What votes can I make in Nov against the upzone-ing in MoCo??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

It does not beg the question. It might raise the question, maybe, although in fact I don't think it does.

Why have community engagement/input? To give people an opportunity to express their opinions. Fortunately, public meetings are not the only opportunity for community engagement/input. If you have ever attended even one public meeting in Montgomery County, you will know that attendance at public meetings skews old, white, and affluent. And no, that's not an insult. It's just an accurate description of who attends public meetings in Montgomery County. I fit into that demographic, myself.

Lovely racist, ageist and classist way of saying we should have community input, then ignore it when inconvenient to an agenda.

There hasn't been public feedback of similar or greater scope indicating the opposite of the general sentiments expressed at the listening sessions. Maybe if there was a more accurate way to gauge the interest of MoCo residents...Oh, wait, there is! A ballot initiative!

It is not racist, ageist, or classist to state the fact that people who attend public meetings are very disproportionately white, old, and affluent, compared to the overall population of Montgomery County. I have been to plenty of public meetings where every attendee appeared to be a white person, and where I (in my 50s) was among the youngest people in the room. 59.4% of the population of Montgomery County isn't non-Hispanic white. 82.3% of the population of Montgomery County is under age 65. 34.5% of housing units in Montgomery County are occupied by renters. Half of households in Montgomery County have an income less than $125,583. How does that compare to the people who attend public meetings?

If you want to put your time and effort into a ballot initiative, have at it. It's your time and effort.

It is racist, ageist and classist to note the race, age and wealth of the people attending public meetings as an argument that their positions are not representative of the general populace when you have no substantial evidence to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

It does not beg the question. It might raise the question, maybe, although in fact I don't think it does.

Why have community engagement/input? To give people an opportunity to express their opinions. Fortunately, public meetings are not the only opportunity for community engagement/input. If you have ever attended even one public meeting in Montgomery County, you will know that attendance at public meetings skews old, white, and affluent. And no, that's not an insult. It's just an accurate description of who attends public meetings in Montgomery County. I fit into that demographic, myself.

Lovely racist, ageist and classist way of saying we should have community input, then ignore it when inconvenient to an agenda.

There hasn't been public feedback of similar or greater scope indicating the opposite of the general sentiments expressed at the listening sessions. Maybe if there was a more accurate way to gauge the interest of MoCo residents...Oh, wait, there is! A ballot initiative!

It is not racist, ageist, or classist to state the fact that people who attend public meetings are very disproportionately white, old, and affluent, compared to the overall population of Montgomery County. I have been to plenty of public meetings where every attendee appeared to be a white person, and where I (in my 50s) was among the youngest people in the room. 59.4% of the population of Montgomery County isn't non-Hispanic white. 82.3% of the population of Montgomery County is under age 65. 34.5% of housing units in Montgomery County are occupied by renters. Half of households in Montgomery County have an income less than $125,583. How does that compare to the people who attend public meetings?

If you want to put your time and effort into a ballot initiative, have at it. It's your time and effort.

It is racist, ageist and classist to note the race, age and wealth of the people attending public meetings as an argument that their positions are not representative of the general populace when you have no substantial evidence to the contrary.

It's racist, ageist, and classist to state the fact that the race/age/class demographics of people attending public meetings are not representative of the race/age/class demographics of the county as a whole? Nope, sorry, I can't take that seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

It does not beg the question. It might raise the question, maybe, although in fact I don't think it does.

Why have community engagement/input? To give people an opportunity to express their opinions. Fortunately, public meetings are not the only opportunity for community engagement/input. If you have ever attended even one public meeting in Montgomery County, you will know that attendance at public meetings skews old, white, and affluent. And no, that's not an insult. It's just an accurate description of who attends public meetings in Montgomery County. I fit into that demographic, myself.

Lovely racist, ageist and classist way of saying we should have community input, then ignore it when inconvenient to an agenda.

There hasn't been public feedback of similar or greater scope indicating the opposite of the general sentiments expressed at the listening sessions. Maybe if there was a more accurate way to gauge the interest of MoCo residents...Oh, wait, there is! A ballot initiative!

It is not racist, ageist, or classist to state the fact that people who attend public meetings are very disproportionately white, old, and affluent, compared to the overall population of Montgomery County. I have been to plenty of public meetings where every attendee appeared to be a white person, and where I (in my 50s) was among the youngest people in the room. 59.4% of the population of Montgomery County isn't non-Hispanic white. 82.3% of the population of Montgomery County is under age 65. 34.5% of housing units in Montgomery County are occupied by renters. Half of households in Montgomery County have an income less than $125,583. How does that compare to the people who attend public meetings?

