One Year Ago Today

It was one year ago today that Sparkle Wash came to the rescue of Downtown Salisbury. Graffiti was everywhere the eye could see Downtown and this company came in and did an unbelievable job clearing up what no one thought could be done.

My hat is tipped to this company and I hope others were able to use their services throughout the year.

God Gave It All To Me?

A Commenter Said.....

"I would be careful Joe, everything you have has been given to you by God, and he can take it away. It all belongs to the kingdom of heaven anyway. God might want to see how you use your money and treat people."

Well if that is the case, I wish God would pay all my taxes as well. Does that also mean God is AKA, IRS? The IRS likes to take God's money he gave to me away, so shouldn't you be writing the IRS instead?

By the way, is that Kingdom called Washington? Just curious.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings.

I only got a dollar out of the $20, declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, but he got $10!

Yeah, that's right, exclaimed the fifth man. I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!

That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!

Wait a minute, yelled the first four men in unison. We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and h ad beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

The Washington Times Speaks Out On District 1 Congressional Race

Watch this Maryland race
THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL
January 16, 2008
A new public opinion poll shows that Rep. Wayne Gilchrest, a relatively liberal Republican who has represented Maryland's 1st Congressional District for 16 years, faces a difficult fight to retain his seat in the Feb. 12 primary. The survey by McLaughlin & Associates has Mr. Gilchrest ahead with 33 percent of the vote, and state Sens. E.J. Pipkin and Andy Harris in a virtual tie with 27 percent.

Even though Mr. Gilchrest votes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi more than any other House Republican, he is receiving surprising support from from two prominent conservative Republicans: former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, both of whom attended an Annapolis fundraiser for Mr. Gilchrest on Thursday. At the fundraiser, Mr. Gingrich warned against "purging" party members they disagree with. Mr. Steele didn't directly endorse Mr. Gilchrest (saying he would speak at Harris or Pipkin events if invited), but he praised Mr. Gilchrest's work and urged attendees to "help Wayne." On Saturday, Mr. Steele, appearing on WBAL Radio, said Gilchrest critics are wrong to use "litmus tests" on issues such as abortion, tax cuts and immigration.

Interestingly, the legitimate criticisms of Mr. Gilchrest are not about trivial legislation or resolutions. Indeed, they deal with Mr. Gilchrest's voting record and statements, and raise concerns as to whether he is out of touch with residents of his conservative-leaning district, in which President Bush won 62 percent of the vote in 2004. For example, Mr. Gilchrest was wrong on the Iraq troop surge: In March, he was one of two Republicans to join Mrs. Pelosi and virtually the entire House Democratic Caucus in voting to set a timetable for troop withdrawal. He is also wrong on Iran: suggesting that Tehran is misbehaving because the Bush administration failed to conduct a "dialogue" with Iran.

According to the Club for Growth, Mr. Gilchrest earned a 0 percent rating in voting against 46 amendments to strip pork-barrel spending projects from fiscal 2008 appropriations bills. He earned a 100 percent rating in 2006 from NARAL Pro-Choice America. Mr. Gilchrest has a mixed record on illegal aliens: voting on at least three occasions in 2004 and 2005 against amendments denying certain types of federal funding to sanctuary cities; supporting amnesty for more than 800,000 illegal-alien agricultural workers in 2007; and voting in favor of awarding illegals from Mexico with Social Security benefits in 2004.

For these and other reasons, The Washington Times already has endorsed Andy Harris. The facts on the issues should be brought to voters' attention.

A Piece Of Salisbury's History Moves On

Today, the Bell on top of Station 16 that was originally cast in 1914 was removed from the Tower and placed on a tractor trailer. The 1,500 pound Bell is on its way to Westminster Maryland to be refurbished and should return in about 30 days to be set back down in its final resting place in front of the New Station 16 on the West Side of Salisbury.

Back in the day, this Bell originally was in the original Fire Station on Rt. 50 and then relocated to Station 16 on Division Street. There were several Fire Fighters there watching with anticipation of seeing this thing up close once it had been brought to ground level.

Another day in the History of Salisbury.

Dee, Dee, Deeee Of The Week!

This was just taken on the Downtown Plaza. Oh, they paid the Meter too!

