Crofton Issue That Never DiesSome things never change...


August 22, 1993

Crofton Issue That Never Dies

Some things never change. Like how well most people in our town feel about living in Crofton. We freely use phrases like "quality of life" to describe how highly we regard our community.

One of the elements in this quality of life is the existence of a community counselor employed by the Crofton Special Tax District and available to Crofton residents free of charge.

Community support for this position has also been a constant for the nearly 20 years it has been in existence. Unfortunately, so have been the periodic attacks on the position by a small number of people who oppose it and can't seem to accept the will of the majority of people in our town.

As a member of the Community Counselor Study Committee, that was appointed by the Crofton Civic Association three years ago, I find it extremely difficult to believe the current CCA Board ,, of Directors is, once again, casting doubt on this position.

Three years ago, the Community Counselor Study Committee was given the task of researching the need for this position, the availability of alternative services, and, yes, even the possibility of charging a fee for the service. The findings of the committee, to keep the position and not charge a fee, fell on deaf ears because it was not what the CCA Board of Directors wanted to hear. Numerous residents who used the counseling service stepped forward personally reinforcing the committee's findings

-- while the board moved forward to charge for this community service that adds to our quality of life.

Concerned neighbors were forced to petition the board to hold a community vote on the issue. The response was overwhelming in support of the counselor position and for not charging a fee. The current CCA Board of Directors should be very up-to-date on the history of this issue. Two present CCA board members were members of the Community Counselor Study Committee, including the current CCA vice president, who chaired the committee.

Tinkering with this position so soon after it has been studied to death, debated endlessly and supported overwhelmingly by a popular vote is a total waste of time. Many people live in our town precisely for its quality of life. The basis for the Community Counselor Study Committee's findings have not changed. The need for the community counselor remains constant, while the yearly fee to homeowners won't even cover dinner out for two. Let's add even more to our town's quality of life by giving the counselor issue a break.

How about a moratorium on attacking the counselor position until the year 2000?

Maryann Lombardo


Business Kickoff

The Anne Arundel Medical Center recently sponsored a reception to celebrate the publication of the Anne Arundel Trade Council's release of the first edition of the "Anne Arundel Guide to Business Resources for Minority and Women-Owned Businesses." . . .

The group of volunteers from the Trade Council Minority and Women-Owned Business Committee, chaired by Jan Ferguson of Jan Ferguson, Inc., worked long and hard on . . . a valuable new resource. . . .

The Trade Council deeply appreciates the key role Anne Arundel Medical Center held in the guide's introduction. We thank Chip Doordan, president of the medical center, for stepping forward to demonstrate the Anne Arundel Medical Center's commitment to the advancement of minority and women business owners in Anne Arundel County in this way. To the Anne Arundel Medical Center and to all those who had a part in the success of the guide, the Trade Council wishes to convey sincere thanks for helping to lead the way in making our county a better place to live and work.

Jeanette D. Wessel


The writer is executive vice president of the Anne Arundel Trade Council Inc.

Anti-Smoking Law

I am a Boy Scout and in order to earn my merit badge on the citizen in the community, I have to write a letter concerning a problem that affects our community.

I chose to write about the "Puffers slipping through smoking law loophole" that I read in The Sun July 29.

I think the law is well-intended because it protects non-smokers from breathing second-hand smoke. Some smokers are ignorant and still smoke in non-smoking areas. Since this affects the lives of others, these offenders should receive at least some sort of punishment and I think a $50 fine is perfect if they reject the police's first warning. A law without some sort of punishment will not be very effective. . . .

Peter Lee


Leslie Hutchinson

Baltimore Sun Articles
Please note the green-lined linked article text has been applied commercially without any involvement from our newsroom editors, reporters or any other editorial staff.