Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1956-02-02

sition leaves me cold.
On the other hand, the port is
a major economic asset of the
State, and no reasonable effort
should be spared to improve it
and promote it in the stiff COM
petition with other Eastern and
Gulf Coast ports and the ones that
will soon emerge along the st.
Lawrence Seaway.
If no better financing method
is found, the gasoline tax proposal
may very well pass.
One alternative proposal is to
finance the Port Authority's op-
erations out of the General Funds
(rather than special, dedicated
funds), just like all the other
items in the annual budget. The
bankers and bond experts in Bal
ltimore take a dim view of this sug-
gestion. They don't want the au-
thority to be subject to the an
nual whims and caprices of the
politicians in the legislaturel
Alternative Number Two is to
place all of the toll bridges and
tunnels under the Port Authority,
rather than the State Roads Com
mission, and let the authority sup
port itself by revenue from the
tolls. This approach is violently
opposed by the Eastern Shore
men, who look forward to the day
when the bridge bonds will be
paid off and the tolls removed
from the Bay Bridge and the Sus-
quehanna Bridge at Havre de
Grace.
Alternative Number Three is
even more complicated. There is
continuing pressure to raise the
automobile registration fee tie,
the price of your auto tags from
SIS to $40 in order to fatten up the
12-year highway construction pro-
gram. Under the present distri-
button formula, the tax increase
would produce $3.5 million per
year for the State Roads Commits
! sion to build new highways with
and an equal amount to be divided
among the counties and Baltimore
City. The big gimmick is that
Baltimore gets 60 percent of that
amount and all % counties get
only 40 percent. The Port Au-
thority could be adequately fl
nanced by dedicating to it one-half
of the half that would otherwise
go to the city and counties, which
would amount to $1,750,0O0 per
year.
The greatest fault with this
plan is that, like the gas tax idea,
it involves diverting highway-user
taxes to non-highway expendi-
lures.
The beauty of it, however, is
that 60 percent of the cost of sup
porting the Port Authority would
be coming from funds which
would otherwise go to the city of
Baltimore. l agree that the port
is an asset of the entire State, but
nobody can convince me that it
doesn't benefit the city much
more than it does the counties. 1t
is fair that the counties make
some contribution to its support,
but it is also fair that the city
make the major contribution.
These three alternative finan-
cling proposals were being kicked
around even before the session
began. Others may emerge in the
next few weeks.
So
Regardless of any possible tie
in with the Port Authority, the
registration fee increase poses
quite problem for legislators
from Montgomery and Prince
Georges Counties. The increase
was scheduled to take effect this
year, but the General Assembly
passed bill last year that would
defer the increase for another
year. The governor vetoed the
bill. The vetoed bill will come up
before the senate-possibly today
or tomorrow-for final action. If
the senate sustains the veto, the
house will then have its turn early
next week.
The bill was originally spon-
sored by senators from the East.
ern Shore who have little enthu-
siasm for the road construction.
We went along with it last year
because (a) we hated to see the
license plate fee go up and (b) we
were sore at the State Roads Com
mission for a variety of reasons.
On the other hand, there is no
blinking the fact that a very sub.
stantial part Of the 12.year high
way program is being devoted to
suburban counties. Does it make
sense for the legislators from
these counties to withhold the
funds that are needed to make the
program move ahead on sched
ule?
The real job will be to find out
whether, as matter of fact, that