Editor:
I take exception to the Mayor of Fenwick Island’s recent remark “a myth exists that the council majority is pro-development.” Actions speak for themselves. The following are recent zoning changes that have been passed by the current majority that have benefitted only the commercial district:
Allowed multiple apartments in a commercial building;
Doubled the amount of allowable commercial signage;
Increased allowable flags and banners for business owners;
Reduced front setbacks by ten feet, with no offset of rear setback, significantly increasing buildable area (does not apply to residential use of same property).
A 40-percent increase in allowable hotel density for the three existing hotels. (The first reading of this ordinance was originally passed 5-2 to apply to the entire commercial district which could have led to a hotel population greater than that of the residents).
In contrast, many requests by homeowners have been ignored. Some items brought up at council meetings but never put on the agenda include:
Relaxation of the bedroom and bathroom limitations now that we have maximum floor area ratio and maximum rental occupancy rules in place.
Equalization of the residential rental tax (7.5%) which is more than double the Commercial Hotels tax (3%).
Removal of the contract management fee that residential owners pay the town for waste removal, which almost doubles the actual cost of waste removal to the homeowners. This is in effect a tax subsidy to the commercial properties since they do not pay the town for waste collection.
The non-binding survey that is being used as justification for the building height increase was incredibly flawed and was limited to one per property and thereby excluded many voices. The referendum that was requested at the May 2015 meeting with hundreds in attendance was rejected.
Mayor, to state that it is a myth that the current majority of this council is pro-development belies the facts. The fact is this council took the unprecedented action of submitting a first reading of a zoning change, without any committee or all of the council members having even seen it. What other reason could there be? It is clear that the intent is to pass a significant zoning change in 30 days in the middle of winter, when people are out of town, for the benefit of pending commercial development.
I am not anti-development. I am for responsible development. It is my belief that the majority of Fenwick Islanders would just like our concerns to be addressed and that our ideas be considered when making major changes to our town.
Richard Benn
Fenwick Island
Gun Legislation Of Note
Editor:
Here we go again.
There are several proposed gun bills of which your readership should be aware, and which are coming up for hearings in the Maryland Legislature soon:
HB 692/SB0947 would make it a criminal offense to privately transfer a long gun – requiring a licensed gun dealer to process. Can I ask, in all seriousness, when criminals have ever followed the law?
HB703 redefines “fire arm” to include antiques and replicas. This endangers the ability of citizens to engage in recreational activities, such as historical reenactment.
HB879/ SB742 would ban imitation or replica firearms, such as BB and pellet guns, as well as airsoft and paintball guns. Drill rifles used by in the ROTC, JROTC, American Legion and VFW could be banned, since they are “replicas”.
SB906 would make all college campuses “gun and knife free zones”. Are the authors of this legislation not aware that almost all, if not all, of the recent mass shootings have taken place in “gun free zones”?
There are other bills proposed which cause concern, and there are also bills which believers in the Second Amendment should support. Please go to associatedgunclubs.org for a full list.
Folks, this has nothing to do with “gun safety”.
MD Democrats can’t be satisfied with the draconian gun bills passed in 2013, so they are going for the whole enchilada this year.
I am hoping that Democrat Delegates and Senators will get an ear (or email) full of comments on these bills.
Carol Frazier
Ocean Pines
Recommended Reading
Editor:
In response to George Rosenstock’s letter to the editor, “American Privilege” in the March 4 issue, I strongly urge and suggest that Mr. Rosenstock and people who think as he suggests in his post, read a very recently published book by Jim Wallis entitled, America’s Original Sin.
Reading this book should be an enlightening and informative dialogue about “white privilege.”
Ron Jones
Berlin
News You Don’t Hear
Editor:
Most important, there is a hearing on the petition to have a right to vote on your taxes; almost 1,500 Ocean City voters signed it. The hearing will be at the Snow Hill Circuit Court at 1 Market Street, upstairs in Courtroom 1, on April 20 at 9:30 a.m. The council and the city’s attorney are trying to get the petition thrown out of court. This hearing will determine if we get a trial on our right to vote or not. All supporters and signers of the petition should plan to come to the hearing. We will look for you in the courtroom.
Almost two months ago following a Monday night public comment session, Dennis Dare solicited me to help the town, “sue the county over the differential.” It was recorded on the Monday meeting tap. I declined. His behavior exposes the extent of the spending addiction of the mayor and council who are in a constant search for revenue.
About six months ago, Vince Gisriel put attention on $2,071,664 that was a wrongful overestimate, by staff, of money scheduled to have gone into the various pension and medical funds in the 2015 budget. Vince believed the funds should be returned to taxpayers. Instead, the funds were spent immediately by the staff after prompt approval by the council. No one considered returning these funds to taxpayers. With recent broad fluctuations in the stock market that have affected the fund balance negatively, maybe these funds should have been used to have reduced the pension and medical fund liabilities.
Last week on March 1, at the Tuesday work session, the town, under Mr. Miller, the new city manager, presented the first amendment to the record-breaking 2016 spending budget approved by the same council. The amendment, also a record, increased spending by $33,455,013 above what was budgeted. Aside from a Water Fund increase of $5,364,917 and a Wastewater Fund increase of $13,198,507 of largely bond proceeds, almost every department participated in the spending smorgasbord, brought on by the Council and Mayor.
- General Fund increased $3,405,046; 2. golf course up $500,699; 3. The money-losing Convention Center increased spending by $1,233,245; and 4. vehicles aside from transportation increased $1,883,059.
The only number that declined was a paltry $402,000 once again from the pension fund. What will the staff do when the stock market goes down? Let’s not fret, though. The Mayor/Council has hired Mr. Rothermel for $80,000 to bolster the underperforming Arts Center, leading to my comment to Mr. Miller, the new city manager, “You are certainly liberal with our money.” The question remains have your property values been going up? Our government spending sure has. If people keep ignoring the out of control spending, it never ends up in a good place.
Recently Mr. Soper did no favors to the truth, by painting the Boardwalk Taskforce Committee in a positive light. Instead of bringing to public attention the $300,000 of public funds spent on a nine-, now 10-page ordinance long before the performer lawsuit. The poor hapless performers suit could have been avoided. Instead the city repeatedly refused to discuss the issues with the performers, which would have saved the city a lot of money spend prior to the suit. The Mayor and the town’s Solicitor, Guy Ayres, chose instead to take the council’s limited authority and spend public funds to put forth the false appearance of fairness. All the city had to do was include the performers in discussions early on. They didn’t. Shortly we shall hear from a federal judge that has the ability to erase the ordinance as well as the Taskforce Committee, deciding for a third time against the city and confirming that all the money spent was wasted; or the judge may agree with one or more of the four motions for dismissal the town has filed.
In any case the $300,000 over two years prior to the suit was wasted money and the fact remains that this could have all been avoided if the town wasn’t obsessed with selling a false façade to the public.
Tony Christ