|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2390 VETOES
4A.
It is unlawful for any person to operate ANY PERSON WHO
OPERATES an aircraft towing an advertisement for promotional
purposes AT AN ALTITUDE BELOW THE MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDE SPECIFIED
BY APPLICABLE FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS at an altitude of less
than [3,000] 1,000 feet over any public or private sporting arena
in Baltimore City, including the airspace above a [ one-mile]
2,000 FEET radius from the arena, AT AN ALTITUDE BELOW THE
MINIMUM SAFE ALTITUDE SPECIFIED BY APPLICABLE FEDERAL AVIATION
REGULATIONS . Violation of this section is GUILTY OF a
misdemeanor punishable by AND ON CONVICTION, IS SUBJECT TO a fine
of not more than $500.00 1,500.
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall
take effect July 1, 1983.
May 31, 1983
The Honorable Melvin A. Steinberg
President of the Senate
State House
Annapolis, Maryland 21404
Dear Mr. President:
In accordance with Article II, Section 17 of the Maryland
Constitution, I have today vetoed Senate Bill 778.
This legislation imposes the Agricultural Transfer Tax on
the transfer of planned unit development lands which have
previously received a "special assessment" equivalent to the
assessment on land qualified to receive an agricultural use
assessment. In my view, it will seriously undermine a
significant incentive to planned, orderly and staged development
as a viable alternative to the problems associated with urban
sprawl. As an additional tax, the bill will increase the cost of
housing to both the home builder and the home buyer in these
planned communities at a time when the housing industry is
struggling to recover from the effects of recession.
Two distinct and innovative Maryland land use strategies are
merged by this bill in a manner which undermines and rationale of
one approach. Marylanders can justifiably be proud that our
State is viewed as a national leader in its efforts to encourage
both agricultural land preservation and planned unit or "new
town" development. Last year, the Agricultural Land Preservation
Fund received approximately $4,300,000 for the purchase of
agricultural easements. At the same time, communities such as
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
