Violent Crimes Down

This was a press release from the city. Normally I would accompany this city propaganda with some of my own, but as it is I am on a zero-expense-paid vacation in Spain and I'm lucky to have this time on the internet. Quicky, I did notice a correlation betwen the new police chief, with new policies, and this reduction in crime:

Crimes Statistics Show Significant Drop In Violent Reported Crimes

The Annapolis Police Department is releasing the Crime Statistics
for the period of January 1st, 2008, through June 30th, 2008. As compared to the
same time period of 2007, the number of violent crimes is lower in 2008. Total
reported Violent crimes for the period in 2007 were 231, while there were 190 in
2008, a reduction of 17.75%. Shootings are down 25% from 15 to 12. While
both years saw 6 Homicides, in 2008 we had the happenstance of five within the
first three months of the year, but, only one in the next three months, and none
since May. Robberies are down from 101 in 2007 to 79 in 2008, and Aggravated
Assaults are down from 123 in 2007 to 100 in 2008. The statistics are part of
those compiled during the course of our participation in the Uniform Crime
Reporting System as reported to the FBI.

Even more significant is
that the reductions seem to be at an accelerated pace since April of 2008 -
perhaps not coincidentally when a number of tactical and strategic changes
were implemented. For example, violent crime dropped from 137 to 88 ( -35.77%) when comparing the second quarters of 2008 to 2007. Robberies dropped
from 55 to 35, and Aggravated Assaults from 77 to 50.

This success is attributable to many factors, not the least of which are new
initiatives brought about by leadership and carried out by the fine officers of
the Annapolis Police Department. It is important to note that none of the
initiatives would work without the full support of the officers on the street,
which has been outstanding.

The new strategies include:

*Senior Commanders assigned to street duty during periods of peak criminal activity. *Emphasis of intelligence gathering and targeting of the most
frequent and likely offenders.
*Creation of a street enforcement unit,
combining K-9, Drug Enforcement, Intelligence, Traffic and
foot patrol teams with senior, direct supervision.
*More efficient use of the overlap hours of 10 PM to 2 AM, when two shifts are on -
duty.
*Supplementing of Downtown Foot Patrol with officers assigned to
administrative duties
*Increased use of technology such as roll call
briefings backed up by video of wanted persons or known
criminals.
*Increased emphasis on the serving of existing warrants.

Through the reduction in violent crime, it is clear that these and
many other things are making it much more difficult for the criminals. Another
key factor is the increased cooperation from the public, as demonstrated by more
and more calls and tips from the citizens concerning criminal activity. The
police and public each energize the other, and results by one serve to encourage
more effort by the other.

We hope to continue this very positive trend for the remainder of this year and beyond.

"Working" Together In Ward 3

The Capital today has an article about the grand opening of the Mt. Olive A.M.E. church community center, entitled "An Example of Working Together". How sweet. Sadly, I fear that 'working' might not be the proper term for the arrangement.

The article says that the developer of Parole Town Center pledged $2 million to the church to get the project going. I thought to myself "self, developers are shrewd people. The left sides of their brains are Intel processors, and their bones are made out of recycled granite counter tops. Why would a developer give that kind of dinero to a church?"

Next, I went to the grocery store. But after that, I though to myself "self, what about this Mt. Olive Church? Does it have anything to do with politics?" Yes!! If I've learned anything from this blogging racket, it's that Mt. Olive is the unofficial church of Ward 3, and Ward 3 Alderman Classie Hoyle.

The best I can figure, there is a love triangle out in parole that involves the Parole Center, Mt. Olive Church, and the Honorable Alderman Hoyle. Here are some of the facts:

1. Mt. Olive becomes the unofficial church of Alderman Hoyle. I don't know exactly how this happened, but Alderman Hoyle is the chairman of the Mt. Olive Community Development Corporation, and the church's reverend (Johnny Calhoun) did give a modest donation to the Hoyle campaign for county council.

2. The Parole Town Center Development is in the planning phases, and seeks the blessing of the Ward 3 Alderman, even though it is outside of city limits. A business named "Parole Service Inc" gives $500 to the Hoyle campaign, presumably with an expectation that the development will go forward and that businesses' value will be propped up. The development corporation ponies up $1000 for good measure.

