|
eral Assembly and these laws may be sub-
ject to referendum or petition.
In the case of a popularly elected repre-
sentative local government, it would de-
pend on what the charter of the local gov-
ernment said. For instance, as to counties,
some counties do permit referendum on
tax laws, but probably most do not.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Pascal.
DELEGATE PASCAL: I am saying that
we are in an area of popularly elected re-
gional government, and one or two of the
counties have different stipulations in their
charters.
Was it the Committee's desire that when
they impose these service charges, they
would be subject to referendum in that
particular region?
DELEGATE MOSER: This would be
subject completely to what the General As-
sembly did in setting up the government.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Moser,
in your colloquy with Delegate Marion
about 7.05 I believe you tried a brief defi-
nition of preemption. I wonder how it
would apply to the situation of the State's
open housing law and Montgomery County's
open housing ordinance, which prohibits
some of the things that the state law does
not prohibit.
Since the State has entered that field,
would you interpret section 7.05, subsection
(3), to prohibit the county from entering
that field?
DELEGATE MOSER: No.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE MOSER: I think that nor-
mally in a law such as your examples, the
local units could have a stricter law. I
think basically it is a question of legisla-
tive intent. A law that the General Assm-
bly obviously intends should not be changed
by local ordinance of the county or it would
constitute a preemption.
If I can avoid it, I would just as soon
not set forth any standards here. I think
it would be up to the courts to interpret
the intention of the legislature.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: May I take it
that by section 7.05, subsection (3) you
mean simply the doctrine of preemption?
You do not mean to vary it to set forth
standards?
|
DELEGATE MOSER: I would say that
would be correct.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Roger.
DELEGATE ROGER: Delegate Moser,
in the Committee Recommendation sub-
mitted, what protection does the munici-
pality have from being bullied or taken
advantage of by a county government?
DELEGATE MOSER: I do not under-
stand the question, sir.
DELEGATE ROGER: In other words,
suppose a newly incorporated town wanted
a special right-of-way or perhaps water
brought to it, and some powers of the
county wanted to prevent it. In the Com-
mittee Recommendation, do you have any-
thing to give that particular municipality
any redress or appeal?
DELEGATE MOSER: A new municipal
corporation?
DELEGATE ROGER: Yes. Suppose a
new town wanted to have water or some-
thing brought to them, and had factions or
organizations in your county that would
prevent this. What right of appeal would
a town or municipality have against being
taken advantage of?
DELEGATE MOSER: I refer you to
section 7.08, which relates to new municipal
corporations. To begin with, the county has
to provide by law for the creation of new
municipal corporations. It may by law
grant new municipalities and withdraw
from them all powers of the county, subject
to procedures the General Assembly might
provide.
If the General Assembly has not pro-
vided any procedures, I would say that the
county would be in strict control of new
municipalities; but the General Assembly
could provide certain standards. They
might provide precisely the same arrange-
ment for new municipalities as for exist-
ing ones. If it were boundary problems, it
might involve a boundary commission ar-
rangement or something like that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: Mr. Chairman, my
problem still is definitional. Perhaps this
time I can approach it a little differently,
by way of an example that we can all un-
derstand.
The Harford County Sanitary Commis-
sion, which exists under a public local law
guided through the General Assembly by
Senator James, provided that none of
|
