TODD HUFF - A DISASTER THAT KEEPS INFLICTING HIMSELF ON BALTIMORE COUNTY

Todd Huff, the discredited Baltimore County councilman for my district three, has discarded all pretence that he actually ever represented any constituents.

Defeated in  the GOP primary, one-term Todd is now pushing a bill whose text he will not make public but which he says (Baltimore Sun, Oct 21 2014) "has been an important issue to me for the past four years."

And here, we thought the important issue for Todd was keeping hold of a county vehicle for his drunk driving escapades.

What is this "important issue" that lame-duck Todd is huffing about?

It's a bill which Todd Huff has now withdrawn but declared he will reintroduce, which would "by right" permit certain commercial activities on Baltimore County farmland.

By right? Oh yes, that means, without further approval under existing Baltimore County rules and regs. 

Wanna host a motorcycle rally out in a field someplace? No prob. Just do it. Never mind traffic or noise or your neighbor's privacy or security or any other public safety issues. Just do it!!

Thanks, Todd, Been good to know you. Not. 

Let's be sure the rest of the County Council knows the difference between farming operations and "celebratory events" that would undermine forty years of smart growth in Baltimore County. 

To help along the campaign to retire this secret proposal along with its sponsor, here is a letter reprinted from the Oct 21 2014 Baltimore Sun, which ought to be circulated to every member of the Baltimore Council:

Farm bill is bad for Baltimore County

Your recent article on the Baltimore County agricultural tourism bill unfairly describes battle lines being drawn between farmers on one side and local land preservationists on the other (“County bill sparks debate over tourism on farms,” Oct. 14). This is an inaccurate oversimplification. 

Farmers are the leading land preservationists representing the majority of landowners by far who have placed their property in permanent preservation. Everyone in Baltimore County’s rural 3rd District, farmers and community groups alike, wants to see farming continue to be economically viable. The community as a whole is open to the idea of agricultural tourism, and they said as much at the County Council work session. It is the wording and construction of this particular piece of legislation that has everyone rightly alarmed. 

Councilman Todd Huff, who remains in office for only six more weeks, has had this bill prepared behind closed doors and is pulling out all stops to rush it through. As written, the bill essentially converts all of the resource conservation zones into business zones. I agree with the assessment of County Executive Kevin Kamenetz that the bill conflicts with county efforts to protect rural land from commercial development. As such, it is bad public policy, not just for Baltimore County but also for everyone in the Baltimore region who benefits from the cleaner air and water made possible by the presently protected resource zones.

Both candidates who would replace Mr. Huff after his term expires say they are ready to take up the issue as soon as the new council is seated. Wth a willing future councilman and a supportive community, this fatally flawed bill should be resoundingly voted down.

Sharon D. Bailey
The writer is president of the Prettyboy Watershed Alliance.

Source:

Baltimore Sun October 21, 2014 article (p. 2):

"Baltimore County buys rural acres from megachurch" which contained this snippet:

[. . .] "In other business, the council delayed action on a bill that would have made it easier for farmers to engage in moneymaking activities such as hayrides and corn mazes.
Councilman Todd Huff, a Lutherville Republican who grew up on a farm in Sparks, withdrew his agritourism bill and introduced a new version in a procedural move to keep the legislation alive as the council nears the end of its four-year term.
The bill had been scheduled for a vote Monday and faced possible defeat.
Huff’s bill would have allowed farm owners to operate the extra farm-related activities “by right,” without requiring approval from the county. It would also have allowed farmers to apply to host up to a dozen “celebratory events,” such as weddings, per year.
Farmers supported the bill, but it came under heavy criticism from citizens planning groups, which said activities would draw traffic and noise to rural communities. Kamenetz had threatened to veto the bill.
Huff said the new version would eliminate the provision for celebratory events, but a draft was not available at Monday’s council meeting. It could be voted on at the council’s Nov. 17 meeting.
Huff, who was defeated in the Republican primary, said he hopes he can get the bill passed before he leaves office. “This has been an important issue to me for the past four years,” he said.

June 7 - Infamous Day for Baltimore County Councilman David Marks

June 7, 2011 - Two years ago.

Credit: Baltimore Sun

That was the day Baltimore County Councilman David Marks falsely announced that he had secured the signatures of four of his council colleagues on a letter denouncing our DREAMERS.

