The Easton Town Council unanimously passed a new law prohibiting retail stores from providing customers with single-use plastic bags at the checkout counter.  The vote brought to the end a long process of public hearings and workshops that took place since the idea was mooted by members of Plastic-Free Easton back in March.  Council members discussed their support of the bill, finally passing it 5-0 to happy smiles and applause. This was an achievement on reducing an important source of plastics pollution in Easton guided by Council President Megan Cook.  The law is a result of an positive collaboration between town leaders and residents.

In his message supporting the new law Ward 2 Council member Don Abbatiello noted, “The overall goal is to reduce the amount of plastic trash in our community and our waterways.  Every piece of plastic that was ever produced but not incinerated is still with us today. If the Puritans invented plastic, it would still be here.”  Mr. Abbatiello said when the president of the Talbot Watermen Association spoke in favor of a ban, “We were all listening. The Tred Avon, the Miles, and the Choptank all have part of their headwaters in Easton. The ban will help to improve the bay.” He also said that unlike plastics used in life-saving medical applications, “plastic bags are a convenience, not essential.”

Ward 4 Council member Rev. Elmer Davis urged residents to consider how our lifestyles might do harm to our environment and advised residents “do good and not cause harm to our community.”

The new law not only bans single-use plastic bags at checkout, but also requires retailers to charge 10 cents for paper bags. Retailers keep the fee to help defray the added cost of paper bags.  The combination of plastic bag ban and fee on paper bags helps move consumers towards bringing in their own reusable bags. The law goes into effect April 2, 2023.

 Marion O Arnold is leader of the Plastic-Free Easton action committee.  She lives in Easton, MD.

 

Vacations may be over. All county council members were present for the August 23 meeting, and Dr. Cliff Coppersmith, President of Chesapeake College, and Karen Smith, V.P. for Administrative Services, were pleased to see so many students back on campus for the first day of classes.

They had more good news. Teachers’ salaries are being raised, and these increases include a 6% raise for all employees. The revised FY23 budget request, an increase of $1.295 million, was passed unanimously. There’s no change to the county budget. It is all state funded.

Next up, an administrative resolution to establish a Frederick Douglass Park on the Tuckahoe committee. County attorney Patrick Thomas recalled that council member Pack had introduced the idea to establish a standing committee for fundraising in 2018. This moved to a vote and passed unanimously.

A policy to establish a sewer connection from Tunis Mills and Copperville to Royal Oak pump station to serve a government-owned property was introduced. Addressing concerns for the possibility of additional development, County Engineer Ray Clarke explained that this service would be limited to government properties. The public hearing for Resolution 334 is scheduled for September 13, 6pm.

Regarding legislation to expand structures for nonconforming uses under certain conditions, Bill 1525 is scheduled for a public hearing on September 13.  And a hearing for an amendment to Bill 1524 regarding solar energy installations and the preservation of our highest quality croplands is also scheduled for September 13.

Resolution 331 was up for a vote. Two parcels on Matthewstown Rd. would be reclassified to S1 W1, priority status. This development of 200 homes has been in planning stages since 2008, and the number of homes to be built has been reduced from possibly as many as 550. The Planning Commission has approved this amendment, and Mayor Willey confirmed that traffic issues have been addressed over the years. Our schools haven’t been consulted; but Easton’s highly rated sewer system is ready, and the town is, too.

Concerns remained for possible impact upon our schools and services. There was more discussion of Resolution 331 than of any other this evening, but it was put to a vote and passed 3-2.  Price and Packer voted against it. Divillio, Lesher, and Callahan voted for it.

Concerning a suggestion that developers aren’t “stepping up,” their role in these matters remains a concern. Sharing the burdens of development with our town may also complicate matters. The town of Easton collects property taxes. Income taxes are collected by the county, but the county funds schools (nearly half its budget), provides many or most services, and maintains county roads.

Preston Pepper, Director of Talbot County Parks and Recreation, turned the conversation in another direction. He presented the 2022 Land Preservation and Parks and Recreation Plan to preserve our waterways and trails. This plan is revised every 5 years, and his careful supervision is clearly appreciated.

County Manager Clay Stamp then announced committee appointments and funding for new HVAC units for the Hogs Neck remodeled pavilion, dugouts and a playground at the Community Center and Back Creek Park, and eight pickleball courts at the Community Center. Legislation will also be filed for a Talbot County Correctional Officers Retirement system.