John Cannon's Speech On Tuesday Referecing Collective Bargaining & Council's Decision

I’m going to try to keep this very simple. Our legal counsel's opinion confirms that if the County Council were held to collective bargaining with binding arbitration as this bill in its original form proposed, would we as a council be in violation of our County Charter if, during this collective bargaining process with the union, we attempted to negotiate by proposing to add, or reallocate, as well as subtract items from the Executive’s budget.

It is for this reason and this reason alone that this Council felt, and still feels, compelled and bound to amend Bill 2007-03 to authorize collective bargaining with binding arbitration in Wicomico County and to do so within the authority on the Executive Branch alone.

It wouldn’t be fair to this council or future councils to hold ourselves to collective bargaining with binding arbitration knowing we are forbidden by Charter to go into any negotiation process which would require us to add and subtract line items from the budget.

Union representatives for the deputies have stated that Council has been disingenuous but it’s quite the opposite. These gentlemen have known all along where we stand. It actually takes integrity for the seven members of this Council to take this position.

Actually, it would be disingenuous for us to ignore the will of all the voters of Wicomico County and lead them to believe this bill would not compromise the integrity of the checks and balances system they chose to establish when they voted for the Executive/Legislative form of government we now have today. The same form of government that allows our Executive Branch the veto power.

Yet we understand how the union feels. They say that our position on this bill compromises the collective bargaining process… but we didn’t write this bill. We didn’t write this bill, nor were we the ones who drafted the referendum, nor the amendment to the Charter.

And I say here today, this bill as we've amended it and as we enacted it, may not be the perfect bill and it may not fit as neatly as everyone would like - within the structure and framework of our new form of government. Yet, it is what we have before us and what we have to work with for the benefit of all citizens of Wicomico County.

All this aside, this bill as we pass it today in its current form, will allow for collective bargaining with binding arbitration within Wicomico County – and that’s a good thing.

I think, as a seven member Council, we’ve dealt with it and we’ve done so in a way we consider to be fair to all parties involved and to all citizens in Wicomico County – those who voted for our new Charter and Executive/Legislative form of government and those who voted for collective bargaining in Wicomico County. It’s the best solution within the parameters of our existing laws and the form of government by which we’re bound today.

Now, one point in particular - and the most important of all. This issue is not and never has been about the Council versus the Deputies or the Deputies’ benefits or pensions. I consider Sheriff Lewis a good friend. I consider Chief Baker, Captain Elliott and Lieutenant Wilson good friends as well as many of the other deputies very active in this process. And this Council has been nothing but supportive of the Sheriff and every one of the deputies in this entire county.

This issue has been about one thing and one thing only: The Charter and Procedure - the Council’s role as bound by Charter within this county’s new form of government.

Collective bargaining will be successful in Wicomico County. It will be successful for the deputies and their representatives through the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch working together while adhering to their respective responsibilities as dictated by the County Charter.

The union representatives will have the right to collective bargaining when the Executive prepares the budget and the Council will still maintain the integrity of the checks and balances system established under our new form of government. Similar processes are already established and working successfully in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore County, Harford County and Howard County - Counties with Executive/Legislative forms of government working hand-in-hand with their deputies’ representatives.

This is fair to the citizens of Wicomico County. It’s fair to the Sheriff’s deputies in Wicomico County.

I’ve said it before; we have full faith in our new form of government and we have full confidence and support for the Sheriff and deputies who represent and protect Wicomico County and we’ll do all we can within our power to demonstrate our support.

A Salary Comment Worth Mentioning Ref. WCDC

"$28,000 a year...Now ask yourself can YOU raise a family and keep a roof over their head at $28,000 a year. I don't think so, of course you knew the pay when you applied for the job. could this be the reason that the quality of employee is so steller? WSO has their hands full, Mike is not god and cannot solve all of our problems with his force, he has his job to do also. But $28,000 a year, is a insult to any person working and trying to raise a family, correctly.
flyboy"

OK Fly Boy, let me educate YOU a little bit here.

My Wife worked at the Salisbury Zoo for 18 years. AFTER 18 years on the job, working in the cold of winter OUTDOORS and the heat of Summer, OUTDOORS, AFTER 18 YEARS she was making a cool $29,000.00 a year!