Despite several requests Mr. Marks has never produced such a letter.

Once again I ask - Mr David Marks, produce the letter you claim to have passed around and gotten signed by four of your council colleagues?

In his enthusiasm to align himself with bigotry, David Marks also announced that he had diverted campaign funds from supporters into the effort to collect signatures on petitions to place Maryland's new DREAM Act before the voters in the election set for November 2012.

According to Brian Sears, writing in the TOWSON PATCH, June 8 2011:

"Marks, a Perry Hall Republican, has signed the [anti-DREAM Act] petition. In fact, Marks said he used his campaign account to pay for half of a booth he shared with volunteers collecting signatures at the Towson Spring Festival." 

Well, sadly for simple fairness and also needlessly expensive for Maryland taxpayers, signatures were collected, counted and verified and the anti-Hispanic, anti-high-school kids referendum was placed on the ballot.

But guess what? 

On November 6, 2012 bigotry and David Marks, lost.

The voters of Maryland upheld the state's DREAM Act.

End of story? Not quite. Next year, November 2014, David Marks will be on the ballot.

Time for the voters of the Fifth District to send Mr. Marks where the anti-hispanic referendum was sent. . . . away, 

away,

away. Dixieland

"No one should face discrimination under the law" - Baltimore Sun

The Baltimore Sun Has Endorsed 

Marriage Equality - 

Vote FOR Question Six in Maryland

Maryland's marriage equality law protects religious institutions while affirming the principle that no one should face discrimination under the law

The case for Question 6, which would affirm Maryland's law authorizing same-sex marriage, is simple. It upholds the principle that the law should treat everyone the same. Marriage is both a religious and a civil institution. Churches, synagogues and mosques have always set their own rules about which marriages they recognize, and this law does not change that fact. What it does is to ensure that no Marylander faces discrimination under the law when it comes to one of the state's fundamental institutions.

Opponents of the measure have sought to confuse the issue by warning of unintended consequences of marriage equality. They claim that those who, for religious reasons, oppose same-sex unions will be persecuted. That children will be taught about same-sex marriage in school against their parents' will. That it will somehow rob children of the best possible upbringing.

Those are no more than scare tactics.

[. . . ]

Civil unions and domestic partnerships in some states have sought to afford gay families the same packages of rights and benefits as married couples — a difficult and usually incomplete task, given the number of laws that reference marriage in one way or another. But that approach creates two kinds of marriage — one for straight people and one for gay people — and that inevitably relegates same-sex couples to second-class citizenship.

Maryland's marriage equality law protects the rights of religious institutions to set their own doctrine and practices, but it also affirms the principle that the state's civil laws should not foster discrimination. Everyone deserves to be treated equally under the law, and for that reason, we urge voters to support Question 6.

Source: For Question 6 Our view: Maryland's marriage equality law protects religious institutions while affirming the principle that no one should face discrimination under the law

Debunking the Anti-Marriage Ads

From Walter Olson's blog:

Maryland for All Families:

Anti-6 theme: “Children do best when raised by their married mom and dad”

"The first TV ad by the No on 6 campaign pushes the “maybe it’s bad for the kids” theme that has worked well for marriage opponents in earlier campaigns. No matter that it’s based on an absurd non sequitur, since Maryland is not somehow voting on whether or not gays should have or raise kids (they’re doing that already), but on whether gay households with or without kids should be able to form legally recognized commitments, advancing the security and stability of those families."

"At any rate, Annie Linskey at the Baltimore Sun has an excellent article examining the basis of the claims.

"The methodology and findings of the Regnerus study have been extensively criticized from many quarters; [Walter Olson's] contribution to this literature appeared in the Huffington Post."

 John Corvino, has made a valuable contribution in his series of videos on same-sex marriage, entitled:

Debunking the Regnerus Study - John Corvino - YouTube

Proud Parent of Triplets, a Stepchild, a Newborn Son

Here's a letter from the 10/15/12 Baltimore Sun, that is worth a second or third read:

"I am a parent to triplet 7th graders, a stepchild, and a newborn son. I am also a lesbian. 

"This week, two organizations in which my children participate, the Columbia Clippers Swim Team (run by the Columbia Aquatics Association) and the Lime Kiln Middle School PTA, held fundraisers in partnership with Chick-fil-A. 