Note: The dugouts, playground and pickleball courts are all state funded! We do still work together, and I was recently reminded of our county’s pride in becoming the first in Maryland to extend broadband access to all its citizens.

In this case we received $1.75 million from President Biden’s Recovery Plan, and the county will be working with Easton Utilities to spend $13 million already received from a USDA Program initiated by Obama. This will help our county attract and retain the workers we need.

Another busy meeting adjourned in a timely fashion at 7:34 pm, but there was more news. Talbot Integrity Project has filed a complaint with our Talbot County Circuit Court regarding the award of a contract to Rauch, Inc. to rewrite our Talbot County Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan.

Rauch’s bid was lower than another submitted, but the complaint describes Rauch as unqualified due to a conflict of interest described in Talbot County Ethics Ordinance, Section 60-12A. Rausch, Inc. is also the principal engineer for Lakeside in Trappe.

Trappe was mentioned only once or twice this evening. As the meeting adjourned, Council Vice President Lesher reminded us to drive safely. School is starting.

Carol Voyles is a graphic designer/illustrator who retired to the Eastern Shore and became interested in politics. She serves as communications chair for the Talbot County Democratic Forum and lives in Easton.

Recent media attention has focused on China’s military actions and threats against Taiwan and its general bellicosity towards both Taiwan and the US. Some Western and all Chinese commentary blame Speaker Pelosi’s brief trip to Taipei as the provocation and also a violation of the “One China Policy”. Beijing also believes that the West’s continuing refusal to recognize Beijing’s right to recover Taiwan (considers it a lost  province), fully justifies its rhetoric and military actions. But War?

Xi’s likely near term motivations: (1) remind the globe the PRC is a super power, (2) distract unhappy Chinese from the increasing economic and Covid lock-down problems as well as from (3) the tighter control Xi is slowly exerting over them and their lives. Younger Chinese now project a  growing militant nationalism as Xi absorbed Hong Kong and militarily pushes China’s claims on Taiwan.  His mantra  “America is declining, China is rising” continues to feed these feelings.  

Xi is applying to Taiwan, a strategy similar to Putin’s against Ukraine: face it with an overwhelming military force, calculating Kiev/Taipei will be cowed into submission. It didn’t work for Moscow and I doubt it will succeed for Beijing. The question becomes: will Xi decide to invade Taiwan as Putin did Ukraine?

The Hong Kong Precedent:

In 1997 the UK transferred sovereignty over Hong Kong to the PRC, ending 156 years of its colonial status. Great Britain had conquered Hong Kong in 1841 during its Opium Wars with China.  However, the 1997 agreement also contained Beijing’s acceptance of a 50 year transition period, during which Hong Kong’s government would be democratic and would follow a rule of law protecting individual rights. This arrangement was labeled “One China, Two Systems”.   

However, Xi’s patience did not extend to 2047 when the 50 year two systems approach would have naturally ended.  Thus, starting in 1919 he forcefully put down Hong Kong residents’ frequent large,  demonstrations protesting Beijing’s attempt to impose a draconian national security law. In August 2022, Beijing directly, totally controls the former colony, over which it received sovereignty in 1997.  

Xi unilaterally abrogated the 1997 agreement with London, generating loud objections from the West and Taiwan.  As a consequence, Hong Kong’s long standing role as Asia’s financial hub, is ending.    .

How Legitimate is Beijing’s Claim to Taiwan? 

Taiwan’s legal situation is quite different from Hong Kong’s because Chinese sovereignty over Hong Kong was not in question after 1997.  However, China ceded its Taiwan sovereignty to Japan in 1895. 

In 1945, Japan surrendered to the US and its Allies, ending WWII, but the documentation left the issue of  who “owned” Taiwan, unaddressed. At the time, American Forces occupied the island. Later, the Truman Administration invited its wartime ally, Chiang kai-shek, then the Chinese leader, to administer Taiwan, but unaccompanied by a legal transfer of Taiwan sovereignty to China. 

The PRC holds that it was implicitly made, which would have required the US to have claimed sovereignty over Taiwan when Japan surrendered, which it never did. 

If China wasn’t a credible military threat to Taiwan, Ukraine and Russia would continue to monopolize international news. However, most of the 23 million Taiwanese, are strongly opposed to and willing to defend against, becoming citizens of Communist China.

