I am currently reading the book, Chesapeake Requiem, which was recommended to me by a friend. It was written in 2016 and chronicles the year its author, Earl Swift, spent with the watermen and other residents of Tangier Island. I have found it to be a fascinating and disturbingly sad read. It has taught me a great deal about crabbing and the life cycle of crabs as well as the daily routines of watermen and others who live on the Island. Their way of life is vanishing. According to the 2020 census, the town’s population was 436, at least half of whom were senior citizens. At its peak, in the 1940’s, the town’s population was 1250. Tangier Island has also lost 67% of its land mass since 1850. It is literally being swallowed up by Chesapeake Bay. Thus, the Island, its people, and their way of life are facing real extinction.

Reading this book has been a painful pleasure for me. While I am enjoying learning about this very isolated part of the world and its culture, I am keenly aware that even in 2016, when the book was written, Tangier Island was in a state of sinking deterioration from which it would not be able to recover. And despite not personally knowing anyone from Tangier or ever having set foot on its shores, I have felt saddened and upset while reading about this.

When I tune into what I am actually feeling, it is a visceral sensation of being punched in the gut, almost as though I can’t catch my breath. When I ask myself why I might be feeling this so intensely, it occurs to me that our current political climate has threatened us with a different kind of extinction. And much like the watermen and the other residents of Tangier Island, we complain about the changes that are happening in our midst, and then go about our day-to-day lives as though this is not really happening. I pray that, unlike Tangier Island, our country will recover from the greed, racism, and oligarchic fascism that have been biting at our shores and eroding our way of life. However, I am not sure we will be able to beat back this storm. Too many of us are asleep. Too many of us are selfish. Too many of us are complacent, too many of us are brainwashed, and too many of us are afraid to stand up to the routine cruelty and fear being used by the current regime to vanquish our freedoms.

While the end of Tangier Island seems to be a certainty, I think it is too early to say that about our democratic way of life. Perhaps the roots of our Constitution run deeper than we think. Perhaps the values of liberty, justice, and decency will be able to weather this storm. It is possible that the storm will turn out to be a clarifying and cleansing force, prompting us to let go of non-truths and embrace the democratic principles necessary for our survival. The one thing that seems clear from the many storms that Tangier Island has weathered over the years is that the longer the storm, the more damage it did, and the longer it took to repair. We will see how much damage this current storm does and how long it will take for these dark and menacing winds to finally subside.

Margot Weiss McClellan
Easton

In a recent debate on closing Maryland’s budget deficit, Minority Leader Jason Buckel, a Republican Delegate from Allegany County, made an important point: “The man upstairs has only been there for two, three years. I don’t blame him for our economic failures of the last 10,” referring to Democratic Governor Wes Moore, who was elected in 2022 and whose office is on the second floor of the State House.

Buckel’s comments highlight a key reality that many of his Republican colleagues seldom admit ahead of the 2026 gubernatorial elections: it isn’t right to blame Governor Moore for budget challenges that have been brewing for years.

Maryland’s structural deficit, now projected at $3.3 billion, was a problem that started long before Moore took office. In fact, it was first projected in 2017, during the tenure of former Governor Larry Hogan. This isn’t an opinion—it’s a fact that Buckel and other lawmakers, including Republican Delegate Jefferson Ghrist, have bravely acknowledged. During that same debate, Ghrist remarked that the Department of Legislative Services had warned about this deficit throughout Hogan’s administration, yet he did little to address it.

Ghrist pointed out that during Maryland’s so-called “good years,” when the state received a flood of federal COVID-19 relief dollars, spending spiraled without proper regard for long-term fiscal health. Hogan used these one-time federal funds to support ongoing programs, masking the true state of Maryland’s finances and creating the illusion of fiscal stability. Hogan continues to take credit for the “surplus” Maryland had in 2022—even though experts have repeatedly noted that it was caused by the influx of federal dollars during the pandemic.

As Ghrist correctly noted, the lack of fiscal restraint and slow growth during the Hogan years laid the groundwork for the $3.3 billion structural deficit we face today. Indeed, Maryland’s economy has been stagnant since 2017, especially in comparison to our neighboring states, well before Governor Moore took office.

Compounding these challenges are President Donald Trump’s reckless policies, including massive layoffs and trade wars with our allies. Thousands of federal workers who live in Maryland are losing their jobs, which is costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. Trump’s tariffs are also putting an enormous strain on our local businesses, including farmers on the eastern shore who are now subject to up to 15% retaliatory tariffs on agricultural products like chicken, wheat, soybeans, corn, fruits, and vegetables.

