Elrich vetoes controversial planning board member

[Anonymous]

The YIMBYs are furious that he had the nerve to vet a planning board member that they had anointed.

http://www.rockvillenights.com/2023/03/marc-elrich-explains-veto-of-montgomery.html?m=1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The YIMBYs are furious that he had the nerve to vet a planning board member that they had anointed.

http://www.rockvillenights.com/2023/03/marc-elrich-explains-veto-of-montgomery.html?m=1

The MOCO 360 version:

https://moco360.media/2023/03/25/insulting-dismissive-elrich-vetoes-appointment-of-planning-board-member-appointed-a-month-ago/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The YIMBYs are furious that he had the nerve to vet a planning board member that they had anointed.

http://www.rockvillenights.com/2023/03/marc-elrich-explains-veto-of-montgomery.html?m=1

??? He's not a controversial Planning Board member - aside from the controversy of Elrich vetoing him. On a Friday at 5 pm. And he wasn't annointed by the County Council, he was appointed by the County Council. The p is in a different place on the keyboard.

[Anonymous]

Elrich likes diversity unless it's diversity of viewpoints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The YIMBYs are furious that he had the nerve to vet a planning board member that they had anointed.

http://www.rockvillenights.com/2023/03/marc-elrich-explains-veto-of-montgomery.html?m=1

??? He's not a controversial Planning Board member - aside from the controversy of Elrich vetoing him. On a Friday at 5 pm. And he wasn't annointed by the County Council, he was appointed by the County Council. The p is in a different place on the keyboard.

Have you considered hiring a tutor? Maybe somewhere in your walkable community?

People, this is how they will pack the board with folks to support things like zoning texting amendments, and they are mad that they lost out on their first anointed one. The solution (as read on their own groups), don’t post as many of their thoughts on social media. Solution? Be less transparent about their plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The YIMBYs are furious that he had the nerve to vet a planning board member that they had anointed.

http://www.rockvillenights.com/2023/03/marc-elrich-explains-veto-of-montgomery.html?m=1

??? He's not a controversial Planning Board member - aside from the controversy of Elrich vetoing him. On a Friday at 5 pm. And he wasn't annointed by the County Council, he was appointed by the County Council. The p is in a different place on the keyboard.

Have you considered hiring a tutor? Maybe somewhere in your walkable community?

People, this is how they will pack the board with folks to support things like zoning texting amendments, and they are mad that they lost out on their first anointed one. The solution (as read on their own groups), don’t post as many of their thoughts on social media. Solution? Be less transparent about their plans.

Who is "they"? The County Council?

I'm intrigued with the idea of zoning texting amendments, please tell me more. Do they restrict where people are allowed to text?

[Anonymous]

I could be wrong about this, but I believe the process now is if the county wishes to override this, they need a unanimous vote, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong about this, but I believe the process now is if the county wishes to override this, they need a unanimous vote, no?

No. 9 votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong about this, but I believe the process now is if the county wishes to override this, they need a unanimous vote, no?

No. 9 votes.

Ah, thanks.

So they need 9 out of 11.

3 of whom voted for another candidate (not Hendrick, forget his or her name).

Will be interesting to see if they vote as a bloc, to show Elrich, or if they use this as an opportunity to re-open the door for the other person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong about this, but I believe the process now is if the county wishes to override this, they need a unanimous vote, no?

No. 9 votes.

Ah, thanks.

So they need 9 out of 11.

3 of whom voted for another candidate (not Hendrick, forget his or her name).

Will be interesting to see if they vote as a bloc, to show Elrich, or if they use this as an opportunity to re-open the door for the other person.

Right, 8 councilmembers voted for James Hedrick, 3 councilmembers (Jawando, Mink, Sayles) voted for Cherri Branson. If I were a councilmember, I would vote to override Elrich's veto if for no other reason than to assert the county council's prerogative over the county executive to appoint the Planning Board commissioners, but I am not a councilmember, so who knows?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong about this, but I believe the process now is if the county wishes to override this, they need a unanimous vote, no?

No. 9 votes.

Ah, thanks.

So they need 9 out of 11.

3 of whom voted for another candidate (not Hendrick, forget his or her name).

Will be interesting to see if they vote as a bloc, to show Elrich, or if they use this as an opportunity to re-open the door for the other person.

Right, 8 councilmembers voted for James Hedrick, 3 councilmembers (Jawando, Mink, Sayles) voted for Cherri Branson. If I were a councilmember, I would vote to override Elrich's veto if for no other reason than to assert the county council's prerogative over the county executive to appoint the Planning Board commissioners, but I am not a councilmember, so who knows?

Yep, thats certainly one consideration.

Or maybe there will be some insider horse trading like Jawando and Mink agree to back Hendrick and override the veto, if they get support on their STEP act. Or another councilmember agrees in exchange for a vote on one of the two competing rent control proposals.

Interesting stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong about this, but I believe the process now is if the county wishes to override this, they need a unanimous vote, no?

No. 9 votes.

Ah, thanks.

So they need 9 out of 11.

3 of whom voted for another candidate (not Hendrick, forget his or her name).

Will be interesting to see if they vote as a bloc, to show Elrich, or if they use this as an opportunity to re-open the door for the other person.