So take you petty crybaby BS and cry somewhere else. YOU PEOPLE are out of control any more and like I said, you don't like it, go to work somewhere else. This bellyaching BS has got to end! My Wife at the time was also single and raising three Boys.

Perhaps you haven't seen the salaries the City offers and the conditions in which you're subjected to? Search some cells and make that place safer and leave the Taxpayers of Wicomico County alone. You're like someone trying to take a property worth $250,000.00 and sell it for $750,000.00. Too Late Dude! No ones buying it any more.

Let's also remember there are usually TWO incomes per household. So your theory of only $28,000.00 a year and survival is once again, BS! If you took the job at $28k and you are single, you knew what you were getting into then, so stop the crying now. You guys know me, I tell it like it is.

SPD "Keepin It Real"

On January 14, 2008 at approximately 12:05 am, Officers of the Salisbury Police Department received a call to respond to the Peninsula Regional Medical Center to meet with the victim of a reported rape. Upon arrival, Officers met with the victim who is a female juvenile. The juvenile advised the officers that she had been the victim of a sexual assault by an individual known to her while at a location on E. Main Street in Salisbury, earlier on January 13, 2008. The victim was able to identify the suspect, listed below.

ARRESTED: Noland Milburn Dashiell, 43 years of age Salisbury, Maryland

CHARGES:
Second degree Rape
First Degree Sex Offense
Second, Third and Fourth Degree Sex Offense
Chile Abuse
Child Molestation

DISPOSITION: Released to Central Booking CC # 200800001572

On January 14, 2008 at approximately 1:40 pm, Officers of the Salisbury Police Department received a call to respond to the Shell Gas Station on North Salisbury Boulevard for the report of an armed robbery. Upon arrival, the officers met with an employee of the business who advised that he had observed two (2) male suspects approach the business. One of the suspects stayed near the door of the business and the second male suspect walked behind the counter to the cash register. The second suspect produced a handgun and removed an amount of U.S. currency from the cash register, before joining the first suspect and fleeing from the business on foot. The first suspect is described as:

African American male, approximately 20 years of age, wearing a brown jacket and a black ski mask.

The second suspect, who displayed the handgun, is described as:

African American male, approximately 20 years of age, approximately 5-08, 200 pounds, light complexion and wearing a black jacket and a black ski mask.

Both suspects fled on foot toward the area of the Salisbury Mobile Home Park.

If anyone has any information concerning this incident, they are asked to contact the Salisbury Police Department at 410-548-3165 or to contact Crime Solvers.
CC # 2008000001615

Officer Of The Year

Sgt. Jason Chance of the Wicomico County Sheriffs Office is honored by the Knights of Columbus as Officer of the Year. Sheriff Mike Lewis was right there with him when he received the Award. Congratulations Officer!

The Mayor Of Salisbury Must Be Nuts?

As if they didn't have enough problems at the Salisbury Zoo, I'm receiving e-mail messages this morning from Zoo Professionals flat out laughing at the Salisbury Zoo for running yet ANOTHER Ad with the AZA announcing the Directors position for the 3rd time!

Some of these people have already applied for the position once and are saying, are we not good enough to call back? So even if the Mayor instructed someone to call in former applicants, they're NOT going to show any interest!

You people need to get this House Wife Mayor out of Office and get someone in there who knows what they're doing! Then you need to kindly ask Ron Alessi and several other Zoo Commission Members to kindly step down and get some fresh blood with some new ideas in there to get things on the right track.

Stupid is as stupid does.

GO HERE to see the AZA's Website and Ad.

ZOO DIRECTOR Salisbury Zoological Park Salisbury, MD Jan 15, 2008

Council Work Session

At a previous work session (12-3-07) there was discussion of the various changes that needed to be made to the City Code to close loopholes and ambiguous language. One such issue pointed out by Terry Cohen was that if the landlords don't comply with the licensing laws there isn't really a penalty with any teeth. She had mentioned the possibility of revoking landlords exceptions and ending their non-conforming use of the properties not in compliance with the law. Paul Wilber said he researched the issue, and in a memo issued to City Council members and the Mayor he advised against revoking the landlords non-conforming status because he found one case in all of Maryland that said revocation for a mere licensing violation is too harsh.

