Friends of Frederick County » Reading Material

How limiting pollution encourages job growth, report by CBF

FofFC — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:38:37 +0000

Debunking the “Job Killer” Myth

How Pollution Limits Encourage Jobs in the Chesapeake Bay Region

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure, home to a dazzling spectrum of spe- cies and an engine for the region’s economy estimated to be worth more than $1 trillion dollars.1 But pollution continues to cause serious damage to the nation’s largest estuary, as shown by beach closures, fish consumption advisories, harm- ful algal blooms, and other afflictions.2

In December 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re- leased new pollution limits for the Chesapeake Bay to accelerate its cleanup and the recovery of jobs which rely on clean water. The Chesa- peake Bay “Total Maximum Daily Load,” or TMDL, requires water- shed states to reduce pollution flowing into the estuary by 25 percent by 2025 3,4 and pushes the states to follow through with clean-up promises they made in 2010, based on previous plans called Tributary Strategies, which were released in 2004 and 2005. Almost as soon as these pollution limits were an- nounced, however, they were attacked as “job killers” by national agricultural and homebuilder lobbyists and their political allies.5

This rhetoric was part of a broad assault on environ- mental regulations, in general, spearheaded by some members of the U.S. House of Representatives.6

Sweeping assertions about economic ruin caused by environmental regulations are nothing new, and many economists7 have concluded that there is no substance to them.8 Claims that a good quality of life demands a tradeoff between jobs and the environment have repeatedly been proven false9 over the last four decades. In 1976, for example, Henry Ford II warned that clean air and fuel- efficiency standards would “shut down” the Ford Motor Company.10 Thirty-five years later, Ford not only remains in business, it ranks number 10 on the For- tune 500 list, with profits of $6.5 billion in 2010.11 The company is now mar- keting zero-emission electric cars with a sales pitch that they will “reduce your carbon footprint.”12

Critics of 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments asserted that tighter air-pol- lution limits would mean “a quiet death for businesses across the country.”13 But these gloomy forecasts did not come true, and in the end, the amend- ments produced a benefit-to-investment ratio of more than 40 to 1, including over $70 billion in human health benefits annually and a significant reduction in acid-rain pollution.14

Debunking the “Job Killer” Myth: How Pollution Limits Encourage Jobs in the Chesapeake Bay Region

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, deCemBer 2011cbf.org/tmdl 1

43 Percent:

The increase in the number of environmental industry jobs in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia over the last two decades. Source: Environmental Business International

The cries about Bay pollution limits are a variation on this old song.

This report presents several examples of job creation that have already grown and will likely expand in the Chesapeake region because of water-pollution limits:

 Overall, the number of environmental clean-up and monitoring jobs in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia has surged 43 percent over the last two de- cades, from 98,000 jobs in 1990 to 140,000 jobs in 2009, with a significant portion of this growth com- ing from required sewage and water system improve- ment projects.15

 Construction is underway in Montgomery County, Maryland, on $305 million in stormwater pollution control projects that will create 3,300 construction and engineering jobs.16 Similar stormwater projects could provide work for 178,000 full-time-equivalent jobs across the region over the next five years, includ- ing 36,000 jobs in Maryland, 10,000 in the District

of Columbia, 80,000 in Pennsylvania, and 52,000 in Virginia, according to a projection by the Economic Policy Institute.17

 Among several sewage plant upgrade projects across the region, 118 con- struction workers, engineers, and others are employed in a $63 million project to reduce pollution from the Noman Cole Pollution Control Plant in Fairfax County, Virginia.18 Virginia and Maryland officials plan to invest a combined total of $3 billion19 improving sewage plants over more than a decade, with each billion invested resulting in 20,000 construction-related jobs.20

 Most of the farms in Pennsylvania’s part of the Chesapeake Bay wa- tershed (40,000 farms21) could also create jobs by implement- ing a variety of runoff- and pollution-control practices like this.22 For example, 25 contractors, excavators, and others worked to build manure management pits and a state-of-the-art barn for a dairy farm in Thomas- ville, Pennsylvania.23 The new facilities will reduce runoff of manure into a nearby stream as they help the farmer meet state requirements to maintain a manure management plan.

