Signs: Part 3

A crazy week of work and travel has caused a bit of a blog backlog for me, but I am going to try and catch up this week.

Recently, this blog promised to bring you every bit of news about signs that there was. Wednesday's Capital provided a duo of letters to the editor about roadside signs, including one from the county councilman who reportedly got distracted by a sign and almost got into an accident.

(Speaking of roadside distractions, I was driving back to Maryland from Long Island, NY, via the New Jersey turnpike. Let's just say I'm happy to live in Maryland.)

Andiamo!

I've read the many articles and letters about the sign bill introduced by me and County Councilman Josh Cohen, D-Annapolis. A few things have been under-emphasized in the press coverage and thus overlooked by many readers.

The bill does nothing new.

Hold the phone......

Moving signs are already prohibited under county law.

So what are we doing here?

I swear, if we simply enforced the laws we currently have on the books, it would solve so many problems.

Currently, electronic signs must remain "on a cycle of not less than five seconds", suggesting that during any five-second cycle, the image on an electronic sign may not change (and thus may not move). The bill recently introduced simply clarifies existing law to make it clear to would-be sign purchasers and owners that motion on a sign is prohibited.

I would like to point out how arbitrary this bit of code is. What makes a sign on a 5 second cycle so different from one on a 4 second cycle that one is legal and one is not?

If a government can do something that benefits all parties involved and harms nobody, such an action is called Pareto optimal and should always be undertaken. In most cases, however, governments have to operate in zero-sum games (or negative non-zero sum games)--which basically means that if one person becomes better off, another person becomes worse off. In other words, one interest becomes better off at the expense of another.

In this case, the county has to balance the rights of businesses to make money however they want with the interests of the public. Should the government prohibit bribery? Sure. Should they prohibit signs that move? Does the improvement to society justify the restriction on the businesses' free speech? Is this the best way to solve the problem of bad drivers? Does it even solve the problem in the first place?

It is plain wrong to suggest that the bill is an unconstitutional restraint on speech. The sign bill is not content-based; rather, it is content neutral.

Of course it is restriction on free speech, even if constitutional. They want to do something--to run their business in a certain way--and you are telling them they can't. I don't know what 'content neutral' means; has anyone heard of this?

A bill passes muster if it addresses a substantial government interest and leaves open ample alternative channels of communication. In this case, the government does have a substantial interest in driver safety, and there are plenty of ways to communicate an advertisement other than on a moving electronic sign.

Let's get something straight: the government does not have any interests of its own. Its role is to serve the public interest when the private market cannot. And since when is the test of a bill whether it addresses a problem and encourages communication? A bill passes muster if it is a net benefit to society: that is, if the benefit to society in general outweighs the harm done and additional expense incurred by the bill.

Given the spate of accidents in the last week in Anne Arundel County and the sharp increase in accidents nation-wide owing to driver distraction, it is important that our county focus on driver safety. To that end, readers should expect more legislation coming from my office aimed at minimizing distractions on the road.
County Councilman JAMIE BENOIT, District 4, Odenton

This is just like the argument against the plastic bag bill. I will concede that driver distraction is an issue. But, if you were to go on the gameshow Family Fued, and 100 people were surveyed as to what was the biggest driver distraction, 99 of them would say..........CELL PHONES! (1 person would say roadside memorials are the biggest distraction. Read: foreshadow.) This is obvious. Solve the cell phone problem first, then maybe we can talk about the oh so horrible distractions that are roadside signs.

Let's hear from someone else.

County legislation to limit of ban video board and roadside advertising is but the first step in removing the unnecessary clutter from the side of our roads. The increasing proliferation of roadside memorials is much more intrusive.

Since I have read through this entire letter, I can inform you that the writer is referring to the small, white crosses, perhaps with flowers, that that families and friends put at the sites where they have lost loved ones to traffic accidents. At least that's what I think he's talking about. Let's hear more.

While roadside and video advertising can be justified as providing a service for taxpaying businesses in the community, there is little that can be said, from a societal perspective, to justify these memorials.