Wilber wouldn't say what the case was and he wouldn't discuss what was in the memo, which was marked "privileged and confidential." So he's giving this legal advice to the City Council and the Mayor, but no one else is allowed to know about it so they can check the case and see if his legal reasoning is sound.

Here's what the law is on non-conforming uses, first from our own City Code:

Chapter 17.16 - Nonconforming Lots, Structures and Uses
(Paraphrasing) 17.16.010 - Lots, structures and uses of land that were legal before the zoning code changed, but that are no longer allowed within that zone under the changed code, may continue to exist, subject to the following:

...17.16.040 - Nonconforming uses.

B. A nonconforming use may continue so long as it otherwise remains lawful.
C. A nonconforming use may not be changed to another nonconforming use, extended or enlarged without approval of the board of zoning appeals in accordance with Article II of this chapter.
D. No building, structure or lot where a nonconforming use has substantially ceased for a continuous period of one year, whether or not fixtures or equipment are removed, shall again be put to a nonconforming use.
G. The board of zoning appeals may grant an extension to the one year time limitation upon application to the board showing that strict compliance with this one year period will result in either an unwarranted hardship or injustice to the owner, provided that such extension will not be contrary to the public interest.

Purich v. Draper Properties, Inc.
395 Md. 694, 912 A.2d 598
Md.,2006. supports the reasoning of B. and C. above. "A nonconforming use exists if a person utilizes property in a certain manner that is lawful before and up to the time of the adoption of a zoning ordinance, though the then-adopted zoning ordinance may make that previously lawful use non-permitted."

It also supports D. above. "Special exception that was granted for gas station property was not issued for modernization of the property, but rather for operation of the property as a filling station, and thus, under zoning ordinance, the property's previous nonconforming use status, which was for use as a gas station, was abandoned when the property was operated as a permitted use under the special exception for six months; once the six months elapsed the nonconforming use could not be reestablished."

"[T]he earnest aim and ultimate purpose of zoning was and is to reduce non conformance to conformance as speedily as possible with due regard to the legitimate interests of all concerned, and the ordinances forbid or limit expansion of nonconforming uses and forfeit the right to them upon abandonment of the use or the destruction of the improvements housing the use."

Salisbury Ordinance 1958, found in the City Code at 15.24.490 . . . "if the dwelling or dwelling unit was occupied by three unrelated persons, during a period of one year, prior to December 16, 2002. The occupancy may continue as a nonconforming use."

These rental properties housing numerous unrelated people in single-family residential neighborhoods are "non-conforming uses." If they cease to operate for that non-conforming purpose for 12 months, they lose their non-conforming use. Also, the City Code clearly states they keep their non-conforming status only so long as they remain otherwise lawful.

Is it lawful for them to violate the licensing requirements? Those licensing requirements are law, not mere suggestions. If they're not lawful, they should lose the non-conforming status. This is just another way the administration is trying to protect the landlords.

Another thing they discussed was that they had 100 delinquent landlords. They didn't say how many residences were in violation under those 100 landlords. They said 9 of the properties were sold. They didn't say whether the new owners were also landlords or if they were still renting the premises or if they were in compliance with the licensing.

They said 8 of the properties fell into "other" categories without saying what those categories were. They said there were still 27 landlords out of the original 100 who were still not in compliance. Of those 27 landlords not in compliance, they had 60 properties not in compliance.

So out of 100 landlords to begin with, 73% had come into compliance. Shanie was saying there was 97% compliance, I don't know what numbers she was using. If they started with 700 properties and only 60 were still not in compliance that would be around 91% in compliance. But they were also not mentioning the hundreds of properties that had never bothered to register with the City to begin with, that are obviously not in compliance.

Stevenson said there was no way they could know about them. Yes there is. Go street by street, take the property owner information from SDAT and go door-to-door asking for the owners. You will have a large number of people saying, I rent from the owner. That's how you find the illegal rentals. It's called a housing sweep. It's easy, it's methodical, and it gets the job done. If you're truly interested in doing the job to begin with.