If you want to put your time and effort into a ballot initiative, have at it. It's your time and effort.

It is racist, ageist and classist to note the race, age and wealth of the people attending public meetings as an argument that their positions are not representative of the general populace when you have no substantial evidence to the contrary.

It's racist, ageist, and classist to state the fact that the race/age/class demographics of people attending public meetings are not representative of the race/age/class demographics of the county as a whole? Nope, sorry, I can't take that seriously.

^^^or are you saying it's racist, ageist, and classist to raise the possibility that the typical 20-something in Montgomery County might have different ideas about housing policy than a 63-year-old homeowner in Chevy Chase? That's even sillier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

Something of this magnitude should absolutely be on the ballot. It won’t be, though, because the council knows it would fail.

It won't be, because we don't do zoning by referendum, nor should we. This is how it works in a representative democracy:

1. You vote for the County Council.
2. The County Council votes on legislation, including but certainly not limited to zoning legislation.

This is not the first sweeping, impactful piece of legislation the County Council will vote on, nor will it be the last.

We've been over this in other threads.

1. The current councilmembers did not run with anything like the current scope or depth of the AHS on their platform.
2. Just because the Council can enact the legislation doesn't mean it should, whether that is against a backdrop of majority resident opposition or against one of disproportionate negative impacts to a minority where benefits are not well demonstrated (or, in the abstract, where fundamental rights of a minority might be infringed despite popular support among a majority).

Oh, and

3. Ballot initiatiatives are part of this representative democracy, envisioned, among other reasons, for the purpose of providing a check to the power granted representatives when they act (or indicate they would act) against majority interest.

This is a representative democracy. There is no expectation that candidates express their position on every possible issue, while campaigning for election. Or, if you do have this expectation, no wonder you're frustrated.

Whether the Council should or shouldn't enact this legislation is up to the Council members that the voters of Montgomery County voted for. (And no, the zoning proposals will not infringe on anybody's fundamental rights.)

I think the ballot initiative idea is stupid and, basically, a tantrum among certain homeowners who can't stand the idea that they don't own their neighborhood. However, that's not up to me. It's up to the laws governing ballot initiatives, which you will have to follow if you want there to be a ballot initiative.

While there cannot be the expectation that a candidate express views on every possible issue they might face, that was not the claim. The nuance of the may have escaped you.

The purpose of pointing out that councilmembers did not run on anything like the scope and depth of ths AHS was to provide a direct counter to the previously expressed point (also marked as "1") about representative democracy. When taken with the counter to the previously expressed "2" (where you comment about fundamental rights ignores the clearly expressed "in the abstract"), it suggests that the Council enacting legislation against popular will is not justified merely because of its operation as part of a "representative democracy."

Clearly, the Council might act in such a way. That does not mean it should.

How kind of you to allow that ballot initiatives might proceed according to the laws governing them. How terribly convenient for Planning to have held the scope and depth of the AHS close, not releasing it to the public until after such an initiative became effectively unmountable for the current election cycle. Care to support a special election to examine the validity of assumptions maintained by those pushing density that listening session sentiment was not representative enough of county residents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

Something of this magnitude should absolutely be on the ballot. It won’t be, though, because the council knows it would fail.

It won't be, because we don't do zoning by referendum, nor should we. This is how it works in a representative democracy:

1. You vote for the County Council.
2. The County Council votes on legislation, including but certainly not limited to zoning legislation.

This is not the first sweeping, impactful piece of legislation the County Council will vote on, nor will it be the last.

We've been over this in other threads.

1. The current councilmembers did not run with anything like the current scope or depth of the AHS on their platform.
2. Just because the Council can enact the legislation doesn't mean it should, whether that is against a backdrop of majority resident opposition or against one of disproportionate negative impacts to a minority where benefits are not well demonstrated (or, in the abstract, where fundamental rights of a minority might be infringed despite popular support among a majority).

Oh, and

3. Ballot initiatiatives are part of this representative democracy, envisioned, among other reasons, for the purpose of providing a check to the power granted representatives when they act (or indicate they would act) against majority interest.

This is a representative democracy. There is no expectation that candidates express their position on every possible issue, while campaigning for election. Or, if you do have this expectation, no wonder you're frustrated.

Whether the Council should or shouldn't enact this legislation is up to the Council members that the voters of Montgomery County voted for. (And no, the zoning proposals will not infringe on anybody's fundamental rights.)

I think the ballot initiative idea is stupid and, basically, a tantrum among certain homeowners who can't stand the idea that they don't own their neighborhood. However, that's not up to me. It's up to the laws governing ballot initiatives, which you will have to follow if you want there to be a ballot initiative.

While there cannot be the expectation that a candidate express views on every possible issue they might face, that was not the claim. The nuance of the may have escaped you.

The purpose of pointing out that councilmembers did not run on anything like the scope and depth of ths AHS was to provide a direct counter to the previously expressed point (also marked as "1") about representative democracy. When taken with the counter to the previously expressed "2" (where you comment about fundamental rights ignores the clearly expressed "in the abstract"), it suggests that the Council enacting legislation against popular will is not justified merely because of its operation as part of a "representative democracy."

Clearly, the Council might act in such a way. That does not mean it should.

How kind of you to allow that ballot initiatives might proceed according to the laws governing them. How terribly convenient for Planning to have held the scope and depth of the AHS close, not releasing it to the public until after such an initiative became effectively unmountable for the current election cycle. Care to support a special election to examine the validity of assumptions maintained by those pushing density that listening session sentiment was not representative enough of county residents?

You can carry on however you want, in whatever moral high dudgeon you want. It would be a mistake to assume that everyone shares and agrees with your moral high dudgeon. It's your own time you're wasting, though. No, I do not support a special election about zoning, and if you actually get to the point of collecting signatures, you will not get mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

It does not beg the question. It might raise the question, maybe, although in fact I don't think it does.

Why have community engagement/input? To give people an opportunity to express their opinions. Fortunately, public meetings are not the only opportunity for community engagement/input. If you have ever attended even one public meeting in Montgomery County, you will know that attendance at public meetings skews old, white, and affluent. And no, that's not an insult. It's just an accurate description of who attends public meetings in Montgomery County. I fit into that demographic, myself.

Lovely racist, ageist and classist way of saying we should have community input, then ignore it when inconvenient to an agenda.

There hasn't been public feedback of similar or greater scope indicating the opposite of the general sentiments expressed at the listening sessions. Maybe if there was a more accurate way to gauge the interest of MoCo residents...Oh, wait, there is! A ballot initiative!

It is not racist, ageist, or classist to state the fact that people who attend public meetings are very disproportionately white, old, and affluent, compared to the overall population of Montgomery County. I have been to plenty of public meetings where every attendee appeared to be a white person, and where I (in my 50s) was among the youngest people in the room. 59.4% of the population of Montgomery County isn't non-Hispanic white. 82.3% of the population of Montgomery County is under age 65. 34.5% of housing units in Montgomery County are occupied by renters. Half of households in Montgomery County have an income less than $125,583. How does that compare to the people who attend public meetings?

If you want to put your time and effort into a ballot initiative, have at it. It's your time and effort.

It is racist, ageist and classist to note the race, age and wealth of the people attending public meetings as an argument that their positions are not representative of the general populace when you have no substantial evidence to the contrary.

It's racist, ageist, and classist to state the fact that the race/age/class demographics of people attending public meetings are not representative of the race/age/class demographics of the county as a whole? Nope, sorry, I can't take that seriously.

There you go again with the strawmen...

If it is known that old, white, wealthy folks tend to think green is better than yellow, does that mean that that thought about colors is not prevalent among non-old, non-white, non-wealthy folks? Of course not. You'd need to find that out by gathering data from the rest before making such an assertion.

But there has not been such data gathered, and suggesting that positions voiced by a preponderance of old, white, wealthy folks should be discounted without such data is ageist, racist and classist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

Something of this magnitude should absolutely be on the ballot. It won’t be, though, because the council knows it would fail.

It won't be, because we don't do zoning by referendum, nor should we. This is how it works in a representative democracy:

1. You vote for the County Council.
2. The County Council votes on legislation, including but certainly not limited to zoning legislation.

This is not the first sweeping, impactful piece of legislation the County Council will vote on, nor will it be the last.

We've been over this in other threads.

1. The current councilmembers did not run with anything like the current scope or depth of the AHS on their platform.
2. Just because the Council can enact the legislation doesn't mean it should, whether that is against a backdrop of majority resident opposition or against one of disproportionate negative impacts to a minority where benefits are not well demonstrated (or, in the abstract, where fundamental rights of a minority might be infringed despite popular support among a majority).

Oh, and

3. Ballot initiatiatives are part of this representative democracy, envisioned, among other reasons, for the purpose of providing a check to the power granted representatives when they act (or indicate they would act) against majority interest.

This is a representative democracy. There is no expectation that candidates express their position on every possible issue, while campaigning for election. Or, if you do have this expectation, no wonder you're frustrated.

Whether the Council should or shouldn't enact this legislation is up to the Council members that the voters of Montgomery County voted for. (And no, the zoning proposals will not infringe on anybody's fundamental rights.)

I think the ballot initiative idea is stupid and, basically, a tantrum among certain homeowners who can't stand the idea that they don't own their neighborhood. However, that's not up to me. It's up to the laws governing ballot initiatives, which you will have to follow if you want there to be a ballot initiative.

While there cannot be the expectation that a candidate express views on every possible issue they might face, that was not the claim. The nuance of the may have escaped you.

The purpose of pointing out that councilmembers did not run on anything like the scope and depth of ths AHS was to provide a direct counter to the previously expressed point (also marked as "1") about representative democracy. When taken with the counter to the previously expressed "2" (where you comment about fundamental rights ignores the clearly expressed "in the abstract"), it suggests that the Council enacting legislation against popular will is not justified merely because of its operation as part of a "representative democracy."

Clearly, the Council might act in such a way. That does not mean it should.

How kind of you to allow that ballot initiatives might proceed according to the laws governing them. How terribly convenient for Planning to have held the scope and depth of the AHS close, not releasing it to the public until after such an initiative became effectively unmountable for the current election cycle. Care to support a special election to examine the validity of assumptions maintained by those pushing density that listening session sentiment was not representative enough of county residents?

You can carry on however you want, in whatever moral high dudgeon you want. It would be a mistake to assume that everyone shares and agrees with your moral high dudgeon. It's your own time you're wasting, though. No, I do not support a special election about zoning, and if you actually get to the point of collecting signatures, you will not get mine.

Great. I would not make such an assumption of universal agreement with my position, and I hope those elected representatives make no such assumption of their own without touching much firmer ground, given the preponderance of feedback provided at the listening sessions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

It does not beg the question. It might raise the question, maybe, although in fact I don't think it does.

Why have community engagement/input? To give people an opportunity to express their opinions. Fortunately, public meetings are not the only opportunity for community engagement/input. If you have ever attended even one public meeting in Montgomery County, you will know that attendance at public meetings skews old, white, and affluent. And no, that's not an insult. It's just an accurate description of who attends public meetings in Montgomery County. I fit into that demographic, myself.

Lovely racist, ageist and classist way of saying we should have community input, then ignore it when inconvenient to an agenda.

There hasn't been public feedback of similar or greater scope indicating the opposite of the general sentiments expressed at the listening sessions. Maybe if there was a more accurate way to gauge the interest of MoCo residents...Oh, wait, there is! A ballot initiative!

It is not racist, ageist, or classist to state the fact that people who attend public meetings are very disproportionately white, old, and affluent, compared to the overall population of Montgomery County. I have been to plenty of public meetings where every attendee appeared to be a white person, and where I (in my 50s) was among the youngest people in the room. 59.4% of the population of Montgomery County isn't non-Hispanic white. 82.3% of the population of Montgomery County is under age 65. 34.5% of housing units in Montgomery County are occupied by renters. Half of households in Montgomery County have an income less than $125,583. How does that compare to the people who attend public meetings?

If you want to put your time and effort into a ballot initiative, have at it. It's your time and effort.

It is racist, ageist and classist to note the race, age and wealth of the people attending public meetings as an argument that their positions are not representative of the general populace when you have no substantial evidence to the contrary.

It's racist, ageist, and classist to state the fact that the race/age/class demographics of people attending public meetings are not representative of the race/age/class demographics of the county as a whole? Nope, sorry, I can't take that seriously.

There you go again with the strawmen...

If it is known that old, white, wealthy folks tend to think green is better than yellow, does that mean that that thought about colors is not prevalent among non-old, non-white, non-wealthy folks? Of course not. You'd need to find that out by gathering data from the rest before making such an assertion.

But there has not been such data gathered, and suggesting that positions voiced by a preponderance of old, white, wealthy folks should be discounted without such data is ageist, racist and classist.

Have you talked in real life to any non-old, non-white, non-wealthy people, any time in the last 5 years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

Something of this magnitude should absolutely be on the ballot. It won’t be, though, because the council knows it would fail.

It won't be, because we don't do zoning by referendum, nor should we. This is how it works in a representative democracy:

1. You vote for the County Council.
2. The County Council votes on legislation, including but certainly not limited to zoning legislation.

This is not the first sweeping, impactful piece of legislation the County Council will vote on, nor will it be the last.

We've been over this in other threads.

1. The current councilmembers did not run with anything like the current scope or depth of the AHS on their platform.
2. Just because the Council can enact the legislation doesn't mean it should, whether that is against a backdrop of majority resident opposition or against one of disproportionate negative impacts to a minority where benefits are not well demonstrated (or, in the abstract, where fundamental rights of a minority might be infringed despite popular support among a majority).

Oh, and

3. Ballot initiatiatives are part of this representative democracy, envisioned, among other reasons, for the purpose of providing a check to the power granted representatives when they act (or indicate they would act) against majority interest.

This is a representative democracy. There is no expectation that candidates express their position on every possible issue, while campaigning for election. Or, if you do have this expectation, no wonder you're frustrated.

Whether the Council should or shouldn't enact this legislation is up to the Council members that the voters of Montgomery County voted for. (And no, the zoning proposals will not infringe on anybody's fundamental rights.)

I think the ballot initiative idea is stupid and, basically, a tantrum among certain homeowners who can't stand the idea that they don't own their neighborhood. However, that's not up to me. It's up to the laws governing ballot initiatives, which you will have to follow if you want there to be a ballot initiative.

While there cannot be the expectation that a candidate express views on every possible issue they might face, that was not the claim. The nuance of the may have escaped you.

The purpose of pointing out that councilmembers did not run on anything like the scope and depth of ths AHS was to provide a direct counter to the previously expressed point (also marked as "1") about representative democracy. When taken with the counter to the previously expressed "2" (where you comment about fundamental rights ignores the clearly expressed "in the abstract"), it suggests that the Council enacting legislation against popular will is not justified merely because of its operation as part of a "representative democracy."

Clearly, the Council might act in such a way. That does not mean it should.

How kind of you to allow that ballot initiatives might proceed according to the laws governing them. How terribly convenient for Planning to have held the scope and depth of the AHS close, not releasing it to the public until after such an initiative became effectively unmountable for the current election cycle. Care to support a special election to examine the validity of assumptions maintained by those pushing density that listening session sentiment was not representative enough of county residents?

You can carry on however you want, in whatever moral high dudgeon you want. It would be a mistake to assume that everyone shares and agrees with your moral high dudgeon. It's your own time you're wasting, though. No, I do not support a special election about zoning, and if you actually get to the point of collecting signatures, you will not get mine.

Great. I would not make such an assumption of universal agreement with my position, and I hope those elected representatives make no such assumption of their own without touching much firmer ground, given the preponderance of feedback provided at the listening sessions.

And I hope that the elected representatives understand that the people at the listening sessions are not representative of the voters of Montgomery County. I am pretty sure they do, because it's a well-known problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

It does not beg the question. It might raise the question, maybe, although in fact I don't think it does.

Why have community engagement/input? To give people an opportunity to express their opinions. Fortunately, public meetings are not the only opportunity for community engagement/input. If you have ever attended even one public meeting in Montgomery County, you will know that attendance at public meetings skews old, white, and affluent. And no, that's not an insult. It's just an accurate description of who attends public meetings in Montgomery County. I fit into that demographic, myself.

Lovely racist, ageist and classist way of saying we should have community input, then ignore it when inconvenient to an agenda.

There hasn't been public feedback of similar or greater scope indicating the opposite of the general sentiments expressed at the listening sessions. Maybe if there was a more accurate way to gauge the interest of MoCo residents...Oh, wait, there is! A ballot initiative!

It is not racist, ageist, or classist to state the fact that people who attend public meetings are very disproportionately white, old, and affluent, compared to the overall population of Montgomery County. I have been to plenty of public meetings where every attendee appeared to be a white person, and where I (in my 50s) was among the youngest people in the room. 59.4% of the population of Montgomery County isn't non-Hispanic white. 82.3% of the population of Montgomery County is under age 65. 34.5% of housing units in Montgomery County are occupied by renters. Half of households in Montgomery County have an income less than $125,583. How does that compare to the people who attend public meetings?

If you want to put your time and effort into a ballot initiative, have at it. It's your time and effort.

It is racist, ageist and classist to note the race, age and wealth of the people attending public meetings as an argument that their positions are not representative of the general populace when you have no substantial evidence to the contrary.

It's racist, ageist, and classist to state the fact that the race/age/class demographics of people attending public meetings are not representative of the race/age/class demographics of the county as a whole? Nope, sorry, I can't take that seriously.

There you go again with the strawmen...

If it is known that old, white, wealthy folks tend to think green is better than yellow, does that mean that that thought about colors is not prevalent among non-old, non-white, non-wealthy folks? Of course not. You'd need to find that out by gathering data from the rest before making such an assertion.

But there has not been such data gathered, and suggesting that positions voiced by a preponderance of old, white, wealthy folks should be discounted without such data is ageist, racist and classist.

Have you talked in real life to any non-old, non-white, non-wealthy people, any time in the last 5 years?

Red herring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

Something of this magnitude should absolutely be on the ballot. It won’t be, though, because the council knows it would fail.

It won't be, because we don't do zoning by referendum, nor should we. This is how it works in a representative democracy:

1. You vote for the County Council.
2. The County Council votes on legislation, including but certainly not limited to zoning legislation.

This is not the first sweeping, impactful piece of legislation the County Council will vote on, nor will it be the last.

We've been over this in other threads.

1. The current councilmembers did not run with anything like the current scope or depth of the AHS on their platform.
2. Just because the Council can enact the legislation doesn't mean it should, whether that is against a backdrop of majority resident opposition or against one of disproportionate negative impacts to a minority where benefits are not well demonstrated (or, in the abstract, where fundamental rights of a minority might be infringed despite popular support among a majority).

Oh, and

3. Ballot initiatiatives are part of this representative democracy, envisioned, among other reasons, for the purpose of providing a check to the power granted representatives when they act (or indicate they would act) against majority interest.

This is a representative democracy. There is no expectation that candidates express their position on every possible issue, while campaigning for election. Or, if you do have this expectation, no wonder you're frustrated.

Whether the Council should or shouldn't enact this legislation is up to the Council members that the voters of Montgomery County voted for. (And no, the zoning proposals will not infringe on anybody's fundamental rights.)

I think the ballot initiative idea is stupid and, basically, a tantrum among certain homeowners who can't stand the idea that they don't own their neighborhood. However, that's not up to me. It's up to the laws governing ballot initiatives, which you will have to follow if you want there to be a ballot initiative.

Yoy are entitled to your opinions, even if they are wrong.

One thing you are right about, though, is that taking action on things like ballot initiatives and recalls is time better spent than giving attention to thirsty YIMBYs. The pending reversals of those zoning decisions around the country and the refusal of reasonable people to believe your junk data has got to sting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

Something of this magnitude should absolutely be on the ballot. It won’t be, though, because the council knows it would fail.

It won't be, because we don't do zoning by referendum, nor should we. This is how it works in a representative democracy:

1. You vote for the County Council.
2. The County Council votes on legislation, including but certainly not limited to zoning legislation.

This is not the first sweeping, impactful piece of legislation the County Council will vote on, nor will it be the last.

We've been over this in other threads.

1. The current councilmembers did not run with anything like the current scope or depth of the AHS on their platform.
2. Just because the Council can enact the legislation doesn't mean it should, whether that is against a backdrop of majority resident opposition or against one of disproportionate negative impacts to a minority where benefits are not well demonstrated (or, in the abstract, where fundamental rights of a minority might be infringed despite popular support among a majority).

Oh, and

3. Ballot initiatiatives are part of this representative democracy, envisioned, among other reasons, for the purpose of providing a check to the power granted representatives when they act (or indicate they would act) against majority interest.

This is a representative democracy. There is no expectation that candidates express their position on every possible issue, while campaigning for election. Or, if you do have this expectation, no wonder you're frustrated.

Whether the Council should or shouldn't enact this legislation is up to the Council members that the voters of Montgomery County voted for. (And no, the zoning proposals will not infringe on anybody's fundamental rights.)

I think the ballot initiative idea is stupid and, basically, a tantrum among certain homeowners who can't stand the idea that they don't own their neighborhood. However, that's not up to me. It's up to the laws governing ballot initiatives, which you will have to follow if you want there to be a ballot initiative.

While there cannot be the expectation that a candidate express views on every possible issue they might face, that was not the claim. The nuance of the may have escaped you.

The purpose of pointing out that councilmembers did not run on anything like the scope and depth of ths AHS was to provide a direct counter to the previously expressed point (also marked as "1") about representative democracy. When taken with the counter to the previously expressed "2" (where you comment about fundamental rights ignores the clearly expressed "in the abstract"), it suggests that the Council enacting legislation against popular will is not justified merely because of its operation as part of a "representative democracy."

Clearly, the Council might act in such a way. That does not mean it should.

How kind of you to allow that ballot initiatives might proceed according to the laws governing them. How terribly convenient for Planning to have held the scope and depth of the AHS close, not releasing it to the public until after such an initiative became effectively unmountable for the current election cycle. Care to support a special election to examine the validity of assumptions maintained by those pushing density that listening session sentiment was not representative enough of county residents?

You can carry on however you want, in whatever moral high dudgeon you want. It would be a mistake to assume that everyone shares and agrees with your moral high dudgeon. It's your own time you're wasting, though. No, I do not support a special election about zoning, and if you actually get to the point of collecting signatures, you will not get mine.

Great. I would not make such an assumption of universal agreement with my position, and I hope those elected representatives make no such assumption of their own without touching much firmer ground, given the preponderance of feedback provided at the listening sessions.

And I hope that the elected representatives understand that the people at the listening sessions are not representative of the voters of Montgomery County. I am pretty sure they do, because it's a well-known problem.

As long as they don't make the assumption of the opposite general sentiment among the non-attendees. They'd need some other mechanism to ascertain that. Like a ballot initiative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

It does not beg the question. It might raise the question, maybe, although in fact I don't think it does.

Why have community engagement/input? To give people an opportunity to express their opinions. Fortunately, public meetings are not the only opportunity for community engagement/input. If you have ever attended even one public meeting in Montgomery County, you will know that attendance at public meetings skews old, white, and affluent. And no, that's not an insult. It's just an accurate description of who attends public meetings in Montgomery County. I fit into that demographic, myself.

Lovely racist, ageist and classist way of saying we should have community input, then ignore it when inconvenient to an agenda.

There hasn't been public feedback of similar or greater scope indicating the opposite of the general sentiments expressed at the listening sessions. Maybe if there was a more accurate way to gauge the interest of MoCo residents...Oh, wait, there is! A ballot initiative!

It is not racist, ageist, or classist to state the fact that people who attend public meetings are very disproportionately white, old, and affluent, compared to the overall population of Montgomery County. I have been to plenty of public meetings where every attendee appeared to be a white person, and where I (in my 50s) was among the youngest people in the room. 59.4% of the population of Montgomery County isn't non-Hispanic white. 82.3% of the population of Montgomery County is under age 65. 34.5% of housing units in Montgomery County are occupied by renters. Half of households in Montgomery County have an income less than $125,583. How does that compare to the people who attend public meetings?

If you want to put your time and effort into a ballot initiative, have at it. It's your time and effort.

It is racist, ageist and classist to note the race, age and wealth of the people attending public meetings as an argument that their positions are not representative of the general populace when you have no substantial evidence to the contrary.

It's racist, ageist, and classist to state the fact that the race/age/class demographics of people attending public meetings are not representative of the race/age/class demographics of the county as a whole? Nope, sorry, I can't take that seriously.

There you go again with the strawmen...

If it is known that old, white, wealthy folks tend to think green is better than yellow, does that mean that that thought about colors is not prevalent among non-old, non-white, non-wealthy folks? Of course not. You'd need to find that out by gathering data from the rest before making such an assertion.

But there has not been such data gathered, and suggesting that positions voiced by a preponderance of old, white, wealthy folks should be discounted without such data is ageist, racist and classist.

Have you talked in real life to any non-old, non-white, non-wealthy people, any time in the last 5 years?

Red herring.

You keep saying "strawman" and "red herring", so I'm actually going to look up the definitions in Merriam Webster.


straw man
noun
1
: a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted
2
: a person set up to serve as a cover for a usually questionable transaction


red herring
noun
1
: a herring cured by salting and slow smoking to a dark brown color
2
[from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue

Now maybe you can explain how it's weak/imaginary opposition, distracting attention from the real issue, to point out the reality that

1. twenty-something renters in Germantown or Glenmont might have different ideas about the sanctity of exclusively single-family zoning than sixty-something homeowners in Chevy Chase
2. most people attending the listening sessions were not twenty-something renters in Germantown or Glenmont

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

Something of this magnitude should absolutely be on the ballot. It won’t be, though, because the council knows it would fail.

It won't be, because we don't do zoning by referendum, nor should we. This is how it works in a representative democracy:

1. You vote for the County Council.
2. The County Council votes on legislation, including but certainly not limited to zoning legislation.

This is not the first sweeping, impactful piece of legislation the County Council will vote on, nor will it be the last.

We've been over this in other threads.

1. The current councilmembers did not run with anything like the current scope or depth of the AHS on their platform.
2. Just because the Council can enact the legislation doesn't mean it should, whether that is against a backdrop of majority resident opposition or against one of disproportionate negative impacts to a minority where benefits are not well demonstrated (or, in the abstract, where fundamental rights of a minority might be infringed despite popular support among a majority).

Oh, and

3. Ballot initiatiatives are part of this representative democracy, envisioned, among other reasons, for the purpose of providing a check to the power granted representatives when they act (or indicate they would act) against majority interest.

This is a representative democracy. There is no expectation that candidates express their position on every possible issue, while campaigning for election. Or, if you do have this expectation, no wonder you're frustrated.

Whether the Council should or shouldn't enact this legislation is up to the Council members that the voters of Montgomery County voted for. (And no, the zoning proposals will not infringe on anybody's fundamental rights.)

I think the ballot initiative idea is stupid and, basically, a tantrum among certain homeowners who can't stand the idea that they don't own their neighborhood. However, that's not up to me. It's up to the laws governing ballot initiatives, which you will have to follow if you want there to be a ballot initiative.