3. Alderman Hoyle begins a persistent string of political favors on behalf of Mt. Olive. First, she moved to change the Moderately Priced Development Unit (MPDU) Program to allow non-profits to buy the properties--rumor has it that she wanted Mt. Olive to be a landlord for these dwellings. Next, Hoyle introduced and passed R-14-08, making a certain area of Parole (including Mt. Olive!) a "designated area". As "luck" would have it, designated areas can receive funding from the state, but first need the blessing of the municipality. So, in due course, Hoyle introduced and passed R-15-08, which gives such a blessing. None of the other businesses in the designated area received a similar resolution.

The whole mess smells fishy, but there are questions that still remain. Why is Alderman Hoyle so loyal to Mt. Olive? And why do the Parole developers feel the need to donate to the Hoyle campaign and give such a big pledge to her pet church?

Rules Are Rules....Unless You Don't Want To Follow Them

So, a while ago I posted the campaign finance reports that were due July 1st of this year. Silly bloggers like me over analyzed what the reports meant, and there was some interesting email chatter. Everyone who raised or spent money, or had balances in their campaign accounts, reported their dealings. Everyone except Sam Shropshire.

Rather than filing a report, Alderman Sam filed a letter explaining why he didn't file a report. Apparently, his house was flooded on May 13th, preventing him from accessing records. In his letter, he advised that everything should be back to normal shortly, and that we could expect a report to be filed by the end of July. The other day, a friend of mine called to remind me about this. He said he talked to the city clerk, and that as of a couple of days ago, no report had been received from the Honorable Alderman.

(Post Intermission: While we are on the topic of Alderman Sam, allow me to recommend watching the city council meeting on television. Alderman Sam, each and every meeting, looks up at the camera and addresses his loyal subjects, literally saying on the record "For all of you watching on television, rest assured that I am working for you". It's a surreal experience.)

A few questions come to mind:

1. Why does the treasurer not have these records?

2. Why did it take 5 weeks for the "piecing together of records" to get started?

3. Why is there still no report, a month after it was due and almost 3 month after the flood.

4. Why, in the name of at least trying to satisfy the laws which he is sworn to uphold, did Alderman Sam not go to the bank and report how much money is in the account?

Is this upsetting? Yes. Is this inappropriate? About as inappropriate as I was in 7th grade when my first girlfriend ever called me to talk, and within 3o seconds I asked "so why did you call me". But, at the end of the day this matter per se does not matter all that much. Would the other candidates like to know how much money he has? Of course, but it wouldn't change that much for the average person.

The underlying issue is more troubling. The city--specifically the Moyer administration--has a history of following rules selectively, if at all.

Example 1: The Mayor, in a work session, advocated implementing the sidewalk tax even though an advisory opinion from the attorney general deemed it unconstitutional.

Example 2: When the city was sued by police and fire retirees, it lost a statute of limitations argument, then was told in March by the courts exactly how much it had to pay, but still has not paid.

Example 3: In cases where rules must be followed, this administration simply changed the rules. Political appointments are to be expected. But, Mayor Moyer changed the charter to create a new department, which she promptly staffed with a friendly who now makes $100,000+.

Example 4: When the Mayor fired former public works director John Patmore (because Patmore brought up valid concerns that city resources would be stretched for the triathlon), the Mayor replaced him with City Administrator Bob Agee, ignoring the requirement in the code that the DPW Director had to have an engineering degree.

There are other things that I'm certain are against the rules, but I just can't find the rule. Aldermen spend their "education" budgets to travel to sister cities, and Mayoral Candidate Chuck Weikel gets free advertising through the Annapolis 300 program--to name 2.

(Post Intermission II: Isn't it Annapolis 301 by now? Heck, when the Annapolis 300 program began, Mrs. Politics had not even given me her phone number.)

Following minor rules is important because it forecasts how strictly you will follow the important rules. The uncertainty for Annapolitans is which rule will be broken next.

Kunta Kinte Festival

After suffering the ultimate embarrassment last post by initially stating that a bill had passed when it really failed, I phoned the city clerk to verify the passage of O-24-08 on Monday night, an ordinance that authorized the lease of the city dock for the 2008 Kunta Kinte Festival.

