So it’s Tim Walz for Vice President. Oh my! A dad! Seeing his picture, my first thought was my daddy: the round, open face and the warm smile.

A dad, not just because he has two children. A dad to soldiers, students, and athletes.

Then he got to Congress, and he turned into a firebrand, taking the floor, again and again, to advocate for the people of his state and the best interests of the American people in straightforward language delivered rapid-fire, with never so much as an um or a little joke, never a cast of aspersion, but with earnest passion, never pausing until braking with a crisp “I yield back.”

No wonder Republicans voted with Democrats to elect him Governor.

Odds on, Kamala Harris’ envisaging a big role for Tim Walz as Vice President.

Margaret Barton Driggs
Easton

It’s probably a good idea, if one is going to submit the occasional letter to the editor, to identify oneself at least in ways that are relevant.

So, as a registered Republican, the undersigned voted, with the rest of the household, for Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and later, in a household of one, Obama. One might then conclude that that household of (two) registered Republicans had voted in presidential elections in a fairly independent manner. In doing so, we racked up a record of choosing winners.

When Donald Trump announced his run for the presidency, I registered as a Democrat so that I could vote in the primary. Donald Trump appeared to me to be not only unfit for office, but a very dangerous man as well. In the general election I picked my first loser since not voting for Nixon; but Hilary Clinton only lost the electoral college vote.

Being a registered Democrat still didn’t stop me from voting for Larry Hogan, Jr. for governor of Maryland. Like his father, one of the first to have Nixon’s number, Hogan is a good man, capable of independent thought. Then, too, I voted for a Republican in a local election because I thought he was the right person for the job.

This time around, I’m sorry I can’t vote for Larry Hogan as a Senator, but to me, it is vitally important that the Democrats hold onto the Senate now. And Donald Trump is more dangerous than ever.

Just so you know who is writing.

Margaret Barton Driggs
Easton, MD

As a Democrat, I was hoping for a much better showing by President Joe Biden in last week’s debate, but this did not happen.  Because of the event’s utter awfulness, we were among probably millions of viewers who had to turn it off after the first 15 or 20 minutes.

Since then, I’ve read and heard many commentors on that evening’s sad demonstration of the qualification for national and world leadership of the candidates of our two political parties. 

Regarding former President Trump, who rarely if ever actually answered the question asked, I suppose it’s accurate to characterize most of his debate comments as constant lying and blustering, which I realize appeals to many to his supporters as just “Trump being Trump.” 

Regarding President Biden’s lackluster performance, albeit with honest answers, I have to agree with Democratic political strategist David Axelrod, who in a post-debate panel discussion said former President Trump would “face trouble’ if President Biden is replaced at the top of the Democratic ticket.  This is exactly what needs to happen now.

What has been missing from commentary about President Biden’s performance is that now, in effect, he is at the top of his game.  I can tell you as a fellow octogenarian that as the years go by one’s mental and physical capabilities only decline and never improve.  He would be 82 at the beginning of a second term and 86 at its end   We have just seen how he functions at present, so what can we expect in toward the end of a second term in 2029?

I hope that former Presidents Clinton and Obama, as well as the predictable decline in his polling statistics and fundraising numbers, will persuade President Biden it’s time to withdraw as Democratic candidate in time for the mid-August convention in Chicago to select a proper successor.

In my judgment, President Biden has been an excellent chief executive who was the right man at the right time. And he would have accomplished much more had it not been for the many impediments caused directly and indirectly by Mr. Trump through the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court. He should retire from his lifetime of distinguished public service now, at the end of this term, rather than continue his campaign at risk of electoral loss to himself, his party, and the United States.

Gerry Early
Easton

On May 24th, attorneys for the Lakeside developer, Rocks Engineering out of Vienna VA, and the Town of Trappe submitted a 7-page letter (here) to the Maryland Department of Environment (“MDE”) requesting that MDE disapprove Talbot County’s adoption of Resolution 338 (“R338”), weak as it is, the one bit of legislation adopted May 14th to provide the County some future opportunity to review for the first time Lakeside’s consistency with the County Comprehensive plan.  