 About 11,751 temporary jobs are expected to be created over five years if Virginia and the federal governments invest $804 million in farm runoff- control projects such as planting trees and building fences along streams to meet Bay-pollution goals, according to a University of Virginia report.24

It is difficult to predict exactly how many job opportunities will spring up be-

Debunking the “Job Killer” Myth: How Pollution Limits Encourage Jobs in the Chesapeake Bay Region

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, deCemBer 2011cbf.org/tmdl 2

ENVIRONMENTAL INDUSTRY JOB GROWTH

100 80 60 40 20

0 ’90 ’00 ’09

MARYLAND

’90 ’00 ’09

VIRGINIA

’90 ’00 ’09

PENNSYLVANIA

Jobs in environmental industries such as sewage plant construc- tion, pollution cleanup, site testing, etc.

Source: Environmental Business International, Inc.

THOUSANDS OF ENVIRONMENTAL JOBS

cause of projects driven by the Chesapeake Bay pollution limits.25 Innovation will likely inspire the birth of a wide variety of new firms that will hire employees for everything from pollution-credit trad- ing,26 to building high-tech barns, low-runoff hous- ing developments, green roofs, and stormwater-con- trol systems that look like gardens beside the road.

Harvard Business School Economist Dr. Michael Por- ter argued in a ground-breaking article in Scientific American more than 20 years ago that well-designed environmental regulations could actually enhance the competitiveness of businesses by encouraging in- novation and by improving the efficiency with which businesses use natural resources. “Strict environmen- tal regulations do not inevitably hinder competitive advantage against rivals; indeed, they often enhance it,” Porter wrote in 1991.27

Cleaner water also will mean more fish, crabs, and oysters, which will translate to more work and income for fishermen, processors, packers, restaurateurs, and people in tourism-related industries. If history is any guide, environmental regu- lations will once again nourish job creation, not bury it.

Read full report here.

Share and Enjoy:

Public Comment on PlanMaryland due by November 9, 2011

FofFC — Sun, 18 Sep 2011 23:33:18 +0000

Revised Draft Plan – September 2011

After reviewing 120 days of public comment on its initial draft of PlanMaryland the Maryland Department of Planning on September 9, 2011 released a revised draft. MDP is requesting public comment on the revised draft through November 9, 2011 before it prepares a plan to submit to Governor Martin O’Malley. The focus of the revised draft was to respond to input and to make the document shorter and more accessible.

“Throughout the past summer, we took hundreds of comments into account in revising the first draft of the plan that we released in April. All of the input was vital, useful and taken seriously. Many ideas helped shape this phase of the plan and others will help guide the implementation of the plan. What PlanMaryland seeks to accomplish over the next 25 years is saving 300,000 acres of farmland and forest, saving $1.5 billion a year in infrastructure costs and stimulating economic development, jobs and revitalization in our towns, cities and other existing communities that already have the facilities to support growth.”

Richard Eberhart Hall, AICP
Maryland Secretary of Planning

Share and Enjoy:

FoFC’s position on use of mitigation fees to pay for school demands of new development: woefully inadequate

FofFC — Wed, 02 Mar 2011 13:12:21 +0000

Use of a “mitigation fee” - as proposed by the Frederick County Builder’s Association on February 10, 2011 – to “cover the cost” of building a new school or addition to one so that a facility is adequate to house new kids for developer’s new housing development, is not a solution, and really just adds another problem. In other words the mitigation fee will not cover the construction costs of building new space for new kids.

A simple analysis of the BOCC’s idea to use “mitigation fees” to cover the school costs – we use the Crumland Farm annexation - which demonstrates that developers will pay for only a small part of the school costs their developments will demand:

There are 1100 housing units of varying types planned for construction on the Crumland Farm
With those new homes there will be an estimated 550 new school children
School capacity at Monocacy Elementary School (the school that will house those children) – based on December 2010 enrollment figures would be insufficient; Monocacy Elementary School is currently at 109% capacity (in other words that school is already overcrowded).
Neither the County’s Capital Improvement Plan nor the Frederick County Public School’s 10 Year Facilities Plan have budgeted for a new elementary school
Cost of a new elementary school costs between $23 and $25 million.