First of all, the signs do not provide a service as much as they are the right of the businesses. Second of all, while there may not be much in support of such memorials, there is not much against them either. Does anyone have a problem with these things? Especially if they are maintained, and/or removed after a period of time? Roadside memorials are, like, the 255th most important problem that I am worried about. That portion of the list goes something like this:

254. My rose bush produced fuschia flowers instead of magenta flowers.

255. Roadside memorials.

256. Why is 'colonel' pronounced 'ker-nal'?

Drivers may be interested in a service that is being advertised. But the vast majority of drivers have no interest in the memorial. It is much more a me thing than a we thing.

Although such memorials benefit only a few people, we still have to look at the balance. By aiding in the grieving process, how much do these memorials help the victims' families? A lot. And how much do they harm anyone else? Barely, if at all. Since the victims' families are indeed a part of society, and since the rest of society is unaffected, don't roadside memorials provide a net benefit to society?

I am sympathetic to the loss of those who erect the memorials. But remembrances should be in the privacy of one's home, at the grave site, and in one's heart.

What is worse is that there is an ever-increasing need to make these memorials bigger and more ostentatious.

Another sore point is that these memorials seem to have become permanent fixtures in many spots along public highways, median strips, and front yards. Simple flower arrangements, kept for a short time, would be much more appropriate.

So, if our County Council members are attempting to get rid of roadside eyesores and hazards, they should add these memorials to the list.
ALAN McALLISTER, Severna Park

I have never really seen a person with an 'anti-memorial' policy. I suppose I would support some type of limitations as to the size and neatness of such memorials, but is it such a problem that our elected officials should spend their time and our money legislating it? Probably not.

Mike Christman Is Here To Stay

Over the past month or so, some rumors have been circulating about the possible departure of the Honorable Alderman from the 2nd Ward, Mike Christman. The central committee, of which I am a member, would typically know if such an event were to occur, and after putting the issue to our chariman, I think it is safe to say that the rumors were just that, rumors.

Kudos to Scott Bowling, a former aldermanic candidate in Ward 3, for keeping up with the issue. Check out his take here. He is right on target, and since free time is becoming more and more scarce for myself, I will happily defer to his commentary.

Press Release: Recent Homicide

The Moyer administration issued a press release praising the involvement of the Bay Ridge Gardens community in conferring justice on the perpetrators of recent homicides in that community. So say they:

Annapolis Police Chief Joseph Johnson has high praise for the Bay Ridge Gardens Resident Council Association and Management Team for working closely with the Annapolis Police Department.

"They are directly responsible for the quick arrests made in the two latest homicides in Annapolis," said the Chief.

Perhaps more interestingly, the press release goes on to characterize the general conditions of crime as it relates to public housing in the city:

"A review of recent crime statistics indicates that 4 of the 6 homicides that have occurred in the City during 2007 happened on or near public housing. Many secondary and regular duty police officers responded to these incidents. The large number of officers working in and around public housing has resulted in a decrease in violent crimes on those properties. Both the victim and the suspect the latest homicide had previously been arrested for drug offenses and were banned from public housing properties. However, criminals from those areas are spilling into surrounding areas and Bay Ridge Gardens seems to be one of the communities being affected."

It should be pointed out that of the 6 homicides, 3 occurred on or near HACA properties and 3 on or near federally subsidized housing.

So what does this mean? Well, a case alleging mismanagement by HACA would be weak, for starters. For finishers, it is important to look at the demographics. For any subsidized housing, there appears a disproportionately high amount of drug and violent crimes, and importantly, many crimes are committed by people who don't live in Annapolis.

AP has not yet been able to follow up on the recent attempts to hire more officers, but at any rate, we should still beat the drum for community patrols.

Triathlon

I was reminded by an email from the city that the often maligned triathlon was to take place yesterday. The email was actually a traffic advisory, and cautioned:

Portions of the land routes go through downtown Annapolis and the area of the Navy Marine Corp Stadium. It is not anticipated that any roads or egresses will at any time be shut down completely, but there may be brief delays and re-directions of traffic as participants pass by certain points. Traffic is expected to be heavy due to the Triathlon,along with normal weekend visitor traffic.