The lawyers set out numerous arguments, many that seem forceful.  The important ones consist of half-truths, falsehoods, some “true facts” (devoid of real context), and important omissions, woven together artfully to persuade MDE to kill off any possibility of future County oversight no matter how theoretical.  When push comes to shove, Rocks’s attorneys, with the help of Rauch, Inc. (the project engineer whose contacts run deep—see here), has had great success over two decades in obtaining from MDE whatever is needed for this billion-dollar project to move forward.   There is substantial risk Rocks will get MDE to step in this time too.  

Getting to the truth is like wrestling a greased pig:  the critter is slippery, fast, strong and very smart.  And who, in particular, is going to fight this?  It is the County’s duty to stand up for its rights…not any one Council Member, not private citizens or The Talbot Integrity Project.  The corporate entity, “Talbot County, Maryland” must act.   

Well, good luck with that.  First, a majority of the Council (Callahan, Haythe, and Stepp) are strong supporters of Rocks–as established by their key votes to adopt the exact Sewer Service Map advocated by the developer (R348), including recitation of acknowledged untruths.  So the County might not even fight the developer’s effort to quash R338.  And even if the Council decides to act, do you know to whom the battle is entrusted?  The County Attorney, Patrick Thomas, whose sympathetic actions have without exception aided the developer since Thomas arrival on the scene three years ago.

The Spy is not the place to parse technical legal arguments, so let me hit just two points of many.  (And, folks, I know it is very complicated and hard to follow…the fact that enables the developer’s attorneys to believe they can act with impunity.) 

First and most critical, the developer contends that with regard to master planning, a town’s authority trumps the County’s authority, contrary to Maryland law.  As to land use matters–in particular determining what is and is not consistent with the COUNTY Comprehensive Plan, such as timing of development–the COUNTY’s determination governs.  (MD Environmental Article 9-511).  Of course the State encourages counties and municipalities to work together, to coordinate, to consult, to weigh each other’s desires carefully.  But if/as/ when a county and a town completely disagree, in Maryland it is the COUNTY that makes the call.

Rocks’ contention otherwise, advanced by his attorneys in the recent letter and by engineer Bob Rauch elsewhere (see deposition here, pages 108-111), is doubly dangerous because of the peculiar way annexation law works in Maryland, vividly demonstrated at Lakeside.  With certain property owners’ consent, a town can annex land—ANY AMOUNT of land—without a county having anything to say about it at all (other than a short-term zoning constraint).  Can that town then do with the land whatever the town wants, with the county completely out of the picture, irrespective of its master plan?  Not in Maryland.  This is the nonsense of “sovereign municipalities,” an idea that would have incalculable benefit to a developer able to dominate a municipality–think Rocks and Trappe.  

Look how this argument is playing out with Lakeside, where in 2002 the developer Rocks (Bob Rauch as a 20% partner at the time (deposition, page 20)), optioned 900 acres—almost 3 times the land area of Oxford—on the other side of Route 50 from Trappe.  Rocks then made a deal with the small, financially stressed Town of Trappe: annex our land and help us develop a 2501 home subdivision (with much commercial too), and we’ll do good things for you.  The Talbot County Council sent a 4-page letter detailing objections—the SAME objections never addressed to this day:  schools, traffic, taxes, impact on rural character, County roads—but the Town signed on to its Faustian bargain anyway.  

Eighteen months later, the project finally came before the Council for classification as “S-1, immediate priority” for development.  It was flat out rejected, 5-0, without even being sent over to the Planning Commission for a review of consistency with the County Comp Plan.  That should have been the end of it.  The developer and Town persisted, however, attempting to resubmit its plans, contrary to a rule that said two years must pass first.  

And that brings us to the second point in the lawyers’ recent letter to MDE, an astonishing Mount Everest of chutzpah.  For the clinching argument, the lawyers cite a precedent, reminding MDE that, after much lobbying by Rocks and the Town of Trappe (just as is going on now), on July 10, 2006 MDE sent Talbot County a letter disapproving its adoption of Resolution 126!  

