|
corporations shall be under the county.
However, the counties are not given any
authority over existing municipal corpora-
tions. I suggest to you that the Commit-
tee's recommendation thus creates a two-
headed monster; existing municipal corpo-
rations would be handled in one way and
new municipal corporations in another.
Now, the sponsors of the Committee rec-
ommendation, the persons who are insistent
that municipal corporations stay under the
General Assembly, state that there is com-
petition between the counties and the mu-
nicipal corporations, and that it would be
unfair to give one competitor an edge.
I submit that this is partly true, and
partly not true. Insofar as the structure
of the government of municipal corpora-
tions is concerned there is no competition
between the counties and the municipalities.
Insofar as the powers which may be exer-
cised by municipal corporations are con-
cerned, there is no competition between the
counties and municipalities. The evidence
before our committee bore this out.
There is one area in which there is
competition between the counties and mu-
nicipalities, and that is the area of a terri-
tory. Since 1954, municipal corporations in
this State have operated under Article
XI (E) of the Constitution and Article
23-A of the Maryland Code.
Under Article XXIII (a) of the Mary-
land Code they have had the right to annex
territory outside of their boundaries with-
out any voice in the matter being given
to the counties. They can do so without the
county even knowing about it. It happens,
and has happened often. I. submit to you
that this troublesome area of annexation
is a local problem; that it is a matter
which should be determined locally.
At the present time it is determined by
a formula which is in Article 23-A. I sub-
mit that the formula does not work in all
instances. In many cases, the annexation
by a municipal corporation has been good,
beneficial, and should have taken place. In
other cases, it has been harmful and detri-
mental. The most outstanding examples of
cases where they have been detrimental
have been annexations without regard to
master zoning- plans or master highway
plans of the county.
I migiht add that some developers in some
instances have made gambles. If they have
been able to obtain the zoning through the
county, they then have asked the munici-
palities to (a) annex them; and (b) grant
them zoning. This approach has been done.
|
I suggest that this troublesome problem
can be best settled at the local area, by the
local governing bodies.
I think it would be a great step forward
if we set up machinery in this Constitution
whereby the municipal corporations and the
counties would be required to sit down and
work over their problems at the same table.
I have faith and confidence that they would
do so.
Let us assume that in a particular an-
nexation situation there is a deadline, and
that the county and the municipality can-
not agree. Should the county be given the
right to veto?
I suggest to you that it should. The
county is the basic unit of local govern-
ment. We are here increasing the powers
of the counties in this matter of home rule.
We are mandating home rule.
More than that, this solution which I
suggest is fair. If you will read my amend-
ment, you will see that the boundaries of
a municipal corporation cannot be dimin-
ished without its consent. All my amend-
ment suggests is the same treatment for
the counties. The municipal corporations
should not be allowed to enlarge their
boundaries into the county area without the
county's consent.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Moser.
DELEGATE MOSER: Briefly, Mr.
Chairman and ladies and gentlemen, Mr.
Macdonald was, as you no doubt conceived,
the "1" in the 18 to 1 vote by which our
Committee adopted sections 7.07, 7.08, and
7.09.
His amendment presents the opposite end
of the spectrum from Delegate James' pro-
posal, and that is the best way to describe
it.
One of the possible problems I see in
Delegate Macdonald's amendment is a tech-
nical problem. In lines 17 and 18 Delegate
Macdonald's proposal limits the preserva-
tion of existing powers to those set forth
in the municipal charter.
In some instances municipalities do not
have the power to amend their charters,
and this might create a problem. Of course,
a county could permit a municipality within
its boundaries to amend its charter.
This is why when speaking in opposition
to Delegate James' proposal, I suggested
that we stay with the Committee draft.
|