You don't send out a traffic advisory for a "brief delay", you send it out for a day-changing traffic phenomenon, and that is what I envisioned would happen. AP had neither the time, nor the disposition, to go anywhere near downtown yesterday. But I imagined there were citizens with horror stories. And just as I was writing this post, I was vindicated by an emailer, who, despite my best creative writing efforts, probably says it better than I ever could:

(Note: anonymous source. Possible, though unlikely, credibility concerns.)

Never in my 59 years in this city.

Not from Boat Shows, Stadium events, nothing compares to this. On Sunday, Sept 9th, 2007 8:15 A.M. I innocently pulled out of Dubois Road at North Bestgate and took a right to go to Caffe Pronto at "Festival at Riva" what should have been (including the stop in the coffee shop) a 15 minute round trip; (Bestgate to Medical Parkway, to West Street to Riva Road to Festival shopping center).

When I got as far as the Bestgate / North Bestgate intersection there was traffic already backing up and I assumed an accident, (a frequent occurrence at that stoplight). As I turned onto westbound Bestgate I realized that some portion of the Triathlon was being held on the road. I had no convenient way to turn around so I decided to press on.

Within a block, traffic (now confined to an outside lane in each direction) slowed to a crawl. As I would be stopped next to a County Police officer, I would inquire of what was going on and for how long. The first officer I talked to said "they've known about this thing now for 3 years and haven't done any planning. We were told a couple of days ago what our assignments were ... I'd rather be in church with my family -sigh-". The shopkeepers on Bestgate were sitting on the curbs with their parking lots empty. The only traffic that could get to them were the unfortunates who happened to be on their side of the road, The Westfield Mall was a ghost town, the number of cars burning gas in stalled traffic for this 'charity' event had to number in the thousands. Since this was hailed as an 'inaugural' event one could assume they intend to repeat it. I suspect that if all of the business's that lost money, and all of the residents that got blocked from returning to their homes could be contacted with the threat of a repeat performance? That the charitable contributions would be far exceeded out of sheer fear of experiencing it again. I got no less than three different and conflicting stories as to turn possibilities from three different County Officers in the length of Bestgate road. While I was trapped on Bestgate for an hour? My wife went up on the Triathlon website which proclaimed 'minimal delays' on Bestgate road.

An SUV in front of me three cars up decided he had to bail out and do a "U" turn in the absence of cyclists impeding his turn. One of the ersatz rah rah cheerleader types started screaming at him "no! No!" and shaking his fist whilst he leaned over to get the guy's tag number. By this time I concluded a detour down Admiral drive to Jennifer road was the only sane alternative ... after all I could see some cars making the left turn there. After 30 minutes for less than a mile, I was ready to bail out myself. Imagine my surprise when I got to the intersection and was waved through and forbidden to take the left. This was compounded by being forbidden to take a left on Medical Parkway, or at any of the Mall entrances as well. I asked another officer where I would be able to turn around and he told me "at West Street / Generals Highway". Wasn't I shocked when in fact I was not permitted to go left in front of the Mall, nor was I allowed to go straight across to Housley road but forced to go right out General's Highway towards Crownsville, Millersville, ... all the way to Honeysuckle Lane at the Golf Course where an officer capriciously was letting some of us turn. I should point out that my neighbor, caught in the same traffic funnel was NOT permitted to turn there and in fact had to go out to rt. 97 in Millersville to escape.

I then went left from Honeysuckle lane to Crownsville road past the Renaissance Festival to a left on Defense highway where I made it with no more problems to Festival at Riva. I concluded that I'd better not try returning on Bestgate so I went down to the new circle and took Taylor avenue, figuring to be beyond the fracas at that point.and in fact I saw the cyclist pulling into the stadium entrance. To my relief I headed out Taylor to the Rowe intersection, figuring to go beyond Rowe and go the back way home through West Annapolis. To my horror I was flagged at Rowe blvd., to go in towards the city and forbidden to go towards West Annapolis. In front of the Courthouse complex I pulled off beside an APD officer and asking him how I was going to get to West Annapolis. His suggestion was that I 'pull off over in town and park and wait for it to be over'. When I got to the Arundel Center I was flagged again to the right so I decided to go back down West Street to the top of the stadium and wend my way home through Admiral Heights to Admiral drive. I was told by City Officers that I could not take a left at the head of the stadium so I did a "U" turn and went back out to West Street outbound and went to Admiral Drive from there.