In light of this grim reality, Maryland’s lawmakers are making difficult, but necessary, decisions to shore up the state’s finances. Governor Moore and state legislative leaders recently came together on a budget plan that prioritizes growing Maryland’s economy without raising taxes on the vast majority of residents.

In fact, 94% of Marylanders should either see a tax cut or no change at all to their income tax bill under the proposed agreement. Lawmakers also want to cut government spending by the largest amount in 16 years, while making targeted investments in emerging industries, like quantum computing and aerospace defense, so we’re less reliant on federal jobs.

While the richest of Marylanders could see their income taxes go up, it’s reasonable to ask someone making over $750,000 a year to pay $1,800 more to support law enforcement, strengthen our schools, and grow our economy. As for the proposed tax on data and IT services, these products aren’t subject to Maryland’s sales tax under current law. Maryland leaders want to modernize our tax code, just like other states across the country including Texas and Ohio, by levying a 3% sales tax on these products.

These ideas are fair—especially since they don’t raise income taxes on the overwhelming majority of Marylanders—and because state leaders are also cutting spending by the billions. They’re also necessary, as Governor Hogan chose to kick the can down the road instead of addressing Maryland’s long-predicted deficit, and because Trump’s policies are laying off thousands of Marylanders and issuing tariffs that hurt our state.

By making responsible choices now, Maryland leaders are putting the state on a path toward long-term economic stability. These decisions will help Maryland continue to thrive, create jobs, and invest in the vital services that every resident relies on—without burdening the majority of hardworking families. I’m confident Maryland will emerge stronger, more resilient, and ready to lead in the industries of tomorrow.

Elaine McNeil
Chair of the Queen Anne’s Democratic Central Committee

I’m writing to ask the Council not to remove the Inclusion Statement on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion from the Employee Handbook.  I cannot understand why asking people to treat others with dignity and respect is something that anyone would find objectionable.  Isn’t the first thing we teach our children, be kind, treat your classmates with respect,  be inclusive in your games?  Don’t many go to church to hear the preacher remind us to treat others as we would like to be treated?

Why would anyone find a statement objectionable which encourages diversity, which is an opportunity to learn of the richness inherent in our differences; equity, simply treating people equally;  Inclusion, not leaving people out of opportunities for which they are qualified.  Why?

– Judy Fauntleroy

Politics can be as unpredictable as the weather.  And a recent vote by the Eastern Shore’s Congressman, Andy Harris, proves that point. Though Harris represents an agricultural region and chairs the ag subcommittee on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, the legislator recently voted against a federal program that protects the American food supply from the import of unapproved animal and plant materials.  

As the previous Congress neared its end in late December, Harris voted No on Senate Bill 759.  This measure laid the groundwork for funding of the school that trains dogs, mostly beagles, to sniff out pests and diseases on wild and agricultural items coming into the country.  Because the hound has been the favorite canine worker in the program, it has been nicknamed the Beagle Brigade. Although Harris voted No, the bill passed the House and is now law.  The USDA training center for detector dogs, located near Atlanta, can rely on funding beyond user-paid fees that rise and fall erratically with the economy, as was the previous practice.  In recent slumps, an association of American pork producers provided resources, according to Congressional testimony. That situation struck observers as a potential conflict of interest. 

Despite strong partisanship in Congress in recent years, the beagle measure passed unanimously in the Senate and even enjoyed bi-partisan sponsorship there. No dollar figure was included nor yet forecast by the Congressional Budget Office; the bill simply said the school for detector dogs would be “permanent.”  Of the 11 senators who endorsed the bill in the Senate, five were Republicans – Ernst and Grassly of Iowa, Ricketts of Nebraska, Crapi of Idaho and the new vice president of the U.S., J. D. Vance of Ohio.  It was introduced by Democratic Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia.  

The bill also passed easily with both parties onboard in the House (381 for, 20 opposed).  Harris was one of the 20 No votes.  Three messages given to Harris staff in Washington and an email, all seeking his reason for opposition, got no response over a span of a week..  

Public perception of the program has been generally positive.  Beagles and beagle-mixes are preferred, the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) asserts, because of ”their keen sense of smell, non-threatening size, …., and gentle disposition with the public.”  The agency says it finds all animals for the brigade at shelters.   

