MoCo term limits- convince me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm against it and I work closely with people who will be affected, but I'm non partisan if that makes sense. So take my opinion in context.

I see it as a limit on a voter's ability to choose. At the local level, it gives staff like me more power because new politicians don't have much subject matter expertise. I do. But you can't fire me. You can "fire" politicians by not voting. And apparently studies show term limits make politicians rely on lobbyists more, again for the expertise.

And I have amazing respect for a few Councilmembers, who I don't want to leave, because they are truly good for the county. They learn the issues, understand the broader policy implications, and know how to compromise.

Practically speaking, 4 of 9 will soon leave office to run for County Executive. So you are cleaning house anyway. Maybe 5. And if that one leaves I'll cry.

Objectively, limiting Council to 3 terms is better than 2.

I have less problem limiting the Executive to three terms. I'd be fine with two like we have for governor and president. Most of the heavy lifting is done in Council. They are the final appropriation authority.

You might look harder at public campaign financing. Might help elect some at/large members from upcounty.

This is nonsense. Limits choice? What choice do we have now? What person who wants a career in county politics would primary a sitting councilmember? Because that is the only way your supposed choice is ever going to happen. Once in their seats, it becomes increasingly harder to displace them due to name recognition and apathy.

The only person to run against Berliner in 2014 was a developer funded candidate because the developers were upset about his vote on 10 mile creek. After that, he has since done everything in his power to do everything developers want. He doesn't advocate for the people of his district, to the contrary. He has the wealthiest district in the county and doesn't even bother reaching out to actual residents in his district for fundraising. Why, because he doesn't have to when developers are handing him checks. It's amazing. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of potential District 1 candidates out there that could actually run with strong community support, but they will not until Berliner is gone and it is a clear field. The power of incumbency is that strong.

Furthermore, many of the current crop of council members are fully non-responsive to the constituents they are supposed to represent. Go ahead, send an email. See how many respond. Berliner is top of that list, but only one at-large member ever responds to constituents at all.

The idea that we have to wait for county executive to open up for council members to move on is ridiculous. Ike Leggett pulled in over a million dollars in contributions during his last campaign. Who can challenge that when the executive decides to stay in power?

The sad fact of the matter is that for current council members it is very easy to pick up checks in the thousands of dollars from developers, industry groups and unions. So much so that they don't even bother going out with ideas and a platform to their constituents and fundraising from them. How hard would it be to find one person in each community association in their district to host a couple hour meet and greet where they could say if you like what you hear, please donate 10, 20, 50, 100 bucks or whatever? The current campaign finance model means that they don't even need to do that.

Under the current system, there is no room in this county for outsider candidacies and insurgent campaigns. This is a shame and needs to change. Term limits will do that.

The fact of the matter is, if Question B does pass, this current council and the ones that lose their seats will only have themselves to blame. They have sat by over the past 5 years while our roads have deteriorated to the point where only 41% of them are considered good quality by DOT. They have sat by and done nothing while our schools have overcrowded. And they have actively championed projects that communities do not want, while similarly protecting their own narrow interests.

By the way, where is the downtown Takoma Park sector plan? Why is all the new development there only occurring on the DC side while MD is supposedly leaving all that revenue on the table from development? Where is the Kensington MARC station sector plan? Ridership on MARC is low, adding businesses and density around that station with a direct link to downtown Silver Spring and Union Station would be strategically smart and brilliant. I can tell you why, Nancy Floreen is council president and the former mayor of Garrett Park and we have 3 at-large council members from Takoma Park plus Tom Hucker.

If Bethesda and Chevy Chase are indeed the economic drivers of this county, not to mention the largest population center, then it needs more representation on the council. And it needs it now.

There has been a lot of turnover in the past 8 years. Ervin is gone, Trachtenberg, Knapp, Andrews. Not to mention the Praisners. That's more than half the Council in 8 years. Sounds more like you have a district 1 problem rather than a Council problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm against it and I work closely with people who will be affected, but I'm non partisan if that makes sense. So take my opinion in context.

