Today’s EARTH DAY , is the 56th annual celebration of this iconic event. It’s a great day for “Mother Earth”. Some may recall the first “Earth Day” was called “the Environmental Teach-in” following the format of the Vietnam War “teach-ins” on college campuses around the country. This one was the brainchild of Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) who recruited Congressman “Pete” McCloskey (R-San Mateo CA). Denis Hayes, a Harvard undergrad student, was picked to lead the event. As a “20-something” I was hired to provide marketing services to college, junior college and other nonprofits, to promote the April 22, 1970, event. Frankly it wasn’t very difficult to do: media attention was intense and media outlets all wanted “in” on event coverage.
But the message was also clear and focused. The primary concerns were air pollution from power plants and industrial sources; foul air (”smog”) caused by automobiles and leaded gasoline; water pollution from phosphates and other toxic waste; and solid waste disposal … virtually everything ended up in landfills. “Recycling” was a novelty.
In 1971, just one year after the first “Earth Day”, President Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It was created by combining the Environmental Health Division from the US Public Health Service, including divisions covering air pollution, water hygiene, solid waste and radiological health. The original staffing for EPA in 1971 was 3500 employees with an annua budget of $ 1.4 billion. In the ensuing years, it has grown to as many as 14,000 FTEs but seems to have stabilized at about 12,500. The annual budget for FY2026 is $8.2 billion. And the federal presence in the environment has made its way to the States and even many county and municipal governments. As a “quality of life” issue, the “environment” is high on the public’s list of things we want. That’s good and most of what we “want” is a healthy environment: clean air, safe drinking water and control of pesticides and other toxic products; and they provide regulations for how solid waste is processed and disposed. These are all good programs that keep us healthy and are well worth the public cost.
What happens on the local level is less certain. In the City of Annapolis, drinking water and air quality must meet federal standards; the same with pesticide use and disposal. Because we are a waterfront community, our creeks and rivers have multi-government involvement from six states, the District and the federal government. Water quality is monitored for the creeks and reported to the public. In many locations, water quality is so poor (especially during periods of drought) that swimming is not advised. The “No Discharge Zone” (NDZ) adopted by the City in 2016 makes it illegal for recreational boats to discharge either raw or processed waste in the Harbor or any of the adjoining creeks and rivers in Anne Arundel County; use of a holding tank is required. The City provides “pump -out” service year-round. Since the City already has a Harbormaster, there is no significant cost to monitoring NDZ violations. That’s good.
But there are costs the City incurs that don’t produce the impact or value to justify their expense. Here are a few that should be evaluated for cost-benefit:
- Recycling: this is hard to believe, given how we have been trained to separate “recyclable” items from our trash. Most of us dutifully remove, glass, metal, paper,
and ”most” plastic (no plastic bags!) from our trash. We place it at the curb in a separate container and off it goes on collection day. What happens next is disappointing: the recyclables are sent to the County where they are combined (the (City says “piggybacks”) with similar materials from County residents. Then it is sold to a third-party processor. And do we receive revenues from the sale of this stuff? According to the City … “after a processing fee is applied, we either get some revenue or pay a balance due”. We spend $800,000 collecting “recycling” and get minimal revenue from it! Why? I have no idea. I also inquired about the collection and disposal of electronic waste: old computers, TVs, radio and other similar items. Annapolis no longer collects these items. You can still dispose of them, but you’d need to take them to the landfill in Millersville. Electronic waste is harvested because most items contain precious metals (gold, silver, platinum and more basic copper). But since the City doesn’t sell the material, it receives no revenue. This looks like another lost opportunity: given the sky-rocketing cost for precious metals (gold touched $5,500 per oz this year!), the City has abandoned an opportunity to benefit from the sale of this waste, too. I am not suggesting abandoning recycling, but maybe it is time to reconsider the City contract for recycling and turn the entire effort over to the County.
