime and lower quality of life.

As such, I believe that housing initiatives such as Mayor Ireton’s Safe Streets program are properly considered as crime fighting initiatives. The research is too strong to ignore and other communities that have addressed similar housing issues as Salisbury’s have reduced violent crime and social instability.

As far as Safe Streets itself, I believe it is an imperfect initiative that with mature and careful consideration can be made to address Salisbury’s specific crime and housing problems.

Mitchell: I have read the Safe Streets Legislation proposed by Mayor Ireton. While I do not think it is a perfect piece of legislation, I do believe it is a valid approach. Reforming zoning laws and strengthening code compliance is just one of the components of the legislation. I believe that landlords AND tenants need to be held responsible for the properties they rent. As Chief Duncan recently said during a work session relating to Safe Streets, there is a nexus between homes with code violations and crime; to take care of one issue will aid in the effort to reduce the other. The language used in the legislation requires clarification as to distinguish what landlords and tenants are responsible for in reference to code violations. We must consider the fairness of fining landlords for issues that are the responsibility of the tenants per their lease (i.e. cutting grass or visible trash cans). That does not relieve the landlords of accountability for the properties they own and the maintenance of those properties. Tenants are entitled to a decent standard of living; the proposed “Tenants Bill of Rights” is a good start to ensure that landlords comply with standard zoning laws. It must also be made abundantly clear that the city is not against renters, rather Salisbury embraces its rental community and the intent of this legislation is to implement safeguards to protect them.

We must also realize that property maintenance, while the most controversial section, is only one component of Safe Streets. Reducing other crime such as gang activity, drugs, and prostitution, is another important aspect of the legislation. Chief Duncan is already developing plans to break the two major gangs in Salisbury as well as deter students from joining gangs by starting early intervention programs in the elementary and junior high schools. Better programs for rehabilitation would also be implemented to prevent repeat offenders and help people return as successful members of our community. I believe this is an especially important issue and I am currently working on implementing a new program with a local non-profit to teach basic work place skills to such individuals.

I must note that I, like many others, struggle with the cost/benefit analysis of the Amortization Provision Eliminating Lawful Nonconforming Uses and I have considered whether an occupancy limit would be preferable. However, I do believe that the idea behind the Neighborhood Legislation part of the Safe Streets package is sound. According to the statistics, and the experts, there is a correlation between the condition of properties and proximal criminal activity. Abandoned homes, and those in disrepair, broadcast the message that no one is paying attention to the property. That can be seen as an invitation to criminals to conduct their illicit activities at such locations. There are issues with the legislation as it currently stands, but I feel that it can be an effective tool for law enforcement and code enforcement once those issues are resolved.

Cohen: At the January 27th work session where the package was discussed in part, I finally got to go on the official public record to some extent regarding these proposals. I encourage the public to listen to the audio, found on the website I share with Councilwoman Campbell, www.OnYourSideSBY.blogspot.com.

First, let’s be sure that everyone understands that the Mayor’s proposals are not the same thing as the Safe Streets “Program,” which is a multi-faceted initiative and partnership with the state and allied agencies. His proposals do relate to the goals of the program and support the findings of the Crime Task Force, which has had a highly diverse and broad community and law enforcement representation. This is the reason I believe he introduced them under the Safe Streets banner.

There is value to be had in this package, but it does need work. There is a connection between poor housing practices, declined neighborhoods and crime. At the work session, Police Chief Barbara Duncan not only noted that correlation, but its relationship to putting law enforcement officers in harm’s way.

The Mayor’s goals are to abate crime, restore neighborhoods and recover costs from those whose properties use a disproportionate share of city services. I support those goals, but recognize that zoning law and behavioral law concerning nuisance and criminal behavior are separate from a legal application perspective.

I have often said that we need to stop “breaking” our children with neglect of their neighborhoods and sending them to school for teachers to “fix,” followed by expensive intervention programs when that task proves insurmountable. We have lost six months of valuable time while this package was used as a political football in a public relations war.

There are ways to pursue the related, but legally different goals, as I began to discuss in the work session, including a way to respect the property rights of both nonconforming property owners and conforming property owners. A council committed to both fighting crime and restoring neighborhoods can use this package as a good starting point for development of tools needed by both our law enforcement team and our neighborhoods.

Spies: Crime is a most serious issue in Salisbury.

Crime keeps away business and customers. Crime keeps away good jobs. Crime raises taxes, cuts profits and makes everything more expensive. Crime raises rents. Crime raises insurance rates. Crime degrades quality of life, destroys neighborhoods and makes livable places unlivable. It destroys families, it destroys lives, and it’s threatening to slowly destroy Salisbury. Prospective investors and companies ready to offer well-paying jobs shy away from Salisbury because of the problems that crime causes and will cause. Local real estate professionals adamantly affirm that crime ranks at the top of the list of reasons why potential buyers do not and will not buy in Salisbury, whether it be residential or business properties. No wonder: a national home sales research company recently rated Salisbury the worst of 79 Maryland cities and towns in violent crime.

The worst.