By the time I got to Admiral, the traffic had begun to move and only as small number of cyclists were in evidence.but when I approached the North Bestgate turn where I started? The Triathlon 'officials' were trying to wave me into town on Rowe. I slowed up more and told the individual that I had been trying to get home from most of three hours now and I had medication two blocks away that I had to take an hour before now. She stammered and said 'oh well tell the policeman that up there' (at the intersection of North Bestgate). Fortunately I didn't have to because the County Officer (unlike the Triathlon herder who would have been perfectly happy to see me go back into town) allowed me to take my left onto North Bestgate and get home.

This an an awful story. I have about as much patience as a 2-year old when you take his pacifier away, and I can't imagine how I would have reacted if I were in a similar situation.

Remember, folks, the city originally wanted to sell the right for this triathlon to take place for...get ready....$1. I hope the athletes had a good time.

Where to Eat

My girlfriend, a.k.a. Mrs. Politics, has a huge family--her mother is one of 16 children and 14 of them, along with the matriarch, live within 35 miles of here. Today her mother needed to buy a gift for someone, and asked me for good restaurants where she could buy gift certificates.

It struck me that many people could use a list of good restaurants: gift-givers, first-daters, and lobbyists looking to buy influence from politicians.

(Note to lobbyists, Ward 5 cannot be bought!!!)

So here it is, the list of the top 5 restaurants in Annapolis:

1. Les Folie
2. Severn Inn
3. Jalapenos
4. Wild Orchid
5. Lewnes
6. Sam's Waterfront Cafe

A Healthy Debate

I must admit, that although this blog generally purports to cover local issues, it sometimes ventures in to other realms of discussion. Capital Punishment, which does a very good job in staying local and is the only other blog that I know of that covers Annapolis city issues, has offered some comments regarding posts that I have made. This is exiting to me, and hopefully is to you also, because now I can post some comments on the previous comments, and before you know it we've got interested people debating how to make the city better (rather than blaming various people for various things in press releases)!!

To begin, CP wonders what if any good a low interest rate on bonds is for we citizens. He is referring to a 4.27% interest rate that the city recently got on some $29 million in bonds:

This sounds like great news, and CP is sure every homeowner can appreciate what a good rate such as this means, but not being an economist, it is very hard to say how this translates into solid benefits for taxpayers. CP inquired of Mr. Weaver in his role as PIO, but was told to contact the Finance Director for such details. Perhaps staff reporters at newspapers, or maybe even ERIC SMITH, can take the time to delve into this, but CP thinks it is incumbent upon our own government to explain this is real terms to real people. What standard ratios are used in small cities to determine solvency and debt ratios? Will this mean our budget growth is slowed? How many dollars per year does it save over having a higher rate?

As a degree-holding amateur economist, and as an amateur participant in the city's budget process, I will try and offer some understanding to the process.

Bonds are issued for capital projects---big ones, like rebuilding a parking garage or building the outer west street gateway. The city doesn't pay for these right away, and they are not paid for out of the general fund. When the city council approves a capital expenditure, the finance director basically plans that he will need this money eventually, and when the time comes, he issues bonds in the private market, at the market rate. For more on the bond process, click here.

So how does this affect taxpayers? Well, our property taxes go to the city's general fund, and a portion of the general fund goes to debt service. Just like we pay money every month for our credit cards, the city pays money every month (or year) for bonds. The bonds are money that the city borrows on credit, just like our credit cards. And just like our credit cards, if the interest rate is lower, the debt service that the city has to pay is lower.

As far as the standard ratios used to determine a municipality's solvency, its what you might expect. Property tax base, a good amount of debt in relation to annual taxes, and willingness by the city council to impose taxes even if they are unpopular are all some things used. As far as the benchmark statistics, I don't know, but the city is doing well here because we have the second best bond rating possible.

