MoCo People’s Counsel

[Anonymous]

How can we best express support for the restoration of the People’s Counsel?

Seems that homeowners could use the representation before this whole Thrive 2050 starts moving forward.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/27/kramer-bill-would-mandate-peoples-counsel/?fbclid=IwAR1KiirAVTUr85nBQozxY3qdP-wqtnuwLHTEV-cjgvZKoeS3pMAIkp2-MY0_aem_AR6WQR2vHhA_3arbo0UBQ8e_d5uTP--cFwrYaRtbnKhmM87aI8GwdrDQlqfYXTUFFzs

[Anonymous]

Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

[Anonymous]

Thrive already passed. What has not happened is the council taking up any ZTA to implement measures provided for in Thrive. I am sure a big reason for that is that they know it’s very unpopular and a lot of these people think they will succeed Elrich to be CE in a couple years. None of these folks are trying to Hans Riemer their futures.

Ben Kramer is fighting the good fight and all of his bills should be backed. The County Council is too incompetent to be trusted and the MNCPPC was created by a corrupt segregationist to serve the political will of a corrupt segregationist and that’s why we have the results that we have. It’s a relic of a racist past that’s longer fit for purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Marxists hate private ownership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

[Anonymous]

Does the county executive want this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

The word "directly" is doing a lot of work there. Let's see what would happen if the revenue coming to the county through their rent went away. It wouldn't be good.
Do you have any data to prove that renters are more transient in general?
You're basically arguing for the more wealthy to have more power.

And nevertheless, to the original point- The People's Counsel would not be in place to protect the interest of homeowners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

So MoCo rolls out the carpet for illegal immigration….many of those people here illegally rent. The county’s brilliant plan is to upend homeowners to kowtow to the needs of people who aren’t even citizens of this country.


The county is going to be a dump in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

So MoCo rolls out the carpet for illegal immigration….many of those people here illegally rent. The county’s brilliant plan is to upend homeowners to kowtow to the needs of people who aren’t even citizens of this country.


The county is going to be a dump in the future.

Not reeally sure how to interact with someone who makes the leap that renters are illegal immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

These YIMBYs just live in a fantasy world. This guy really thinks that he’s done some deep discovery here because he’s uncovered the shocking truth that homeowners in MoCo and elsewhere are concerned about the childish policies that they support. Trust me, if they are telling you anything about the counsel, believe the opposite.

What they actually believe? That the counsel will act as a free lawyer for NIMBYs…you know, sane people.

[Anonymous]

I assume it's the same poster who keeps using the word "childish" to describe people who support housing and land use policies the poster disagrees with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.