The Mayor’s Safe Streets Initiative

Mayor James Ireton presented to the city council this summer a seven point plan to decrease crime in our neighborhoods and across the city. It has come to be known as the Safe Streets Inititiative, while its official title is The 2010 Safe Streets Neighborhood Legislative Package. Each of its components have been proven to reduce violent crime in areas with populations, demographics and problems not unlike Salisbury’s. Many, if not all, are in keeping with the recommendations of the Mayor’s Crime Task Force, a large multi-disciplined committee commissioned over three years ago by Salisbury’s previous mayor. Together with the already extremely effective Maryland Safe Streets program, which has been in active operation in Salisbury for over five months, the components of the Mayor’s Safe Streets initiative can be useful tools to minimize crime and the impact that it has on our city and us all. They offer, through several avenues, the opportunity to go after crime where it lives. And no one that knows our city can deny that some of our residential neighborhoods are rife with crime and the criminals who commit them.

This is not to say that the package is perfect as presented by Mayor Ireton. Most supporters, including myself, have reservations about portions of the initiative and see that others need adjustment and clarification. And as was demonstrated in last week’s city council work session, this process may take a while. Just the opening discussion of only one of the items took nearly two hours before it was derailed by the council president and put to an as yet unspecified work session. How long the discussions will last once they resume and how many of the seven items of the package will be discussed under Council President Smith’s leadership is anyone’s guess, given her nearly five month refusal to bring them before even a work session. But now that they have been, more stakeholders are talking and more interest is being generated throughout the community: many want to know more, and many want to see the best of it work. The discussions should continue as soon as is possible; additional, extended work sessions seem to me to not be out of the question. Every day they are not is another day with new crimes that might have been avoided, another day of more victims, and another day of putting our sworn officers’ safety at unnecessary risk. The time to fix this to the best of our ability is now. Anything less is unconscionable.

Code Compliance

I believe that improved code compliance is a feature key to crime reduction. Poorly kept properties invite crime and make it easier for crimes to be committed. A residential building with grossly overgrown shrubbery, broken, dirty and uncovered easy access windows, poorly secured doors, dirty, decaying exteriors, and trash strewn in an unkempt yard with no sign of effort from those who live there to improve those conditions have a well-proven and undeniable negative effect on nearby properties and neighborhoods. They invite criminals because they look like no one cares. They invite criminals because they look like easy targets. And where there’s one easy target, there are very often many.

With crime comes additional neighborhood destabilization, as more and more properties become derelicts and eyesores. Homeowners sell just to get away, but not to those looking for a nice place to live and raise a family. All too often, criminals move in. And the trend, if unregulated and unabated, continues until that neighborhood, and all that a neighborhood should be, is gone. And once it’s gone, it’s very, very hard to get back.

The importance of code compliance was brought home in the statement by our new police chief at last week’s council work session when she firmly addressed Council President Smith: “Madam, I would ask that you take heed of the small things.”

I wholeheartedly agree.

Dryden: I believe that Mr. Ireton is trying to make progress on a very important issue. I do, however, have concerns over the potential for success of the legislation as written. It seems to have divided the citizens and in turn lost its main focus of reducing crime.

Dixon: While I applaud the Mayor for making an effort to address crime, I do not feel his “Safe Streets” Legislative Package is the correct approach because we do not know the financial implications and loss of housing this legislation will have on the City. The legislation in its current form will also duplicate ordinances we already have on the books. It may be more beneficial to the City to enforce and update the current ordinances prior to attempting this package. I believe a different approach is needed. I would support legislation to provide the police department with the resources they need to accomplish their goals. We need to work with the businesses we currently have in the area, while attracting new businesses to Salisbury. Finally, I believe community involvement will deter crime. However, I will say I believe that Maryland “Safe Streets” program has been a move in the right direction in creating interoperability between agencies. The proposed Safe Street Package is very different from those implemented in other jurisdictions.

Taylor: No response at this time.

In the last 24 hours, heavy rain has created a sinkhole along Business Route 13. Other streets are falling apart as well because maintenance has been deferred. Since the “growth pays for growth” approach doesn’t seem to work when you have a lack of growth, how do you propose we pay for needed infrastructure repairs, or is there a different sort of solution you have in mind?

Boda: Infrastructure is a major issue that is often overlooked. We have in our city infrastructure that dates back 50,60,70 years. Salisbury needs to ensure that infrastructure needs are a priority, specifically savings in “rainy day fund” to take care of emergencies. Prioritizing projects (which is being done when referring to our CIP) by categorizing which ones affect health and safety the most and ensuring projects are accomplished without adding to the City’s debt load.

What many do not realize is that Business Route 13 falls under the jurisdiction of the State Highway Administration, not the City of Salisbury.

Ford: First, I would create a prioritized list of infrastructure concerns, with the highest priority being those that affect public safety, such as bridges, electrical safety, lighting, traffic control, etc. With limited funds, we must first address the most critical needs and as funds become more available we can address more cosmetic needs.

