Mr. Ulman in the paper

Lots of good stuff regarding some of Ken Ulman’s initiatives and responses to questions at a community forum.  As reported in The Sun.

Widening Rt 29 from Little Patuxent Parkway to Montgomery County.  Great.  I hope congressman Cummings doesn’t disappoint Mr. Ulman and can actually come up with the funding.  However, I hope they don’t stop at the Mongomery County line.  I also hope they can install some traffic calming devices.  This road can be like the Indy 500.

New buses.  I am a proponent of public transportation.  Does anyone know how many people this system actually transports in a year?

Promoting greater use of alternative-fuel vehicles that reduce pollution.   Great.  He has many alternatives here.  I hope he uses them all.

He said “money is not falling from the sky.” A change in federal accounting standards (the GASB isn’t a federal agency so I don’t know why they call this a change in federal standards) for local governments has created a $477 million bill for health benefits for future Howard County government retirees.

Yes this is true and I have written about it before.  However, I have come to believe that the bond rating agencies will give us time as long as they see us continue to make progress.  Given the windfall on property taxes money is falling from the sky.

Edward Walter, 74, of Woodstock asked if the county can’t use methane gas from landfills for fuel, instead of allowing it to be burned off – a suggestion discussed by Republican Christopher J. Merdon during last year’s political campaign.

Ulman said he would like to do that but has been advised by public works officials that not enough gases are produced at the old New Cut Landfill or at Alpha Ridge to make fuel conversion practical.

That is disappointing and contridictory to EPA studies.  I hope Ulman doesn’t drop the idea and gets a third opinion.

Eminent Domain vs. Ground Rent

Two stories, both in the Baltimore Sun, both published on the same day:

Crowd condemns ground rent system and City ‘quick take’ gets review by Md. court.

First the ground rent system has been getting a lot of coverage over the past few weeks and I have not heard anyone speak out in defense of the system. For whatever reason, the issue has caught the media’s attention and that has the lawmakers in Annapolis listening and ready to take quick action:

The meeting came two days before the opening of the 2007 General Assembly session, at which ground rent is expected to be a top legislative issue.

Key lawmakers and Gov.-elect Martin O’Malley’s administration plan to meet hours before the session opens tomorrow to discuss phasing out the arcane ground rent system. O’Malley has vowed to play a central role in reform of the centuries-old law.

Okay. But here’s the quote that caught my eye:

“I’ve been involved in property for 30-something years, and I’ve never seen a case where you could lose your property with no hearing of any kind,” he [Ron Weaver] said – other than through being ejected for nonpayment of ground rent.

Well I guess Mr Weaver has never invested in property that Baltimore (under Mayor O’Malley) wanted. Yesterday, Baltimore City attorneys were defending their favorite method of property seizure, a near-instantaneous version of eminent domain called “quick take” before Maryland’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

The case started when the city seized a bar called The Magnet at 1924 N. Charles St and 20 other properties last year.

The city filed a quick take petition on The Magnet in March, immediately gaining possession of the property without a hearing. (emphasis added)

Valsamaki learned of the seizure in an affidavit reading, “The property … must be in possession of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore at the earliest time in order to assist in a business expansion of the area.” He had 10 days to challenge the seizure, which he did, calling the city’s stated reason for taking his property “patently insufficient.”

So, the city takes property owned for 32 years that was a man and his wife’s livelihood, without a hearing. Well, they must of had a good reason, right? Well, not exactly.

City attorneys argued that without a near-instantaneous version of eminent domain called “quick take,” Baltimore’s urban renewal efforts would wither on the vine. But attorneys for a Charles North bar owner challenged the constitutionality of a process that grants officials immediate ownership of property without having to prove why they need it so urgently or for what specific purpose.

The pointed questions and comments of two Court of Appeals judges conveyed strong skepticism of Baltimore’s redevelopment policy, particularly the wisdom in taking someone’s land first, then figuring out what to do with it later – because the legality of eminent domain centers on taking property only for the public good.

“When the city filed the quick take, it had no clue as to what it intended to do with this piece of property?” Judge Alan M. Wilner asked Baltimore’s attorney, adding later: “You don’t see a constitutional issue here?”

In May, in what land-use officials called the first time the court has blocked a Baltimore quick take seizure, Circuit Court Judge John Philip Miller ruled that city economic development officials failed to show “sufficient grounds” to warrant taking a Charles North bar and package goods shop called The Magnet.

Maybe while Gov-elect O’Malley and those key lawmakers are rushing to “protect homeowners” from ground rent seizures they could also address the the abuse of eminent domain.