The following historic chronology traces the 500 year sequence of shifting sovereignty over Taiwan.  My opinion only, but China has a very circumstantial, but not a convincing legal case, to support its assertion that Taiwan is rightfully part of China.  

Taiwan: Chronology

• 13th to early 17th Century:

• • • Taiwan “discovered” by Portugal (called it Formosa), 
    • Colonized by Dutch, lesser extent, by Spanish.
    • 1683, China’s Qing Dynasty conquered/absorbed Taiwan’s Southern region into its empire.. 
    • Various Chinese dynasties ruled it until 1895.  

• 19th & 20th Centuries

• • • China lost first Sino-Japanese War and ceded Taiwan to Japan.
    • Japan ruled Taiwan until 1945 when it lost WWII to US and Allies. 
    • Washington asked WWII Ally, China (then under Chaing kai shek) to administer Taiwan.
    • 1949 Chiang lost Chinese civil war to Mao and  Communists, moved government and contents of national museum to Taiwan. 
    • Until 1979, US dealt with Chiang and his Kuomintang Government, not Mao and his successors as the legitimate diplomatic representatives of China internationally.    
    • 1972, President Nixon first US President to visit Communist Peoples’ Republic of China (PRC).
    • 1979, US established full diplomatic relations with PRC and recognized its sovereignty over China, but no mention of Taiwan.  
    • 1980s democratic reforms in Taiwan.
    • 1995 first democratically elected President of Taiwan.

• 21st Century

In 2022, Taiwan’s economy is thriving and features a major global microchip manufacturing sector. It has a large, well educated middle class and a functioning democracy equipped with police and national security forces.  An observer might sensibly ask why Taiwan doesn’t just declare its independence.  The answer: it might drive Xi to actually invade the island, and lead to a wider Pacific war.  This is a fear shared in Taipei, Washington, Tokyo, Canberra and Seoul 

Will the PRC attack Taiwan?

Unlikely in the near term, i.e. 1- 2 years, despite the fact the PRC in 2022 bears no resemblance to the country Nixon visited 50 years ago and appears competent to do so.  It has a number of billionaires, a large, well educated middle class and a nuclear armed military. It’s GDP is second only to America’s and it is an industrial power house with a huge export market.  But, it has problems.

Economic Issues:

The looser domestic grip Xi’s immediate predecessors allowed, which welcomed foreign investment and international businesses, is chilling in the wake of Beijing’s support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Moreover, his efforts to control multinationals combined with his expansionist actions in the South China Sea and military threats to Taiwan, have created an unpredictable economic/commercial environment.  The result: a number of foreign firms are moving their production facilities and jobs out of China.  

Pandemic:

The Pandemic has killed millions of people and substantially disrupted global trade and economies. China’s zero Covid policy has exacerbated the pain in China through massive lock-downs of large cities, citizens restricted to their homes, fences erected around apartment complexes and closure of factories, banks and other businesses.   Xi’s Zero Tolerance Covid policy clearly evidences his objective of creating a highly concentrated, strong man rule.  

Conclusion:

To repeat, I do not believe Xi will invade Taiwan unless something unexpected occurs, e.g. a referendum is held and Taiwan declares its independence or North Korea sends missiles into Seoul,Tokyo or Guam and the US retaliates or a major political or economic or natural disaster occurs in the US, absorbing Washington’s attention.  

The reasons are the following: (1) The US and the West have not shrugged their shoulders at China’s militant moves as they did when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, possibly emboldening Putin; (2) the Chinese military has never fought a full scale war, whereas the US is seriously battle hardened and very experienced; (3) the Chinese people have a lot to lose now if the PRC goes to war. Xi does not enjoy an unassailable power position comparable to Mao’s or Stalin’s. Thus, he cannot be totally confident the public won’t challenge him should body bags and huge economic demands to support a war, arrive. Such an eventuality could encourage another competing power clique to replace or remove him and (4) Xi doesn’t appear to be irrationally obsessed with recreating some earlier, larger Chinese empire.  

Tom Timberman is an Army vet, lawyer, former senior Foreign Service officer, adjunct professor at GWU, and economic development team leader or foreign government advisor in war zones. He is the author of four books, lectures locally and at US and European universities. He and his wife are 24 year residents of Kent County.

The little town of Quarrelsville lies on the outskirts of Malberg. The speed limit posted on Main Street is 25 mph, but most drivers passing through are too impatient to comply. Several children have been knocked off their bikes and injured. Thankfully, none have been killed.

