Southern Maryland's Only 24-hour Newsroom     Lexington Park, Maryland

Roy Dyson
ST. MARY'S TODAY
photo (c) 1999

Steny Hoyer
ST. MARY'S TODAY
photo by Dusty Cassidy

Parris Glendening

Larry Jarboe

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

 The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Third Base

Rt. 5       Loveville 

The Last Stop Before Home!

DEDICATED TO OUR READERS The following articles are proudly presented as opinion, the expression of which is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of United States of America.  Read the first ten amendments, which are known as the Bill of Rights, and which were enacted very soon after ratifcation to ensure the basic rights of citizens.  Most all threats to these freedoms have come from within this nation, not from foreign despots. They are listed at the left of this page, scroll down. Opposing views are invited to be directed to our Letters to the Editor page via mail, e-mail or fax as per instructions at bottom of this page or letters page

First Responders Need Our Help

By Steny Hoyer

        Our national government's first obligation is to provide for the common defense of its citizenry.  However, local governments have been repeating a similar message for the past year: Congress is not sending enough money to the cities, towns and states to make the American people as safe as possible from domestic terrorism.    I believe America can and must do more to meet our homeland security challenges especially in light of reports, such as the December 2002 report sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, that states "America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil." 

        In response to the threats our nation now faces, the President traveled the country last year touting his efforts to secure the homeland with $3.5 billion in new funding for first responders.  Everyone aware of our homeland security needs agrees that firefighters and police officers need better training, protective gear, and communications equipment.  But, the fact is, President Bush only requested $1 billion in new funding for local counter-terrorism efforts, with the remaining $2.5 billion coming at the expense of other critical first responder programs.  For the past year, Democrats have spoken out against this shortfall and attempted to increase funding on several occasions.  I am deeply concerned that the Bush Administration has failed to commit the resources needed to address America's urgent homeland security needs.

        Democrats have repeatedly called for the new $3.5 billion first responder grant program - which is designed to deal with the new responsibilities of police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel to deal with the terrorist threat, as well as continuing the critically important existing programs that provide federal aid to local police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel, among others.  However, as recently as January 28, Democratic legislation to immediately fund $3.5 billion in new money for first responders was rejected in the House of Representatives. 

        Last year, Congress passed a bipartisan measure that provided $2.5 billion in resources for grants for first responders, compatibility of emergency communications equipment, and monitoring of health effects at Ground Zero.  President Bush effectively vetoed this funding.  Just last month, President Bush opposed, and on three separate votes Senate Republicans joined him in defeating, amendments that would have provided $5 billion for first responders, airport security, port security, nuclear security, mass transit security, and other security needs.  And most recently, President Bush's fiscal year 2004 budget proposes a freeze in homeland security funding at the 2003 level - once again no new funding.  And, although President Bush signed a law authorizing additional funds for port security grants, his budget provides zero funding for these grants.

Recently, in his remarks to the National Governors Association, President Bush acknowledged the inadequacy of current funding levels and blamed Congress for a reduction in homeland security funding in fiscal year 2003.  Republicans have sought to explain their opposition to these measures by claiming that additional investments in homeland security are "unaffordable."   I reject this contention, especially in light of their plans to spend $1.5 trillion on new tax breaks that mainly benefit the very wealthy. 

At this time of heightened threats and mounting tensions, Democrats believe we must immediately fund a robust homeland security plan for America.  We believe that Congress should provide funding sufficient to:

·       Provide needed aid to first responders via a new block grant for training and equipment as well as funding to ensure compatibility of emergency communications apparatus;

·       Ensure that more cargo containers are inspected before entering the United States;
·       Provide needed funds to the Coast Guard and Border Patrol to police our waterways and address illegal entry along our borders;

·       Strengthen our visa and passport processes to thwart the use of fake passports and forged documents;
·       Enhance information sharing among government agencies to permit better monitoring of terrorist groups;
·       Improve security at nuclear plants, oil refineries, and toxic chemical facilities with additional personnel, equipment, and tighter security measures to reduce risks to nearby populations;

·       Bolster the security of vulnerable transportation infrastructure, including mass transit, bridges and tunnels; and

·       Improve the security of our food system and water supplies with additional inspectors and security measures.

