Bottle Tax

Being a proud Baltimore native living in Los Angeles these past 15 years, I was surprised, outraged and down right flabbergasted by all the ridiculous hyperbole surrounding the new 2 cent bottle tax. I laughed aloud when I read that Councilwoman Helen Holton called it "a dark day for Baltimore" and Councilman Nicholas D'Adamo said he was "ashamed" to be on the council. Grow up, children! These comments show just how juvenile and petty elected officials can be. I particularly enjoyed a comment in The Sun earlier in the week where a councilman said that the tax (then 4 cents)

Residents of the city are used to surviving under the burden of a high cost of living index. We are also used to the heavy-handedness of government in a region dependent on government employment levels and proximity to Washington. Private-sector employees, who do not receive automatic yearly raises and are not cushioned from the real economy by a blanket of comprehensive government fringe benefits, read the newspaper every day in dread of learning about the next government drain on their over-extended pocketbooks.

There are a number of reasons why the bottle tax should be passed. The obvious one is to bring in more tax revenue for which the city so desperately needs. Secondly, it may cause a child or an adult to think twice about buying one of those sugary beverages that add more calories to their diet — calories they do not need. The argument that such a city tax would drive consumers to the county for those purchases doesn't make much sense — the cost of gasoline for the round trip would most likely exceed the small savings on tax-free beverages.

As an owner of a retail food establishment, I am stunned at the mismanagement and lack of financial controls in the Baltimore City school system. If I ran my business that way I would be out of business. If the city kept an eye on its finances, there would not have been a need for the container tax that has hit small businesses and city residents with a 150 percent tax increase on beverages sold in containers. Now the city is looking at the state for even more money, yet it is the one that has mismanaged its books.

If you have a package good store near the county line, Baltimore MayorStephanie Rawlings-Blake's proposed 5-cent bottle tax is not a nickel ("Mayor pushes school repairs," Feb. 14). Applying the tax to a 30-pack of beer would cost the city consumer $1.50 more plus a  15-cent sales tax on a tax. The nickel is now $1.65 more than the county! I agree that nickel is no big deal on a single item, but when you buy a bulk package, which is how beverages are sold in a package store, that nickel is devastating and prevents us from being competitive.

Thanks to the gutless city council, all of the advertising money spent by the beverage industry has paid off by defeating the bottle tax. Instead of a tax that would at least partially (if not mostly) raise money from people coming into the city and on goods that are either not good for your health (sugar drinks) or for the environment (plastic bottles), now we have a plan with more taxes that affect only residents. We have an increase in the income tax rate, increase on telephone line taxes, and a reduction to early property tax payment discounts.

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's proposed 5-cent bottle tax can add up quickly. For example, five 12-packs of Diet Coke can be bought on sale for $10. Sixty cans times 5 cents equals $3. Add to that the 6 percent sales tax - 60 cents - and the total becomes $13.60. That's why I think city residents will soon find themselves buying sodas and alcohol in the county. Dave Edington

Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake seems to think raising the container tax on soft drinks is creative ("Rawlings-Blake calls on council to adopt bottle tax hike," Nov. 14). Just keep taxing the average Joe out of Baltimore. Is that a really good plan? Here is a better idea. Eliminate deputy mayors, make developers pay property tax on what they build and eliminate the Baltimore Development Corporation. I am sure there is more cutting to be done, but these are some easy ways to reduce waste in government quickly without more taxes.

Regarding the bottle tax proposal ("Bottle tax rise gains in council" June 12): I grew up in New York State, where a five-cent tax on bottles has been on the books for at least 15 years. Nobody even thinks twice about it there; the tax is simply a small amount of money raised for a purpose that benefits everyone. I can't recall hearing anyone consider moving to Pennsylvania in order to avoid paying an extra 60 cents for a 12-pack of Pepsi. It's simply not that big a deal. Here in Baltimore, we have Councilman Warren Branch, who said of the bottle tax, "Instead of luring 10,000 people to the city, we're going to lose 10,000 people.