Folks, the enormous gall of this is that these attorneys cite MDE’s rejection of Resolution 126 as the conclusive reason MDE should disapprove R338—when that is the very episode surrounding MDE’s issuance of ILLEGAL sewer construction permits for Lakeside!  

R126 had nothing whatever to do with sewer service classifications and did not change the sewer service classification of Lakeside to S-1, the legal prerequisite the County Council had rejected unanimously.  R126 had to do only with when the Town could reapply—which it did not do until 2019!  Lakeside was not even classified for sewer service at all, but as everyone now acknowledges was UNPROGRAMMED. It stretches credulity beyond breaking to think the most expert land use engineer and land use attorneys on the Shore did not know that.  And yet Rocks and the Town knowingly applied for (and got) not just a discharge permit, but actual sewer construction permits from MDE, knowing the project had been rejected by the County…meaning those permits were illegal.

And consider this: MDE rejected R126 on JULY 10, 2006, but the Town (for the benefit of Rocks and Rauch) had already obtained the illegal construction Permit #6-25-1104 on MAY 30, 2006, six weeks before the rejection.  For full details and copies of all relevant documents referred to regarding R126, review Chapter 4 of the “History of Lakeside Approvals” here.

(Also, note that Rocks did not exercise its options to actually buy the 900 acres of land until after those illegally issued permits were in hand.)

Flash forward to 2024 and here’s how the sausage got made:  on April 2nd the Planning Commission REJECTED R347 and R348 (the critical sewer service map Rocks needed), sounding a death knell by finding them both inconsistent with the Comp Plan.  Days later the Council (Haythe and Steppe voting aye) surprisingly adopted R338, which provided (in theory) for a future review opportunity.  Per an informal understanding of quids and pros and quos, because of R338’s passage, the Planning Commission in May reconsidered its April rejection, and, voila, reversed position, finding R347 and R348 “consistent.” R347 and R348 were promptly adopted by the Council.  

But now Rocks and the Town seek to have R338 rejected…and the Council might not even send the County Attorney off to fight it.  Just one of those things, or was that somebody’s plan all along?

Contrary to Rocks’ lawyers’ request, MDE should not disapprove R338.  Rather, MDE should extend the review period by 90 days (per its express authority), during which period it should hold a public hearing on all three of the “Lakeside Amendments” to Talbot’s Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan—R338, R347 and R348.  After a thorough, objective review, MDE should then approve R338 and should disapprove R347 and R348, amendments that were found consistent with the Comp Plan by the Planning Commission only because R338 had been adopted.  The likelihood of this result is infinitesimal. 

Dishonesty tolerated is dishonesty rewarded.  

Reform.  Reform.  Reform.

Dan Watson
The Talbot Integrity Project

I want to thank the community members who attended the open session of our Board Meeting on March 20th. While we are a private non-profit organization and not subject to the Open Meetings Act, we recognize the need to keep the public informed on the progress of Cambridge Harbor.

As outlined in our Mission Statement, we are “developing the Cambridge Waterfront in partnership with the community to create and sustainably maintain Cambridge Harbor as an inviting, accessible, active, and enjoyable place to live, work, play and visit.” I also value the comments that were shared by a few in attendance. CWDI leadership is already discussing and acting on your comments.

CWDI has been the topic of conversation the past couple weeks. Unfortunately, a lot of what has been said has been either inaccurate or a misrepresentation of the facts. I know many community members feel they are getting conflicting information from various sources and feel confused or unsure about what is really happening. Remember, you can always reach out to me, Matt, or any of our board members if you have heard something that is concerning, needs clarification, or just want to know what’s going on. Fortunately, the Public Session we
have been planning is coming up on April 18th! This will be in person at the Chesapeake Grove Intergenerational Center at 6pm as well as live-streamed. This is your opportunity to hear about the plans for Cambridge Harbor as well as get clarification on many of the topics that have been circulating as of late. You will also have the opportunity to submit questions. Keep an eye out for additional event information from us and the Chamber of Commerce.

We remain committed to our community-first approach to the development of Cambridge Harbor. This means providing open, free access to the waterfront for locals and visitors. To that end, we are scheduling improvements to the existing wharf and construction on Phase I of the promenade to begin this summer. We’ll provide more details as they develop.