Over the course of the program’s 40 years, a total of 150,000 interceptions of illicit items have  “prevent(ed) the introduction of harmful plant pests and foreign animal disease from entering the U.S.” (CBP post entitled Agriculture Dogs.)

The actual inspections have been performed by agents of the CBP since 2003. They take place at border crossings, preclearance locations, and international passenger airports, where  returning Americans are shocked to learn the pressed flowers they innocently collected and the smoked sausage in their carry-on pose threats and are not allowed.  Inspections of commercial volumes of fruits and vegetables are conducted at air cargo terminals, ports, and warehouses. Even mail facilities that see heavy international business will receive visits.

From its beginnings with one dog at the Los Angeles airport in 1984, then under Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (often called Aphis for short, which still runs the training school), the Beagle Brigade has grown to about 180 teams of dog and handler, CBP reports. Though no specific mention of the program was found in reviewing Harris sources, the website andyharris.com had the following on its second page on January 22, 2025: 

“It’s been my honor to represent all of you and to stand up for your needs in Washington – needs like fighting invasive species in our waterways and on our crops, but also fighting for lower prescription prices and keeping the FDA and CDC accountable.”

Linda G. Weimer
Kent County 

While we are excited to learn about the preliminary plans of Urgo Hotels and Resorts for a much-needed new riverfront restaurant at 98 Cannon Street, we have questions and reservations about a concept proposal that includes a 42-room hotel in that small, environmentally sensitive and historic location adjacent to the Chestertown Marina.

We believe there are many issues that need to be identified early in the project review process and raised with the Chestertown officials and commissions that will be called upon to make important decisions.  These issues include previous legal and financial commitments, zoning, traffic and parking, and environmental restrictions that were imposed when the town acquired and upgraded the Marina. Following are our major questions and recommendations. We urge the town bodies with the relevant jurisdictions and expertise to address these matters in a timely and appropriate manner.

• Are there any financial or other obligations that Chestertown must observe with respect to the Marina bond and other funding agencies and sources that would be impacted by the proposed hotel plan?

Five Maryland and Federal government agencies and multiple private entities provided grants and loans for the purchase and improvement of the Marina property.  These funds totaled approximately $6 million and were intended to provide public access, use, and enjoyment of the Marina and waterfront facilities.  

Private funding of the Marina by individuals was provided to preserve the ambiance, utility, and historic purposes of the Port of Chestertown for maritime and related activity.  This understanding imposes important moral commitments on the town.  

We recommend a legal review of the funding, lending, and shared parking easement and covenant documents to determine if the proposed hotel plan in effect transfers exclusive use of the town’s land to the new owner, or in any other way interferes with the intended public access to the Marina and waterfront. 

2)  Does the Commercial Marine (CM) zoning designation disallow the hotel plan, and if so, is a variance required?

The zoning regulations embodied in paragraph 170-44 of the Zoning Ordinance dated February 13, 2012 state the following for the Commercial Marine District in which this property is located. 

“The purpose of the Commercial Marine District is to preserve waterfront land for traditional maritime activities, public access, boating and the inherent economic, cultural and historic contributions of these waterfront activities. . . . A significant objective of the district is to provide a mixed-use but primarily maritime environment that is harmonious in massing, height, and scale with the Historic District, and sympathetic to adjacent uses. In general, the district is intended for less intensive commercial marine activities related to tourism, vacationers, commercial or sport fishing, pleasure boating, and other maritime-oriented uses. Development in the Commercial Marine District is further constrained by the regulations governing the Historic District, laws pertaining to the hundred-year flood plain and Critical Areas, and stormwater requirements.”

The zoning ordinance lists eleven permitted uses for the CM district. Restaurants are listed as a permitted use, but hotels and inns are not. It appears, then, that a zoning variance would have to be granted before any plans for developing a 42-unit hotel could proceed.

We recommend a review of the uses of the waterfront that the funders of the Marina understood would remain in place.

We also recommend a review of the Commercial Marine zoning ordinance and its intentions and a determination of whether a zoning variance is required.

• Are there negative impacts on operations or access to the Marina, or on local residents, caused by the hotel plan?

Eliminating one of the entries off of Cannon Street, as has been suggested, would have a major negative impact on Marina operations since it would require using only the entry off of Front Street. Boat trailers, fuel trucks, and other large delivery vehicles would be forced to make several tight turns on a narrow street to gain access to the Marina and its ramp and to the fuel tank.  