I welcome the President to the fight that the Democrats have been waging for months.  I hope that he will work with us and with local officials from around the country to convince the Republican leaders in Congress that they are not adequately funding homeland security.

The Chingville Road Rebellion

By Vernon Gray

Most citizens are by nature rather complacent, if not entirely apathetic, regarding governmental affairs. This fact is routinely demonstrated by the extremely low voter turnout for elections. Consequently, politicians and bureaucrats commonly develop the arrogant attitude and behavior that they can disregard both individual citizens and the general public with impunity. They become disrespectful and unresponsive. They treat citizens like small children, who should be seen but not heard.

But, every now and then, something happens that ignites in citizens the spirit to fight back. Recent examples are the uprisings against "Pickett's Dump" in Huntersville, a prison in Chaptico, a rubble dump on St. Andrew’s Church Road, the "Vision Quest" juvenile detention facility in Loveville, the unlawful trash transfer station at St. MaryÆs Disposal, the county’s plans for Myrtle Point, and ‘First Colony.’

Another one of these unique citizens’ uprisings is again occurring. The "peasants" who live on Chingville Road have grabbed their pitchforks and are going after planning and zoning and the board of county commissioners.

About five years ago their peaceful lives were disturbed when Atlantic Coastal Trucking, a sludge hauling company, moved into their neighborhood. In 1996 a handful of these homeowners complained to the Department of Planning and Zoning about the increase in truck traffic, noise and other negative impacts on their lives. They got the typical, bureaucratic response û a lot of lip service and stonewalling. They learned first-hand the motto of planning and zoning regarding citizens’ complaints: "When all is said and done, much will be said but little will be done.ö So, they got frustrated and discouraged and they dropped the matter. They resigned themselves to having to tolerate the nuisance, since the local authorities would not do anything about it.

Over the last four years these homeowners claim that the problem has gone from bad to worse to intolerable. One of the homeowners, reportedly acting upon planning and zoning’s suggestion that he document the problems by observing the trucking company’s day-to-day operations on Chingville Road, is now being sued for $250,000 by the company’s owner for alleged harassment. This legal action has the obvious appearance of being a "slap" suit for the intended purpose of punishing this homeowner and intimidating the others. It has had just exactly the opposite effect. The homeowner has counter-sued and the other homeowners have organized the "Chingville Residents Association." They are mad as hell and they aren’t going to take it anymore!

About a month ago the Association wrote a letter to the county commissioners. In the letter they stated:

"In June of 1996 we contacted the Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) and requested assistance regarding the negative impacts of the commercial business activity at a property owned by Mr. William Cryer. We have routinely observed that the property is being used for the purpose of operating and maintaining numerous tractor-trailer trucks belonging to the Atlantic Coastal Trucking Company. We previously worked with Ms. Laura Clarke of DPZ to seek some relief from the noise and nuisance of these trucks operating in our neighborhood. During the period from Oct. 2, 1997 to Nov. 18, 1997 a planning and zoning inspector periodically observed the Cryer property."

"Since 1998 we have seen an increase in the trucking traffic and the level of noise and nuisance in our otherwise quiet neighborhood. We are now constantly bothered by tractor trailers, tanker trucks, dump trucks, employees, and support vehicles entering and leaving the property at all hours of the day and night. The worst of the traffic is between the hours of 2:30 AM and 5:30 AM in the morning. The steady truck traffic on weekends is also very disturbing. In addition, the speed of these vehicles is generally far in excess of the 35-mph speed limit on Chingville Road."

"In March of 1996, Mr. Cryer requested an after-the-fact zoning approval for the trucking business on his property. What is the status of that request? None of the adjacent property owners has received any notice of a public hearing on this request. Presuming that the requested zoning approval has not been granted, then why is this activity on Mr. Cryer’s property being permitted? Is he not required to comply with planning and zoning regulations? Is there some special permit that allows Mr. Cryer to do whatever he pleases on his land? Are there no limits to the hours of operation, numbers of trucks, or nature of business that Mr. Cryer must obey? It is very difficult for us to understand how Mr. Cryer can buy a property, which is zoned for Agricultural uses, and instead use it in this manner.ö

The Association has yet to receive a response from the county commissioners.