I see it as a limit on a voter's ability to choose. At the local level, it gives staff like me more power because new politicians don't have much subject matter expertise. I do. But you can't fire me. You can "fire" politicians by not voting. And apparently studies show term limits make politicians rely on lobbyists more, again for the expertise.

And I have amazing respect for a few Councilmembers, who I don't want to leave, because they are truly good for the county. They learn the issues, understand the broader policy implications, and know how to compromise.

Practically speaking, 4 of 9 will soon leave office to run for County Executive. So you are cleaning house anyway. Maybe 5. And if that one leaves I'll cry.

Objectively, limiting Council to 3 terms is better than 2.

I have less problem limiting the Executive to three terms. I'd be fine with two like we have for governor and president. Most of the heavy lifting is done in Council. They are the final appropriation authority.

You might look harder at public campaign financing. Might help elect some at/large members from upcounty.

This is nonsense. Limits choice? What choice do we have now? What person who wants a career in county politics would primary a sitting councilmember? Because that is the only way your supposed choice is ever going to happen. Once in their seats, it becomes increasingly harder to displace them due to name recognition and apathy.

The only person to run against Berliner in 2014 was a developer funded candidate because the developers were upset about his vote on 10 mile creek. After that, he has since done everything in his power to do everything developers want. He doesn't advocate for the people of his district, to the contrary. He has the wealthiest district in the county and doesn't even bother reaching out to actual residents in his district for fundraising. Why, because he doesn't have to when developers are handing him checks. It's amazing. I can guarantee you that there are plenty of potential District 1 candidates out there that could actually run with strong community support, but they will not until Berliner is gone and it is a clear field. The power of incumbency is that strong.

Furthermore, many of the current crop of council members are fully non-responsive to the constituents they are supposed to represent. Go ahead, send an email. See how many respond. Berliner is top of that list, but only one at-large member ever responds to constituents at all.

The idea that we have to wait for county executive to open up for council members to move on is ridiculous. Ike Leggett pulled in over a million dollars in contributions during his last campaign. Who can challenge that when the executive decides to stay in power?

The sad fact of the matter is that for current council members it is very easy to pick up checks in the thousands of dollars from developers, industry groups and unions. So much so that they don't even bother going out with ideas and a platform to their constituents and fundraising from them. How hard would it be to find one person in each community association in their district to host a couple hour meet and greet where they could say if you like what you hear, please donate 10, 20, 50, 100 bucks or whatever? The current campaign finance model means that they don't even need to do that.

Under the current system, there is no room in this county for outsider candidacies and insurgent campaigns. This is a shame and needs to change. Term limits will do that.

The fact of the matter is, if Question B does pass, this current council and the ones that lose their seats will only have themselves to blame. They have sat by over the past 5 years while our roads have deteriorated to the point where only 41% of them are considered good quality by DOT. They have sat by and done nothing while our schools have overcrowded. And they have actively championed projects that communities do not want, while similarly protecting their own narrow interests.

By the way, where is the downtown Takoma Park sector plan? Why is all the new development there only occurring on the DC side while MD is supposedly leaving all that revenue on the table from development? Where is the Kensington MARC station sector plan? Ridership on MARC is low, adding businesses and density around that station with a direct link to downtown Silver Spring and Union Station would be strategically smart and brilliant. I can tell you why, Nancy Floreen is council president and the former mayor of Garrett Park and we have 3 at-large council members from Takoma Park plus Tom Hucker.

If Bethesda and Chevy Chase are indeed the economic drivers of this county, not to mention the largest population center, then it needs more representation on the council. And it needs it now.

There has been a lot of turnover in the past 8 years. Ervin is gone, Trachtenberg, Knapp, Andrews. Not to mention the Praisners. That's more than half the Council in 8 years. Sounds more like you have a district 1 problem rather than a Council problem.