Most importantly, this absolutely does not mean that the rate of our budget growth will slow. Debt service is about 4% of the operating budget--around $3 million per year. (I couldn't look up the exact number because the PDF file on the city's web site was messed up.) Eliminating debt service completely would help, but paying a 4.27% interest rate as opposed to a 4.4% interest rate doesn't help much. For a $10 million bond amortized over 10 years, a 4.27% interest rate as opposed to a 4.4% rate would save the taxpayers about $74,850--over 10 years*. I would guess that if the city were to re-finance every penny of outstanding debt we had at the best rate ever--like the rate, say, Microsoft gets--we might be talking about saving $100,000 per year, or .1% of the annual budget.

(*I used an online mortgage calculator to figure this out. There are probably nuances that differentiate mortgage lending with bond financing, but I am confident that these numbers make my point just as well.)

A way more important factor is the city council and mayor spending so much money! If they didn't spend as much, we wouldn't have to issue as many bonds and we could really save some money.

So I guess this first part wasn't really a debate with CP as much as some general info on the subject.

Moving on, CP had this to say about one of my recent posts:

CP must respectfully disagree with AP. The R party is not a party of ideas, but like all parties, is a party with some ideas, but in the case of the R's, most of them are bad. For example, invading Iraq. Would that be under the good idea list or the bad idea list?

How about privatizing social security. Hmmm....social? private? social? private? Well, which one?

As for this supposed R belief in lack of governmental control wherever possible, that always seems to end when someone wants to, say for example, smoke a joint, or when a man wants to have sex with a man, or when an unmarried man and woman have sex, or when anyone wants to do anything in their bedroom or what an R thinks is immoral, etc., etc.....

And let's not forget that it was President Bill Clinton himself who said, "the era of big government is over" (not that we actually believed it, but he did bring the deficit to almost ZERO) while Dubya himself has presided over the largest military and bureaucratic expansion in history and raised our deficit to astronomic levels. Oh--and Bush did all this with R's running Congress. And finally, do you feel that our bigger and bigger government under all these years of R domination has led to more or to less governmental control in our lives???

Well, I will of course concede the the GOP does not have a monopoly on ideas, but the bigger point that I want to make is that we (at least I) would prefer to debate on ideas, and ideas only.

Take Martin O'Malley. By most accounts, his record as a public servant did not merit his election to governor--based on ideas, he was not the best candidate. Using the platform "I am a Democrat, GW Bush is a Republican, Ehrlich is a Republican", O'Malley won. Many politicians, admittedly R's also, refuse to talk about ideas and have these nonsense talking points that accomplish nothing.

Now take the state budget debate as an example. The governor is prepping us for a huge tax increase. The Republicans complained, but also came up with THEIR OWN IDEA for how to solve the problem without raising taxes. Does this matter to the Democrats in Maryland? We will see soon enough, but my guess is no.

Unfortunately the Republican party has been parting ways with some of its principles. However, using the same lesser of two evils argument that CP uses, the Republican party is clearly the party more likely to favor reduced government and individual responsibility. And while this may not be the fundamental Republican ideology, it certainly is the defining characteristic of conservative ideology, which is precisely the claim I made.

As for CP's contention that Republicans are not the 'stay out of your life' party because of ethical dictum on social issues, he is slightly off of my point. So said I:

The problem is: the social issues that the right of our party espouse in no way define a conservative, or a Republican. And if our party narrows the scope of our appeal, we have no chance in this state.

So let me repeat, moral superiority is not the platform of the Republican party. There is no way around the fact that all governments must make some social policies based on value judgements and morals held by individuals. Many such morals are based on religion, and in aknowledgement of the numerous world-wide discrepancies concerning what is right and wrong, a definition of one's political philosophy cannot be determined by his/her interpretation of moral correctness.

In other words, my views on many social issues are determined by my religion, and not by my political ideology. So yes, value judgements made by some Republicans may equate to restrictions of choice for some people. But in general, Democrats want way more controls on everything, which makes the Republican party the party of individual freedom, even if not perfectly so.

