If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Finance)   Maryland town begins taxing rainwater. Residents wonder what precipitated the decision   (dailyfinance.com) divider line 243
    More: Asinine, town, instant-runoff voting, Prince George's  
•       •       •

16269 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2013 at 8:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



243 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-05 06:19:26 PM
Finally trickle down economics, and people said it wouldn't work.
 
2013-04-05 06:22:49 PM
Some background: The Chesapeake Bay faces a serious pollution problem. The Environmental Protection Agency decreed in 2010 that Maryland had to stop so much stormwater runoff from draining into the Bay, a project that would cost $14.8 billion. To pay for that, authorities decided to tax "impervious surfaces" -- in the words of The Gazette, "anything that prevents rainwater from seeping into the earth (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) thereby causing stormwater runoff."

And yet in Ohio it is illegal to capture your own rainwater. Same in Colorado.
 
2013-04-05 06:37:56 PM

grokca: Finally trickle down economics, and people said it wouldn't work.


Trickle down taxation, too
 
2013-04-05 06:47:51 PM
They're trying to maintain the purity of their essence?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-04-05 07:48:18 PM
For $14.8 billion you could hire enough hit men to keep the EPA from enforcing its mandate.
 
2013-04-05 08:06:48 PM
Yep - I'm in the hot zone. Thanks, Taxbongo.
 
2013-04-05 08:14:57 PM
I love articles like this.  "They're raising taxes for basically no reason whatsoever!  Let us keep developing and not have to pay any taxes on anything!  You're just creating problems out of nowhere!  Why are you so mean?  Whaaa I am going to buy a new sports car to overcompensate."

Here is what I have been able to find out:

*The fee is $85 a year on average for home owners
*The pollution in the river is a legitimate problem and an actual, serious public health risk
*The University of Maryland's Environmental Finance Center did a study on it and concluded that for every $100 million the county pours into stormwater-related capital projects, about $225 million will be poured back into the local economy and 776 jobs will be created.
*The people who are sponsoring reports like this "article" made a shiatload more money off of overdevelopment than they will ever spend on cleaning up the damage they did
 
2013-04-05 08:28:35 PM
Autoplay videos deserve a kick in the nuts.
 
2013-04-05 08:50:39 PM
 
2013-04-05 08:52:34 PM

Nadie_AZ: Some background: The Chesapeake Bay faces a serious pollution problem. The Environmental Protection Agency decreed in 2010 that Maryland had to stop so much stormwater runoff from draining into the Bay, a project that would cost $14.8 billion. To pay for that, authorities decided to tax "impervious surfaces" -- in the words of The Gazette, "anything that prevents rainwater from seeping into the earth (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) thereby causing stormwater runoff."

And yet in Ohio it is illegal to capture your own rainwater. Same in Colorado.


Something to do with mosquitos, unlawful diversion etc...
 
2013-04-05 08:52:51 PM
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman...
 
2013-04-05 08:53:15 PM
/lives in Maryland
//enjoys Blue Bay crabs
///bay has more poop in it than a toilet
////REALLY ok with paying a bit more to improve the local environment


Seriously, there's a problem with a tax that helps clean up the bay?  It's filthy, but it's also a very valuable natural resource... fishing, crabbing, tourism, property values... it seems like this tax will benefit the community.
 
2013-04-05 08:53:48 PM

winterbraid: http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/maryland-rain-tax-stormwater-runoff-ch e sapeake/

did anyone read that as "runoff-cheapskate?"


Ha!
 
2013-04-05 08:53:55 PM

ZAZ: For $14.8 billion you could hire enough hit men to keep the EPA from enforcing its mandate.



"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats."

-H. L. Mencken
 
2013-04-05 08:55:22 PM
Obama.
 
2013-04-05 08:55:36 PM
Pave the Bay!
 
2013-04-05 08:55:47 PM
Been spending most our lives
Living in a liberal's paradise
Keep spending most our lives
Living in a liberal's paradise
 
2013-04-05 08:56:06 PM

Mustakraken: /lives in Maryland
//enjoys Blue Bay crabs
///bay has more poop in it than a toilet
////REALLY ok with paying a bit more to improve the local environment


Seriously, there's a problem with a tax that helps clean up the bay?  It's filthy, but it's also a very valuable natural resource... fishing, crabbing, tourism, property values... it seems like this tax will benefit the community.


I first read that as "crapping".
 
2013-04-05 08:56:07 PM

Mustakraken: /lives in Maryland
//enjoys Blue Bay crabs
///bay has more poop in it than a toilet
////REALLY ok with paying a bit more to improve the local environment


Seriously, there's a problem with a tax that helps clean up the bay?  It's filthy, but it's also a very valuable natural resource... fishing, crabbing, tourism, property values... it seems like this tax will benefit the community.