The town council is equally divided, as they are on most issues, on what to do. Camp Blue, noting that speed signs are ignored, wants to put in three-inch-high, yellow-painted speed bumps.

Camp Orange disagrees. Three-inch speed bumps would exceed the town’s budget. Two-and-a-half-inch speed bumps would be acceptable, but only if they’re orange. 

“Okay,” said Camp Blue, “we’ll agree to your proposal. Will you now vote for it?”

“No,” said Camp Orange, “we still don’t like it.” 

“Why?”

“Because you’ll take credit for the idea.” 

I guess you can see the parallel to the vote just tallied in the US Senate. All fifty Democrat Senators voted for the Inflation Reduction Act; all fifty Republican Senators voted against it.

What? 

In part one of Gulliver’s Travels, shipwrecked Gulliver finds himself in the land of the little people of Lilliput. A civil war is about to begin over disagreement on the proper end of the egg to break. Obviously satire, Swift is trying to show the stupidity of the extent to which a silly, nit-picking argument can lead.

Our present situation is not so trivial. Our Congress is staunchly divided on a bill that would lower healthcare costs for all Americans and mitigate global warming that threatens all life on Earth. And one side is hung up on who gets credit for the progress!

Has there ever been an argument more inane? Objectors are saying “We don’t like your plan that saves our grandchildren because it makes you look too good. (Note: here I am assuming that the nay-sayers are actually educated enough to be aware that there is a problem). 

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. 

For those who may doubt we have a problem, I would be happy to elucidate. Though I myself am not a climate scientist, one of my best friends, now semi-retired, was head of NOAA’s global greenhouse gas monitoring system for many years. I could provide a not-too-technical translation of his summary of the global warming problem if you email me at khufubob@gmail.com.

This is not time to worry about the scorecard.

Bob Moores retired from Black & Decker/DeWalt in 1999 after 36 years. He was the Director of Cordless Product Development at the time. He holds a mechanical engineering degree from Johns Hopkins University.

The small yet critically important Marshyhope Creek on Maryland’s Eastern Shore has been targeted for a massive facility that poses a serious threat to its water quality and its habitats. The state’s initial attempt to permit AquaCon’s massive Federalsburg facility is grossly deficient.

The start-up Norwegian company’s promises about sustainable indoor salmon farming and the economic benefits it would bring to Maryland have not panned out elsewhere in this industry.

Instead, the nascent indoor salmon farming industry has been plagued by mass die-offs of fish, lackluster consumer support, and in one case a catastrophic fire that destroyed an industrial salmon production facility in Demark.

Despite the industry’s problems, AquaCon is now proposing a 25-acre indoor salmon farm near Federalsburg, and a draft discharge permit for it has been issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment. As scientists and environmental advocates who have reviewed the proposed permit, we find it to be concerning and deficient. If AquaCon is allowed to operate under this permit, there are numerous risks to Eastern Shore ecosystems and the Chesapeake Bay.

Anyone concerned with this proposal should attend the in-person public hearing 5 to 8 p.m., Aug. 10 at Federalsburg Town Hall. MDE plans to accept written comments until close of business October 17,

AquaCon is proposing to produce about 35 million pounds of salmon per year at this facility in a series of tanks. Within these tanks, the water would be filtered and recycled to limit the wastewater that leaves the plant.

Yet AquaCon still proposes to dump 2.3 million gallons of wastewater into Marshyhope Creek each day. This amount of polluted water could overwhelm the narrow and mostly shallow tidal creek.

Federally and state designated as critical habitat, the Marshyhope is the smallest known river in the United States that’s home to the endangered Atlantic sturgeon. It’s also the only river in Maryland where the species is known to spawn. MDE has not addressed concerns expressed by Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources and scientists from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science about how the pollution and coldwater discharges from the industrial salmon farm would affect Atlantic sturgeon.

This project represents the first experiment of its kind where fecal wastes, well exceeding those of the entire human population of Caroline County, are self-contained under a single roof.

Neither AquaCon nor MDE has provided assurances that the proposed technology, which has only been tested in small production units, will work to filter the feces from millions of large salmon grown in tanks. Maryland’s Eastern Shore already faces a severe overabundance of animal processing wastes.