The FC Builder’s Association has proposed the following fees for elementary school mitigation:

single family home $3870
Town home $4053
Multi family home $897

There will be 550 single family homes, 275 townhomes and 275 multi family homes. The total mitigation fee the Frederick County Builder’s Association proposes for the Crumland Farms annexation development is $3,489,750

Even with the developer’s mitigation fees the County will be $20 million short of what it needs to build a school for these new children. Even if the impact fee revenue from Crumland development project – estimated to be 11.9 million we would still be $7.5 million short.

Taxpayers will pay the difference.

I would also like to reiterate that the $20 million shortfall is only on the cost to CONSTRUCT the school. We still have to educate the children – ie the cost of school operation.

The cost to operate an elementary school PER YEAR is $8.4 million.
The cost to operate a middle school PER YEAR is $10.8
The cost to operate a high school PER YEAR is $19.3

Taxpayers will pay for additional school operating costs.

And, if you are a parent of youngsters who will attend Monocacy Elementary School you might ask how the school system will deal with these additional 550 children when they enter Monocacy Middle School and then TJ High School? The “mitigation fee” proposal is only applicable to those school levels that fail the APFO. Currently Monocacy Middle and TJ are not overcrowded so they would not receive any mitigation funding. Yet, presumably – and if all goes well – our grade school students continue onto those levels! So what will happen when these kids move on, especially to Monocacy Middle which is at 88% capacity? It is likely that Monocacy Middle would need a multi-million dollar addition to accommodate the additional kids.

We use Crumland Farm as an example of just ONE development in Frederick County. There are many more that would follow similar calculations and add additional burden to the county coffers to pay for new schools and their operations.

Where will this money come from? Your wallet.

Share and Enjoy:

Agriculture contributes to our quality of life

FofFC — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 15:03:18 +0000

Washington County farming by the numbers

By JEFF SEMLER

jsemler@umd.edu

9:44 AM EST, January 11, 2011

Over the past several weeks, I have been involved in several presentations and countless conversations on the importance of agriculture to Washington County.

This is a question that bears discussing and one in which there is no easy answer. For many folks in my position, the answer would be an emphatic “yes,” if only it were that easy.

Let’s start with a snapshot of Washington County agriculture. Believe it or not, 39 percent of the land in the county, 114,000 acres, is in agriculture production. There are 844 farms on those acres with most of these farms housing livestock. The county has 13,700 dairy cows, 36,000 beef cows and calves, 6,600 hogs, 1,700 sheep and 1,200 horses.

Besides livestock, the county produces 1.78 million bushels of corn, 181,000 tons of corn silage, 254,000 bushels of soybeans, 370,000 bushels of wheat, 125,000 bushels of barley and 73,500 tons of hay per year.

The county produces 65 percent of the state’s apples and 35 percent of the state’s peaches. In total, Washington County’s agrarian community has farm gate sales of just short of $84 million.

A fairly substantial industry to say the least. Unlike many industries, however, ag producers spend more of their money at home. They patronize the various support industries from feed mills to fuel suppliers. Anytime a person lives where they work, the community is better off.

The dairy industry leads the way here with sales amounting to $45 million, making the county the No. 2 dairy county in the state. The county also ranks second in forage production (hay and silage), third in beef, sixth in sheep and first in hogs, although the hog industry has all but disappeared in Maryland.
These figures demonstrate all the tangibles of agriculture, but I believe it is the intangibles that are most important. The foremost of these intangibles is the contribution agriculture makes to the quality of life. This is the reason many people are clamoring to move here.

Americans have not yet realized what our Swiss brethren know, the farm is responsible for the scenic beauty of this place we call home.

The Swiss, to their credit, have long recognized this to the point that their farmers are considered caretakers of the Alps and are paid for this duty out of funds generated from tourism.

If you have any doubt about what I am saying, take a drive from Smithsburg to Cascade on a sunny day in April or May and if the apple and peach blossoms don’t take your breath away, I might suggest checking your pulse.

Or on a warm summer’s day, drive through the hills and dales and watch cows grazing or calves frolicking or the smell of freshly mown hay.

In a nationwide survey, people were asked what they would like to see out their windows. The results show the No. 1 response was animals grazing (horses or cows to be exact). Rather interesting, they didn’t list a split foyer or a rancher.