"Chick-fil-A has recently been the butt of a media firestorm for its more than $5 million in contributions to anti-gay groups, including one group that is on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of certified hate groups. Collectively, the groups supported by Chick-fil-A work to dehumanize LGBT people, among other things, labeling them as pedophiles and advocating for their imprisonment.

"Why would either of these organizations partner with Chick-fil-A in the face of this well-documented history? I wrote both organizations, and both promptly dismissed my concern as a 'feeling' and a call to 'political activity.' 

"My concern stems not from feelings or politics, but from facts: our children, some of them, have same-sex parents, but more than that, some of them are LGBT. 

"What message do we send to these children when we are so apathetic about our choices that we can't see our way to choose from the abundant offerings of fundraising sites that are supportive of all people and all families? 

"Would the partnership look different if Chick-fil-A donated to the KKK instead? 

"The actions of both of these groups fly in the face of their own policies of inclusion. And the act of fundraising at such a site is, indeed, a political statement. It's just not a statement I thought either group would make."

Heather R. McCabe, Fulton

The writer is past president of the Maryland LGBT Bar Association.

Source: Anti-gay fundraising sets poor example, Baltimore Sun, October 15 2012

Todd Huff: Who Cover's His Nut?

Todd Huff, my county councilman (District 3) does not get paid enough.
We know this because he cannot afford to pay for his own entertainment and asks that developers do this for him.
Todd Huff looks to multi-millionaires who do business with Baltimore County to cover his nut.
Why?
You know why: for some politicians like Mr Huff, freebies are what elected office is all about:






- not having to pay for your own sports tickets


- taking gifts from people who do business with the county


- not reporting any of this to the electorate


- not complying with state law, because if he did, Huff might have to buy his own Ravens tickets

When caught in the act by a Baltimore Sun investigation Huff-and-Puff just adds another principle to his quiver of non-principles:


- freebies from multi-millionaires


is OK by me


unless I get caught










Source:
Balto. Co. councilman Huff took football tickets from developer




By Alison Knezevich, The Baltimore Sun
6:29 p.m. EDT, May 8, 2012


alisonk@baltsun.com








From the article:


"Baltimore County Councilman Todd Huff says he accepted football tickets from a developer that were not reported on his annual financial disclosure form."

[. . .]


"Huff, a Lutherville Republican, said this week that he received two Ravens tickets from Merritt Properties in the beginning of the football season, but did not report the tickets because the county's ethics law does not require him to do so."


[. . .]






"When the county revised its laws last year under legislation introduced by Kamenetz, it exempted sports tickets from the list of gifts that officials are not allowed to take. It also did not require officials to report such tickets."


[. . .]






BUT NOW THAT TODD HUFF


HAS BEEN CAUGHT ACCEPTING GIFTS:

"[County Executive] Kamenetz's chief of staff, Don Mohler, said last week that the county plans to update the law soon to comply with state standards."

• Related
• Kamenetz, council members got dozens of tickets from developers

Baltimore Sun Opinion Writer Affiliated with a Hate Group

On February 1 2011, the Baltimore Sun opened its Opinion page to a column by Peter Sprigg, of the Family Research Council. (Marriage's public purpose: raising children - baltimoresun.com )


Why? 


The Baltimore Sun did not tell its readers that the Family Research Council has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.


Why not?


The Southern Poverty Law Center, has this to say (emphasis added) about Peter Sprigg:


" [. . .] anti-gay propagandists at FRC include Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies, who joined the organization in 2001. Sprigg authored a 2010 brochure touting “The Top Ten Myths about Homosexuality.” In the brochure, Sprigg claimed that ex-gay therapy works, that sexual orientation can change, that gay people are mentally ill simply because homosexuality makes them that way, and that, “Sexual abuse of boys by adult men is many times more common than consensual sex between adult men, and most of those engaging in such molestation identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” He also claimed that “homosexuals are less likely to enter into a committed relationship” and “less likely to be sexually faithful to a partner.” Sprigg’s sources are a mixture of junk science issued by groups that support ex-gay therapy and legitimate science quoted out of context or cherry-picked, a tactic long used by anti-gay groups to bolster their claims about gay people. Several legitimate researchers, like NYU’s Judith Stacey (a source Sprigg uses), have issued public statements condemning the practice and requesting that anti-gay groups stop misrepresenting their work.