The public hearing for the bill was the same night as the final vote, which means that the bill's passage was a foregone circumstance. Somebody decided that it was necessary, and I promise you that anything short of a riot would not have prevented this bill from passing. You will have to believe me when I tell you this, but the use of the dock was advertised on the festival's web site before this lease was even proposed.

The theme of this post is "Downtown businesses get screwed because the Kunta Kinte Festival needs money". The festival is to take place between 11 am and 7 pm on Saturday September 27, which are probably the busiest 8 tourist hours of the entire year for downtown Annapolis. The Festival will occupy the Dock from the visitor center down to the water, as well as the seating area where the dinghies are docked and the seating area next to the market house. The cost of renting these spaces: $1. At least the Festival has to pay for the fire, police, and public works, right? Only if they make enough money! The lease reads:

...that Lessee shall assume any and all financial responsibility for any such
other services that may be required by Lessor. However, if the Director of
Finance is satisfied that the payment of charges would result in expenses
exceeding revenue the Director shall waive such part of the charges as may be
necessary to prevent expenses exceeding revenue for the event.

For any of you familiar with business, or life, you will know that this sweetheart lease does not exist. In fact, Mrs. Politics asked to move in with me and I told her I would need 3 months' rent up front.

So, is the Festival going to make money? No. The 2006 event was short about a quarter of its $90,000 cost for the event. How the event costs $90,000 is beyond me, as they charge an admission fee as well as fees in the hundreds of dollars for both vendors and exhibitors.

I've never been to the Kunta Kinte Festival. I'm sure it's a good time. I'm sure it's educational. The trade off is that the city has to subsidize the event, and local business suffer heavily on what would otherwise be one of their busiest days of the year, as downtown patrons eat food from outside vendors and take up the space that would be utilized by businesses downtown. If downtown businesses want to compete, they must submit an application to be a vendor and shell out $500 to sell food where they are already allowed to sell food. Does the trade off sound worth it to you?

The Future of Sidewalks

Alright, as promised here is the latest and greatest info regarding the notorious 2008 sidewalk tax. I originally made this post at 3:30 this morning, and by the time I opened my computer again at 8:30, I had 2 emails saying I got it wrong! I left the city council meeting early and failed to verify what went down. Purely amateur blogging. I have since corrected my errors, and here we are.

As you know, the city council last October enacted a $25 tax on each resident in the city in exchange for the city doing general maintenance on sidewalks, taking the burden away from property owners. The tax was set to raise $500,000, but generate over $17 million in liability! Even if the city council didn't know those exact numbers, they certainly knew that they were drawing the short stick in that deal. So why do it? Well, my guess is to set a precedent. There is a ton of property in this city that is property-tax exempt for one reason or another, and this sidewalk tax would have avoided that by taxing everyone. If you set a precedent by taxing everyone $25, it's a lot easier in the future when you want to hit everyone up for $1000.

The public and the media largely ignored this issue until residents began receiving their bills for $25 a couple of months ago. People without sidewalks realized that they were being charged for sidewalks. Others were concerned with the city taking on so much liability. The city council began to hold hearings on the matter, and the tide began to turn towards repealing the tax. As if that weren't enough, the tax was unconstitutional, and word came from the Attorney General's office that the tax wouldn't pass muster.

Alarmingly, the issue didn't die there. In a recent work session, Mayor Moyer asserted that the unconstitutionality of the tax was only established in an advisory opinion--rather than case law--implying that she was willing to run with the tax until the city actually got sued and the tax could be invalidated in a more formal manner!

This brings us to Monday's city council meeting. The council considered O-21-08, which would have repealed the tax. But, that's not all it did. The bill went on to define the process by which sidewalks are to be repaired from now on:

-private property owners are responsible for sidewalk maintenance and upkeep.

-the director of public works, at his subjective whim, can determine that a sidewalk is "necessary for public convenience and safety", and compel a person to fix or install a sidewalk.

-after being notified, a person has 20 days to obtain a building permit and make the repairs. Or, they can file an appeal which must be done no later than 30 days after notification.

-design specifications for the sidewalk must be approved by the director of public works in accordance with standards that he designs.

-a 'Sidewalk Assistance Revolving Fund' is to be established, funded with 5% of the city's allocation of the State Highway User Fee.