So I am going to ask you, is agriculture important to Washington County?

For the record, I am not against development. I believe we should grow our community on the fringes of existing towns and not in the middle of agricultural lands. But that is not my last word. We will visit this topic many more times in the future, so stay tuned.
Jeff Semler is an Extension educator, specializing in agriculture and natural resources, for the University of Maryland Extension. He is based in Washington County. He can be reached weekdays by telephone at 301-791-1404, ext. 25, or by e-mail at jsemler@umd.edu.

http://www.herald-mail.com/news/hm-washington-county-farming-by-t-01112011,0,4487585.story

Share and Enjoy:

State making little progress with Smart Growth, study says (Baltimore Sun)

FofFC — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 16:20:29 +0000

State making little progress with Smart Growth, study says

Policies had little impact on sprawl, congestion

By Timothy B. Wheeler, The Baltimore Sun

12:10 AM EST, January 6, 2011

Thirteen years after Maryland embarked on a nationally recognized effort to promote Smart Growth, the state’s laws and policies have had little discernible impact on sprawl or traffic congestion, a new study says, and farms and forests are still threatened by development.

In its most comprehensive review to date, the University of Maryland’s National Center for Smart Growth Research says development patterns, commuting times and other trends indicate that the state “has not made measurable progress toward improving its performance in many of the areas it says it cares about.”

Gerrit Knaap, director of the center, said there are “a few bright spots,” notably the preservation of land and recent promotion of development around transit stops in the Baltimore and Washington areas. But overall, he said, “the evidence suggests that we haven’t really bent the curves [of growth] in ways we hoped we would.”

The study, underwritten by the Abell Foundation, assessed trends in population and employment, transportation, housing and development and in natural area preservation through 2007. It comes on the eve of a daylong state forum Friday on sustainability convened by Gov. Martin O’Malley, who ran for governor in 2006 on a pledge to strengthen Smart Growth policies. The session is meant to help the O’Malley administration shape its approach to environmental protection, farming and growth over the next four years.

Maryland drew national attention in 1997 when it adopted Smart Growth laws and policies aimed at using state funds to preserve rural land and steer new development to existing communities. It was hailed as a more politically palatable way to curb sprawl than the tight curbs on suburban and rural development in Oregon, which have focused growth in Portland but have provoked political backlash.

Maryland’s incentive-based approach has been less controversial, but the study also suggests it’s been less effective.

Though Smart Growth was intended to promote more compact development, sprawl does not appear to have eased. Three-fourths of the acreage on which new, single-family homes have been built since 1997 are outside of areas designated under the law for growth, and the study says that ratio has worsened slightly in recent years.

On Smart Growth’s other major goal — preservation of open land — the study finds that Maryland has slowed but not halted its chronic losses of farms and forests. Roughly 20 percent of the state’s farmland and forestland has been preserved, either through the state buying it or giving private landowners tax breaks in exchange for pledges not to develop their property. Last year, the state protected 12,812 acres, exceeding a 9,700-acre goal set by the O’Malley administration.

But the study notes that farm and forest acreage is trending downward in Maryland and nationwide, and that 60 percent of the state, including a “substantial amount” of open land and important natural areas, remains unprotected.

By other measures, there’s not much evidence that Smart Growth has altered the state’s demographics and economy — or how residents get around. Population growth has been in line with the national average, the study notes, and there is no clear evidence that Smart Growth has either helped or hurt the state’s economy, as employment growth outpaced the national average, at least through 2008.

And until the recent recession, Marylanders continued to drive more, and congestion and car ownership increased. Transit ridership has been higher than in most states, which the study said probably stems mostly from public investment in rail and bus networks in Baltimore and Washington that began before the Smart Growth policies took effect.

Richard E. Hall, the state’s planning secretary, said the study’s inability to find much impact is “not wildly unexpected,” as it echoes previous studies of Smart Growth’s effectiveness. He said it takes years, even decades, to alter land use trends, in part because of the long lead time involved in planning for development and the limited impact government can have on market forces.

“You’re really turning a battleship with a paddle,” he said. “It takes a long time to see differences.”