And lastly, a quick round-up of the national issues mentioned:
-Iraq: perhaps, repeat perhaps, a bad decision in hindsight, decision was made on best available info, can't surrender now.
-Social security: there is nothing "social" about a pay-as-you-go system that takes your money and gives it to someone else. You should not be forced to give your money to the government so they can promise to administer your retirement plan, then spend the money whatever they want.
-The Bush/Clinton deficit comparison is invalid because there is always a deficit in wartime.

I applaud CP, as he actually admitted that he does not hate either party, which many people cannot do. And as long as we debate in the realm of ideas (like me, the Republican!), we will be better off for it.

The Right to Not Vote?

(Disclaimer: The following post deals partially in the realm of fantasy.)

The city of Annapolis has elections in off years: the last general election was in 2005 and the next is in 2009. As it were, this situation causes horribly low turnout in city-wide elections. In the special elections this past January, turnout was somewhere in the 25-30% range, and it doesn't get much better for ordinary city elections.

The city Republican Central Committee has spent much time trying to figure out what it takes to get people interested anymore. Most quality of life issues for Annapolis citizens are directed by the city government: police, fire, trash, water, and property taxes to name a few. Why don't people care---are they too busy? Do they think city politics don't affect them? Maybe the answer is less complicated than perhaps we anticipate, but the lack of general citizenry participation in elections is as baffling as the Sportscenter series "Who's Now?" on ESPN.

(Note to readers: ESPN tells us that Tiger Woods is the athlete that is the most "now".)

To fix this problem, some have suggested moving the city elections to align with national elections. This makes perfect sense to AP, which is precisely why AP thinks that it will never happen.

So, allow me to offer an alternative solution. Pursuant to the "follow the money" line of reasoning, I propose that people who don't vote in any given election have to pay double the property and income taxes in comparison to those who voted. They would pay this "penalty rate" until the next time they voted. You don't have to vote for a candidate if you don't want to--if you think they all stink equally you can show up and vote for nobody. Every person would be given a certain amount of exceptions to accommodate for real emergencies, with younger people getting more total exceptions because they have more elections upcoming in their lifetime. You can use your exceptions whenever you want, but use them wisely!! If you cry wolf by using an exception when you don't need one, you cannot use it at a later date!

Normally I would be opposed to such gross inequity, but all one has to do to avoid such a penalty is vote ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS--something that we should be doing anyway as citizens.

This would also force government to be frugal, as they wouldn't know how much money they were getting.

The right to free political speech, as expressed by voting, is a fundamental component of freedom. The voters who recognize this are massively frustrated by others who just don't care to vote for whatever reason, as the true will of the people can sometimes go unrepresented. This outrageous proposal that I have just offered would solve the problem, and if it didn't, at least those of us who vote could pay very little taxes because those who didn't vote would bear the bulk of the burden.

As I said in a recent post, the Republican party is the party of ideas!

AA County GOP

(Crossposted)

Last night the Anne Arundel County Republican Central Committee has its first meeting since it became known that there was a movement to oust Chairman Mike Collins. AP was in attendance—partly because he felt a duty to this blog, partly because he felt a duty to the Annapolis Central Committee, and partly because Shawshank Redemption was actually not being shown on TNT.

(AP has no reservations in publicizing these proceedings, because the CC itself made this public in the way the handled it. You will be able to read most of this, although with slightly less excellent insight, in the newspapers.)

The first thing one noticed was the heavy attendance. Reporters from The Capital, The Sun, and The Examiner were all there. So were the bloggers: this guy, this guy, this guy, and of course, this guy. So what happened? For the first 37 minutes, there was an embarrassing, politically motivated back and forth with both sides trying procedural tricks. After consulting with legal counsel and the State Republican Party Parliamentarian, Mr. Collins begrudgingly accepted a motion to change the agenda, and removal of the chairman entered debate.

Enter Debbie Belcher—the same Debbie Belcher that said a meeting to remove chairman Collins was unnecessary because the decision had already been made! There were 5 people on the agenda to speak, and custom dictates that the people on the agenda receive 5 minutes to speak and those not on the agenda get 3 minutes to speak. Mrs. Belcher quickly made a motion to limit all testimony to 1 minute! Attention Mrs. Belcher: we are the party of ideas, of dissenting opinions, and of inclusion. We do not need this—what are you thinking??

