Date: 11 Sep 2003
To: Thomas E. Dernoga
From: John M. Scroggins
cc: Camille A. Exum

Mr. Dernoga:

The last time I wrote to you, I was very critical, so it is only fair that I commend you when you've done something right by opposing the nutty Super Bowl boondoggle.

I am happy to see your position on this

If you've read my letter in the Journal this week, or the similar messages I sent to Miss Exum, you will have noticed that I listed just a few of the many vacant and abandoned commercial properties within walking distance of my residence.

I continue to be unhappy because the council seems determined to further reduce the tax base by creating more of these non-productive properties and forcing small businesses to shut down

The Super Bowl will not do anything to fix our economic problems. The only effects it will have on the area where I live will be negative. In the meantime, county officials will be expending their resources on attracting rich people for a once in a lifetime event--and giving those rich people a break on county taxes (sounds a Republican scheme to me).

Why can't our county staff resources be used to find ways to promote real, county-wide, economic development? Or to prevent or prosecute the rising crime, especially the auto thefts and homicides that are both increasing and rarely solved or prosecuted. Or maybe the county executive is looking for make-work projects because we have far too many county employees with nothing better to do?

You seem to be showing signs of good sense on these issues. What's wrong with your colleagues?

John M. Scroggins

Response:

Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:30:19 -0400
From: Thomas E. Dernoga
To: John M. Scroggins
Cc: Camille A. Exum

We agree on the Super Bowl, for sure. You should know that Ms. Exum seems to have significant reservations. Other Council members do, too. The Post did not do a good job in discussing the reluctance of the Council regarding the Super Bowl -- most Council members voted yes (and some voted no on various provisions - NOT reported in the Post) because they want to continue the conversation and see what, if anything, we can get. I don't fault them. I just feel that there is too little to gain, so while take the time to talk. I assure you, the Council is not leaping blindly into the Super Bowl party business.

I do disagree with you on the car lots. You do make good points, but these particular small business owners add very little economic benefit and they discourage other higher quality uses from locating near them. Just because you know of abandoned sites that need attention does not relate to how getting rid of the plethora of these that congregate in certain areas could provide the incentive for redevelopment. I assure you that Ms. Exum is focused on these blighted areas in your community. I know because she reminds me all the time. I respect your opinion, but if you drove Rt. 1 from County line to District line, you would see more car dealers than virtually any other use. These uses have almost no capital investment in the land, thus they add little to the tax base. How about giving us a chance on this one?

Letter published in the Prince George's Gazette, 11 Sep 2003

In the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road, there is a vacant lot, with a crumbling building and overrun with weeds. It once was a small used car lot, but has been vacant and deteriorating since the dealer closed.

I am sure that we will see more of the same as used car dealers start to close.

Every day when I drive by that lot, and the ones that will follow it, I will be reminded of how the council has acted to shut down taxpaying businesses, put taxpaying citizens out of work and create additional eyesores like the one in the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road and the other vacant properties nearby.

You [County Councilwoman Camille Exum] and your naive colleagues may think that driving these successful small businesses away will lead to what you consider "higher quality" development. But if that fantasy were really true, there would not be a vacant eyesore in the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road.

Rather than arbitrarily and capriciously forcing successful small businesses to shut down without any compensation, why don't you and your colleagues ­ first ­ go find some "higher quality" tenants to invest in those properties and buy them? That would lead to fair compensation for the current businesses and possible increases in the county's tax base ­ a possible win-win situation rather than the lose-lose scenario you seem determined to pursue.

You may have some vague plan to do something in the future, but the recent history of the Suitland-Marlow Heights area, gives me no reason to have any faith whatsoever in county government attempts to attract "higher quality" development. The former Montgomery Ward store at Iverson Mall is vacant. The former K-Mart store on St. Barnabas Road is vacant (it has had a sign for a church for well over a year, but it is still vacant and deteriorating). Likewise, the former Hechinger store nearby has a sign for a church but appears to be vacant. At the site of the former motel between Branch Avenue and Old Silver Hill Road, CVS has taken half of the site, but the other half is vacant with the shell of a building that was started a couple of years ago and abandoned. The former drug store in the Hillcrest Heights Shopping Center is vacant. The former Hot Shoppe at Marlow Heights is vacant.