Yet Hall said some positive trends are too recent to show up in data analyzed in the report. Annual losses of farmland peaked at more than 22,000 acres in 2004, he noted, and have lessened since. Meanwhile, nine of the state’s 23 counties now have zoning or other programs in place to discourage development in farming areas.

Still, the planning secretary acknowledged that Smart Growth “needs improvement.”

“Smart Growth is tough, and some of the measures we have … don’t show great progress by themselves,” he said. “But we’ve got to continue to do better because we don’t have land to waste.”

John E. Kortecamp, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Maryland, said Smart Growth policies haven’t changed development patterns much because state and local governments have never invested enough in schools, transportation and other infrastructure in existing communities to accommodate more people. And he said residents in such areas often balk at denser development because classrooms and roads are already overcrowded, which he called a “Catch-22.”

“It’s a huge problem, and until that’s addressed, the numbers really aren’t going to change,” Kortecamp said. “Until more money starts coming in from fees, taxes and new economic activity, they’re going to be stuck — commutes are going to be unbelievable and … housing is going to be significantly dispersed.”

Dru Schmidt-Perkins, executive director of the 1000 Friends of Maryland, a nonprofit group dedicated to land preservation, contended that the report fails to credit some of Smart Growth’s effects, notably in protecting farmland and forests. She said the biggest problem has been the lack of “follow-through” by local governments to change development plans, zoning and regulations, which forces state government to help pay for roads, sewers, schools and other services in outlying areas rather than making greater use of existing infrastructure.

“Are we still sprawling in very expensive ways? Absolutely, yes,” she said.

She said she does not believe there is a single solution but that the state’s budget crisis — a $1.6 billion shortfall — presents an opportunity to begin questioning the soundness of paying to bail out poor development decisions. For example, since older residential septic systems are leaching pollutants into the Chesapeake Bay, “why are we still allowing subdivisions on septic systems?” she asked.

Leslie Knapp Jr., associate director of the Maryland Association of Counties, contends that local officials have largely embraced the desirability of protecting farms and open land. But Smart Growth hasn’t been as popular in rural counties, he said, because the state policy calls for more compact development than residents want.

“You don’t see a lot of condos or apartment buildings” in small towns and villages, he said.

Jon Laria, a Baltimore real estate lawyer who is chairman of the state’s growth commission, acknowledged the dilemma, but said he hoped that even with government funding scarce, state and local laws and regulations could be revised to discourage sprawl. He suggested a tradeoff might be possible, with development rules relaxed in areas targeted for growth and more restrictions imposed in rural areas.

Above all, he said, town, county and state officials must work together to change how Maryland is growing, and put away long-running frictions over which level of government has the last say on development.

“The Chesapeake Bay does not care what jurisdiction it’s in,” he said.

tim.wheeler@baltsun.com

http://www.herald-mail.com/news/bs-gr-smart-growth-20110105,0,2068333.story

Share and Enjoy:

Thinking outside the box on sprawl: the sprawl repair manual

FofFC — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:22:41 +0000

Driving the highways and byways of America’s endless exurbs and suburbs can be pretty depressing. Strip mall after megamall after subdivision after strip mall fans out from every city in the country — with much of that development sitting vacant or in foreclosure. Even the sprawl has sprawl these days.

It’s a problem even if you’re a dedicated suburbanite. Commutes are long and congested, office space sits vacant, and green space gets eaten up to build new malls and developments as the old ones become obsolete.

So, can this mess be fixed?

Take a look at this publication for some ideas: The Sprawl Repair Manual

Share and Enjoy:

January 20th @ 1pm: mega church appeal before the BOA

FofFC — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:00:00 +0000

January 20th 1pm at Winchester Hall - Attend the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing!

Send letters in advance to the BOA, their website: http://www.frederickcountymd.gov/index.aspx?NID=176

Share and Enjoy:

Environmental Site Design for stormwater management: resources and powerpoints

FofFC — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 22:32:10 +0000

Since June, Bruce Gilmore and Richard Klein of the Community and Environmental Defense Services (CEDS) have conducted five workshops on Environmental Site Design for Clean Water Advocates. The workshops were designed to expand the base of support for this incredibly important approach. To this end the workshops were successful. More then a hundred people registered for workshops held in Annapolis, Baltimore, Charlotte Hall, Frederick, and Saint Michaels.