Wicomico County Board Of Education Budget Meeting

With standing room only, the BOE Building was packed with concerned citizens yesterday signing up to speak. The Daily Times actually has an excellent article on the meeting and as ALL of you know I rarely give them props, this time they deserve it. GO HERE to read the article in the DT.

Did It Snow Out By You Yesterday?

Our guys were enjoying the flurries yesterday but it was short lived.

WCDC Staff Wants A HUGE Raise!

While Sgt. Anthony Dickerson stood in front of the Council during the public input portion, (not the place to introduce a department raise) on PAC14, he stated his Staff currently makes $28,000.00 a year and want an increase to $36,000.00 a year!

They're NOW claiming Worcester County is paid $10,000.00 more per year that Wicomico County. Not for nothing Mr. Dickerson but I say, apply in Worcester County and see if they'll hire you?

All too much lately, Department Heads are confronting the Council asking for pay increases. The Sheriff's Department, The Salisbury City Police, the Fire Department and now the Detention Center? I can't say as I blame them for ASKING but it seems to me they weren't complaining when they applied for the job, what's your bitch now?

I have seen names of Officers fired from their positions as Police Officers now working in the WCDC, they don't deserve the same pay as Officers on the street. Oh, I know, now I'm going to hear it because men and women locked up in cells are more dangerous that what Officers deal with on the streets! PLEASE! If the Detention Center did a better job, they'd be on to those people in there making shanks! They'd RECOGNIZE that their own name plate is missing OFF THEIR DOOR or on their desk and do a search. Then again, that's why they're no longer Police Officers too!

Rick Pollitt should simply say, You don't like your job, LEAVE! Have the WCSO cover for ANY individual who walks out the door until they are replaced and trust me, those jobs are great paying jobs for the Eastern Shore and they will be filled fast! My personal opinion is, they were stupid for confronting the Council like they did. They should have made an appointment and discussed it with the proper people. Like I said, if I were Rick I'd tell them to take a walk just for pulling that kind of move.

It's about time this Administration grows a pair and started fighting back while all these pampered pansie asses keep stepping up and asking for more while the Governor keeps giving less. Just my opinion. It doesn't mean I'm right. That's just how I feel about this situation at the moment and believe me, you've never seen a bigger set of cry babies than groups like this who THINK they're Law Enforcement, they BELIEVE their job is actually tougher in minimum security and when they don't get their way they act like the world is coming to an and. If WalMart pays more money, go apply there.

Grand Dad & Collective Bargaining

As an American, a resident of Wicomico County, and a registered voter, words can barely express the depth of my disappointment at the County Councils decision to override County Executive Rick Pollits veto of the legislation relating to collective bargaining with binding arbitration for the deputies of Wicomico County.....but I'm gonna give it a shot!

When we look at what's going on across the nation we see case after case in which Americans voice their opinions and express their concerns to State and National politicians only to have them disregarded as if they never existed. 88% of Americans want out southern border closed, yet it remains open. More than almost 60% of Americans want to bring our soldiers out of Iraq but we're still there. 63% of Marylanders are opposed to the O'Malley tax increase, yet it went through. Whether or not you agree is not important. The point is that the wishes of the majority are completely ignored. Since we live in a representative style of government, we write off this utter disregard as unkept campaign promises, or flip-flopping, or towing a party line. But what took place today in our very own council chambers didn't resemble democracy. What took place today more closely resembled a board of Monarchs ruling over some autocracy for whom there were no constitutional restrictions on the ir power. You see....the actions of the council today were not the actions of a council merely failing to acknowledge the expressed wishes of the constituency. Today the Wicomico County Council defied the mandate of a legally held referendum vote in which more than 70% of the voters told the leaders of Wicomico County to enact legislation which would require the County to engage in collective bargaining with binding arbitration with the deputies of Wicomico County.

They initially justified this decision by focusing on one word contained in the referendum. It seems that all seven officials elected to lead our county would have us believe that they couldn't figure out who the word "county" referred to. In the end, the council determined that the word "county" referred to the County Administrator and NOT the County Council.