Before shutting down more of the productive businesses that are still operating in the area, I would think the council would want to see these many currently unproductive sites put to some productive use that will provide tax revenues.

Just what is your real goal here? It appears that all you are likely to accomplish will be to shut down more businesses and turn the area into a ghost town. I, for one, would much, much rather see used car dealers instead of overgrown vacant lots and abandoned building.

John M. Scroggins, Suitland

Letter published in the Prince George's Gazette, 11 Sep 2003, and Gazette Weekend Edition, 13 Sep 2003

Dear Del. [Carolyn J.B.] Howard:

I was appalled to read in The Gazette ["Delegation leader makes TRIM a top issue," Sept. 4] that you have joined the irresponsible, tax, tax, tax politicians attacking TRIM [Tax Reform Initiative by Marylanders].

Prince George's voters have spoken repeatedly on this issue. Why do you and so many of your fellow politicians find it so hard to understand what the voters have told you?

I have to live on a fixed income. That means that if I want to spend money on something new, I have to cut spending on something else. It also means that any tax increase you extort from me will require me to cut spending on something I consider a priority.

I have to live with this kind of fiscal restraint and responsibility. Why can't you tax, tax, tax politicians do the same?

Why are you trying to reduce my standard of living?

The Gazette says that you would earmark any revenue from repealing TRIM for education. Why should I believe you?

Last year, the General Assembly overrode the clear will of the voters and passed a tax on telephone service ­ one of the most obscenely taxed services there is (over 1/3 of my telephone bill goes to taxes and government-imposed "fees"). Legislators insisted that the tax was for education. But Gazette articles this spring indicated that County Executive [Jack] Johnson diverted a significant part of it to his "livable communities" initiative.

Most elected officials in Prince George's County claim that schools are their highest priority. Yet the County Council recently ignored the county charter and the will of the voters and voted to raise taxes for parks, not schools.

With this record of lies, why should I believe anything you or any other elected official says about spending priorities and earmarking money? How do I know you won't wait a year and then reverse yourself, spend the money elsewhere, and come back whining for more money again?

And, even if you do actually increase spending on education, why should I believe that giving more money to our currently dysfunctional school system will do anything to improve education results?

If taxes and expenditures were truly related to education results, we would have better than average schools. Prince George's County schools are already funded above the national average, yet they achieve results that are far below average. And look at the D.C. schools ­ they are among the best funded in the country, with just about the absolute worst results.

Money is clearly not the problem! If you don't understand that, maybe it's time for you and your political allies, who have been in control of our failing school system for decades, to step aside and see if anyone else has real answers that work before you and your ilk drive us farther down to the level of the highly funded but abysmal D.C. schools.

John M. Scroggins, Suitland

Note: Originally sent as an e-mail to Del. Howard; copies were also faxed to her Annapolis and district offices.

Response from Del. Howard: None!

Letter published in the Prince George's and Montogomery Journals, 9 Sep 2003

The Prince George's Council seems determined to shut down roughly 100 tax-paying used car dealers and put at least that many taxpaying citizens out of work.

It seems to me that it is very hypocritical for the Council leadership to run around calling for higher taxes at the same time.

I don't understand what is going on here, but I am rapidly becoming convinced that the current Council is bad news.

No, I don't own or work for a used car dealership. I do live within walking distance of several, and drive past a number of others in both Districts 7 and 8 every day.

They do not offend me. In fact, I am happy that we have so many small businesses around, and very unhappy that the Council is determined to squash them.

In the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road, there is a vacant lot overrun with weeds, with a crumbling building on it. It once was a small used car lot, but it has been deteriorating since the dealer closed. I am sure we will see more of the same as other used car dealers start to close.