That bill was better than the $25 tax, but not by much, and it failed. What did pass was R-34-08, a bill which suspends collection of the $25 tax but leaves the original O-12-07 intact. More importantly, it enumerates a laundry list of nearly 20 things that the city must due in regard to sidewalks--things that should have been considered before O-12 was enacted in the first place.

The result is as follows. Property owners are still responsible for first-time installation of sidewalks, but the city is on the hook for repairs. This is halfway to the solution that makes sense to me, which is to have the city be responsible for it all and pay for it out of normal funds. Speaking of funding, R-34 is not good. While it repeals the fee, it leaves the provision requiring a Sidewalk Fund. So, there is a mandatory fund without a source of funding, and mandatory spending without a source of funding = structural deficit. This is easily resolved by removing the fund and creating a capital program for sidewalks, but the fact is R-34 does not do this.

So in summary:
1. no more $25 tax
2. city taking more liability for sidewalk maintenance
3. no established funding source for said maintenance
4. further study needed

City Council Meeting, 7/28

Ok, it’s the fourth Monday of the month, which brings us here, to the public hearing for the citizens of Annapolis. You might remember that during the legislative meeting, citizens can speak about whatever they want, whereas here at the public hearing, you are limited to speak only on the bill you sign up for, and only when called upon. Make sense?

(Column intermission: halfway through writing the above paragraph, my attention was diverted to Alderman Finlayson, who opened the meeting by announcing that she went to one of our sister cities in Canada, where she toured a graveyard and learned about someone who started a business with a wheelbarrow. All thoughts immediately vacated my head, and I envisioned myself sipping sherry, dreaming of a time where I can watch 37 consecutive hours of Home and Garden Television, hi-def, and riding in a wheelbarrow.)

I wasn't really in the mood to stay long at the meeting tonight, so I didn't. There is one transportation/zoning/property related bill that was heard, which I have listed below. Everything else dealt with either the Kunta Kinte Festival or the Sidewalk Tax.

Public Hearings:
O:11-08: Prohibiting parking on Unpaved Services
People against: Tony Evans, Chris Ladue,

People for: Alderman Shropshire, Alderman Stankivic

Arguments For: cars on grass are ugly, neighbors complain. Cars destroy grass and cause runoff to surrounding creeks. Overcrowding needs to be addressed.

Arguments Against: This is a custom penalty ordinance. Let people park on their property if they own it. This encourages paving and the creation of impervious surfaces. The bill intends to limit car ownership and therefore rights of property owners. Laws exist to address the problems that this bill intends to address. Also, this is big brother extending his reach even farther.

O-21-08: Changes to Sidewalk Tax:
This one is confusing…I’ll sort it out in a full post devoted to the issue. Maybe.

O-24-08: Lease of City Dock For Kunta Kinte Festival
Also gets it own post.

There were several legislative items put on the agenda for first reader for fast track passage sometime in the future. There were also the items which recieved final votes: the sidewalk tax bill(s) and the Kunta Kinte Festival approval. (FYI both aforementioned issues went before public hearing only today—they voted on them at the same meeting.) See the future posts for details.

Fox For Mayor

So, as you may know I am the campaign manager for Chris Fox, who is running for Mayor this cycle. I am not going to use this blog to campaign because these are my opinions and not Chris' opinions.

That being said, I am going to publicize his web site right now because (1) I want him to win and (2) I designed the website from scratch, and I am proud that it functions. I previously knew nothing about web design, and now I know 1% of everything there is to know about the web design, which makes me a web design expert.

The site is foxformayor.com, and you can certainly make donations*. But remember, my thoughts are on this site, and Chris' thoughts are on his site.

(*subtle hint)

City Taking Steps To Affect Structural Budget

The original title of this post was to include the word "problem" at the end, but then I realized that there wouldn't be a problem if there was responsible leadership, and I didn't want to mislead my loyal public.

In any case, the city is taking a positive and proactive step to improve its financial situation. It has created a blue ribbon panel* to investigate certain aspects of the city's finances. The bill was sponsored by Alderman Israel, which means that it was well researched and/or based on viable theory. The rest of the city council is always eager to look as if they are part of such excellent research, and they ALWAYS request to be added as co-sponsors to Alderman Israel's legislation. In this particular case, comically, every other alderman plus the mayor are listed as co-sponsors to the bill.

(*I am so tickled by the phrase "blue ribbon panel". It reminds me of a prize pig a state fair. In 1998, I made a New Year's Resolution that one day I would commission a Blue Ribbon Panel to investigate the difference between a sun-roof and a moon-roof.)

The story goes like this. Annapolis is in a unique tax situation--it is home to many state buildings, many public housing projects, and many Naval Academy buildings--none of which are subject to property taxes. The state government (and I think the county government as well), instead pay PILOTs, which are Payments In Lieu Of Taxes. But, nobody has ever crunched numbers to see if the PILOTs offset the value of the lost property taxes, PLUS the value of the services that the city provides these to these locations, such as police, fire, water, sewer, and shoe-shining.

The unfairness of said situation is somewhat widely acknowledged, at least by city officials. The sidewalk tax was an attempt to circumvent this problem, with bills sent to every property owner in the city--even the ones exempt from property taxes.

(Post Intermission: Legislation in general is typically worded as follows. First, the word "whereas" is listed any number of times, followed by various, typically vague, assertions. Later, the phrase "Be It Resolved" is used, and is followed by what would change if this bill were to be adopted. In a perfect world, the 'be it resolved' changes would be at least partially justified by the 'whereas' facts. Example: Whereas dogs do not wear makeup, and whereas one of my friends misguidedly opened a dog cosmetic business, be it resolved that every dog must wear makeup in public so my friend won't go out of business.)

This bill basically says: whereas we don't get as much money as we should, be it resolved that several citizens determine how much money we should be getting, so come budget time we can ask for that much from the institutions that don't pay taxes. At least that's what I hope it's saying.

Sidewalk Tax To Be Struck Down On Constitutional Grounds

I heard a comment from someone in the VIP crowd Monday night that the Attorney General was reviewing the sidewalk tax on constitutional grounds. I wasn't going to post about it, but then one of the Aldermen said something out loud about it, which makes it public record, and here we are.

So, Alderman Israel has been in contact with some of his old mates over at the AG's office, and the word is that the infamous sidewalk tax doesn't pass Constitutional muster. I will tag this as a rumor alert, but the word is that the tax has already been struck down.

The constitutional issue in question is the authority of municipal corporations (such as the city of Annapolis) to levy taxes. The charter of the city of Annapolis deals specifically with the taxation of real property. This is for a reason--the Maryland Constitution expressly grants that authority. Section XI-E deals with the taxation powers of municipalities:

No such municipal corporation shall levy any type of tax, license fee, franchise
tax or fee which was not in effect in such municipal corporation on January 1,
1954, unless it shall receive the express authorization of the General Assembly
for such purpose, by a general law which in its terms and its effect applies
alike to all municipal corporations in one or more of the classes provided for
in Section 2 of this Article.

Not only has the general assembly not approved the sidewalk tax, but reportedly they have considered such a matter in the past and have voted it down. Translation: don't pay your sidewalk bill because it's not going to stick.

What's more, is that the city failed to learn from its past. Mayor Hopkins, back in 1995, created a Revenue Authority for the city and asked for an opinion from the Attorney General. In his opinion, the AG addressed the tax/fees issue:

Of course, the revenue authority must operate with Article XI-E and with public
general law. To take but one example, a municipality may not levy any tax
or fee without authorization by the General Assembly in a generally applicable
law. Thus, for example, Attorney General Sachs advised that a municipality
could not create a special taxing district without legislative authorization,
because "a municipality has the power to levy a tax only to the extent granted
by the state."

So whatever they say about the best laid plans of mice and men, add this to the list.

Police Request Help With Missing Person

The Annapolis Police Department is seeking the public*s help in locating a Missing Person.
62 year old Barbara Ann Woulff of 207 Georgetown Road has not been in contact with friends or relatives since July 10th, 2008.

A check of her residence on that date revealed that she was not there and that her car was gone as well. According to friends and family, she was depressed and has made statements about harming herself.

She is described as a white female, 62 years old, 5'8" tall, weighing
175 pounds. She wears glasses. She usually wears pants. She drives a
2006 Blue Hyundai with Maryland Bay Tag 57784 C/A

She frequents the Hyattsville, MD area as well as Annapolis. She may be traveling to Florida or Massachusetts.

Anyone with knowledge of Ms. Woulff*s whereabouts is asked to call Annapolis Police at 410-268-4141.