Ball vetoes, halts road buffer bill
while they were council members.”
“While the language of the bill changed, the substance, which was to protect and preserve scenic roads, did not,” Jung said. “This bill would have improved the county’s ability to preserve [its] scenic roads.”
Yungmann in an email described the proposal as an “overreaching bill [that] was hurried through the legislative process without a thorough community discussion or vetting by the departments that would have needed to enforce it.”
He added, “While I appreciate that our 25-year-old scenic roads program should be examined and possibly updated, I appreciate County Executive Ball’s intention to veto this bill.”
Rigby in a statement defended the proposal and its introduction, writing, “Both this bill and the introduction of subsequent amendments fell within the normal legislative process, relying on collaboration from council members, community advocates and other stakeholders.”
Though dismayed by the veto, Rigby described it as “an opportunity to refine the details and reintroduce this legislation at a later date.”
Walsh did not immediately respond to an email request for comment.
A veto override from the County Council seems unlikely as it requires support from four out of the five council members. elogan@baltsun.com twitter.com/erinblogan
“While the language of the bill changed, the substance, which was to protect and preserve scenic roads, did not,” Jung said. “This bill would have improved the county’s ability to preserve [its] scenic roads.”
Yungmann in an email described the proposal as an “overreaching bill [that] was hurried through the legislative process without a thorough community discussion or vetting by the departments that would have needed to enforce it.”
He added, “While I appreciate that our 25-year-old scenic roads program should be examined and possibly updated, I appreciate County Executive Ball’s intention to veto this bill.”
Rigby in a statement defended the proposal and its introduction, writing, “Both this bill and the introduction of subsequent amendments fell within the normal legislative process, relying on collaboration from council members, community advocates and other stakeholders.”
Though dismayed by the veto, Rigby described it as “an opportunity to refine the details and reintroduce this legislation at a later date.”
Walsh did not immediately respond to an email request for comment.
A veto override from the County Council seems unlikely as it requires support from four out of the five council members. elogan@baltsun.com twitter.com/erinblogan
PREVIOUS ARTICLE