Every day when I drive by that lot (and the ones that will follow), I will be reminded of how the Council has shut down taxpaying businesses, put taxpaying citizens out of work, and created additional eyesores like this.

Naive Council members may think that driving these successful small businesses away will lead to what they consider "higher quality" development, but if that fantasy were really true, there would not be a vacant eyesore on Old Silver Hill Road.

Rather than arbitrarily and capriciously forcing successful small businesses to shut down without any compensation, why don't they first go find some "higher quality" tenants to invest in those properties and buy them?

That would lead to fair compensation for the current businesses and possible increases in the county's tax base - a possible win-win situation, rather than the lose-lose scenario they seem determined to pursue.

There may be some vague plan to do something in the future, but the recent history of the Suitland-Marlow Heights area gives me no reason to have any faith whatsoever in county government attempts to attract "higher quality" development.

The former Montgomery Ward store at Iverson Mall is vacant, as is the former K-Mart on St. Barnabas Road. Likewise, the former Hechinger store nearby has a sign for a church, but also appears to be vacant.

At the site of the former motel between Branch Avenue and Old Silver Hill Road, CVS has taken half of the site, but the other half is vacant with the shell of a building that was started a couple of years ago and then abandoned.

The former drug store in the Hillcrest Heights Shopping Center is vacant. The former Hot Shoppe at Marlow Heights is, too.

Before shutting down more of the productive businesses that are still operating in the area, I would think the Council would want to see these many currently unproductive sites put to some productive use that will provide tax revenues.

I, for one, would much, much rather see used car dealers instead of overgrown vacant lots and abandoned buildings.

JOHN M. SCROGGINS
Suitland

Date: 5 Sep 2003
To: Exum, Camille A
From: John M. Scroggins
Subject: RE: Used car dealers

I consider this a pretty lame answer.

In the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road, there is a vacant lot, with a crumbling building and overrun with weeds. It once was a small used car lot, but has been vacant and deteriorating since the dealer closed.

I am sure that we will see more of the same as used car dealers start to close.

Every day when I drive by that lot, and the ones that will follow it, I will be reminded of how the council has acted to shut down taxpaying businesses, put taxpaying citizens out of work, and create additional eyesores like the one in the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road and the other vacant properties nearby.

You and your naive colleagues may think that driving these successful small businesses away will lead to what you consider "higher quality" development. But if that fantasy were really true, there would not be a vacant eyesore in the 3600 block of Old Silver Hill Road.

Rather than arbitrarily and capriciously forcing successful small businesses to shut down without any compensation, why don't you and your colleagues _FIRST_ go find some "higher quality" tenants to invest in those properties and buy them? That would lead to fair compensation for the current businesses and possible increases in the county's tax base--a possible win-win situation rather than the lose-lose scenario you seem determined to pursue.

You may have some vague plan to do something in the future, but the recent history of the Suitland-Marlow Heights area, gives me NO reason to have any faith whatsoever in count government attempts to attract "higher quality" development. The former Montgomery Ward store at Iverson Mall is vacant. The former K-Mart store on St. Barnabas Road is vacant (it has had a sign for a church for well over a year, but it is still vacant and deteriorating). Likewise, the former Hechinger store nearby has a sign for a church but appears to be vacant. At the site of the former motel between Branch Avenue and Old Silver Hill Road, CVS has taken half of the site, but the other half is vacant with the shell of a building that was started a couple of years ago and abandoned. The former drug store in the Hillcrest Heights Shopping Center is vacant. The former Hot Shoppe at Marlow Heights is vacant.

Before shutting down more of the productive businesses that are still operating in the area, I would think the council would want to see these many currently unproductive sites put to some productive use that will provide tax revenues.

Just what is your real goal here? It appears that all you are likely to accomplish will be to shut down more businesses and turn the area into a ghost town. I, for one, would much, much rather see used car dealers instead of overgrown vacant lots and abandoned building.