In the U.S., there’s only one industrial salmon farm in operation that’s of a similar scale as what’s being proposed by AquaCon—a plant in Miami operated by Atlantic Sapphire. That plant, which first began producing salmon in 2020, suffered mass die-offs of salmon in 2020 and 2021 that killed more than 600,000 fish—equivalent to about 1,300 cattle being wasted. In September 2021, Atlantic Sapphire’s pilot plant in Demark, where it was testing technology to raise salmon indoors caught fire and destroyed the facility. The fire created a cloud of smoke that covered neighboring communities and caused a nearby waterway to turn red. Authorities warned citizens in the area not to enter the water due to excessive amounts of iron chloride spilling into the water next to the plant.

Despite these catastrophic events, MDE’s proposed permit does not address what AquaCon would be required to do in the event of loss of power, water supply interruptions, fish die-offs, debilitating storms, or devastating fire. Even if AquaCon were required to obtain a bond to cover operational failures, the environmental risks are too high to be mitigated by this kind of compensation.

The Marshyhope is already impaired by primary Bay pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus, yet MDE’s permit doesn’t detail how the plant could ensure it doesn’t exceed the limits the agency sets for these pollutants.

The permit doesn’t address how stormwater runoff would be treated from the plant, which would be one of the largest buildings in the state—about the size of six Super Walmarts. An inch of rainfall on this facility could produce up to 750,000 gallons of runoff, which would create flooding and pollution risks.

AquaCon is also proposing to withdraw 2.3 million gallons of water per day from underground aquifers, yet MDE has failed to address whether groundwater supplies and existing uses can accommodate this level of withdrawal, or could cause nearby land to sink, as has happened elsewhere.

What MDE did do is compare this new permit with one issued in Belfast, Maine for a different indoor salmon farm. However, the comparison is less than apt. In Maine, the facility would drain into Penobscot Bay, a much larger, deeper, and colder body of water, whereas the Marshyhope at the proposed discharge location is only about 100 feet wide and wadable at low tide. And while Maine did grant a discharge permit for the facility, the plant has not been built so there’s no way to tell if the permit is appropriate or being met.

The indoor-raised salmon industry has struggled with an off-taste due to high levels of the compound geosmin being present in the salmon tanks. In Maryland, AquaCon is proposing to “purge” that geosmin from their fish straight into the Marshyhope. The effects of doing that to the fish already living in this sensitive waterway – from temperature and salinity imbalances, to chemical contamination, to excessive nutrient loads – are mostly unknown.

Taken together, the risks posed by this speculative business proposition are great. If Maryland is really interested in enabling farm raised salmon production on the Shore, state regulators need to do more to protect surrounding communities, guarantee pollution in local waterways won’t get worse, and find a site that doesn’t directly threaten the endangered Atlantic sturgeon.

Alan Girard, Eastern Shore Director, Chesapeake Bay Foundation

Dr. Bradley Stevens, Professor Emeritus of Marine Science, University of Maryland Eastern Shore

Dr. David Secor, Professor, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory

Fred Pomeroy, President, Dorchester Citizens for Planned Growth

Jay Martin, President, Friends of the Nanticoke River

Dr. Judith Stribling, Faculty Emerita, Salisbury University

Madeleine Adams, President, Wicomico Environmental Trust

Matt Pluta, Director of Riverkeeper Programs, ShoreRivers

Nick Carter, Retired Fisheries Biologist, MD Department of Natural Resources

The last Republican state comptroller in Maryland was one Phillips Lee Goldsborough, who served from 1898 to 1900, when William McKinley was president of the United States. So the odds definitely favor Brooke Lierman (D), the Baltimore City delegate, in the general election for comptroller this fall.

Not only does Lierman have history and party registration on her side, but she’s an indefatigable campaigner brimming with ideas for the office, who is poised to make history as the first woman elected independently to a statewide position in Maryland government. That fact alone gets a lot of people excited.

Lierman’s Republican opponent, Harford County Executive Barry Glassman, is the most solid and qualified GOP nominee in several generations. In addition to his eight years as executive, he has served in the General Assembly and local government. He’s a sheep farmer and also had a long career working for BG&E. He’s well known and well liked in Maryland political circles.

But all that could be blotted out by the turn the state Republican Party has taken this election, nominating seemingly unelectable candidates for governor and attorney general. That puts the squeeze on Glassman, who must figure out how to distance himself from Del. Dan Cox, the GOP gubernatorial nominee, and former Anne Arundel County councilmember Michael Anthony Peroutka, the GOP candidate for attorney general, without completely alienating base Republican voters.