Your question of course leads to a discussion of impact fees, or the amount of money that the City charges new businesses when they are applying for permits to cover the cost of water, sewer and road modifications to accept the new business. The idea is that the city has bills to pay, and that a new business should pay its fair share of the costs of the infrastructure from which it will run its business and from which its customers will arrive.

The problem is that in Salisbury right now, impact fees are high and this is creating the impression that Salisbury is not friendly to business.

Impact fees are calculated using a formula set by state authorities and that formula must be applied to all business applicants equally. We cannot pick and choose who must pay impact fees and who does not.

However, this does NOT mean that we cannot reduce impact fees. Any time you have a formula, you have variables that get plugged into the formula. In Salisbury’s case, the reason impact fees are so high is because our variables are high…in particular the high cost of our waste water treatment facility. If we succeed in reducing the variables that go into the formula then the resultant impact fee will also be reduced. We must seek remedies from those responsible for the mistakes that led to the high costs of the waste water treatment plant to reduce the amount the City owes on that project. It will reduce impact fees to new businesses, leading to growth, leading to more revenue for other infrastructure projects.

Also worth discussion is annexing county property into the city. Obviously this is a huge discussion that must reflect the feelings of both communities, but it does seem inherently unfair for city residents and businesses to pay for the infrastructure that their neighbors enjoy but do not pay for. I would strongly suggest using the “Together We Can Build A City” community vision process to discuss this highly charged issue.

Increased territory through annexation means great potential for growth. The City can expand its options for new businesses and assuming the waste water treatment plant could handle the growth, annexation would create additional revenue for the city.

Mitchell: That particular sink hole was on a State owned road, however, it could just as easily happen on a City owned street. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that we must be proactive in bringing new business to Salisbury in such a way that growth does pay for growth and helps to revitalize our infrastructure at the same time. I have detailed three methods that could help jump start that growth on my website on the “Make it Your Business” page. Those are the strategic use of Enterprise Zones, proper use of the Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) program, and possibly the use of the Invest Maryland program. If approved by the Maryland Legislature, the Invest Maryland program would provide seed money for start-up business and funds to help established businesses expand and possibly relocate. Each program requires considerable explanation that would take up considerable space here, so I will refer interested parties to my website at LauraMitchell.org for those details. I do note that there have been unsuccessful uses of TIFs in Salisbury in the past; however, they can and have worked very well in other jurisdictions and could work here if done properly.

Cohen: Salisbury joins virtually every other municipality and government in grappling with this issue, compounded by previous decisions that added to the unsustainability of the infrastructure. There are no easy solutions, especially when there are multiple contributing factors.

First, we need to assess the size of our “infrastructure deficit,” and to our Public Works Department’s credit, this process has been under way, especially in the last couple of years. Second, we need to consider various revenue generation proposals and weigh carefully both their ability to help and their varying degrees of pain. Third, we need to think strategically about how we can “unburden” the existing infrastructure to help it last longer, which is possible in a number of ways.

Finally, we need to set some realistic expectations with our citizens that there will be trade-offs in dealing with this staggering issue. Involving them in the process will help toward that end.

Spies: Answered the question as part of Question 1.

Dryden: To answer the question Rt. 13 is a State highway. However, the question brings up a good point. Growth pays for growth doesn’t work when there is no growth. Salisbury has become known as a tough place to do business which results in a lack of growth. Even in this economy, businesses are still opening. They just aren’t opening here! This is partly due to the high cost of opening and operating a business in Salisbury (ie. excessive impact fees, slow approval processes, and a general anti-business climate). We must change that mentality in order to have the necessary growth to increase our taxable base to allow us to maintain our infrastructure.

Dixon: As everyone knows, the economy is down, but keeping up with infrastructure is vital to the City. The City needs to continue to review its budget, cutting unnecessary expenses, postponing projects that are not vital at this time, and streamlining processes. If grants are available I see no problem with attempting to secure the grants to prevent putting a larger burden on our citizens or business owners. It goes without saying that every major city in the country is facing similar problems with aging infrastructure and a lack of funds to address it.

Taylor: No answer at this time.

Look for part 3 to appear next Tuesday evening. In the meantime, I’ve found out there will be another City Council candidates’ forum on Thursday, February 18 at high noon at the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce building (144 E. Main Street.) That brings the list I’m aware of to three:

February 18: Chamber of Commerce (details above), 12 p.m.
February 23: Americans for Prosperity (Brew River, 502 W. Main Street), 7 p.m.
February 24: NAACP (St. James AME Zion Church, 521 Mack Avenue), 7 p.m.

A new feature, and hopefully not a bug

Since it was 3 a.m. and I couldn’t sleep, I decided to do something a little useful.

You’ll notice (at the bottom of this and any other post) that I’ve now included the AddToAny sharing feature. If you like something I write, feel free to share with your friends. The idea is to build readership, and hopefully it will make my task easier since I generally pimp my posts on Facebook but don’t often remember to include Twitter – maybe the rest of ya’ll can do this. I had something similar when I did my Examiner pages so now it’s imported here.

I also came up with a new poll question; we’ll see how that flies among readership since it’s more controversial than most. Otherwise, look for part 2 of my Salisbury City Council questions tonight.

