Board’s Actions Not Voted On By Owners
Editor:
This is regarding the recent story about the board of White Horse Park Community Association filing a Motion to Intervene on behalf of the members of the park. No one had any idea this was going to happen – not the seasonal owners, not the year-round owners until it was disclosed in a recent community newsletter. This was not a decision voted on or approved by the White Horse community.
To have the public see that the park’s own board members are willing to work against the elderly and sick homeowners is appalling and they should be ashamed. White Horse Park is a great community overall. Yes, we have been enmeshed in controversy over the full-time residency issue. The misstatements of the issue that the board, the park attorney (James Almand, Esq.) and the Worcester County Commissioners have been spreading are ridiculous. None of the full-time residents want to have the park re-zoned to be a year-round residential community. Rezoning was never mentioned in any of the information given to the county.
Unfortunately, the Board of Directors have not taken the time to sit with the full-time residents to find out exactly what we want/need. This is a temporary situation and all that is being asked for is enough time to live out what is left of our lives in peace. Believe me, we are not talking about a long period of time here. Two full-time residents have passed away this week alone. Eventually, all the property in the park will be used as seasonal lots again. Remember, we are talking about approximately 60 residences out of 465. White Horse Park is a beautiful, quiet community sitting on the St. Martin river. The people who have called this lovely, peaceful place home for so many years should be allowed to live the rest of their lives taking care of themselves and their neighborhoods without being harassed and frightened by the county or their own board of directors.
Betsy Metzger
Berlin
x
Giving Tuesday Appreciation
Editor:
Even though the giving season is still in full swing, the Ocean City Life Saving Station Museum staff and board of directors have taken a moment to stop and reflect on this year’s Giving Tuesday campaign.
Giving Tuesday The Shore Gives More is a campaign organized by the Community Foundation of the Eastern Shore that allows community members to give back to local organizations of their choice. The money raised from this year’s campaign will help fund our free educational summer programs. Our summer programs run six days a week during the months of July and August and are at no cost for visitors.
This campaign gives us the opportunity to reflect and be grateful for our supporters. We thank all who took the time to donate. With your support the museum can offer not only our free summer programs, but a wide range of events and exhibits that foster an appreciation for the cultural and natural history of Ocean City. We would also like to thank the Community Foundation of the Eastern Shore for organizing a campaign that has strengthened not only the museum but many other local organizations.
Christine Okerblom
Ocean City
(The writer is the assistant curator of the Ocean City Life Saving Station Museum.)
x
Commission Failed By Not Addressing Formula
Editor:
In a letter to this newspaper, in response to my commentary about Kirwan Commission funding recommendations and their impact on our county, retired teacher Debra Fisher wrote that I “misstated” our school system successes. That is not the case. As I wrote “there’s always room for improvement.”
Worcester County could benefit from many of the academic recommendations of the Kirwan Commission. However, the intent of my commentary was to confront the Commission’s failure to address the lopsided and unfair funding formula upon which its recommendations are predicated and for which Worcester County taxpayers have long been unduly burdened.
Chip Bertino
Ocean Pines
(The writer is a Worcester County commissioner.)
x
Opposition To Impeachment Inquiry Not Appropriate
Editor:
(The following letter was submitted to Congressman Andy Harris with a copy forwarded to this publication.)
Once again, I feel compelled to write to you regarding your recent vote in the House of Representatives to oppose authorization of an Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump’s action to withhold almost $400 million in military aid to Ukraine that had been approved by Congress in return for a “favor”. Your vote tells me that you did not have any interest in learning the facts of the case and, as such, you acted like the ostrich that sticks its head in the sand hoping that the problem will be gone by the time it takes its head out of the sand.
As I understand the “favor” that President Trump was seeking from the Ukrainians was to investigate Bursima and the Biden’s as well as to investigate possible interference in our 2016 election by the Ukrainians and not the Russians not to mention the “missing Democratic server”. With regard to the latter, it has been fully debunked by all of our intelligence agencies as well as a bipartisan report issued by the Senate Intelligence Committee that it was Russia that actually interfered in the 2016 election.
As for me, I watched many, many hours of public testimony from perhaps as many as a dozen creditable and compelling witnesses such as Marie Yovanovitch, Dr. Fiona Hill, Gordon Sondland, William B. Taylor, Jr., Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, etc. Some witnesses even had first-hand knowledge of the President’s actions including listening in on the infamous July 25, 2019 telephone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. A few testified that they were immigrants and felt that it was their patriotic duty to tell what they knew. In fact, Col. Vindman served in the U.S. Army and was wounded in battle for which he received the Purple Heart. A number of these witnesses testified that they had served under four or even five Presidents from both major political parties and that their mission was to protect the national security of the United States.
When Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee had their turn to give opening statements or question witnesses, the Rep. Devin Nunes “circus” began in earnest. Because the facts were not in their favor, they resorted to a “smoke and mirrors” defense of President Trump which included an all-out effort at character assignation of the witnesses. They argued that because President Trump did finally release the military aid on Sept. 11, 2019 (55 days after a hold had been put on it and, subsequently, he had been caught “red handed”), there was “no harm, no foul.” My question is, can we honestly say that the holding up of this military aid did not cause additional harm to the Ukrainian defense efforts against the Russian aggression. Is it possible that the Ukrainians suffered more casualties than they otherwise would have because they lacked this additional military aid?
I have seen pictures of supporters of President Trump wearing T-shirts that read “read the transcript.” While I know what the transcript of the July 25th call said, I want to see the documentation of that call that was almost immediately placed in a top-secret server at the White House that might preclude it from ever seeing the light of day.
As I understand the facts in this case, President Trump has apparently broken two laws. They are:
- Even though Ambassador Sondland testified that there “was a quid pro quo and that everyone was in the loop,” it is simply illegal for the President to solicit foreign aid relative to a domestic issue.
- The military aid in question had been appropriated by Congress and President Trump was obligated to release it to Ukraine. If the President subsequently believed that there was a valid reason not to release these funds, then he was required to go back to Congress and state his concerns. Obviously, this did not happen. I might add that, in order for this scheme to continue, the President replaced Mark Sandy (a career Federal employee) with Michael Duffey (a political appointee) because Mr. Sandy questioned the legality of withholding of these funds.
As the impeachment hearing nears a conclusion, I believe that if President Trump had any factual evidence that would be to his benefit, he would personally drive that witness(s) to Capitol Hill to provide that testimony to the Intelligence/Judiciary Committee.
When the full House of Representatives considers Articles of Impeachment against President Trump, I would urge you to consider all of the facts gathered in the inquiry and make an informed and intelligent decision to uphold your oath of office as well as upholding the Constitution of the United States and do what is in the best interest of the national security of the United States.
Harry W Yeich
Ocean City