You can imagine a scenario where day after day, Glassman will be asked to answer for the extreme positions and conspiracy theories espoused by his running mates. It cannot be a happy circumstance for one of the few bipartisan happy warriors left in Maryland politics.

But could this in fact be an unanticipated opportunity for Glassman, one that no one really imagined just a couple of weeks ago?

Consider an alternative reality in which former State Commerce Secretary Kelly Schulz, the choice of the Gov. Larry Hogan wing of the GOP, won the Republican nomination for governor. All the attention, money, and political energy would be behind Schulz, who would surely be a tougher general election opponent for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Wes Moore than Cox will prove to be.

Under that scenario, Glassman, like all Republican nominees for comptroller decade after decade, would be subject to the vagaries of the state’s typical partisan performance. The comptroller’s race would be overshadowed by the gubernatorial election, and Glassman’s arguments for himself would undoubtedly be ignored. He might benefit from the resources devoted to Schulz’s campaign and the notion that she had a decent shot of winning, but would very much be the second or third banana in the overall Republican conversation.

Now, however, Glassman is a man on his own, and that has its advantages and disadvantages. Yes, he may have undesirable ballot mates in the eyes of many political professionals, but he also has an opportunity to chart his own course. Perhaps some of the GOP establishment enthusiasm that would have been attached to Schulz’s campaign can now be focused his way.

Glassman can credibly argue that he’s the last sane Republican standing — and the only Republican standing in the way of Democratic hegemony in Annapolis. He can pledge to be a nonpartisan fiscal steward of Maryland’s treasury, and hint that Lierman’s agenda is too woke and too costly — and that she’ll try to use the job as a stepping stone to higher office. Some editorial boards will no doubt be responsive to this argument.

Glassman will need some Democratic validators, and there are probably a few of them out there, mostly older white men. He will have Hogan and some of Hogan’s top advisers on his side, and that can’t hurt. But he’ll need the media to pay attention, which will be a challenge with all the Republican crazy to keep tabs on.

You wouldn’t want to bet against Lierman in the general election. But you might want to pay attention to Glassman and how he operates in the spotlight. Sounding a warning against Lierman is still the longest of long shots, but it’s the only play he has.

Maryland Matters founding editor Josh Kurtz is a veteran chronicler of Maryland politics and government. He began covering the State House in 1995 for The Gazette newspapers, and has been writing about state and local politics ever since. He was an editor at Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, for eight years, and for eight years was the editor of E&E Daily, which covers energy and environmental policy on Capitol Hill. For 6 1/2 years Kurtz wrote a weekly column on state politics for Center Maryland and has written for several other Maryland publications as well.

Prior to the onslaught of the COVID-19 Pandemic, rural areas of the United States were seeing modest economic growth, while most populations stayed at 2010 levels. The national total of rural residents was some 46 million or about 14% of the US total., These statistics rather sharply contrast with the urban data, which showed considerably higher increases in both categories. 

In terms of poverty rates, there was a similar result. Rural poverty rates declined from a high of 18.4% (2013) to 16.1% (2018), still higher than urban rates at the time, on average about 12.6%.  

And then Covid struck in the winter of 2019 – 2020, leading eventually to over 1 million American deaths and a national economic crisis that only began to abate in spring 2022. In July 2022 the economic concern is inflation. The spread of Covid infections and deaths over the past 2 plus years has also differed at different times in rural and urban regions  

Initially, the cities were harder hit, while the non-metro regions reflected a more predictable 14%  of national cases and 11% of the deaths. These figures eventually rose to 21% and 27% respectively in 2021.  

The general explanations offered for the later, persistent spikes in rural areas, include: (1) more residents with underlying health conditions, (2) fewer people with health insurance, (3) longer distances to hospitals and (4) substantially fewer vaccinated/boosted people.  Other  contributing factors creating “super spreader” situations in both city and farm country, has been crowded work and home environments and too many mask-less people at indoor holiday and other events. 

Yes, the Pandemic severely affected lives in Kent, Somerset, Dorchester and Talbot Counties, but it only exacerbated conditions existing in the four. It is those conditions that over years can and do  lead to shrinking demographics. The following chart provides background data on each county, offering  facts to review and tentative answers to be offered.  

The following provides four important national and Maryland data points from the 2020 Census  to provide a partial basis for comparison with the counties.  

One common measure of a community’s health and well being is its “viability”, that is will it continue to work as a functioning place for people to live. The answer is “it depends” because age, health, job opportunities, available training and education, affordable housing and quality of life all affect residents’ opinions.   