I'm all for taxation that helps the community.  Not so much if it can be proven would help a private utility.  If the public at large were to truly benefit- let's tax it.
 
2013-04-05 08:56:53 PM

clowncar on fire: Mustakraken: /lives in Maryland
//enjoys Blue Bay crabs
///bay has more poop in it than a toilet
////REALLY ok with paying a bit more to improve the local environment


Seriously, there's a problem with a tax that helps clean up the bay?  It's filthy, but it's also a very valuable natural resource... fishing, crabbing, tourism, property values... it seems like this tax will benefit the community.

I'm all for taxation that helps the community.  Not so much if it can be proven would help a private utility.  If the public at large were to truly benefit- let's tax it.


Ps.  Does it enable or truly help?
 
2013-04-05 08:57:51 PM

BGates: Been spending most our lives
Living in a liberal's paradise
Keep spending most our lives
Living in a liberal's paradise


You're not helping.
 
2013-04-05 08:59:59 PM

Mustakraken: Seriously, there's a problem with a tax that helps clean up the bay? It's filthy, but it's also a very valuable natural resource... fishing, crabbing, tourism, property values... it seems like this tax will benefit the community.


I'm sure you contributing $5 a month would benefit the Fark community, which would be a perfect fit for you, since you sound like you wouldn't have a problem with that.
 
2013-04-05 09:00:00 PM
img209.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-05 09:00:38 PM
So there's a cost associated with treating storm water and people are being assessed a share of that cost based on how much runoff their properties create?

My outrage is underwhelming.
 
2013-04-05 09:00:54 PM

Nadie_AZ: Some background: The Chesapeake Bay faces a serious pollution problem. The Environmental Protection Agency decreed in 2010 that Maryland had to stop so much stormwater runoff from draining into the Bay, a project that would cost $14.8 billion. To pay for that, authorities decided to tax "impervious surfaces" -- in the words of The Gazette, "anything that prevents rainwater from seeping into the earth (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) thereby causing stormwater runoff."

And yet in Ohio it is illegal to capture your own rainwater. Same in Colorado.


Richmond, Va. has been doing that for 3 years+... $25 per 1000 sq.ft... my sheds put me over that by 47 sq. ft... add another 20 bucks.... kinda funny, as my back yard has an underground stream supplying it and I have green grass when everyone else ( without sprinklers) has brown crunchy grass...  ground perks very well, and runoff never leaves the yard....
 
2013-04-05 09:01:03 PM
I think the liberal paradise of Eugene, Oregon already does this.
 
2013-04-05 09:01:35 PM

BGates: Been spending most our lives
Living in a liberal's paradise
Keep spending most our lives
Living in a liberal's paradise


Yeah fark the EPA. Those sissies talking about air pollution in Southern California just can't handle the two packs a day! fark liberals, always making us do common sense things.
 
2013-04-05 09:01:44 PM

Keyser_Soze_Death: If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman...


The farking article beat you to your witty pop culture reference. :(
 
2013-04-05 09:01:58 PM
The conservative poutrage is amusing to my sleep-deprived brain.
 
2013-04-05 09:01:59 PM
fark, maryland is sounding more and more like california
 
2013-04-05 09:02:03 PM
I live in Cobb County Georgia, and they tried passing that here.  Nevermind that we were in a drought and that the lake levels were all low and there are no natural lakes in Georgia.

They were going to count swimming pools as impervious surfaces.

Sam Olens (now the Georgia attorney general) just about got ridden out of town on a rail for that one.

i think Gwinnett did get stuck with the tax.
 
2013-04-05 09:04:10 PM

TheGreatGazoo: I live in Cobb County Georgia, and they tried passing that here.  Nevermind that we were in a drought and that the lake levels were all low and there are no natural lakes in Georgia.

They were going to count swimming pools as impervious surfaces.

Sam Olens (now the Georgia attorney general) just about got ridden out of town on a rail for that one.

i think Gwinnett did get stuck with the tax.


*Jeopardy noise*

Hey, a Farker local to me. That's rare.
 
2013-04-05 09:04:39 PM

Nadie_AZ: Some background: The Chesapeake Bay faces a serious pollution problem. The Environmental Protection Agency decreed in 2010 that Maryland had to stop so much stormwater runoff from draining into the Bay, a project that would cost $14.8 billion. To pay for that, authorities decided to tax "impervious surfaces" -- in the words of The Gazette, "anything that prevents rainwater from seeping into the earth (roofs, driveways, patios, sidewalks, etc.) thereby causing stormwater runoff."