You may now carry on.

Odds and ends number 25

Just a bunch of short items tonight.

Let’s begin at the national level, where another prospective 2012 Republican presidential candidate was brought out of the closet by the Washington Post. They devote five internet pages to Fred Karger’s story.

The play on words was intentional; Karger is billing himself as the first openly gay presidential candidate. I actually mentioned him before when Herman Cain jumped into the race, but this is the biggest splash about him I’ve seen. Leave it to the liberals at the Post to promote him, since Karger isn’t exactly the flavor of the month among Republicans and TEA Party regulars.

Having said that, though, Fred opens up a big can of worms – since establishment Republicans recoil in horror at the thought of being portrayed as racist, imagine the cacophony when they’re deemed homophobes because Karger’s not considered among the top tier of candidates.

Once the Salisbury election is over, I’ll start linking to GOP hopeful websites and Karger’s will be one, assuming he’s still in the race.

How Maryland will affect that race is up for debate. Because of rules adopted by both parties, those states with “winner-take-all” primaries like Maryland have to push their primaries back to April of next year. (Traditional lidlifters Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina will be allowed to hold primaries in February and states which allot convention delegates proportionally may go in March.) Thus, the earliest Maryland could hold its primary in 2012 would be April 3rd, which is the first Tuesday in April.

Compare this to 2008, when Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia held a regional primary on February 12 of that year. (The primary process started in Iowa on January 3 of that year; currently next year’s Iowa caucuses are slated for February 6, 2012.) We still didn’t have a lot of say in the process since 2008’s “Super Tuesday” of primaries occurred the week before.

Also up for change is the date for the 2014 state primary, which needs to be backed up to comply with federal law regarding military ballots.

If it were up to me, though, the national primary process would mirror our state’s to a greater extent. Run Iowa and New Hampshire around the middle of June, hold a half-dozen regional primaries over six weeks in June and July, and have the conventions in late August. A nice short process. Primaries shouldn’t even begin until June as far as I’m concerned – anything before that makes the campaign WAY too long.

The next item comes from being on the strangest e-mail lists. Somehow I have ended up on Barbara Boxer’s e-mail distribution network, but this item piqued my interest.

This week I introduced the West Coast Ocean Protection Act, a bill to permanently prohibit new offshore drilling along the Pacific coast. I was joined by all the Senators from the West Coast – including my colleague from California, Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) – in offering this critical legislation to protect the 570,000 jobs and $34 billion coastal economy of our three states.

Additional offshore oil development along the Pacific shoreline would needlessly endanger irreplaceable natural resources and our vital coastal economies.

Boxer goes on to note that there’s no plans for development until at least 2017, but wants to make sure it’s permanent. Why do I get the sneaking hunch that our two Senators will either try and amend the bill to include Maryland or have the brilliant idea to do their own measure? Substitute the word “Atlantic” for “Pacific” and you’d sum up their sentiments.

Of course, the difference is that we know there’s oil off the Pacific coast while the jury’s still out on whether there’s marketable reserves under the Atlantic. But there are some reserves of both coal and natural gas deep underneath the Free State and it behooves us to allow exploration – unfortunately, we have a governor who is woefully short-sighted in that department. (In fact, wind farms, coal mines, and natural gas wells can coexist in the same area.)

In the meantime, I’d lay odds on our not-so-dynamic duo of Cardin and Mikulski helping Boxer’s bill along.

After all, they don’t listen to their constituents who want nothing to do with Obamacare, instead voting along like good little Democratic sheep. Mikulski even voted to keep the onerous Obamacare $600 reporting requirement. (Ben Cardin had the good sense to vote yes, although, more likely, he realized that 2012 is fast approaching.)

Finally, there’s a casting call for another arrogant Democratic party leader in Maryland – seems Susan Turnbull is leaving her post. Benefits include fawning press coverage from most newspapers and plenty of special interest money to spend come election time.

Applicants may suck up to Martin O’Malley for consideration.

Questioning the Salisbury City Council candidates – part 1

This evening I kick off a four-part series where I ask the eight people seeking to become members of Salisbury City Council questions on what I feel are some of the top issues facing the city – a city where, as of last month, I became a resident.

All eight candidates had the same questions provided to them via the e-mail address they gave to the City Clerk upon filing. I have decided to list the answers in the order they were returned back to me – since Muir Boda and Bruce Ford were the first to respond their answers are listed first. If I haven’t received a response by press time this will say so; however, I’ll go back and add late responses retroactively to allow a candidate to set the record straight.

Because there’s a lot of candidates in the race, I decided to make this a four-part series where I ask two questions at a time – otherwise I may have a 10,000 word post and that’s way too long. I didn’t give the candidates a word limit on responses so they could answer as completely as they felt they needed to.

As I alluded to above, Muir Boda was first to the post, followed by Bruce Ford. The remainder are revealed in the order of reception, with seven of the eight represented – Michael Taylor has not responded as of this writing. Responses are edited as needed for formatting only.