Right, 8 councilmembers voted for James Hedrick, 3 councilmembers (Jawando, Mink, Sayles) voted for Cherri Branson. If I were a councilmember, I would vote to override Elrich's veto if for no other reason than to assert the county council's prerogative over the county executive to appoint the Planning Board commissioners, but I am not a councilmember, so who knows?

That’s one way they could go. The risk in going that way is that the Council alone would own the Hedrick appointment and any problems he causes. Hedrick isn’t as caustic as Casey Anderson, but he’s pretty caustic and was a big Casey Anderson fan. The board worked efficiently and quietly without the small but vocal YIMBY contingent represented there. The council would have been better off choosing Branson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong about this, but I believe the process now is if the county wishes to override this, they need a unanimous vote, no?

No. 9 votes.

Ah, thanks.

So they need 9 out of 11.

3 of whom voted for another candidate (not Hendrick, forget his or her name).

Will be interesting to see if they vote as a bloc, to show Elrich, or if they use this as an opportunity to re-open the door for the other person.

Right, 8 councilmembers voted for James Hedrick, 3 councilmembers (Jawando, Mink, Sayles) voted for Cherri Branson. If I were a councilmember, I would vote to override Elrich's veto if for no other reason than to assert the county council's prerogative over the county executive to appoint the Planning Board commissioners, but I am not a councilmember, so who knows?

That’s one way they could go. The risk in going that way is that the Council alone would own the Hedrick appointment and any problems he causes. Hedrick isn’t as caustic as Casey Anderson, but he’s pretty caustic and was a big Casey Anderson fan. The board worked efficiently and quietly without the small but vocal YIMBY contingent represented there. The council would have been better off choosing Branson.

I would not use the words "efficient" or "quiet" to describe Branson's short time on the Planning Board, in my experience of it. Or "non-caustic."

Plus the other two appointees will also potentially cause problems. Anyone can potentially cause problems. And Hedrick is knowledgeable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong about this, but I believe the process now is if the county wishes to override this, they need a unanimous vote, no?

No. 9 votes.

Ah, thanks.

So they need 9 out of 11.

3 of whom voted for another candidate (not Hendrick, forget his or her name).

Will be interesting to see if they vote as a bloc, to show Elrich, or if they use this as an opportunity to re-open the door for the other person.

Right, 8 councilmembers voted for James Hedrick, 3 councilmembers (Jawando, Mink, Sayles) voted for Cherri Branson. If I were a councilmember, I would vote to override Elrich's veto if for no other reason than to assert the county council's prerogative over the county executive to appoint the Planning Board commissioners, but I am not a councilmember, so who knows?

That’s one way they could go. The risk in going that way is that the Council alone would own the Hedrick appointment and any problems he causes. Hedrick isn’t as caustic as Casey Anderson, but he’s pretty caustic and was a big Casey Anderson fan. The board worked efficiently and quietly without the small but vocal YIMBY contingent represented there. The council would have been better off choosing Branson.

I would not use the words "efficient" or "quiet" to describe Branson's short time on the Planning Board, in my experience of it. Or "non-caustic."

Plus the other two appointees will also potentially cause problems. Anyone can potentially cause problems. And Hedrick is knowledgeable.

Really? She seemed very pleasant in the meetings I watched. I know she wasn’t the white male that YIMBYs expect to have in this role, so maybe that’s your issue? Where were the scandals during the past few months? There were none. Projects got approved as quickly as they were presented, with no derisive comments or drama, just as it should be.

The difference between Hedrick and the other board members is that Elrich approved the other two, so they’re shared liabilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong about this, but I believe the process now is if the county wishes to override this, they need a unanimous vote, no?

No. 9 votes.

Ah, thanks.

So they need 9 out of 11.

3 of whom voted for another candidate (not Hendrick, forget his or her name).

Will be interesting to see if they vote as a bloc, to show Elrich, or if they use this as an opportunity to re-open the door for the other person.

Right, 8 councilmembers voted for James Hedrick, 3 councilmembers (Jawando, Mink, Sayles) voted for Cherri Branson. If I were a councilmember, I would vote to override Elrich's veto if for no other reason than to assert the county council's prerogative over the county executive to appoint the Planning Board commissioners, but I am not a councilmember, so who knows?

That’s one way they could go. The risk in going that way is that the Council alone would own the Hedrick appointment and any problems he causes. Hedrick isn’t as caustic as Casey Anderson, but he’s pretty caustic and was a big Casey Anderson fan. The board worked efficiently and quietly without the small but vocal YIMBY contingent represented there. The council would have been better off choosing Branson.

I would not use the words "efficient" or "quiet" to describe Branson's short time on the Planning Board, in my experience of it. Or "non-caustic."

Plus the other two appointees will also potentially cause problems. Anyone can potentially cause problems. And Hedrick is knowledgeable.

Really? She seemed very pleasant in the meetings I watched. I know she wasn’t the white male that YIMBYs expect to have in this role, so maybe that’s your issue? Where were the scandals during the past few months? There were none. Projects got approved as quickly as they were presented, with no derisive comments or drama, just as it should be.

The difference between Hedrick and the other board members is that Elrich approved the other two, so they’re shared liabilities.

No, it's not.

It's interesting that, of the three Planning Board commissioners, all of whom a person could be concerned about for various reasons, Elrich only vetoed one - don't you think?