Who do you think will win MoCo county exec?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

I think that he’s a heavy supporter of Israel, not sure that I’d want to hear his thoughts on land use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like Friedson more than Glass. Glass has a tendency to promote pointless performative initiatives. Friedson definitely gets funding from developers and it shows but he is someone who is pretty serious and knowledgeable about politics and policy.

So you like putting a dangerous weapon in the hands of an adversary? SMH...

I don't think of developers as adversaries. They are an interest group, one among many, and sometimes their interests align with mine and sometimes they don't just like any other group.

The companies that are actually building things aren’t adversaries. A lot of them are predatory — opposing safer building codes and basic consumer protections — but they’re not adversaries.

The land speculators are adversaries (unless you are one). They’re rent seekers, and when you look for the real winners from Friedson’s housing policies, it’s the land speculators who win, not actual developers.

I'd love to see more information about this!

If you create a tax abatement or other subsidy for building on a piece of land, the price of that land goes up. The price of land is based on its revenue potential minus building costs. If you reduce costs through tax abatements, the price of land goes up. It’s simple to economics. The person who wants to build trades operating costs for land price up front.

If a person doesn’t want to build, the appreciation land is great. There’s the obvious benefit of being able to sell for a higher price, but there’s also the benefit of being able to borrow more against that piece of land. If you look up any of the prime undeveloped land in this county, you’ll see multiple loans taken against it, with the amount of the loan often many times the assessed value of the land.

So interesting. Can you spell out for me now how many taxpayer dollars have gone to land speculators?

The unfunded liability through the life of the program is in the high hundreds of millions of dollars, The biggest part of this program is new so not many have used it yet. But anyone with an office building who has used their land to secure a loan this year has benefited from the program.

So far the biggest beneficiary of realized tax savings is one company that maxed out for Friedson.

The point isn’t even the money. The point is that tax abatements are a big part of Friedson’s housing plan. They don’t benefit potential residents. They benefit the people who donate to his campaign. Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

Sorry, I honestly don't understand any of what you are saying.

I'm hearing you don't like tax abatements or land speculators and that land speculators benefit indirectly from tax abatements. Do they themselves receive tax abatements for land where housing isn't built?

They don’t have to receive the abatement to benefit. The mere existence of the abatement makes their property more valuable so they can get more money when they cash out or they can borrow more against that land.

The point is that these abatements don’t benefit people seeking housing. They benefit Friedson’s big corporate donors. They’re the only winners.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

ok, thank you for answering my question. I think I understand what you are saying now which is that the tax abatements do not incentivize building housing, they just raise the price of the land.

That is an interesting theory, and I am curious what your evidence is. which properties have you seen this occur in? The existing PILOTs are only for affordable housing beyond the mpdu requirements. The land owner would only have a limited pool of buyers that were planning on using the PILOT which they have to apply for. Why would another buyer pay a premium for that land.

The office to residential pilot hasn't been implemented yet. I suppose it could already be raising property values, but I would need to see aggregate data rather than a couple of properties.

The office to residential pilot is in effect.

The effect of property tax abatements is Finance 101. When a property's tax burden is reduced, building becomes more profitable. But the savings is capitalized into the underlying value of the land and not passed further through the value chain. Because land is in fixed supply, owners can demand higher prices when selling abated properties, transferring the financial benefit directly to the landowner.

Either Friedson doesn’t realize that (in which case he’s not that smart) or he does and he’s lying about his intentions (in which case he’s been captured by developers). Which one do you think it is?

I think that he’s a heavy supporter of Israel, not sure that I’d want to hear his thoughts on land use.

Who are you supporting for CE?

[Anonymous]

Jawando appears to be the only NIMBY candidate, so he’s got my money and my vote. Let’s get back to proper and sane planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jawando appears to be the only NIMBY candidate, so he’s got my money and my vote. Let’s get back to proper and sane planning.

Agree. On Reddit subs, it seems that the developer shills are out in full force with anti jawando silliness which signals to me that jawando is my guy. As usual, the YIMBYs fail to realize that while they are the most vocal, they are not in the majority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando appears to be the only NIMBY candidate, so he’s got my money and my vote. Let’s get back to proper and sane planning.

Agree. On Reddit subs, it seems that the developer shills are out in full force with anti jawando silliness which signals to me that jawando is my guy. As usual, the YIMBYs fail to realize that while they are the most vocal, they are not in the majority.

Affordable Maryland’s ad and website look like amateur productions and are clearly misleading. They haven’t even paid attention to any of the polling on housing, which shows clear support for more housing near metro (something Jawando proposed) and clear opposition to sprawl like Friedson’s countywide upzoning.

[Anonymous]

Jawando is possibly about to get in some trouble for some fishy campaign finance shenanigans.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2026/05/27/pac-funded-by-jawando-now-spends-for-jawando/

Policy positions aside, if there turns out to be a real issue here, I would have a hard time voting for him. At a bare minimum, in 2026, I need any politician I vote for to not have a whiff of corruption or scandal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jawando is possibly about to get in some trouble for some fishy campaign finance shenanigans.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2026/05/27/pac-funded-by-jawando-now-spends-for-jawando/

Policy positions aside, if there turns out to be a real issue here, I would have a hard time voting for him. At a bare minimum, in 2026, I need any politician I vote for to not have a whiff of corruption or scandal.

This is a retread of a story that came out months ago. If there was something to it, the BOE or state prosecutor would have already acted on it. It’s not like any of this was secret.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando is possibly about to get in some trouble for some fishy campaign finance shenanigans.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2026/05/27/pac-funded-by-jawando-now-spends-for-jawando/

Policy positions aside, if there turns out to be a real issue here, I would have a hard time voting for him. At a bare minimum, in 2026, I need any politician I vote for to not have a whiff of corruption or scandal.

This is a retread of a story that came out months ago. If there was something to it, the BOE or state prosecutor would have already acted on it. It’s not like any of this was secret.

IF I read it correctly, there is something new here. The old story is that his senate campaign contributed to the PAC. While unusual, that in and of itself wasn't improper and there was nothing for the BOE to investigate. The new information is that the PAC spent on his county executive campaign. That, as I understand it, is the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando is possibly about to get in some trouble for some fishy campaign finance shenanigans.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2026/05/27/pac-funded-by-jawando-now-spends-for-jawando/

Policy positions aside, if there turns out to be a real issue here, I would have a hard time voting for him. At a bare minimum, in 2026, I need any politician I vote for to not have a whiff of corruption or scandal.

This is a retread of a story that came out months ago. If there was something to it, the BOE or state prosecutor would have already acted on it. It’s not like any of this was secret.

IF I read it correctly, there is something new here. The old story is that his senate campaign contributed to the PAC. While unusual, that in and of itself wasn't improper and there was nothing for the BOE to investigate. The new information is that the PAC spent on his county executive campaign. That, as I understand it, is the issue.

The first spends were reported a couple weeks ago. It looks bad but doesn’t seem to be a violation of law. It’s a loophole that should be closed, but on my list of ethics laws I’d like to see them fix the IG’s access to records, the MPIA, and the open meetings law are ahead of it. The amount of county business that happens behind closed doors and through disappearing messages on snapchat/signal is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jawando is possibly about to get in some trouble for some fishy campaign finance shenanigans.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2026/05/27/pac-funded-by-jawando-now-spends-for-jawando/

Policy positions aside, if there turns out to be a real issue here, I would have a hard time voting for him. At a bare minimum, in 2026, I need any politician I vote for to not have a whiff of corruption or scandal.

That blog is not an unbiased source. Not surprised it's running hit pieces against Jawando.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jawando appears to be the only NIMBY candidate, so he’s got my money and my vote. Let’s get back to proper and sane planning.

So weird that he's getting the old white man vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando appears to be the only NIMBY candidate, so he’s got my money and my vote. Let’s get back to proper and sane planning.

So weird that he's getting the old white man vote.