The truth of the matter is this. The people of Wicomico County voted for collective bargaining with binding arbitration. This means that if the "county" and the deputies can't come to an agreement, and arbitration team selected by the County and the deputies resolve the dispute and whatever the arbitrators decide is legally binding on both the deputies AND the county. No matter how you feel about collective bargaining, this is what the people voted for. If you voted and voted "no", you were one of about 30% . As Americans, we should all accept this and support the will of the people.
Apparently, the County Council could not accept the will of the people. THIS IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND!!!! The legislation passed by the County Council today granted collective bargaining for the deputies with binding arbitration between the deputies and the County Executive ONLY. It DOES NOT bind the county council. This means that the County executive can be legally bound to an agreement BUT the council can cut the funding and effectively make any agreement null and void. If the council can nullify the agreement than it's not binding. If it's not binding arbitration, it's NOT what the citizens voted for. How can any reasonable person take the position that an elected official can override the will of the people. The county council has undermined the authority of the voting citizens of Wicomico County and has forced the deputies to use the only tool available to them to remedy the situation. It will now go to the courts. This will take time and a LOT of money. Your mon ey and my money. Thousands and thousands of taxpayers dollars that our county council will spend to fight the will of the people. I wonder if the county council would be so quick to challenge the will of the people in court if the lawyers fees came out of their pockets. My councilman told me that he isn't sure the citizens of Wicomico County knew what they were voting for. Are you saying that the voters are stupid? I think the citizens are quite intelligent and knew exactly what they were voting for. I don't, however, think they knew that the council would forget for whom they work or engage in spending so much money trying to quiet the will of the people who elected them.

I read G.A.'s article and several others authored by him. G.A. I have the utmost respect for you and have followed your writings for some time...but..you don't support collective bargaining with binding arbitration in spite of the fact that it was mandated by a vote of the people. How can you not support what the people voted to implement. Whether or not you support collective bargaining or not is a moot point. Don't you think? There is no disrespect intended. I'm a conservative republican too and I'm not a big union person...BUT....the people voted for it and it is the responsibility of everyone to see to it that the mandate of the people is upheld. Period. It is a sad day indeed for the citizens of Wicomico County. As a people we cannot forget this at election time.

Grand Dad

Joe Holloway Advocates Tax Cut

Wicomico County Councilman Joe Holloway (R-5) surprised citizens and his fellow council members Tuesday by advocating a reduction in the County's income tax rate. A detailed proposal probably will not be possible until after County Executive Rick Pollitt introduces his proposed budget for FY 2009. After introduction of the proposed budget Holloway will be able to introduce spending cuts to pay for a tax cut.

Reminding those in council chambers, as well as those of us watching on PAC-14, that county revenues belonged to the taxpayer and not the government, Holloway spoke of several recent events which led to his proposal. "Last year, salaries for county employees rose by over $3.5 million". The county is proposing to purchase property for a park on the West Side while the county already owns land that was earmarked for a park just a few miles away. What may have been the smallest expenditure in dollars, but the biggest symbol of wasteful government spending, was a pen given to Holloway by the Department of Tourism which cost the taxpayers $23. Interestingly, the Department of Tourism is run by Gary Mackes who also heads the parks department. It was Mackes who originally proposed the purchase of the Davis property on the West Side.

Holloway believes that a tax cut would best serve the county government and the taxpayers of Wicomico County. "If the government has it (money), they'll spend it. Even if it is on something as unnecessary as an overpriced ink pen. The citizens of Wicomico County are the best judges of how their money should be spent and a tax cut will put some of that money back in their pockets (where it belongs)."

Currently, Wicomico County is approximately $10 million dollars behind in needed road repairs. Myriad other capital improvements are needed throughout the county, yet the current administration is willing to consider park construction and allows a department head to give away expensive souvenirs.

As someone who never supported the revenue cap, and a strong supporter of Rick Pollitt's, I could never in good conscience advocate a repeal given the recent willingness of county leaders to support the O'Malley tax increase and a lack of willingness to support meaningful fiscal reform. Such reform should include heavy cuts in the administrative budget of the Board of Education and a complete end to foolish spending (i.e. the pens) no matter how small. While I am loathe to advocate additional government spending, perhaps it is time for the County Council to consider the hiring of an internal auditor (which is provided for in the Charter).

cross posted in Delmarva Dealings