The additional traffic flow and parking pressure on Front Street homes will be another significant problem. Only 45 parking places are shown in the hotel plan. This number appears to be insufficient to meet statutory parking requirements of approximately 76 for the combined hotel and restaurant patrons and staff. Even the 45 parking slots shown in the plan will essentially cede to the hotel/restaurant the use of all the town-owned parking plus the shared parking easement that was intended to serve both the Marina and the existing restaurant.  

It has been suggested that the narrow Front Street could be made one-way to relieve potential congestion. All Marina traffic would then have to use Queen Street to either enter or exit the Marina, putting additional stress on that street. Major events at the Marina and/or at Wilmer Park will exacerbate the parking and traffic problems. 

The owners of homes along Front Street will possibly be affected financially. A three-and-a half-story structure will dominate views of the waterfront area.  This change, combined with the parking situation, may diminish property values. 

We recommend a thorough analysis of the traffic management and parking issues to determine if they are manageable.  Impacts on pedestrian and bike access to the waterfront trail, Wilmer Park, and the connectivity of Washington College facilities to downtown should be included in this analysis.

We also recommend a cost/benefit analysis of the hotel project’s overall economic benefit to the Town, to include the Town’s added capital infrastructure and maintenance costs and the negative effects of this potential property devaluation.  

4) Are there any environmental implications of the hotel plan, and would DNR, MDE, or Critical Area regulations be imposed?

The land where the hotel will be sited is not stable. Without structural improvements, the added mass of the new three-story hotel immediately adjacent to the river could accelerate the sinking that is already occurring (an estimated 6-12 inches since 2019).  Stabilizing the new restaurant and hotel will very likely be an expensive operation requiring numerous 100-foot screw pilings.

The increased footprint of the hotel building may add to the area of impervious ground cover on the site and may impact stormwater management. 

Significant flooding on the Marina site has occurred as a result of natural tidal and wind phenomena, and the flooding is projected to occur more frequently in the future.  On-grade parking closer to the river could increase oil pollution to the river due to storm-water and flood-water run-off.  

We recommend an environmental regulatory review to determine whether an environmental impact assessment will be required and whether Maryland State agencies can be satisfied.

Wendy Culp
Aubrey Sarvis
Chris Havemeyer
Matthew Tobriner
Lucy Maddox                                                 

A lawsuit was recently filed in Federal court by the Delmarva Fisheries Association (DFA) and the Maryland Charter Boat Association (MCBA). The suit challenges a mandate for new Striped Bass fishing regulations in Maryland. The mandate is from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Since the lawsuit was filed there has been an outpouring of support from those who understand this mandate has already had and will have a devastating impact far beyond watermen and charter boat captains.

Others impacted negatively include Eastern Shore hotels, motels, restaurants, businesses, and merchants who depend upon wild fishery harvests and charter boat tourism.

The Rural Counties Coalition of the Maryland Association of Counties (MACo) has expressed the following concerns. “These regulations will affect local small business models that operate in the charter boat and commercial fishing industries as well. Rural counties along Maryland’s shoreline depend on these industries and oppose these changes, as they will dramatically affect economic development and the livelihood of small business owners. Many of Maryland’s waterfront businesses will undoubtedly bear financial losses due to the restrictions. For many years, these industries have operated with restrictions in harvesting and strict regulatory compliance yet have remained in operation. The proposed restrictions will be a point that may force good businesses to close and may prohibit other businesses from locating within Maryland’s coastal counties. “In addition to the MACo support letter, the Boards of Commissioners in Dorchester County, Queen Anne’s County, and Kent County have submitted comparable letters. More are expected.

Support for the DFA and MCBA lawsuit goes well beyond Maryland.

The East Coast Fishing Coalition (ECFC) represents over eight hundred for-hire charter and party boats across Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. The president of ECFC has written “We share in your concerns, as these actions threaten not only the present viability of our businesses but also the long-term sustainability of the for-hire sector of the fishing industry. If these decisions are not rectified, we anticipate a significant decline in business that will persist well into the future. The ramifications also extend beyond our industry, impacting businesses such as hotels, restaurants, tackle shops, and other merchants that rely on our operations to sustain their own livelihoods.”
DFA and MCBA are represented by the McCloud Law Group in Chestertown and Meeks Butera & Israel, Washington, D.C.

Captain Rob Newberry
Chair Delmarva Fisheries Association.