Our next Board Meeting is May 22nd at 4:00 PM in the Chamber of Commerce Conference Room (306 High Street). The public is welcome to attend the open session of the meeting. As always, if you have any questions or concerns, or topics you would like more information on, please do not hesitate to reach out to myself ([email protected]), Matt ([email protected]), or any of the board members. We will be happy to chat with you.

Angie Hengst, Board President
Cambridge Waterfront Development, Inc.

A lawsuit was recently filed in Federal court by the Delmarva Fisheries Association (DFA) and the Maryland Charter Boat Association (MCBA). The suit challenges a mandate for new Striped Bass fishing regulations in Maryland. The mandate is from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Since the lawsuit was filed there has been an outpouring of support from those who understand this mandate has already had and will have a devastating impact far beyond watermen and charter boat captains.

Others impacted negatively include Eastern Shore hotels, motels, restaurants, businesses, and merchants who depend upon wild fishery harvests and charter boat tourism.

The Rural Counties Coalition of the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo) has expressed the following concerns. “These regulations will affect local small business models that operate in the charter boat and commercial fishing industries as well. Rural counties along Maryland’s shoreline depend on these industries and oppose these changes, as they will dramatically affect economic development and the livelihood of small business owners. Many of Maryland’s waterfront businesses will undoubtedly bear financial losses due to the restrictions. For many years, these industries have operated with restrictions in harvesting and strict regulatory compliance yet have remained in operation. The proposed restrictions will be a point that may force good businesses to close and may prohibit other businesses from locating within Maryland’s coastal counties. “In addition to the MACo support letter, the Boards of Commissioners in Dorchester County, Queen Anne’s County, and Kent County have submitted comparable letters. More are expected.

Support for the DFA and MCBA lawsuit goes well beyond Maryland.

The East Coast Fishing Coalition (ECFC) represents over eight hundred for-hire charter and party boats across Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. The president of ECFC has written “We share in your concerns, as these actions threaten not only the present viability of our businesses but also the long-term sustainability of the for-hire sector of the fishing industry. If these decisions are not rectified, we anticipate a significant decline in business that will persist well into the future. The ramifications also extend beyond our industry, impacting businesses such as hotels, restaurants, tackle shops, and other merchants that rely on our operations to sustain their own livelihoods.”
DFA and MCBA are represented by the McCloud Law Group in Chestertown and Meeks Butera & Israel, Washington, D.C.

Captain Rob Newberry
Chair Delmarva Fisheries Association.

On Tuesday, April 2, the Planning Commission will at long last act on three Resolutions (and also three Amendments) all involving Lakeside.  These matters include fixing the all-important Sewer Service Map improperly approved by the County in 2020 that was the green-light for Lakeside.  

A year ago, the Maryland Department of Environment recognized that the Sewer Service Map was wrong, and instructed the County to correct it as the County deems necessary, “including Lakeside.”  And since then, the County Engineer, the County Attorney, and the Town of Trappe itself have all acknowledged on the record what MDE had come to understand: that prior to that 2020 approval Lakeside had always been “Unprogrammed” and, contrary to what was told to the Planning Commission and everyone else, had never been previously reviewed and slated for development by the County at all, ever.  

The three Resolutions before the Planning Commission (R347, R348 and R353) are all deeply flawed for reasons long discussed, and should all be found by the Commission to be “not consistent” with the County’s Comprehensive Plan—which is the question the Commission must answer under Maryland law.  (The Public Works Advisory Board has reviewed them in detail and has unanimously recommended that Planning Commission reject all three proposals, standing alone and as amended.)  R347 and R348 are drafted in ways that are as confusing as possible and continue to mislead.  They include untrue Recitals and are clearly designed not to “fix” the maps as they affect Lakeside, but to assure that that the developer’s interests in that Billion-Dollar subdivision and are not disturbed at all.

The public hearing is scheduled for 9 A.M. on Tuesday, April 2nd at the Bradley Room of the Courthouse.

Dan Watson
The Talbot Integrity Project