- Annapolis is not “auto-centric”: I have heard this comment from past and current members of the City Council. My comment is usually “Says who?”. Think about this: the City has a population of about 40,000 residents who reside in 17,500 households. The City website says “about 2 cars per household” … so about 35,000 vehicles are owned by City residents. The City just built the 590-space Mills-Hillman garage at a cost of almost $30 million and the City has 1760 additional spaces in Gott’s, Knighton and Park Place garages for a total of 2350 covered parking places. And then there is the ownership of City vehicles: Our City has a workforce of 908 people, 674 of whom are “full-time equivalent” (some are contractors, consultants and elected officials). For this workforce, the City reports there are 434 vehicles (cars, trucks and specialty vehicles). When I inquired about a breakout of vehicles by department, I was told to file an MPIA (“FOIA”) request because “that would take research time to collect”. Many cities use a “motor pool” to share vehicle use among employees who need a car during the workday. Not in Annapolis! Keep in mind, those 434 vehicles require insurance, gas, oil, tires, repairs and maintenance. The idea that Annapolis is not “auto-centric” seems to be at odds with what the residents own and the City supports. “Not auto-centric”? Think again.
- Bicycles: If you ask some members of the City Council what their mobility dream is they would say “we want fewer cars in Annapolis and we want people to use bicycles to get around town”. I guess the trips abroad to Sweden and the Netherlands got them thinking “why can’t Annapolis be like this?”. There are lots of reasons that I won’t debate here … but it doesn’t take much observation to notice that very few people are getting around town on their bikes. Yes, there are some avid cyclists who will never be satisfied. But a casual observation is the typical cyclist we see is middle-age, male, white, wearing Spandex and peddling a $1000+ bike. They carry nothing more than a water bottle. Few teens, women or minorities. Yet, according to the FY27 Capital Improvements Budget, the City is poised to spend almost $7.8 million (with $1.3 mil in City bonds) on the West-East Connector (“WEE”) bike trail. This seems to be an expense that could be curtailed an/or eliminated altogether in favor of essential capital improvements that benefit all of the City’s residents. Capital expenses are funded by the City’s tax-payers and, while some money may come from State and Federal grants, they don’t cover all of it. As we discuss “affordable housing” we can’t ignore “affordable taxes”. Unnecessary spending on bicycle trails, electric ferries or similar “wants” only make living in Annapolis less affordable for many. The Mayor, Council and those advocating for these “wants” should recognize that reality and make reductions in the Capital Budget.
- Ban on Plastic bags: I favor this ban but think it is applied inconsistently. Visit any grocery store and, while we have banned the bags at the check-out aisle, we allow them in other departments. Most stores provide rolls of plastic bags for produce; and It is virtually impossible to buy lettuce, tomatoes, berries or herbs without also getting rigid (and recyclable) plastic containers. Why are these plastics exempt? And that doesn’t include the ubiquitous plastic foam trays in packaging meats of all kinds. The food industry lobbyists have been very effective in convincing legislatures at the State and Federal level that food costs would rise if these bans would be enacted. But the ban on plastic bags is a local ordinance and under the control of the City Council. While members of the public testified in opposition, they were unpersuasive and the ban was enacted in 2024.
- Ban on gas-powered leaf blowers: like the plastic bag ban, gas-powered leaf blowers are controlled by the City of Annapolis. And, like the plastic bag ban, I believe it is applied unevenly. We allow gas-powered lawn mowers, string-trimmers, hedge clippers and other similar landscaping tools … but not leaf-blowers. Why? My guess is those limitations would have affected more home-owners … and voters. But the leaf-blower ban is directed at a more finite group of users: landscapers, mostly small business owners who provide landscaping services. They lack the industry lobbyists to fight on their behalf. This ban was opposed more aggressively during City Council meetings by a few business owners, but their objections fell on deaf ears. In the end, the City decided to help with tax-payer funded $210,000 voucher fund to subsidize landscapers who purchase new battery-operated leaf blowers.