He is trying to capture Elrich's constituency. Elrich has been awful on so many levels so Jawando loses my vote with this strategy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando appears to be the only NIMBY candidate, so he’s got my money and my vote. Let’s get back to proper and sane planning.

Agree. On Reddit subs, it seems that the developer shills are out in full force with anti jawando silliness which signals to me that jawando is my guy. As usual, the YIMBYs fail to realize that while they are the most vocal, they are not in the majority.

If you could get two of the candidates to give you a million dollars in tax abatements a year in exchange for forgoing maybe $75k in revenue a year by providing a little deeply affordable housing among the MPDUs that you have to provide anyway, you’d have your shills out in force too. Especially if the third candidate wanted more affordable housing and prevailing wage in exchange for that big a subsidy. This comes down to who’s more likely to keep the subsidies flowing while gutting renter protections. The developers spend big because they expect Friedson or Glass to deliver big for them. You can’t even honestly call any if this pro-growth. It’s all about extracting higher margins from what they already own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando appears to be the only NIMBY candidate, so he’s got my money and my vote. Let’s get back to proper and sane planning.

Agree. On Reddit subs, it seems that the developer shills are out in full force with anti jawando silliness which signals to me that jawando is my guy. As usual, the YIMBYs fail to realize that while they are the most vocal, they are not in the majority.

If you could get two of the candidates to give you a million dollars in tax abatements a year in exchange for forgoing maybe $75k in revenue a year by providing a little deeply affordable housing among the MPDUs that you have to provide anyway, you’d have your shills out in force too. Especially if the third candidate wanted more affordable housing and prevailing wage in exchange for that big a subsidy. This comes down to who’s more likely to keep the subsidies flowing while gutting renter protections. The developers spend big because they expect Friedson or Glass to deliver big for them. You can’t even honestly call any if this pro-growth. It’s all about extracting higher margins from what they already own.

I thought the developers won't benefit from the tax abatements, only the land speculators will

Make it make sense

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jawando appears to be the only NIMBY candidate, so he’s got my money and my vote. Let’s get back to proper and sane planning.

Agree. On Reddit subs, it seems that the developer shills are out in full force with anti jawando silliness which signals to me that jawando is my guy. As usual, the YIMBYs fail to realize that while they are the most vocal, they are not in the majority.

If you could get two of the candidates to give you a million dollars in tax abatements a year in exchange for forgoing maybe $75k in revenue a year by providing a little deeply affordable housing among the MPDUs that you have to provide anyway, you’d have your shills out in force too. Especially if the third candidate wanted more affordable housing and prevailing wage in exchange for that big a subsidy. This comes down to who’s more likely to keep the subsidies flowing while gutting renter protections. The developers spend big because they expect Friedson or Glass to deliver big for them. You can’t even honestly call any if this pro-growth. It’s all about extracting higher margins from what they already own.

I thought the developers won't benefit from the tax abatements, only the land speculators will

Make it make sense

The metro one was done for a builder that already had development rights so for them it worked as a bailout after they made a bad land deal. No one else has used it yet because they didn’t have development rights already. For any future deals, the tax abatement will be capitalized into the land and function as a subsidy for the landowner, in this case WMATA.

However you think the PILOT is distributed you can’t plausibly claim that a $1.1 million tax abatement every year for 15 years is a good trade for 16 MPDUs affordable at 50 percent AMI instead of 70 percent AMI. We wouldn’t even have that concession or the affordable housing concession in the office PILOT if Evan Glass hadn’t proposed them. Friedson was willing to give these subsidies away for nothing. To the extent these are good policies, it’s because of Glass, not Friedson. Glass gets this better than Friedson does. Anyone who’s truly for affordable housing should vote Glass not Friedson. If you’re for developers making more money, vote Friedson.

For the revenue that the county forgoes on the WMATA PILOT, it could have bought at least twice as many condos, rented them out, and still had money to spare. The math on Andrew Friedson’s subsidies never maths. He’s either not very smart or he’s lying. Which do you think it is?