This is nonsense. The idea that we need to wait for someone to voluntarily step down to either move to out of the area (Ervin), go back to earning millions in biotech (Knapp), or die in office (Praisners), does not represent choice for voters. It represents choice for elected officials to either keep their jobs until they grow bored of them or die/retire.

By your own admission, the only person who lost a competitive primary in the last 10 years is Trachtenberg. We all know that she lost because she was/is unstable.

This does not make for vibrant democracy. Out of all the council members would would get term limited out, Elrich would be the most missed. However it is time for new blood.

And no, it is not just a District 1 problem when we have a system that allows council members across the county dumping on District 1 while protecting their own interests without any pushback. The idea that Rice, Floreen, Riemer and others can take large contributions from developers to promote unsustainable development in District 1 as a free vote for them, while protecting their own interests is bad governance.

[Anonymous]

The Board of Ed is saying...

On June 1, the MCEA Representative Assembly voted to recommend the following candidates for Board of Education in Montgomery County’s general election on November 8:

District 2 – Rebecca Smondrowski
District 4 – Shebra Evans
At-Large – Phil Kauffman

VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL B

What Proposal B says

Proposal B would limit all present and future County Council Members and County Executives to 3 terms. Anyone who filled a vacancy mid-term would be treated as having served a full term.

Motives behind Proposal B

Last year Montgomery County Council, for the first time in 9 years, unanimously voted to increase property taxes, resulting in $40 million more for our children and schools. Opponents of public school funding are fighting back this year with Proposal B.

The Truth about Term Limits
?We have the power of term limits already: it’s called a vote! Creating term limits is saying that you, as a voter, don’t have the right to make your own decisions regarding whom you elect.
?Term limits do not increase the number of women and minorities elected to office. Elsewhere, more women and minorities were term-limited out of seats than were elected in. *
?Term Limits increase taxing and spending. Constant turnover creates a short-term fiscal view, leading to poor budgetary decisions. *
?Term limits do not decrease the numbers of career politicians. Studies have shown that 80% of term limited officials end up back in public office.

*please see: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/crc/Resources/Files/termlimits20160810.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Board of Ed is saying...

On June 1, the MCEA Representative Assembly voted to recommend the following candidates for Board of Education in Montgomery County’s general election on November 8:

District 2 – Rebecca Smondrowski
District 4 – Shebra Evans
At-Large – Phil Kauffman

VOTE NO ON PROPOSAL B

What Proposal B says

Proposal B would limit all present and future County Council Members and County Executives to 3 terms. Anyone who filled a vacancy mid-term would be treated as having served a full term.

Motives behind Proposal B

Last year Montgomery County Council, for the first time in 9 years, unanimously voted to increase property taxes, resulting in $40 million more for our children and schools. Opponents of public school funding are fighting back this year with Proposal B.

The Truth about Term Limits
?We have the power of term limits already: it’s called a vote! Creating term limits is saying that you, as a voter, don’t have the right to make your own decisions regarding whom you elect.
?Term limits do not increase the number of women and minorities elected to office. Elsewhere, more women and minorities were term-limited out of seats than were elected in. *
?Term Limits increase taxing and spending. Constant turnover creates a short-term fiscal view, leading to poor budgetary decisions. *
?Term limits do not decrease the numbers of career politicians. Studies have shown that 80% of term limited officials end up back in public office.

*please see: http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/crc/Resources/Files/termlimits20160810.pdf

That is not the BOE, that is the MCEA which is the county teachers union! C'mon man.

And these "truths" are a joke.

[Anonymous]

I voted Yes on B. I hope others did too.

Aside from the national vote, this will be the only result that I will be following closely tonight.

I suspect it is going to be tight, but I hope we can finally rid ourselves of these self-interested incompetents.

[Anonymous]

I voted yes. Thanks for the discussion, which helped inform my vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I voted yes. Thanks for the discussion, which helped inform my vote.

I also voted yes but was going to vote yes anyway. I agree though that this thread provided a lot of interesting perspectives on both sides.