And yet in Ohio it is illegal to capture your own rainwater. Same in Colorado.


Ohio allows rainwater harvesting, even for potable purposes. Private water systems that provide drinking water to fewer than 25 people are regulated by the Ohio Department of Health (ODH). Ohio also has a Private Water Systems Advisory Council within the ODH. The nine member council is appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Colorado had some of the nation's strictest rainwater harvest laws, essentially prohibiting the practice. In 2009, two laws were passed that loosened restrictions. CO SB 80 allowed residential property owners who rely on certain types of wells to collect and use rainwater. Colorado Revised Statutes §37-90-105 CO HB 1129 authorized 10 pilot projects where captured precipitation was used in new real estate developments for non-potable uses. Colorado Revised Statutes §37-60-115

It's almost as if water has to be managed differently in arid states than in wetter states.
 
2013-04-05 09:05:03 PM
lizyrd:

So there's a cost associated with treating storm water and people are being assessed a share of that cost based on how much runoff their properties create?

My outrage is underwhelming.


Ding! We have a winner.

Maryland has seen amazing amounts of McMansions and pavement go up in the last few years. They've run a lot of city water and gas lines, which allows for more development. Around here, the county is actually giving people tax breaks to NOT develop large properties into subdivisions and keep land fallow.
 
2013-04-05 09:05:07 PM

MorePeasPlease: Mustakraken: Seriously, there's a problem with a tax that helps clean up the bay? It's filthy, but it's also a very valuable natural resource... fishing, crabbing, tourism, property values... it seems like this tax will benefit the community.

I'm sure you contributing $5 a month would benefit the Fark community, which would be a perfect fit for you, since you sound like you wouldn't have a problem with that.


For some- it's the challenge of saving a dollar or two.

Before you go there: saving vs spending someone else's money.  I have no problem with you finding an alternative and saving money you worked for.  Big issue with you using money that was given to you pay for other than what you were obligated to pay.
 
2013-04-05 09:06:39 PM
Wonder if you can get an exemption by living in a Chia house?  Rooftop gardens soak up water and conserve energy.
 
2013-04-05 09:07:39 PM
Meh, granddad drained into a low spot that turned into a pond he planted weeping willow trees around. Wonder if that was "best practices". Don't know if they invented the term "retention pond". Probably wetlands violation for keeping the rest of the property from being a swamp.
 
2013-04-05 09:08:22 PM
Before it's all over, there will be a tax for managing your taxes, because it's taxing.  Or some kind of liberal gibberish.
 
2013-04-05 09:09:56 PM

SnakeLee: I love articles like this.  "They're raising taxes for basically no reason whatsoever!  Let us keep developing and not have to pay any taxes on anything!  You're just creating problems out of nowhere!  Why are you so mean?  Whaaa I am going to buy a new sports car to overcompensate."

Here is what I have been able to find out:

*The fee is $85 a year on average for home owners
*The pollution in the river is a legitimate problem and an actual, serious public health risk
*The University of Maryland's Environmental Finance Center did a study on it and concluded that for every $100 million the county pours into stormwater-related capital projects, about $225 million will be poured back into the local economy and 776 jobs will be created.
*The people who are sponsoring reports like this "article" made a shiatload more money off of overdevelopment than they will ever spend on cleaning up the damage they did



Where will the $225 million come from?  What kinds of "jobs" will be created?

Like I always say, if you want to test the motives of those who wish to ENFORCE their will on you to "solve a problem", look at the validity of their proposed "solutions" to said problem.

From the link at the bottom of TFA:

QUOTE:

OK, once the counties raise this money, how is it spent? The state law is kind of squishy. It can be spent to build and maintain stream and wetland restoration projects. And, of course, a lot of it will go to "monitoring, inspection, enforcement, review of stormwater management plans and permit applications and mapping of impervious surfaces." In other words, hiring more bureaucrats to administer the rain tax program.

It can also be spent on "public education and outreach" (whatever that means) and on "grants to nonprofit organizations" (i.e. to the greenies who pushed the tax through the various levels of government).

If I asked you to guess which Maryland county is already levying a rain tax on its citizens, you'd correctly answer "Montgomery," the "more taxes, please" jurisdiction that collected a $17 million rain tax last year. So, since Montgomery County already has a rain tax in place (but only on residences) let's take a peek at the future. Here's how Montgomery County is spending some of its rain tax:

"(The county) holds workshops and training events to help residents understand how various projects work. Projects such as rain gardens, conservation landscaping, rain barrels and cisterns, drywells and tree planting are then offered to be installed on properties that qualify, based on the County's assessment."