About a third of the workshop attendees were volunteers and professionals with nonprofit groups. Another third were government officials some of whom review ESD plans. The remaining attendees were attorneys and consultants. At the workshops Bruce and Richard presented the following Power Points.

Anacostia Watershed Society – Audubon ESD Presentation

Achieving the Promise of Environmental Site Design

Does A Concept Plan Show ESD Has Been Used To Maximize Aquatic Resource Protection?

Richard created a checklist which simplifies the task of determining if ESD has been effectively used on a proposed development site. Users are asked to forward a copy of completed checklists to richard@ceds.org – so that CEDS can monitor the implementation of ESD at the county, city and watershed level. Presently such a monitoring mechanism doesn’t exist. The following webpage provides extensive guidance for Clean Water Advocates seeking full use of Environmental Site Design on proposed development projects: ceds.org/esd. Please share this information.

Share and Enjoy:

Redevelopment and Stormwater Management/Environmental Site Design

FofFC — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:26:24 +0000

High Point Natural Drainage System

Because of its size and its relationship to Longfellow Creek, the redevelopment of the High Point neighborhood in West Seattle offered Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) a unique opportunity to implement a large scale natural drainage system in an urban environment, where it could make a real difference. High Point features the largest natural drainage project that the City has undertaken, and the first time that a natural drainage strategy of this scale has been used in such a high density urban setting.

Features and Benefits

Designed in partnership with Seattle Housing Authority, this natural drainage system will treat about 10 percent of the watershed feeding Longfellow Creek – one of Seattle’s priority watersheds.

The natural drainage system at High Point mimics nature in many ways by using features such as swales to capture and naturally filter storm water and open, landscaped ponds or small wetland ponds to hold an overflow of storm water.

The end results are nothing short of remarkable. When completed, High Point will process water in a manner similar to a forest meadow.

High Point serves as an exemplary model for other large-scale developments, both locally and across the country. And SPU will continue to look for even more innovative ways to promote and encourage responsible stewardship of the environment – in Seattle and across the country.

Location

The High Point NDS is part of the High Point Redevelopment, which covers 34 blocks—from 35th Ave SW to High Point Drive SW and SW Juneau St. to SW Myrtle St.

Construction Schedule

Construction of the first phase of the High Point NDS was completed in the fall of 2005. The first phase is bounded on the north and south by SW Juneau St. and SW Morgan St., and on the west and east by 35th Ave SW and High Point Drive SW. The second phase of construction was completed in 2009.

SPU began monitoring the first phase of the High Point natural drainage system in January of 2007. Data will be available in three years.

Project Resources

Low Impact Development Practices (pdf)
Stormwater Flow Paths (pdf)
High Point NDS Phase 1 (pdf)
High Point NDS Phase 2 (pdf)
Street Section Details (pdf)
Roadway Detail (pdf)
Drainage Details (pdf)
Sidewalk Detail (pdf)
Conformance Specs Swale (pdf)
Cross Section with Utilities (pdf)
Conformance Specs Pervious Pavement (pdf)

Share and Enjoy:

09-02-2010 FNP Picking our pockets – to pay for PATH (letter to the editor)

FofFC — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 09:23:44 +0000

In September one county board will consider whether the PATH project is consistent with the county’s comprehensive plan; another will consider a zoning exception to permit a substation near Mount Airy. This “Kemptown” substation will be the terminus of a 275-mile transmission line from a coal-burning plant in West Virginia.No PATH energy is for us; it will pass through the county, headed farther east. But we’ll pay in loss of scenic views, lowered property values, and runoff from its 200-foot-wide right of way. Over 1,300 households near the Kemptown substation may also lose peace of mind, worrying that their water wells would be ruined if fire should cause a transformer meltdown.

We will pay plenty out of pocket, too. Federal law gives Allegheny a 14.3 percent return for PATH, paid by all customers, not just PATH users. It’s also ironic that we’re all paying already, through add-ons to our bills!

For example, Allegheny is recovering $2.1 million from us for its ads in 2008 and 2009 to sell us on PATH! So we’re paying to be lobbied for something that gives us no benefit — some deal!

NICHOLAS CARRERA

Urbana

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=109340

Share and Enjoy: