Term limit for Montgomery County Executive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question A — Decrease term limit for county executive from three to two

For – 67.85%
Against – 32.15%

Even in deep blue Montgomery County citizens voted for term limits. Good job! This was never a Democrat or a Republican issue.

One of the only good things to come out of this election!

True, at least the next CE will only have 8 years to destroy the county. I shudder to think who they will slide into that spot.

At least Elrich cared about the electorate more than people that don’t yet live here.

[Anonymous]

I had mixed feelings about this question. I think Elrich is about as good as we will have, especially because he is not in the pocket of developers. So I would have liked a third term for him, and I think the timing of this ballot initiative is pretty suspect and is being driven by the people who want to destroy single-family zoning. But as a general matter, I think two terms is enough, so I voted for the measure.

[Anonymous]

They should make the county executive limited to zero terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had mixed feelings about this question. I think Elrich is about as good as we will have, especially because he is not in the pocket of developers. So I would have liked a third term for him, and I think the timing of this ballot initiative is pretty suspect and is being driven by the people who want to destroy single-family zoning. But as a general matter, I think two terms is enough, so I voted for the measure.

For someone who admires Elrich for not being in the developers' pockets, it's odd you voted exactly the way developers wanted you to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had mixed feelings about this question. I think Elrich is about as good as we will have, especially because he is not in the pocket of developers. So I would have liked a third term for him, and I think the timing of this ballot initiative is pretty suspect and is being driven by the people who want to destroy single-family zoning. But as a general matter, I think two terms is enough, so I voted for the measure.

For someone who admires Elrich for not being in the developers' pockets, it's odd you voted exactly the way developers wanted you to.

DP. You think it's rational to mindlessly vote against anything developers support regardless of any other benefits those policies could have? That's a weird thing to be a single-issue voter based on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had mixed feelings about this question. I think Elrich is about as good as we will have, especially because he is not in the pocket of developers. So I would have liked a third term for him, and I think the timing of this ballot initiative is pretty suspect and is being driven by the people who want to destroy single-family zoning. But as a general matter, I think two terms is enough, so I voted for the measure.

L
For someone who admires Elrich for not being in the developers' pockets, it's odd you voted exactly the way developers wanted you to.

DP. You think it's rational to mindlessly vote against anything developers support regardless of any other benefits those policies could have? That's a weird thing to be a single-issue voter based on.

Also a DP but I think it’s very strange to say “I wish Erhlich could serve a third term but I am voting for a measure designed precisely so he can’t”.

I mean the whole argument against term limits is it deprives you of capable people that you’d want to vote for and here is PP saying that is exactly what is happening but they are voting for it anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had mixed feelings about this question. I think Elrich is about as good as we will have, especially because he is not in the pocket of developers. So I would have liked a third term for him, and I think the timing of this ballot initiative is pretty suspect and is being driven by the people who want to destroy single-family zoning. But as a general matter, I think two terms is enough, so I voted for the measure.

L
For someone who admires Elrich for not being in the developers' pockets, it's odd you voted exactly the way developers wanted you to.

DP. You think it's rational to mindlessly vote against anything developers support regardless of any other benefits those policies could have? That's a weird thing to be a single-issue voter based on.

Also a DP but I think it’s very strange to say “I wish Erhlich could serve a third term but I am voting for a measure designed precisely so he can’t”.

I mean the whole argument against term limits is it deprives you of capable people that you’d want to vote for and here is PP saying that is exactly what is happening but they are voting for it anyway.

And the argument for term limits is that you don't want to allow the special interests of a single elected official to become engrained into the office. It's particularly dangerous in executive positions that can exert their power to embed people into career positions.

Even if you agree with the special interests of the current guy, there's no guarantee you'll agree with those of the next.

[Anonymous]

Lol, you idiots fell for the developer agenda. I don't like Elrich, but he was one of the only things making it harder to upzone and bulldoze your neighborhoods. The developers snuck this in there to try to make it sound like a good thing. In reality MoCo basically just voted to remove Elrich so they now have the greenight to upzone and demolish all of the SFH in your neighborhood. Have fun with multiplex housing and apartment complexes next your home. You feel for a dirty trick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had mixed feelings about this question. I think Elrich is about as good as we will have, especially because he is not in the pocket of developers. So I would have liked a third term for him, and I think the timing of this ballot initiative is pretty suspect and is being driven by the people who want to destroy single-family zoning. But as a general matter, I think two terms is enough, so I voted for the measure.

L
For someone who admires Elrich for not being in the developers' pockets, it's odd you voted exactly the way developers wanted you to.

DP. You think it's rational to mindlessly vote against anything developers support regardless of any other benefits those policies could have? That's a weird thing to be a single-issue voter based on.