- Public transportation: This is a big one. And seems to be a “work in progress”. The City Transportation Department continues to lose money at a frenetic rate. Currently, the City budgets for 29 FT and 12 PT bus drivers who operate the buses, both hybrid and EV. The on-demand “microtransit” vans are a good idea but, so far, have limited routes. The “Magenta” buses are on continuous loop from the City’s garages. It is rare to see more than a few people of these buses as they move around town. In the past, revenues from Hillman garage subsidized the loss of operating revenue. The amount of the annual subsidy was substantial and in the But when the new Mills-Hillman garage was built as a “public-private partnership” (PPP) the revenue was committed to a new entity for the next 30 years. The problem? How would the loss of bus revenues be subsidized to keep the buses running? Since there wasn’t enough parking revenue generated the PPP contract was amended to include paring in DTA below Church Circle. In effect, parking for DT use is subsidizing the bus service. The PPP has a “waterfall” provision that excess revenue from the new garage “spills over” to Transportation. This amount has averaged $2 million annually … about half of what they received in the past. The only idea that makes sense would be for the City and County to operate as a “regional” transportation system. In the past, the County has resisted such an arrangement. “Shared services” with the County is a discussion that Mayor Littmann should pursue. It is a “win-win” for all.
- Do we really need a trolley or a ferry systems? The City is prepared to do a feasibility study to assess the need for a trolley system. Alderman Rob Savidge (D-W7) is pushing for this idea. And his idea isn’t just a “rubber-tire” trolley, like you’d find in Disney World or the National Mall, but a full-on track system trolley! The City and County, coupled with a grant from a local foundation, are funding a feasibility study. It is hard to imagine how/why the system would traverse DTA and its brick streets. Will curb parking be even further constrained? And can you imagine what the build-out cost might be? I just can’t imagine what the economic justification would be for this. The ferry system was Gavin Buckley’s “baby”. The idea was to build and operate an electric ferry from Fifth St and provide “alternate transportation” across the 500 yds to City Dock. You may remember the Council junket to Stockholm Sweden in 2024 to investigate their ferry system. Upon return they found out they would need to comply with the Jones Act and buying an Australian-built ferry would violate the US Dept of Commerce “Buy American” policy. Now, according to Mayor Littmann, the “electric ferry” has morphed into a “hybrid” and, since the City has received a $3 mil federal grant for ferry infrastructure, including a new bulkhead at Fifth Street, the ferry idea isn’t dead, says Littmann. He justifies the need for a ferry because the County has recently completed a Bay-wide ferry system feasibility study to places like St Michael’s and Solomon’s Island. The cyclists have said: “don’t forget the bike racks!” . If this novel idea has any (sea) legs it should be piloted by private enterprise, not funded by taxpayers. Neither of these ideas have economic viability for a city with just 40,000 residents. Even the feasibility studies are a waste of money.
- Annapolis Sustainability Plan: Annapolis has some very ambitious plans for sustainability in the City. When I read the plan on the City’s website, I was surprised how outdated it was: the original plan was created under Mayor Josh Cohen in 2006. It calls for getting to “carbon neutral” by 2050 but reaching “25% reduction by 2012 and 75% reduction by 2025”. No mention if those goals were reached or extended. The City has a Deputy City Manager for Resiliency and Sustainability at an annual salary of $185,000 , a Mayor with a degree in Environmental Law who earns $125,000 and recently hired a City Attorney at $185,000 who also has experience in Environmental Law. With benefits, that is more than $660,000. That’s a major investment in leadership in protecting the City’s environment.
While Annapolis has a strong environmental record, including standards for expanding and maintaining “tree canopy” and stream and creek water monitoring, it frequently pushes environmental initiatives that aren’t justified by the economics and add unnecessary costs to the “affordability” index. This includes unnecessary (wasteful) spending on ferries, trolleys. expanded bike trails, even mass transit that is rarely used. If we assess a need for these “wants” and services, they can be pursued on a regional basis, not local, by “sharing” services with the County. I think the City’s “on-demand” transit service is headed in the right direction and should be expanded, rather than continue the existing bus service. These item, alone, account for more than $20 million in the FY2027 budget. While some of this is grant funding, some is tax-payer funded bonds. We should be focused on the essentials of capital improvements, not wants and whims.
In last Saturday’s The Capital, Mayor Littmann challenged the public to bring forward idea to reduce the tax rate. This article does just that and can provide serious look at reducing the tax burden on residents. As the Finance Committee and the Council review the Mayor’s Proposed FY 2027 Budget they should examine these opportunities and eliminate budget-busting items and make it more affordable for all. That goal seems to align with most people. Reach out to Mayor Littmann and your Alderman/Alderwoman soon. Their vote pn the FY2027 Budget can bring Annapolis’ environmental goals into reality.
Happy Earth Day!
By Bill Kardash, ABC