"In 2004, Sprigg and FRC Senior Research Fellow Timothy Dailey co-authored the 2004 book Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows About Homosexuality. In it, they repeat claims that gay men “commit a disproportionate number of child sex abuse cases,” that homosexuals are promiscuous, and that lesbians exhibit “compulsive behavior.” Much of the book’s content can also be found in separate articles put out by the FRC.

"In March 2008, Sprigg responded to a question about uniting gay partners during immigration by saying, “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than import them.” He later apologized, but in February 2009, he told Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied."





Questions for Mary J Corey, Baltimore Sun Vice President for Content (mary.corey@baltsun.com )


1. Why did the Baltimore Sun give op ed space to someone who is affiliated with a hate group?


2. Why did the Baltimore Sun permit Mr. Sprigg to identify himself with the Family Research Council, without advising Sun readers about this groups's decades' long record of hateful rhetoric? 




For more information about the Family Research Council, visit the Southern Poverty Law Center webasite and search "Family Research Council." www.splcenter.org

A GOOD IDEA or VINDICTIVE GIBBERISH?

Like the young king, Henry VIII, I was too busy yesterday, attending my usual five-times daily Mass to catch up with Thomas Schaller’s opinion piece (“The Problem is not Islam but Orthodoxy,” Baltimore Sun August 24, 2010). 

The Eighth English Henry solved his compulsory Mass attendance problem by announcing that no one in England ought to go to Mass, ever. It has taken a while, but Henry’s no-mo’-Mass dream is coming true in England, where the immigrant Catholic and Moslem communities are vibrant but where the Anglican Church is to religious attendance what a skeleton is to a living body. 

Speaking of living bodies, Henry’s against Anne Boleyn’s gave special urgency to Henry’s no-mo’-Mass rule. Cynicism is everywhere.

Which brings me to Mr. Schaller’s  proposal that we honor the victims of Sept 11, 2001 by building what Mr. Schaller calls “a place” that “celebrates the idea that we ought to divorce our public behaviors from our beliefs in God – and for good measure, respect those who don’t believe in god at all.”  

Brilliant. But Mr. Schaller forgot to announce how much he will personally kick in for such “a place.”

The failure to actually give cash undermines the idea. An unwillingness to put up personal money to get something done highlights the likely future of philanthropy in a non- religious society. Since we are taxed, why put up any personal money for “a place” of any kind?

Speaking of “place” the free-floating quote attributed to Jesus in Luke’s Gospel begs for context. As with many ancient texts, the original setting of a given statement often is not apparent in the final version, committed to writing decades later. 

Jesus stated, according to the Gospel of Luke and Schaller, “bring them here and slaughter them before me.” 

Did Jesus really say that? 

More likely, this parabolic summation is the stark (and therefore memorable) sermonic highlight from an ancient Christian preacher, who wanted to explain to his tiny flock why their present dreary circumstances are as nothing compared to the cosmic culmination which awaited them. This would not be the last time when vindictive gibberish would be memorialized in a sermon.

By the way, just as Mr. Schaller was kidding about building a secular “place” in lower Manhattan, I was kidding about going to Mass five times a day. I check my Inbox that often but, since I am as secular as the next guy, that’s about it. 

ANDY HARRIS THINKS NYC CONSTRUCTION PLANS "BLATANTLY DISRESPECTFUL" - BUT WHERE ARE THE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS?

The Baltimore Sun reported (August 17, 2010) that Andy Harris, First District GOP candidate for Congress, says that the locally-approved construction of an Islamic community/prayer center in lower Manhattan is "blatantly disrespectful" because it will be located close to Sept 11's Ground Zero. 

Mr. Harris is entitled to an opinion. Here are one or two follow-up questions that ought to be asked:      

What is the role of Congress in a local zoning issue? 


Should the feds spend tax $$ to fight a construction project that is in conformity with local zoning? 


Ought there be a moratorium (or federal law) banning the building of Christian churches near the bombed federal building in Okla City - since Timothy McVey was a self-identified Christian?


Does Andy Harris know that many Sept 11 victims were Muslim? Has Mr Harris troubled himself to find out if their surviving relatives and friends agree that the proposed construction is 'offensive?' Might a community /prayer center near Ground Zero be consoling to them? 


Should local zoning regs forbid houses of worship (synagogues, Baptist churches, etc) if non-communicants might be 'offended' at their construction?