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

[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.

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.

You’ll pardon me if I don’t take the word of a member of a group that’s failed at pretty much everything.

…and I might add, this includes every argument that you and your cult members have tried to raise in these threads. You’ve yet to prove one point.

What you mean is that you've yet to change your mind. I'm not surprised. I wouldn't expect you to.

[Anonymous]

Sooooo...after that lovely and totally productive exchange earlier this morning, what can the OP or others with similar concern do this November?

1. Vote against the lower term limit for County Executive. Rationale: Elrich regularly has cautioned that County Council development initiatives carry unnecessary benefit to developers at the expense of residents, and has come out publicly against the AHS as it exists for this and other reasons. Though the Council often has overridden his veto where he has employed one, and though the Council would not need his approval to enact a Zoning Text Amendment (among the reasons that Planning has suggested that path to AHS implementation), the lower term limit clearly has been initiated with the intent to get him out of the way for developers, and rejection of it would send a message of support for his position. No Councilmembers, themselves, are up for election (neither is Elrich, but he wouldn't be able to run again if the lower term limit were in effect), and, though it correctly has been noted that no legislation is yet before the Council, there will not be an opportunity, short of a special election being called, for county residents to vote for Councilmembers based on their positions vis-a-vis AHS, which most have yet to publicize, prior to related legislation being enacted. (There is little reason to rely solely on Councilmembers being swayed by testimony at legislative hearings, given their current reticence in the face of the sentiments expressed at the listening sessions.)

2. Vote for BOE candidates who demonstrate concerns related to increased housing densities without commensurate ensurance of school capacities/facility conditions (and, perhaps, ensurance of adequacy for other such public facilities/services; though that would be largely outside of their wheelhouse, things like transportation infrastructure can impact school bus service, for example). Rationale: Though the BOE does not have the power of the purse (that lies with the Council, which routinely has underfunded school budget requests), their interactions with the Council on the Capital Infrastructure Plan, define, in broad strokes, the possibilities for achieving school facility adequacy. Again, the impact of such votes on the Council's potential action likely would be limited to signaling. I am not aware of any BOE candidate who has taken such a position publicly, but would be glad to know of any who do, and would consider related positions they have expressed in the past, if only as a poor substitute to knowing their mind more directly with respect to the AHS. Pro tip: look out for claims of newly-calculated adequacy based on the measures MCPS took this summer to increase maximum class sizes due to the Council's underfunding the operational budget request, and pay attention to the current Council Bill 16-24, which may see some kinds of development pay lower impact taxes that fund transportation and school infrastructure, to see if the Council commensurately finds alternate revenue for these purposes rather than leave them even more underfunded than they currently are.

[Anonymous]

Imagine basing your vote for SCHOOL BOARD on whether or not they support a zoning proposal before the county council. Good gravy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine basing your vote for SCHOOL BOARD on whether or not they support a zoning proposal before the county council. Good gravy.

My kids have never been in a MCPS school, I don't care who is on the board so this is actually helpful to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine basing your vote for SCHOOL BOARD on whether or not they support a zoning proposal before the county council. Good gravy.

It answers the OP's question, with the rationale laid out. Certainly, those voting might consider many other aspects related to either of the two suggested actions available this November, but those would not relate so much to the zoning density changes central to the AHS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine basing your vote for SCHOOL BOARD on whether or not they support a zoning proposal before the county council. Good gravy.

My kids have never been in a MCPS school, I don't care who is on the board so this is actually helpful to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine basing your vote for SCHOOL BOARD on whether or not they support a zoning proposal before the county council. Good gravy.

My kids have never been in a MCPS school, I don't care who is on the board so this is actually helpful to me.

This likey strawman (and response) has been brought to you, today, by Trite Statements, Incorporated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Imagine basing your vote for SCHOOL BOARD on whether or not they support a zoning proposal before the county council. Good gravy.

Imagine thinking it’s more important to subsidize market rate development than it is to have enough classrooms.

[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.

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.