So, I'm supposed to pay a rain tax so the county can train me how to plant a tree, which they'll give me if, in its view, I qualify? Have we all gone mad?

END QUOTE

Are their motives sincere?

Will the proposed "measures" actually do ANYTHING to "fix" the problem?

Or are they just stealing more of your money to further bloat their bureaucracy and increase their gubbermint power?
 
2013-04-05 09:10:07 PM
City of Houston started charging a drainage fee similar to this to pay for street and drainage improvements. It was approved by referendum. Of course after it passed all the people who have completely paved over their lots got hit with large bills and started biatching and moaning about it.
 
2013-04-05 09:11:44 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Before it's all over, there will be a tax for managing your taxes, because it's taxing.  Or some kind of liberal gibberish.


It's called a service fee.  You can pay one to Hr block for prepping those taxes or use some free service like Tax Act instead.
 
2013-04-05 09:15:57 PM

Mustakraken: /lives in Maryland
//enjoys Blue Bay crabs
///bay has more poop in it than a toilet
////REALLY ok with paying a bit more to improve the local environment


Seriously, there's a problem with a tax that helps clean up the bay?  It's filthy, but it's also a very valuable natural resource... fishing, crabbing, tourism, property values... it seems like this tax will benefit the community.



That would be nice if they were actually going to DO anything that would improve the bay - but they aren't.

They're just going to hire a bunch of idiots to enforce and collect the tax, and a bunch more to figure out how they can raise the tax, and maybe hire some of their "non-profit" cronies to "study the issue", so they can further raise the tax.
 
2013-04-05 09:16:15 PM

Amos Quito: SnakeLee: I love articles like this.  "They're raising taxes for basically no reason whatsoever!  Let us keep developing and not have to pay any taxes on anything!  You're just creating problems out of nowhere!  Why are you so mean?  Whaaa I am going to buy a new sports car to overcompensate."

Here is what I have been able to find out:

*The fee is $85 a year on average for home owners
*The pollution in the river is a legitimate problem and an actual, serious public health risk
*The University of Maryland's Environmental Finance Center did a study on it and concluded that for every $100 million the county pours into stormwater-related capital projects, about $225 million will be poured back into the local economy and 776 jobs will be created.
*The people who are sponsoring reports like this "article" made a shiatload more money off of overdevelopment than they will ever spend on cleaning up the damage they did


Where will the $225 million come from?  What kinds of "jobs" will be created?

Like I always say, if you want to test the motives of those who wish to ENFORCE their will on you to "solve a problem", look at the validity of their proposed "solutions" to said problem.

From the link at the bottom of TFA:

QUOTE:

OK, once the counties raise this money, how is it spent? The state law is kind of squishy. It can be spent to build and maintain stream and wetland restoration projects. And, of course, a lot of it will go to "monitoring, inspection, enforcement, review of stormwater management plans and permit applications and mapping of impervious surfaces." In other words, hiring more bureaucrats to administer the rain tax program.

It can also be spent on "public education and outreach" (whatever that means) and on "grants to nonprofit organizations" (i.e. to the greenies who pushed the tax through the various levels of government).

If I asked you to guess which Maryland county is already levying a rain tax on its citizens, you'd correctly answer "Montgomery," t ...


Try to think of the ditch diggers when you rant like this.  A lot of "rain water" taxes cover the cost of upgrading drainage systems and the maintenance of reservoirs.
 
2013-04-05 09:17:45 PM
From here

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

So you have a handful of areas that are farking things up for everyone. Why not tax them to fix the problem? They are the ones causing it.

And you can be exempt from the tax provided you meet state guidelines on runoff. Each person will be assessed individually for the total amount of impervious surface on their property.

Seems like a fair system.
 
2013-04-05 09:19:06 PM
 
2013-04-05 09:19:30 PM
The Chesapeake Bay faces a serious pollution problem. The Environmental Protection Agency decreed in 2010 that Maryland had to stop so much stormwater runoff from draining into the Bay,

Solution: Stop developing every damn square foot of land in a limited area.

Actually, I can understand this. My home, 50 years ago, was built on an empty block, with one other house. We survived hurricanes and gales with no flooding for decades.

About 30 years back, the city started major development. Along with this came major building code changes. Since the land is low, new homes must be built on lots which have been filled in to a certain level to encourage drainage. At the same time, hundreds of miles of new paved roads appeared and old, dirt roads were also covered in tar, along with having their side swale ditches filled in.

My once wooded block went from two homes to 18. The dirt road in front was paved and the swale ditch filled in. The partially developed lots around me were fully developed, according to the new building codes. Some houses look stupid, perched on top of this triangular mass of grassy fill with steeply sloping sides. They mow their lawns at an angle.

