On one hand, lawmakers might establish a tax to pay for stormwater cleanup. And on the other hand, they might delay or weaken stepped-up stormwater control requirements at new developments.
"I'm hoping that this year is the charm," state Sen. Jamie Raskin, D-Montgomery, told lawmakers in Annapolis on Tuesday as he pushed for the tax.
Last year, the tax cleared a Senate committee, but died on the Senate floor. It went nowhere in the House of Delegates.
Stormwater is...
| This story has expired! You can purchase the full text in our news archives. |
If you encounter other problems, please email nlundskow@capitalgazette.com and include your name, username, and any errors or messages that are displayed. The more information you can provide, the better able we will be to assist you.
In order to post or vote on a comment, you must be signed in with a hometownannapolis account.
Take a look at a summary of Commenting Guidelines.
Report Abuse or Vote In order to allow the user community the ability to collectively rank the value of comments posted on the Capital Gazette websites we have implemented a thumbs-up/down system. All logged-in users may participate by voting up/down each comment. If others vote on your comment, your individual score will go up/down depending on the votes. Initially, everyone starts with a score of zero, and must earn credits to have significant voting weight. Individuals with higher scores will have more voting weight. 1
0
Perhaps an opportunity to fine-tune - 2010-03-03 15:23:32
Harry, I agree with most of your statement, but I also think that we should seriously consider the developers point about urban re-development. I suspect that we agree that the best development, both economically and ecologically, is the redevelopment of urban areas (particularly blighted areas). New development, even without the heightened 2007 requirements, likely improves the stormwater situation at such sites. More importantly, redevelopment steers development away from undeveloped, ecologically valuable land. Ideally, I would like to see stormwater and other environmental restrictions reflect the true environmental costs of tearing down woods and paving over fields, while rewarding and encouraging developers to improve brownfields and other urban land.
unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?
Jeff Schomig - Arnold, MD - Karma: Excellent
Report Abuse or Vote In order to allow the user community the ability to collectively rank the value of comments posted on the Capital Gazette websites we have implemented a thumbs-up/down system. All logged-in users may participate by voting up/down each comment. If others vote on your comment, your individual score will go up/down depending on the votes. Initially, everyone starts with a score of zero, and must earn credits to have significant voting weight. Individuals with higher scores will have more voting weight. 1
0
Just not true - 2010-03-03 14:23:13
This argument does not hold water. Where is the proof that stormwater requirements are harming development. Let's see proof. Traveling the eastern shore does not reveal stifled development. Any by the way Cecil County or Queen Anne or Anne Arundel have not right to compromise the bay. Nor does nay individual or corporation have the right to pollute the bay, period. If you can't build a neutral project, you're incompetent. There are plenty of practical solutions, to capture run off and incorporate them into design. Next time your at the mall or the local grocery, lot at the parking lot. think about the miles of asphalt. What happens when the accelerated runoff hits the local stream and churns into the rivers? Stormwater yes it cost money, but what doesn't? And by the way so what. If you can support a sustainable environment, go elsewhere. Cost.. well money is fungible, land will sell for less, the market corrects. There are real costs associated with pollution and it needs to be addressed and or paid for at the source. Anne Arundel County council has refused to require developers to pay their share of impact fees. 70% of the costs are foisted on to current residents. Rolling back stormwater (inadequate) requirements, that's just plain stupid.
unhide Comment hidden due to low ranking. Why is this comment hidden?
harry trampolini - severna park, MD - Karma: Excellent
If you encounter other problems, please email nlundskow@capitalgazette.com and include your name, username, and any errors or messages that are displayed. The more information you can provide, the better able we will be to assist you.