You’ll pardon me if I don’t take the word of a member of a group that’s failed at pretty much everything.

…and I might add, this includes every argument that you and your cult members have tried to raise in these threads. You’ve yet to prove one point.

What you mean is that you've yet to change your mind. I'm not surprised. I wouldn't expect you to.

Of course not. If you ever present credible evidence that would support the changes you support we will consider them. Here’s the thing, though, it’s on you to do that and you’ve failed, again.

[Anonymous]

So on the school board is up for a vote and concerned / not concerned about the increasing density?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So on the school board is up for a vote and concerned / not concerned about the increasing density?

This is an excellent question. Three of the seven Board of Education positions are up for a vote this year. Choices are between

Diaz and Zimmerman
Harris and Montoya
Stewart and Evans

MoCo voters may vote in any of these two-person races (districts for the MoCo BOE only set requirements for district residency of the candidates, not of the voters).

It does not appear that any have made public, yet, a position on the AHS. It is unfortunate that the question of whether they would support increased densities without ensurance of adequate school facilities (and operational funding) hasn't been put to the candidates in any of the forums thus far (at least from my understanding, having seen some and read reports about others).

There's public record of some leanings: actions as current board members, past advocacy activity, and, less directly, stances on more general funding for education and the use of those funds. However, it is difficult to divine just from those whether any would lead to a prospective BOE member's pushing back against the AHS in interactions with the County Council (limited as they are, though considerably more than most of the citizenry experiences).

This and the term limit for County Executive appear to be the only things that might address the OP's question, though each is about as close to grasping at straws as one might get, with more direct voter input on the AHS not on the ballot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So on the school board is up for a vote and concerned / not concerned about the increasing density?

This is an excellent question. Three of the seven Board of Education positions are up for a vote this year. Choices are between

Diaz and Zimmerman
Harris and Montoya
Stewart and Evans

MoCo voters may vote in any of these two-person races (districts for the MoCo BOE only set requirements for district residency of the candidates, not of the voters).

It does not appear that any have made public, yet, a position on the AHS. It is unfortunate that the question of whether they would support increased densities without ensurance of adequate school facilities (and operational funding) hasn't been put to the candidates in any of the forums thus far (at least from my understanding, having seen some and read reports about others).

There's public record of some leanings: actions as current board members, past advocacy activity, and, less directly, stances on more general funding for education and the use of those funds. However, it is difficult to divine just from those whether any would lead to a prospective BOE member's pushing back against the AHS in interactions with the County Council (limited as they are, though considerably more than most of the citizenry experiences).

This and the term limit for County Executive appear to be the only things that might address the OP's question, though each is about as close to grasping at straws as one might get, with more direct voter input on the AHS not on the ballot.

Unfortunately, the planning board and the Council have staged the AHS in a way that prevents the public from having a say, other than in some performative listening sessions with their handful of YImBY plants. Since the people won’t be able to vote on it directly and they don’t have the ability to voice their objections via a direct vote for or against council members, they have to seek any other outlets they can find. This might push some folks to vote for Hogan that might otherwise have considered Alsobrooks.

[Anonymous]

Have any of the BOE candidates talked about changing school boundaries?

[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: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.

Thanks for highlighting 16-24. It’s a tax cut for developers that will result in less investment in new schools and transportation. This will be the third time in four years the council has cut taxes for developers. The YIMBYs claim all these tax cuts will make housing cheaper but that hasn’t worked out. How many years will it take to work? Isn’t it embarrassing for the YIMBYs to be wrong so much? At some point you should get out of the echo chamber and see what reality looks like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of the BOE candidates talked about changing school boundaries?

Many (most?) MS and HS boundaries will change in the Fall of 2027 when 3 new HSs come online (Northwood, Crown and Woodward). Everyone has to be for it, because they have to populate the new HSs.

As far as the Coucil and Planning Board and Upzoning, neither of them give a rats a$$ about what the BOE has to say about this. They care very little for the BOE and MCPS in the first place