Note: Joel Dixon got his answers to me shortly after I finished this early Tuesday evening. As promised, his responses are added to this post and will be sequential in future chapters. Tim Spies also sent in his answer to question 2 after the deadline for publication. Good thing this isn’t the print media!

Part one will deal with the first two questions I asked, beginning with this one.

1. If you were to prioritize the issues you’d like to address as a member of City Council from the group listed below, in what order would you place them (rank these 1 through 6):

Cleanup of the Wicomico River
Crime
Infrastructure
Job Creation
Revitalizing Downtown Salisbury
Taxation

Boda:

1. Crime.
2. Job Creation.
3. Taxation/Regulation.
4. Infrastructure.
5. Revitalizing Downtown.
6. Cleanup of the Wicomico River

Ford:

1. Crime – Salisbury is in a crisis regarding crime. Any other meaningful initiatives require us to reduce violent crime in the city first.

2. Job Creation – Once law enforcement agencies chase crime out of the city, which they will do, we MUST fill the void with hope. Not only do law abiding citizens deserve stable, well-paying jobs, jobs also allow the city to divert our at-risk populations from criminal activity towards employment and self-sustainability.

3. Taxation – Being careful stewards of the citizens’ tax money means both 1) reducing expenses wherever possible and spending wisely and 2) increasing tax revenues by attracting businesses and homeowners to the city.

4. Infrastructure – Modern business needs modern infrastructure. In my opinion taxation and infrastructure are closely related. I see infrastructure as an investment in business and quality of life in our neighborhoods, both of which mean increased tax revenue and decreased expenditures for upkeep of our municipal systems.

5. Revitalizing Downtown Salisbury – Revitalizing Salisbury as a place to raise a family will ultimately require revitalizing the Plaza and downtown Salisbury. I feel strongly that Salisbury is squandering its most unique and vital asset, it’s waterfront. One of the reasons I am promoting the “Together We Can Build A City” initiative is to develop large city-wide momentum behind expansive multi-year projects like developing the city’s waterfront and tying it into the Plaza and the City Park. There is too much value and potential in our waterfront to leave it ignored. With that said, the prior four priorities must logically be addressed first to create the framework upon which to develop the waterfront and downtown.

6. Cleanup of the Wicomico River – I value our environment and feel we should be good gatekeepers for the Wicomico River Watershed and the Chesapeake Bay. In terms of cleaning up the river itself, this requires multi-jurisdictional efforts with municipal, county, state and federal efforts. It can be done with vision and planning.

Mitchell: This is a little challenging because it is a lot like asking which of your children you love most. Nonetheless, I have ranked the items in the order I believe they should be addressed because of their interconnectedness and logical progression, rather than their relative importance. The rationale behind my “ranking” is as follows. We will have a difficult time bringing new businesses to Salisbury if we do not control our crime. Beyond that, I believe we have to be assertive in finding businesses that are willing to relocate to Salisbury. Even if they are not looking to relocate, they may be willing to do so if we create the right business environment and living conditions for the families of their employees. We already have a fantastic location and wonderful amenities here and in the surrounding area. Salisbury is a great place to be, but we have to market the city in such a way as to draw more businesses to Salisbury that will create those well-paying jobs. Bringing new business to Salisbury, which could help to infill the downtown business district if planned well, will help to improve our infrastructure. That will, in turn, attract more businesses. It is a concept known as “leapfrog” development. With increased revenue from the increased growth, we can minimize the need for additional taxes to pay for operating and capital expenditures. The increased income could help pay for special projects like cleaning up the Wicomico River, a move that has the potential to attract still more growth and tourism.

Crime
Job Creation
Revitalizing Downtown Salisbury
Infrastructure
Taxation
Cleanup of the Wicomico River

Cohen:

1. Crime
2. Job Creation
3. Taxation
4. Infrastructure
5. Cleanup of the Wicomico River
6. Revitalizing Downtown Salisbury

While I have other issues I believe are priorities as well, I chose the order of this specific group for the following reasons (in brief):

Number 1, Crime, affects lives at the deepest level (including those of our police officers), impacts the daily life of our citizens and inhibits our businesses from realizing their greatest potential. It discourages economic development, degrades quality of life and sucks our treasury dry for its abatement. It is a huge factor in being successful in achieving Number 2, Job Creation. Companies don’t want to locate in crime-riddled areas. Some say jobs reduce crime, and there is truth to that, but with the level at which Salisbury experiences crime, it needs to be reduced and removed as an obstacle to job creation. Number 3, Taxation, is somewhat vague as a topic, but I think of it as a focus on fiscal responsibility, an initiative for which I am already known in my actions on council. It also encompasses fairness for city taxpayers, revenue generation and wise use of resources.

Without a focus on these first three, it will be an even greater struggle to make progress on the next three. Whenever we work on an issue, let’s work smarter and not harder by accomplishing more than one goal at a time. I will be discussing all six of these in greater detail over the course of the campaign and on my website.