The tax on beverage containers is failing Baltimore consumers and businesses from small retailers to larger supermarkets just like it did last time ("Don't smash the bottle tax," Sept. 1). As part of the broader Stop the Baltimore City Beverage Tax coalition, we are working to educate consumers and policymakers about the harmful effects of that this tax has had on city residents and businesses. This tax is regressive and hurts the most those who can least afford it. Retailers in Baltimore should not be penalized with lost business due to people driving to the suburbs to avoid the tax. This tax further squeezes families that are already struggling to make ends meet.

All of us can agree that the findings of a recent state audit of the Baltimore City school system are unacceptable. There is no excuse for wasting money, and the burden is now on the city schools leadership to fix the problems. While we monitor that progress, it's time to take a step back and consider how to move forward to benefit our kids. We cannot allow these financial missteps to sidetrack us from providing high-quality educational environments for our children. Concerns by some elected leaders about the city school system's ability to handle its finances could cloud the prospects of an important piece of legislation that will be considered by the General Assembly early next year - a measure that would allow us to begin rebuilding our aging and inadequate school buildings.

Leith Walk Elementary School kicked off the Baltimore city school system's "21st Century Buildings for Our Children" campaign, a billion-dollar borrowing plan that will require a funding commitment from the state, in order to overhaul the system's aging infrastructure--a feat determined to cost $2.4 billion. The Sun's back-to-school coverage was notably devoted to the school shooting that took place in Baltimore on Monday, shortly after the state welcomed students back to school for the 2012-2013 school year.

Now that Baltimore has finally received approval for a vendor for a slots casino, MayorStephanie Rawlings-Blakestates she wants to use the proceeds to reduce the property tax rate ("As city's casino moves forward, Rocky Gap plans to scale back," Aug. 1). What about the racing industry that slots were supposed to help? What about funding the fire houses that are closing, what about fixing the water mains, what about getting rid of the bottle tax and whatever happened to fixing dilapidated schools?

Now that the Sun has brought to light the Maryland Tax Assessment Office blunder of properly taxing property taxes for Silo Point and the Ritz Carlton Residences, maybe it is time for some law enforcement agency to look into the income of certain tax assessors ("Condos' tax bill see big increase," July 16). Better yet, maybe MayorStephanie Rawlings-Blakewill ask to City Council to remove the bottle tax since the city will now have all this new tax revenue coming in. Here is a better solution: Tax property on the acquired price the seller paid for the property.

Every Baltimore City school superintendent, mayor and state legislator of the last 50 years should be hanging their heads in shame over the atrocious condition of the city's public school buildings. The more than $2 billion of decay didn't just happen overnight. Where did all the money go? The cost to educate the city's schoolchildren continue to spiral out of control. Will the bottle tax be misused just like all the other well-intended taxes that were supposed to benefit the city's children?

Welcome to Baltimore to the 10,000 new residents MayorStephanie Rawlings-Blakewants to attract. You get to enjoy a bottle tax that was recently increased from 2 cents to 5 cents, your kids can't go into stores that sell liquor to buy a soda or bag of chips, but they can encounter drug dealers standing outside, the bill for water just increased 9 percent, the schools are falling apart, but the tech department can afford new phones, and the city...

Letter writer Vikki Volk comments that "three extra cents per soda hardly seems like a lot to pay" for better school buildings ("Bottle tax is a small price to pay for better schools," June 20). All I can say to Ms. Volk is what about the state lottery, the millionaire's tax, the increase in the state sales tax, the higher sales tax on alcoholic beverages, and the boost in the income tax rates or the talk of a higher gas tax, all by state and local government in recent years with similar justification?

As a concerned Baltimore City school teacher, I was caught up in the City Council's deliberations regarding the bottle tax ("Bottle tax rise gains in council," June 12). I was imagining a classroom with beautiful, vibrant colors and large clear windows that allowed natural light to pass through. I thought of clean scents of newness and possibilities. I thought of how I could help my students understand that our school is an example of what is possible through hard work and perseverance.

Letter writer Vikki Volk comments that "three extra cents per soda hardly seems like a lot to pay" for better school buildings ("Bottle tax is a small price to pay for better schools," June 20). All I can say to Ms. Volk is what about the state lottery, the millionaire's tax, the increase in the state sales tax, the higher sales tax on alcoholic beverages, and the boost in the income tax rates or the talk of a higher gas tax, all by state and local government in recent years with similar justification?