-----Original Message-----
At 8/28/2003 01:59 PM, you wrote:

Mr. Scroggins:
Thank you for your correspondence concerning the used car lots. I appreciate the opportunity to share my views on this matter. The bill to eliminate said dealerships was approved by the previous council. My colleagues and I took up a bill to allow the lots to remain for an additional 90 days only. I was not supportive of the 90 day extension.

The owners had more than a year to redress this matter to the previous council and executive and did not. Further this matter is a part of a larger issue of the number of junked, abandoned, unregistered and unsafe vehicles on our streets and in our community.

Shortly, I will introduce legislation that will address other areas contributing to this substantial problem. I certainly appreciate and respect your opinion and I trust that you can appreciate the picture. I welcome continued dialogue on this and other issues of importance to our county.

Very truly yours
Camille

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Scroggins
Sent: Thu Aug 28 13:08:38 2003
To: Exum, Camille A
Cc: Knotts, Tony
Subject: Used car dealers

According to recent press reports, the PG council seems determined to shut
down roughly a hundred tax-paying used car dealers and put at least that
many taxpaying citizens out of work

You were absent the last time the council voted on this issue. What is
your position?

It seems to me that is very hypocritical for the council chairman and other
members leadership to run around calling for higher taxes at the same time
those members are forcing taxpaying businesses to close and making sure
that the employees of those businesses can't afford to pay taxes.

I don't understand what is going here, but I am rapidly becoming convinced
that the current council is bad news.

No, I don't own or work for a used car dealership. I do live within
walking distance of several in your district, and drive past a number of
others in both districts 7 and 8 every day. They do not offend--I am happy
that we have so many small businesses around and VERY unhappy that your
colleagues are determined to squash them.

John M. Scroggins
3408 Weltham Street
Suitland, MD 20746

Response from Miss Exum: See above for answer to first message, no response to followup message.

Date: 4 Sep 2003
To: Delegate Carolyn Howard
From: John M. Scroggins
Subject: TRIM and schools
Cc: [Remainder of District 24 delegation; all officals mentioned in the Gazette article]

Dear Del. Howard:

I was appalled to read in the Gazette that you have joined the irresponsible, tax, tax, tax politicians attacking TRIM.

Prince George's voters have spoken repeatedly on this issue. Why do you and so many of your fellow politicians find it so hard to understand what the voters have told you?

I have to live on a fixed income. That means that if I want to spend money on something new, I have to cut spending on something else. It also means that any tax increase you extort from me will require me to cut spending on something I consider a priority.

I have to live with this kind of fiscal restraint and responsibility. Why can't you tax, tax, tax politicians do the same?

Why are you trying to reduce my standard of living?

The Gazette says that you would earmark any revenue from repealing TRIM for education. Why should I believe you?

Last year, the General Assembly overrode the clear will of the voters and passed a tax on telephone service--one of the most obscenely taxed services there is (over 1/3 of my telephone bill goes to taxes and government-imposed "fees"). Legislators insisted that the tax was for education. But Gazette articles this spring indicated that County Executive Johnson diverted a significant part of it to his "liveable communities" initiative.

Most elected officials in Prince George's County claim that schools are their highest priority. Yet the County Council recently ignored the county charter and the will of the voters and voted to raise taxes for parks, not schools.

With this record of lies, why should I believe anything you or any other elected official says about spending priorities and earmarking money? How do I know you won't wait a year and then reverse yourself, spend the money elsewhere, and come back whining for more money again?

And, even if you do actually increase spending on education, why should I believe that giving more money to our currently dysfunctional school system will do anything to improve education results?

If taxes and expenditures were truly related to education results, we would have better than average schools. Prince George's County schools are already funded above the national average, yet they achieve results that are far below average. And look at the DC schools--they are among the best funded in the country, with just about the absolute worst results.

Money is clearly NOT the problem! If you don't understand that, maybe it's time for you, and your political allies who have been in control of our failing school system for decades, to step aside and see if anyone else has real answers that work before you and your ilk drive us farther down to the level of the highly-funded but abysmal DC schools.

John M. Scroggins
3408 Weltham Street
Suitland, MD 20746

Responses: None