2 edits | reply to supergirl
Re: MD state government - one of the worst in the country. I am not saying they are right, but my guess is that to lay this fiber, they have to dig. IE they will be disturbing said wetlands by having to dig up areas and lay the fiber underground. There go, you have an issue. You are disturbing protected areas by having to bring in heavy machinery, which also causes further damage beyond the digging. This is probably the issue at hand. My guess, this agency wants to impose fees so they can restore the damage afterwards. By all means, that's a valid argument. You must restore what you disturbed. However, we can't expect people from the south to care much about the environment now can we. That's a liberal idea sort of like global warming and the fact bees are disappearing. It's witchery I tell you. |
|
| The company needs to fix the damage, not some government agency. |
|
| However, it will be that GOVERNMENT agency who will end up facing the burden. Do you believe for one moment the company is going to fix their damage if NOT MADE TO? The Environmental agency figures they will get STUCK with the job anyway. They might as well collect the bill for having to do it. Tax payers shouldn't be the ones to foot it. This company should. Therefore, I have got no gripe against taxing them in favor the the damage their work will cause. |
|
| The GOVERNMENT agancy will do the least amount of work possible in actually getting something productive DONE. I've seen it time and time again. The money is eaten up in the administrative costs. I'm tired of taxes. Everything becomes a "resource" grab, and it's out of control. |
|
|
|
 kyler13Is your fiber grounded?
join:2006-12-12
Arnold, MD | reply to jc100
said by jc100: I am not saying they are right, but my guess is that to lay this fiber, they have to dig. IE they will be disturbing said wetlands by having to dig up areas and lay the fiber underground. No, MD is running a trunk that will then service rural communities. The opposition is correct in that they can run the fiber along roadways that already cut through said wetlands, basically disturbing nothing. This isn't about protecting wetlands. It's about the state wanting the money (believe me, they need money) and the people running it not wanting to pay the fee since there's no impact. I suppose it could open up a door for circumventing environmental protection, but the government could easily submit the proper language necessary to grant a "bye" to utilizing exsiting "cut-throughs" in wetland areas. That, however, won't help Maryland's already struggling bottom line. |
|