As a result, the last storm season flooded our property. We actually got water in the house. I watched basically a small stream flow off the road out front -- raised above our property level when it was paved -- down our dirt driveway to pool in our yard and the neighbors.

I also watched the main drainage ditches start filling beyond their normal capacity during rain storms as more and more acreage got paved over and drained into them.

The Indian River Lagoon started becoming polluted, especially during the summer, when the majority of the city and county waters drained into it. After decades, we had to start restricting the catching and consumption of shellfish during certain times of the year due to bacterial contamination.

We have a whole lot of septic tanks. Consider my block. Once there were two, now there's 18. The block behind me has 20. The water table is usually shallow. So, what do you think happens to several hundred thousand gallons of waste pumped into the ground from the tanks monthly?

We also have water shortages now as the population has quadrupled, but the available water hasn't. Actually, the availability has dropped since developers plowed over hundreds of acres of wild woods which used to capture and filter rain water to replenish the aquifer.

Everyone I biatch to about this to considers me a nut and points out how good for the city development is and they rattle off things like the 6 'new' fire stations, the new paramedics, the huge new hospital, the fact that we went from 20 local physicians to 200 and we have a K-mart, a Wal-mart, a Sams, three major chain grocery stores, 10 banks instead of the original three, more jobs than ever before and about 50 various eating places instead of just 6. Plus the average income has gone up!

They tend to ignore me when I point out that the cost of living has gone up faster than wages, taxes have soared, crime has soared, traffic has become unbelievable along with the associated noise and we now have air pollution.

Our small police force is now a BIG police force with a BIG new office. The small sheriffs department is BIG with a couple of offices and a HUGE new PRISON. (We used to have just a jail.)

So, yeah, I can actually understand the rain tax, though I would not like it if it happened here.

Currently I'm trying to figure out how to sue the county and city over my property now flooding due to their changes.

I was already forced to close my water well and hook up to city water lines. I didn't have to, but if I didn't, if I sold my home, the sale would be stopped until it was hooked up. Right now, the hookup fee is over $2000. This was enacted to help slow the draining of the aquifer by thousands of private wells. Not to mention the gradual pollution of the land by thousands of water softeners backwashing out the salty brine they used, right onto the soil. 80 lbs of salt per home a month. The average home site is 1/4 acre. 20 homes to a block.

Think that just MIGHT affect the water table, which is about 10 feet down?

No one in any city government that I know of in Florida is for restricting growth. All they yammer about is the benefits and the income.

We already have about 10 'new' taxes which are supposed to pay for the mess far too many people in a limited space cause -- but it's not working.
 
2013-04-05 09:20:48 PM

Amos Quito: Mustakraken: /lives in Maryland
//enjoys Blue Bay crabs
///bay has more poop in it than a toilet
////REALLY ok with paying a bit more to improve the local environment


Seriously, there's a problem with a tax that helps clean up the bay?  It's filthy, but it's also a very valuable natural resource... fishing, crabbing, tourism, property values... it seems like this tax will benefit the community.


That would be nice if they were actually going to DO anything that would improve the bay - but they aren't.

They're just going to hire a bunch of idiots to enforce and collect the tax, and a bunch more to figure out how they can raise the tax, and maybe hire some of their "non-profit" cronies to "study the issue", so they can further raise the tax.


My street got tore up, drainage was installed, and more curbside drainage exists.  1/4 of my driveway was replaced as a result.  You were saying?
 
2013-04-05 09:21:10 PM

TheGreatGazoo: They were going to count swimming pools as impervious surfaces.


Isn't the whole idea of a swimming pool that it is impervious? If the water kept getting into contact with the dirt it would be a mud wrestling area, which would be banned because women wrestling in mud are bad for a child's psyche.
 
2013-04-05 09:22:37 PM
Maryland gave us Frank Zappa, John Waters, Ed Norton, Babe Ruth, Johns Hopkins, Eubie Blake and the guy who played 'Gomez Addams' on TV. America should have a Bake Sale and give MD whatever they want.
 
2013-04-05 09:23:45 PM

Elegy: From here

[i.imgur.com image 300x411]

[i.imgur.com image 300x150]

[i.imgur.com image 272x352]

So you have a handful of areas that are farking things up for everyone. Why not tax them to fix the problem? They are the ones causing it.

And you can be exempt from the tax provided you meet state guidelines on runoff. Each person will be assessed individually for the total amount of impervious surface on their property.

Seems like a fair system.


We all want things.  We just want to others pay for them.
 
Displayed 50 of 243 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report