|
it is necessary that there be a mandatory
referendum in order to give the people in
these areas an opportunity to be heard
when the very powers of their local gov-
ernment structures are being eroded by
acts of the legislature.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Bard to speak in opposition
to the amendment.
DELEGATE BARD: Mr. Chairman, my
statement has already been made.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Singer to speak in opposi-
tion to the amendment — I am sorry, Dele-
gate Needle.
DELEGATE NEEDLE: Mr. Chairman,
I think the reasons for opposing this
amendment were very aptly stated yester-
day, and the results were reflected in a
vote of 90 against the amendment and 20
in favor.
As Delegate Moser has indicated, this
amendment goes much further than yester-
day's, which was so soundly defeated and
I suggest that it be defeated again. How-
ever, I think there is one thing inherent in
this amendment which Delegate Sybert
probably did not intend, which I find some-
what attractive but will not support none-
theless, and that is that it eliminates even
the permissive referendum on the estab-
lishment of a popularly elected regional
government.
I do not think that he intended that re-
sult. As I have said before, I prefer that
there be no referendum with regard to es-
tablishment of such regional governments,
but I nonetheless will support the Commit-
tee recommendation suggested in defeat of
this amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes E. Churchill Murray to speak in
favor of the amendment.
/
DELEGATE E. MURRAY: Mr. Presi-
dent, this entire subject has been a rather
delicate one from the beginning. I think
that we knew before we came here that
it would necessarily be so. We certainly
must have known before we came here
that the increasing problems of the State,
the increasing population of the State,
would necessarily bring this question to
the floor, and whether there were any Con-
vention or not, the question would exist.
The question will intensify.
This certainly does not speak to the
point of the boundary of this area. It
|
speaks, I think, to the question of what
authority will be given to the regional gov-
ernment. As Delegate Sybert has pointed
out, it does not seem to me yet to be clear
or positive that this authority cannot so
hamper that it would virtually destroy the
local county government.
I am sorry that anyone brought up the
question in terms of city versus the coun-
ties. This does exist, perhaps, but certainly
we should get as far from it as possible.
We are going to have to look at this entire
situation on a far broader basis than that
for the survival of all.
On the other hand, I do not think that
we should blindly accept the proposition.
I have no doubt that it can be so worded
that the interests of the counties can be
protected without being jeopardized. Thank
you, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in opposition to the
amendment? Delegate Hanson?
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
I rise to oppose this amendment. Many of
the reasons for this opposition have already
been stated, but I think there are a few
things that are very important to empha-
size. One is the point made by Delegate
Clagett, that this amendment, if adopted,
would make it impossible, without having
a referendum in both counties, for the
boundaries of the Suburban Sanitary Com-
mission or the Maryland National Capital
Park and Planning Commission to be ex-
tended. It would make it possible for an
extension of those boundaries in Prince
George's County to be vetoed by the voters
in Montgomery County. One of the most
difficult problems that has existed in de-
veloping systems of government for re-
gions in the United States has been the
ability of one unit of government to veto
the point of view favored by all the sur-
rounding units of government. This has
been the case in St. Louis County. It was
the case for a long time in the Davidson-
Nashville area which eventually overcame
the referendum problem. It was the case
for a long time in Dade County. As for
Toronto, Canada, the metropolitan organi-
zation was formed by the action of the
provincial legislature, and not on the basis
of a referendum of the people.
That point aside, I think the central
question here is whether the voters in one
county should have the right to veto the
wishes of the General Assembly when that
law can in itself be referred to the people
under the general referendum provisions,
|