Spies:

1 – Crime
2 – Infrastructure
3 – Job Creation
4 – Taxation
5 – Revitalizing Downtown Salisbury
6 – Cleanup of the Wicomico River

1 – Crime

This is the issue upon which so many others depend.

While crime occurs throughout our city, a disproportionate share of our public services and tax dollars are diverted to areas and properties that have chronic crime problems. Ironically, many of those properties pay some of the lowest residential taxes. Those who shoulder a greater property tax burden, whether they be home or business owner, could be seen as actually subsidizing chronic problem properties with their tax dollars. Without a decrease in the crime that plagues us, more crime related services will be necessary, taxes will rise in reflection and everyone will pay more, including renters, as rents will increase to offset the landlords’ new property tax obligations.

I will speak more about crime in coming weeks. In the meantime, I invite you to go to my website, www.timspies.com, to read more about how I feel about it.

2 – Infrastructure

To look at it one way, our city’s infrastructure is what keeps us healthy (water and sewer), safer (streetlights) and mobile (streets). With each is the cost of operation, maintenance, replacement, repair and expansion of services.

We are fortunate that our water quality is excellent. While our water pressure is currently adequate, additional demand will require attention in the form of at least one additional water tower. The remainder of the water delivery system, primarily the underground mains, is old and frequently in need of repair. Much of it should be replaced, hopefully in concert with the large number of streets that are in need of resurfacing. Water and sewer funds are separate from the general fund, to which most taxes and fees are sent. We must find additonal funding from whatever source to enable us to complete the upgrades of our mains.

Highway User Funds, the money generated by motorist fees that comes to us through the state, were slashed by $450 million in 2009 to suit budgetary shortfalls. And in 2010, we saw a reduction of between 75 and 90% of municipalities’ funding all across Maryland, again to offset deficits. In response to this loss of working funds, funds on which we rely to care for our roadways, city government in late 2010 created and passed Resolution 1977, urging state administration to include in its annual budget full funding of highway user revenues for municipalities. We, along with many other Maryland cities and towns, await a definitive response from the state. Until then, as difficult as it may be, it looks as though we will have to continue to work with our limited resources while we strive to find more funding sources.

Streetlights are now in the process of being repaired and upgraded by both the city and Delmarva Power. If you have an non-operating streetlight on your street, get the number from the pole and report it to Delmarva Power or public works

I will later discuss the wastewater treatment plant.

3 – Job Creation is difficult when crime frightens employers away and unnecessarily stresses those already here. With economic times as difficult as they are, employers look for sites that offer minimum risk to ensure that their overhead remains the lowest it can be. We must use every tool at our disposal to reduce crime to sane levels, and continually look for, find and adapt new crime fighting strategies to fit our needs.

Meanwhile, we must otherwise become and remain prepared to suit new employers in other aspects: a population of job-ready candidates, educated and trained by our secondary schools and three nearby colleges, ensuring that those educational facilities and programs are attractive to employers in their own right; present a healthy infrastructure that will support the needs of industry; offer modest tax incentives to attract start-up companies and those wishing to expand their already existing businesses; investigate pay-as-you go possibilities for those requiring infrastructure additions and changes; maintain our city’s eye appeal so that a drive through is attractive rather than repellant; aggressively search for and be open to new ideas from all sources, in and outside of the box, and; encourage local businessmen with financial resources to stimulate interest and create new retail and service jobs with the understanding that their wealth depends on the health of our city and that they, as long-term stakeholders, may have a particular obligation to assist their city during troubled times, troubled times that will certainly pass more quickly with their help.

I am particularly encouraged by and use as an example the recent negotiations between the city and the Knorr brothers of Southern Boy Concepts, the gentlemen who operate a wildly successful brewery in Delmar and several popular restaurants in and nearby the city. By thinking outside of the box, an agreement was reached with Salisbury government that will not only bring new jobs to Salisbury, but an increased city tax revenue stream, a new, attractive destination for those who spend money here, and change a highly visible property from a potentially blighted one to one that speaks of thoughtful entrepreneurship and will to succeed even when the negatives seem to outweigh the positives. The creation of this craft brewery and attached restaurant in a high traffic area can serve as a positive model of successful partnership and understanding between business and government. I hope that others will follow suit and present ideas that are as original and that can take as full advantage of existing infrastructure and opportunity as this one has.

4 – Taxation

In a nutshell, here’s how I feel about taxation:

– Reel in foolish spending and we’ll have fewer obligations for which to tax;

– Spend on important things first, like our infrastructure and public safety;

– Borrow only when necessary and only in amounts that will be necessary to meet our needs and improve our revenue base. Leave extravagance at the doorstep.

5 – Revitalizing Downtown Salisbury

The bringing to life of our downtown is an issue that has many puzzled, and, frankly, I’m one of them. We’ve had lots of plans, but they don’t seem to spur the will of sufficient numbers of those movers and shakers who have the financial ability to carry them out. Why is that?

On the bright side, I am pleased to hear that a very successful local and regional business is considering opening a themed restaurant in the Downtown Plaza’s City Center. If it is all that it can be and creates a solid and expanding clientele base, it can act as a much-needed anchor for downtown, drawing more foot traffic and the strong and possibilities of more commerce.