While there cannot be the expectation that a candidate express views on every possible issue they might face, that was not the claim. The nuance of the may have escaped you.

The purpose of pointing out that councilmembers did not run on anything like the scope and depth of ths AHS was to provide a direct counter to the previously expressed point (also marked as "1") about representative democracy. When taken with the counter to the previously expressed "2" (where you comment about fundamental rights ignores the clearly expressed "in the abstract"), it suggests that the Council enacting legislation against popular will is not justified merely because of its operation as part of a "representative democracy."

Clearly, the Council might act in such a way. That does not mean it should.

How kind of you to allow that ballot initiatives might proceed according to the laws governing them. How terribly convenient for Planning to have held the scope and depth of the AHS close, not releasing it to the public until after such an initiative became effectively unmountable for the current election cycle. Care to support a special election to examine the validity of assumptions maintained by those pushing density that listening session sentiment was not representative enough of county residents?

You can carry on however you want, in whatever moral high dudgeon you want. It would be a mistake to assume that everyone shares and agrees with your moral high dudgeon. It's your own time you're wasting, though. No, I do not support a special election about zoning, and if you actually get to the point of collecting signatures, you will not get mine.

Great. I would not make such an assumption of universal agreement with my position, and I hope those elected representatives make no such assumption of their own without touching much firmer ground, given the preponderance of feedback provided at the listening sessions.

And I hope that the elected representatives understand that the people at the listening sessions are not representative of the voters of Montgomery County. I am pretty sure they do, because it's a well-known problem.

As long as they don't make the assumption of the opposite general sentiment among the non-attendees. They'd need some other mechanism to ascertain that. Like a ballot initiative.

The County Council votes on legislation all the time. Should they have ballot initiatives to ascertain public sentiment about all of those things too? For example, on October 1, they considered the following legislation:

Bill 15-24, Taxation - Public Safety Officers - Bi-County Agency Police
Bill 16-24, Development Impact Tax - Amendments
Bill 17-24, Administration - Department of Technology and Enterprise Business Solutions (TEBS) - Non-merit Positions

And on September 24, they had an interview with the County Executive’s nominee for Chief of Behavioral Health and Crisis Services.

I certainly don't remember any of the County Council candidates expressing their opinions about any of those things in 2022. How sneaky and underhanded of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, assuming that people who speak at public meetings (such as the listening sessions) are representative of residents of Montgomery County overall is a mistake.

If that is the take, it begs the question: why have any community engagement/input at all? One might assume certain representation; assuming that it would not be representative also would be a mistake.

If there is such uncertainty about something so sweeping and impactful, and if the Council wishes to take the temperature of public opinion on the matter beyond the listening sessions in a way that draws from a far greater proportion of the population, then a referendum/ballot initiative prior to legislative action would be in order.

Something of this magnitude should absolutely be on the ballot. It won’t be, though, because the council knows it would fail.

It won't be, because we don't do zoning by referendum, nor should we. This is how it works in a representative democracy:

1. You vote for the County Council.
2. The County Council votes on legislation, including but certainly not limited to zoning legislation.

This is not the first sweeping, impactful piece of legislation the County Council will vote on, nor will it be the last.

We've been over this in other threads.

1. The current councilmembers did not run with anything like the current scope or depth of the AHS on their platform.
2. Just because the Council can enact the legislation doesn't mean it should, whether that is against a backdrop of majority resident opposition or against one of disproportionate negative impacts to a minority where benefits are not well demonstrated (or, in the abstract, where fundamental rights of a minority might be infringed despite popular support among a majority).

Oh, and

3. Ballot initiatiatives are part of this representative democracy, envisioned, among other reasons, for the purpose of providing a check to the power granted representatives when they act (or indicate they would act) against majority interest.

This is a representative democracy. There is no expectation that candidates express their position on every possible issue, while campaigning for election. Or, if you do have this expectation, no wonder you're frustrated.

Whether the Council should or shouldn't enact this legislation is up to the Council members that the voters of Montgomery County voted for. (And no, the zoning proposals will not infringe on anybody's fundamental rights.)

I think the ballot initiative idea is stupid and, basically, a tantrum among certain homeowners who can't stand the idea that they don't own their neighborhood. However, that's not up to me. It's up to the laws governing ballot initiatives, which you will have to follow if you want there to be a ballot initiative.

Yoy are entitled to your opinions, even if they are wrong.

One thing you are right about, though, is that taking action on things like ballot initiatives and recalls is time better spent than giving attention to thirsty YIMBYs. The pending reversals of those zoning decisions around the country and the refusal of reasonable people to believe your junk data has got to sting.

Nope. In the long run, you are on the losing side.