Also a DP but I think it’s very strange to say “I wish Erhlich could serve a third term but I am voting for a measure designed precisely so he can’t”.

I mean the whole argument against term limits is it deprives you of capable people that you’d want to vote for and here is PP saying that is exactly what is happening but they are voting for it anyway.

And the argument for term limits is that you don't want to allow the special interests of a single elected official to become engrained into the office. It's particularly dangerous in executive positions that can exert their power to embed people into career positions.

Even if you agree with the special interests of the current guy, there's no guarantee you'll agree with those of the next.

There's this thing called elections that term-limit problematic people in the most democratic way possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had mixed feelings about this question. I think Elrich is about as good as we will have, especially because he is not in the pocket of developers. So I would have liked a third term for him, and I think the timing of this ballot initiative is pretty suspect and is being driven by the people who want to destroy single-family zoning. But as a general matter, I think two terms is enough, so I voted for the measure.

L
For someone who admires Elrich for not being in the developers' pockets, it's odd you voted exactly the way developers wanted you to.

DP. You think it's rational to mindlessly vote against anything developers support regardless of any other benefits those policies could have? That's a weird thing to be a single-issue voter based on.

Also a DP but I think it’s very strange to say “I wish Erhlich could serve a third term but I am voting for a measure designed precisely so he can’t”.

I mean the whole argument against term limits is it deprives you of capable people that you’d want to vote for and here is PP saying that is exactly what is happening but they are voting for it anyway.

And the argument for term limits is that you don't want to allow the special interests of a single elected official to become engrained into the office. It's particularly dangerous in executive positions that can exert their power to embed people into career positions.

Even if you agree with the special interests of the current guy, there's no guarantee you'll agree with those of the next.

There's this thing called elections that term-limit problematic people in the most democratic way possible.

Was that your position in 1988 when Reagan was term-limited?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had mixed feelings about this question. I think Elrich is about as good as we will have, especially because he is not in the pocket of developers. So I would have liked a third term for him, and I think the timing of this ballot initiative is pretty suspect and is being driven by the people who want to destroy single-family zoning. But as a general matter, I think two terms is enough, so I voted for the measure.

I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol, you idiots fell for the developer agenda. I don't like Elrich, but he was one of the only things making it harder to upzone and bulldoze your neighborhoods. The developers snuck this in there to try to make it sound like a good thing. In reality MoCo basically just voted to remove Elrich so they now have the greenight to upzone and demolish all of the SFH in your neighborhood. Have fun with multiplex housing and apartment complexes next your home. You feel for a dirty trick.

Funny, while Maryland is a blue state, it’s not a kooky progressive state. These unpopular progressive movements (there have been a lot) are a big reason that we saw so many battleground states go red. Is housing a concern? Yes. Is this the dumbest and most controversial way to resolve it? Yes.

Yet, somehow the Democrats will once again take something that is an issue for a majority of people and try to address it by appealing to the loudest and least invested minority and in a way that is unsatisfactory for the electorate at large, ignoring the wishes of the voters.

They shove the crazies out front and then wonder why we didn’t get the votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, you idiots fell for the developer agenda. I don't like Elrich, but he was one of the only things making it harder to upzone and bulldoze your neighborhoods. The developers snuck this in there to try to make it sound like a good thing. In reality MoCo basically just voted to remove Elrich so they now have the greenight to upzone and demolish all of the SFH in your neighborhood. Have fun with multiplex housing and apartment complexes next your home. You feel for a dirty trick.

Funny, while Maryland is a blue state, it’s not a kooky progressive state. These unpopular progressive movements (there have been a lot) are a big reason that we saw so many battleground states go red. Is housing a concern? Yes. Is this the dumbest and most controversial way to resolve it? Yes.

Yet, somehow the Democrats will once again take something that is an issue for a majority of people and try to address it by appealing to the loudest and least invested minority and in a way that is unsatisfactory for the electorate at large, ignoring the wishes of the voters.

They shove the crazies out front and then wonder why we didn’t get the votes.

So, you think increasing regulations on housing development is more likely to make it cheaper?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol, you idiots fell for the developer agenda. I don't like Elrich, but he was one of the only things making it harder to upzone and bulldoze your neighborhoods. The developers snuck this in there to try to make it sound like a good thing. In reality MoCo basically just voted to remove Elrich so they now have the greenight to upzone and demolish all of the SFH in your neighborhood. Have fun with multiplex housing and apartment complexes next your home. You feel for a dirty trick.

+1

[Anonymous]

Elrich will run for Council again.

You'll have Jawando, Glass, Albornoz, Hucker, Friedson, and maybe Stewart and Madaleno run for Executive.

Jawando and Elrich have the same base. I hope they don't play musical chairs. But if many Dems jump into the primary, that's what's likely to happen.