While there have been improvements in the downtown scene in regards to activities, retail and community response, I would like to see more, and not just on Third Friday. We have a retail, arts and entertainment, residential and business corridor at our fingertips, ready to fill with people who seek something different. Bring on the ideas. Bring on the enthusiasm. Bring on the money.

6 – Cleanup of the Wicomico River

Ranked last of six not because it is unimportant, but because progress is being made and is high on the Mayor’s priority list to continue. With the recent removal of several sunken abandoned barges from the North Branch, it’s evident that the Mayor is keeping his promise of a clean Wicomico inside of ten years. I trust that his efforts will continue.

Stabilization of the river and tributary banks with native grasses and trees began as part of the Living Shoreline program in 2008. These plantings add erosion control and a biological filtration buffer, capturing multi-source contaminant runoff before it reaches the river. River water quality is affected by many factors, including the tidal nature of the river itself, surface stormwater runoff, upstream and downstream agricultural, industrial and residential chemical use, illegal and improper drainage and the discharge from our troubled wastewater treatment plant. All are currently being addressed.

I will keep close tabs on the Mayor’s continued efforts, and will pay close attention to recommendations of environmental experts and advocates. Should improvement efforts falter, I will be there to support their resumption at a level that befits our community’s desire to see the Wicomico healthy.

Dryden:

Crime-is my number one concern for the city of Salisbury. I would like to work closely with the Chief of Police, the State’s Attorney’s Office and local law enforcement to confront this issue head on.
Job Creation- if we can become known as a place that is a forward thinking, streamlined, and business friendly city, the end result will be a higher standard of living for our residents.
Infrastructure- given the current budget restraints, It is going to be necessary to focus our resources on the most basic needs over the next few years while planning for the future.
Revitalizing Downtown Salisbury- another issue that will only come to pass by inclusionary policies like inviting our local business people and residents to come to the table with a vision and creative ideas to bring back a local treasure.
Wicomico River Clean-up – having grown up on a farm I have a great respect for the environment and realize that living on the Eastern shore is a gift and the Wicomico River deserves to be taken care of.
Taxation – this is on the bottom of my list because new taxes are not a priority. Low taxes are a priority.

Dixon:

1. Crime
2. Job Creation
3. Infrastructure
4. Revitalizing Downtown Salisbury
5. Cleanup of the Wicomico River
6. Taxation

Taylor: No response at this time.

2. The wastewater treatment plant renovation has, simply put, been an unmitigated disaster for the City of Salisbury. How can City Council do a better job of oversight on this and other large-scale capital projects?

Boda: This is certainly a very sore subject. Simply put the City trusted the engineer and approved the project on good faith. It was most certainly a difficult decision and the decision was also based on regulations that were in place at that time.

We now have several things going against us. The upgrade has not performed as we were told it would. Second, the State of Maryland changed the law after after completion of the project and are demanding we be in compliance. We need to be tapping the resource of our elected representatives in Annapolis to help lobby on our behalf in either changes to the law or a special exemption due to our circumstances.

As far as large scale projects in the future, we need to make sure we have all the information before us with a variety of options. We need to make sure that everything is in compliance and wee need to know if there are any changes in the law or regulations looming in the near future.

Ford: The cardinal sin of making mistakes is to make the same mistake twice. To avoid the mistakes made with the WWTP, projects of any significant size and scope must be monitored by multiple sources of oversight. The cost of the WWTP has shackled the city for years if not decades and left many disturbing questions in its wake.

In the judiciary, judges recuse themselves when there is an appearance of impropriety even if they know in their hearts they can be impartial. This is to protect the integrity of the judiciary as a whole against the impression that it makes decisions based on factors other than the law.

Large projects must begin with a competitive proposal and bidding process, period. We must have experts review the proposals, then testify before the mayor and council to teach us how to make informed decisions on the material we are reviewing. A $40 million waste water treatment plant is an incredibly complicated and technical undertaking. We as citizen representatives must acknowledge our own limitations. The monumental cost of mistakes at this level more than justifies the cost of these oversight procedures.

City Council members in my mind are very much like judges. Our job, especially on projects like the WWTP, is to hear testimony and gather information from multiple sources and make informed decisions in the best interest of those we represent. If we do not accept input from all sides, we are doomed to make bad decisions.

Oversight mechanisms likely already exist for major projects in the city…competitive bids, audits, expert reviews, public input and so on. Those systems failed here because elected officials made poor, uninformed decisions. The ultimate oversight is the vote. Exercise it.

Mitchell: I would like to see, and have begun making investigatory contacts toward creating, a volunteer Citizen Review Panel to review and provide input on significant projects involving taxpayer funds. This panel would consist of professionals including, but not limited to, engineers, architects, accountants, realtors, developers, environmentalists, bankers, geographic information system (GIS) experts, information technology (IT) consultants, etc. While this panel would have no authority to accept or reject projects, their recommendations would be highly valued by the Council. Of course, alternates would be required because no person or company could consult on a project with which they are otherwise involved. The panel would meet as needed to review project proposals from an independent, professional standpoint to alert the City of potential problems or shortcomings in the plans. In the case of the WWTP, such a review panel would likely have caught sight of some of the red flags and design flaws and been in a position to alert City officials to the potential problems before the contract was even signed, certainly before the plant was built.