Subsequent to the receipt of this letter, County Commissioner Shelby Guazzo brought this subject up at one of their weekly meetings. Planning and Zoning Director Jon Grimm was tasked to prepare and submit a report to the County Administrator, Mr. Al Lacer. The Association has requested a copy of the report, but the County has refused to release it for the stated reason of ôpotential litigation." This is a catch-all excuse that the County routinely uses to avoid providing public information when it suits its purpose. Is Grimm’s report being hidden in order to protect Atlantic Coastal Trucking? The description ôan open, honest governmentö does not apply to St. Mary’s County.

At the June 13 county commissioners’ Public Forum, the Association confronted the county commissioners and demanded that action be taken to immediately resolve this situation. All that they are asking is that the law should be enforced. Is that too much to ask of public officials?

In this case, it may be too much to ask of this board of county commissioners considering that three of the five commissioners received campaign donations from Atlantic Coastal Trucking. Julie Randall received $2,500, Tommy Mattingly received $550, and Dan Raley received $750. This presents these three commissioners with both a political and ethical predicament. Will they enforce the law against the largest campaign finance contributor to local Democrats in the 1998 elections? If they do not, will this then been seen as a political pay-off? If these three do not exclude themselves from any official actions regarding Atlantic Coastal Trucking, will they have violated the Ethics Ordinance?

Randall, Mattingly and Raley may not yet realize it, but they are standing knee-deep in sludge and its getting deeper.

---

$1 Billion Surplus, But No Tax Relief!

By Vernon Gray

 On April 10, the 90-day session of the Maryland General Assembly ended. Thank God, the annual threat to the security and well-being of Maryland citizens is behind us for another year.

This year, as a result of the unreasonable, irresponsible and exorbitant taxation of Maryland citizens, Governor Parris Glendening and Maryland legislators found themselves with a $1 billion budget surplus gold mine. But, as far as returning some of this ill-gotten money to its rightful owners, they gave taxpayers the shaft. What did they do with the money? They spent it!

They could have accelerated the last phase of a 10 percent cut in the state's income rate a year ahead of schedule, but they didn't. Instead, they increased government spending by 10%, while the average taxpayer's income is only increasing by 5 percent.

At a time of record high gasoline prices, they could have reduced the 23.5 cents per gallon gasoline tax, but they didn't.

Glendening did give the construction unions a political pay-off. At his urging the General Assembly extended the "prevailing wage" law to include school construction projects. This law forces non-union builders to pay union wages to their workers on state construction projects. It has the effect of destroying the competition between union and non-union bidders. It also costs taxpayers more money!

He also repaid the state teachers' union for helping to re-elect him. Glendening proposed, and

the General Assembly approved, a 10 percent increase in teachers' pay over two years. If each county will fund a 4 percent pay increase per year for two years, the state will pay the extra one- percent each year. However, starting in the third year the counties will have to pay the full bill!

Believe it or not, at the beginning of the legislative session, the president of the Maryland Taxpayer's Association (MTA) was asked if MTA would support legislation to exempt the pensions of all retired state police officers and teachers from the state income tax. MTA responded that it would only support legislation to exempt the pensions of ALL Maryland citizens, not just targeted groups.

Notably, the MTA sponsored legislation, to provide a state income tax exemption for the enlisted active duty pay of Marylanders serving in the military, was defeated in the General Assembly.

Hundreds of millions of dollars for pork barrel projects and political bribes, but not one cent to help enlisted military families living on food stamps!

However, it cannot be said that the governor and state legislators completely forgot the poor taxpayers. For example:

The inheritance tax was partially repealed for some relatives of a deceased, but the savings were

largely negated by an increase in probate fees. It is understood that Republican legislators were surprised that Glendening did not also propose a retroactive inheritance tax refund to the heirs of all the then deceased persons who voted in the 1994 gubernatorial election!

For one week in August 2001 the state will lift its sales tax on clothing and shoes priced under $100, a maximum saving of less than $5 per item. That's a big deal!

The sales tax has been eliminated on: bottled water sold in gallons or more; smoking cessation products; energy efficient appliances and vehicles; digital broadcast equipment for TV and radio stations; and, vending items priced at 25 cents or less.

So, now you can buy tax-free gumballs. We've never had it so good! God bless the Maryland General Assembly.

 

Email us at staff@stmarystoday.com or mail at P. O. Box 689, Califo. Md. 20619

---