Every person who gave testimony opposed Mr. Collins’ removal. The themes of the testimony were basically the same: to remove a chairman for anything less than gross malfeasance sets a terrible precedent, and would destroy many years of hard work made by the people in the room. When speakers demanded a list of injustices perpetrated by Mr. Collins, here is the best they could come up with:

-We don’t like his leadership style.
-The name on the checkbook was not transferred quickly enough to the new officers.
-Sub-committees were not formed quickly enough.
-Mr. Collins sometimes interrupted people while they were speaking.

Even if there were good reasons to remove Mr. Collins—which is debated—we will never know. Do the above reasons sound like grounds for removal? For throwing the party into upheaval? For better or for worse, we did not get the whole story last night. Perhaps the committee members were acting in the party’s best interest by not airing all the dirty laundry in the presence of reporters. But somehow AP doubts this. A major allegation of the ‘overthrowers’ was that Mr. Collins bashed the state party at various club speeches. Mr. Collins denies this, but what is the truth? Every club in the county that Mr. Collins could possibly have spoken at was represented last night, but nobody spoke up. If he bashed the state party, these people would know—but they said nothing. At any rate, all of the clubs supported Mr. Collins, so it is reasonable to assume that he did not bash the party, otherwise the clubs would have different testimony.

The committee members paid absolutely no attention to the testimony of the people. They said “thank you for coming” and promptly voted the opposite of how literally every single person testified they should vote. The vote carried with a super majority, and Mr. Collins is no longer the chairman.

To some observers, this move amounted to a power play—an attempt by people who want to run for a higher office to get their ducks in a row. Mr. Collins is decidedly more moderate than the people who conspired to remove him. The problem is: the social issues that the right of our party espouse in no way define a conservative, or a Republican. And if our party narrows the scope of our appeal, we have no chance in this state.

Republicans debate in the realm of ideas. We believe in individual responsibility and lack of government control whenever possible. The entirety of conservative ideology stems from here. AP fears that this charade will remove focus from the real meaning of being a Republican at a time when we can least afford it. Furthermore, I think that things will get worse before they get better. The two sides didn’t air all of their grievances last night, and we were left with the instructions “if anybody wants to know what really happened, I will be happy to answer questions afterwards, as this information was not factually correct.” If past history is any indicator, we will find out the facts in a public forum, and a mountain will be made out of what should have been a mole hill.

Could Foot Patrols Have Prevented Murder?

A main argument for filling the vacancies in the police department goes like this:

-More officers = more foot patrols in neighborhoods.
-More neighborhood policing = officers knowing who lives in said communities.
-Knowing the residents of a neighborhood = better identification of unwanted outsiders.

As reported, both the shooter and victim in Annapolis' most recent homicide lived outside of the community where it took place:

It was the third shooting there since July - and all of them involved people from outside the neighborhood.

So, what do the residents think?

"In all these shootings we've been having, the people don't live here. We're sick of it," said Carol Dessasau, president of the tenant council.

She said the complex has a 10 p.m. curfew and private security officers. She wouldn't mind requiring ID cards and car stickers to identify legitimate residents. Checking identification after hours could screen outsiders and prevent unwanted visitors, she said.

She'd also like more police patrols and to start up a neighborhood watch.

And what does the mayor think?

The Annapolis Police Department currently maintains a ratio of 3 officers per 1000 residents. The national average is 1 officer per 1000 residents.

As someone once said: "We report, you decide."

Clean-up Effort in Ward 8?

I simply could not resist! As reported:

Two people were caught trying to steal toilet paper early Saturday out of a bathroom at the Horn Point Harbor Marina in Eastport.

Shortly before 6 a.m., a man nearby spotted the two potential thieves trying to make off with the toilet paper and told them to drop the rolls, according to a police report.

The suspects dropped them and left, and the man reported the incident to police.

As an outsider looking in to the happenings of the Maritime Republic of Eastport, one can understand why demand for toilet paper might be high!