All four counties are losing residents and those remaining are, to a significant extent, senior citizens. These are not, per se, encouraging viability factors. Economic development in all four is something of an issue, but particularly for Dorchester, Somerset and Kent, as is evident by their lagging median incomes. 

These three have also lost businesses, i.e., employers, that have not been replaced, nor have many new ventures opened. Affecting the latter, may be the level of skill sets and experience offered by  local work forces. 

The relatively high poverty rates and median ages translate into heavier demand for county, city and town public services. In 2022, the costs of providing them are rising, particularly for public school systems. Shrinking numbers of taxpayers, clearly impact public revenue streams.   

It is clear, these counties need to understand the dimensions of the work required to reverse current adverse demographic trends and to satisfy the shifting needs of their populations in the decades ahead. I have no doubt their leaders comprehend the work that lies ahead and will meet the viability tests.

Tom Timberman is an Army vet, lawyer, former senior Foreign Service officer, adjunct professor at GWU, and economic development team leader or foreign government advisor in war zones. He is the author of four books, lectures locally and at US and European universities. He and his wife are 24 year residents of Kent County.

 

I’m trying to understand why guns are so ingrained in American culture, why gun possession is one of our defining characteristics. Is it residual from our frontier-taming history? Does it reflect our passion for individual liberty? Is gun-collecting a hobby or investment? Or is it darker drives bordering on paranoia or the need for macho expression? Carry a big stick. Don’t tread on me!

Why do citizens need military-style assault rifles? It can’t be for target shooting because rapid-fire guns with high-capacity magazines are not at all necessary to test one’s accuracy. Nor can it be for hunting because those types of guns only indicate that the hunter is not very skilled.

I was once a gun collector. I owned several pistols, a couple of shotguns, three assault rifles, and a World War 2-era German machine gun (deactivated so it could not fire). As an engineer, army veteran, and student of military history, there was a sort of beauty, an artistry of mechanical design function that I admired. I rationalized that I had acceptable reasons for owning weapons of war. I am still a gun owner today. I own one pistol. Do I need it? Not really. Do I want it? Yes, for the same reason I gave above.

Now, most of us agree that we have a gun violence problem in America. Gun murders in the streets of our large cities have become so common that they are hardly newsworthy. Business as usual. When our kids are mass-murdered our hackles raised a little more – but only for a short while. Our outrage quickly subsides, only to reappear the next time. It’s a reoccurring nightmare that we seem powerless to end.

I will illustrate our situation by analogy.

There is a large boat which has sprung a leak in its hull and is sinking. The people on the boat are divided on what to do. One group says “We have to bail out the water”. Another group says “Good idea, but while we’re bailing out the water, we should be working to plug the leak.” Another group says “We should call the Coast Guard.” A fourth group says “Why not do all of these?” Which is the most sensible group?

Gun people adamantly insist that the gun is off limits; the problem is with the shooter. He should be our sole focus. They demand that there be no legislation on gun control, none, zero, nada, no way. Let there be more guns. Arm teachers. Hire retired soldiers and police for school security. Gun-makers, their stock-holders, and Fox news-junkies couldn’t be more pleased.

But isn’t the problem complex enough that it requires a (forgive the simile) shotgun approach? If we really agree that we have a serious problem, why not attack it with everything we’ve got?

Restrictions or banning the purchase of weapons optimally-designed for killing the most people in the shortest time, and background checks on all gun purchasers should be part of the fix equation. That seems clear to me. The other part, the mentality of the shooter, is another. But how do we predict when someone who has been acting normally, up to a point, is suddenly going to freak out? Are danger signs always telegraphed? And even when they are, history shows that we have not done a good job of reading them and reacting. Besides, how can we arrest or order someone to accept psychiatric help before they commit a crime? I am not skilled enough to suggest answers to the shooter part, but somebody wiser should be.

Should we excoriate lawmakers for not helping with this problem, for putting job security over conscience? Remember one thing: Their jobs depend on our votes. If gun violence was considered a priority problem in this country, the representatives we elect would be forced to accede to our demands to fix it. Apparently, it is not a priority problem for lawmakers. Maybe the problem is us!

Bob Moores retired from Black & Decker/DeWalt in 1999 after 36 years. He was the Director of Cordless Product Development at the time. He holds a mechanical engineering degree from Johns Hopkins University