Cohen: Oversight is an important component of a council member’s job, despite accusations of “micro-managing.” As elected representatives, council members are accountable directly to the public for their decisions, unlike the staff. The mantra of “trust the staff” does a disservice to both elected officials and appointed or hired staff. Through well-defined policy and oversight, staff is empowered to do its job better, with clear direction. Good communication from the administration can help council create the framework for better risk management.

We have had some forward movement in this area, but not enough. The WWTP taught the City the importance of evaluating liability clauses in contracts to ensure better protection of the citizens’ interest. Thanks to a conversation I had with a gentleman in the construction trade, I urged that performance bonds more consistently be included in the City’s contracts. The City must be a fair, but firm, negotiator with vendors. I’ll continue to pursue and encourage improvements in our contractual processes.

Spies: Looking back, the wastewater treatment renovation served us a lesson that we’ll live with for decades.

Looking forward, we need to keep those lessons in mind through each step of the process, including the adequate vetting of new technology and, certainly, minimizing our financial risk should there be a performance problem after the fact. I believe that what one pays for, one should get, and that those contractually providing a product or service should be held to standards that sufficiently protect the public dollar and the public at large.

Dryden: Spending tax payers hard earned money is difficult under any circumstances but certainly something of this magnitude merits much time, research, and effort. Perhaps with future large scale projects the City of Salisbury may need to establish a new system of checks and balances with a specific plan for obtaining the proper advice necessary to make informed decisions.

Dixon: The City Council, as well as the Mayor’s Office, can do a better job of oversight on large-scale capital projects by doing their homework on the project. That includes researching the company, looking at projects completed by cities comparable to Salisbury, and more carefully reviewing contracts prior to awarding bids. There should be no contract clauses limiting the vendor’s liability. After the project starts the company working on the project, as well as the department involved, needs to be held accountable to see it through to successful completion.

Taylor: No response at this time.

Cain raised to top in GOP poll

The former Godfather Pizza CEO pulled it out in the end, but a widely split GOP Presidential poll here drew votes for nearly twenty possible contenders. This goes to show that…we need to see just who will enter the field for sure, as Cain is the first reasonable contender to establish an exploratory committee.

This is how they finished:

Herman Cain (former Godfather Pizza CEO, radio host) – 10 (12.82%)
Gary Johnson (former New Mexico governor) – 9 (11.54%)
Chris Christie (New Jersey governor) – 8 (10.26%)
Ron Paul (Congressman from Texas, 2008 Presidential candidate) – 8 (10.26%)
Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House) – 7 (8.97%)
Sarah Palin (2008 VP candidate, former Alaska governor) – 6 (7.69%)
Rudy Giuliani (2008 Presidential candidate, former NYC mayor) – 5 (6.41%)
Michele Bachmann (Congressman from Minnesota) – 4 (5.13%)
Tim Pawlenty (outgoing Minnesota governor) – 4 (5.13%)
Mitt Romney (2008 Presidential candidate, former Massachusetts governor) – 3 (3.85%)
Donald Trump (businessman) – 3 (3.85%)
Mitch Daniels (Indiana governor) – 2 (2.56%)
Jim DeMint (Senator from South Carolina) – 2 (2.56%)
Paul Ryan (Congressman from Wisconsin) – 2 (2.56%) – write-in
Rick Santorum (former Senator from Pennsylvania) – 2 (2.56%)
George Allen (former Senator from Virginia) – 1 (1.28%) – write-in
Mike Pence (Congressman from Indiana) – 1 (1.28%) – withdrew
John Thune (Senator from North Dakota) – 1 (1.28%)
Haley Barbour (Mississippi governor) – 0 (o%)
Mike Huckabee (2008 Presidential candidate, former Arkansas governor) – 0 (0%)

If you look at your top 6 candidates in this poll, you’d find the TEA Party carried a great amount of influence along with the libertarian wing of the GOP (who would tend to support Ron Paul and Gary Johnson.)

But would all of them be viable? Time will tell, but if you look at the top contenders from 2008 there’s little desire for a rewarmed candidate. Since I don’t consider Ron Paul as an ‘establishment’ candidate, the top votegetter among the group was Rudy Giuliani with 5 votes. Even combining the other 2008 aspirants (including Paul) they collected just 16 votes, which is barely 20 percent of the total vote. Mike Huckabee was shut out.

The only 2008 names which seem to have support are Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, who didn’t run for the top job four years ago but was added to the ticket just prior to the GOP convention. She polled reasonably well in this trial, but those who believe the nomination is hers to lose may want to think again.

Over the next month or two we’ll likely see the field shake out a bit as some of the bottom-feeders (and maybe a top name or two) decide to take a pass. The remainder of the contenders will likely begin getting their teams together for the busy times one year hence.