MoCo Question B would be a disaster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

By all means please lead the charge to cut pensions for public safety workers (they are the only ones that still get pensions). They certainly could freeze salaries for a year or two but at a certain point you have to keep up with inflation and give people enough to live on in this county. "Bogus" positions will not add up to nearly enough and nobody will agree on which ones they are. Development will be the only way to I crease the tax base under Question B so it will actually increase the incentive to give money to developers.

They can reduce salaries for people making over 100K. They can cut unnecessary positions. They can restrict funds that they give to MCPS to be spent on specific line items not handed over to the union for salary increases on staff making over 100K or allowing MCPS to create another new 140K central office position.

MOCO really needs to focus on growing more business presence. Its crazy to compare how well NOVA is doing in generating business tax revenue while MCPS is in the red.

They actually can't do that.

Limiting salary increases for high earners is not a terrible idea but be aware that you need to keep salaries competitive or people will leave. You're not going to get significant savings out of this.

MCPS is a state agency. The County Council cannot tell them how to spend their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

By all means please lead the charge to cut pensions for public safety workers (they are the only ones that still get pensions). They certainly could freeze salaries for a year or two but at a certain point you have to keep up with inflation and give people enough to live on in this county. "Bogus" positions will not add up to nearly enough and nobody will agree on which ones they are. Development will be the only way to I crease the tax base under Question B so it will actually increase the incentive to give money to developers.

They can reduce salaries for people making over 100K. They can cut unnecessary positions. They can restrict funds that they give to MCPS to be spent on specific line items not handed over to the union for salary increases on staff making over 100K or allowing MCPS to create another new 140K central office position.

MOCO really needs to focus on growing more business presence. Its crazy to compare how well NOVA is doing in generating business tax revenue while MCPS is in the red.

They actually can't do that.

Limiting salary increases for high earners is not a terrible idea but be aware that you need to keep salaries competitive or people will leave. You're not going to get significant savings out of this.

True, the council can't tell MCPS how to spend their money, but they can tell MCPS to go make lemonade with lemons by keeping their aggregate spending in check by way of property taxes. MCPS is another wasteful county entity, the BOE needs to reduce their spending to the essentials as well. BOE needs to prioritize and also live within its means.
MCPS pays way more than FCPS, LCPS, and HCPS. Whitman HS was renovated in 2002 and Kennedy HS was renovated in 1999, why are they getting renovations ahead or at the same time as schools that are falling apart like Poolesville HS and South Lake ES? Dufief ES is underenrolled and will be unless they change the boundaries, why is it getting replaced? There are so many magnet programs that aren't even geared to prepare kids for college or the work world (not talking about the STEM and vocational magnets - those need to stay). IB has it's value, but there are too many IB magnets - many colleges don't even accept IB exam scores for college credit. LCPS and HCPS have overtaken MCPS and FCPS by focusing on the basics.
MCPS is a state agency. The County Council cannot tell them how to spend their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question B allows the county to push back on the unions. The unions don't want an income tax hike but don't care about a property tax increase. No property tax increase = no money to keep giving the unions whatever they want. Its the only way to a balanced budget.

I also find it amazing that the Elrich supporters seem to think that a property tax really only hurts millionaires living in Potomac. Newsflash but the multi-millionaires living in Potomac do not care about a big hike in property tax and there are not many of them in the count much toward the revenues.

The vast majority of property in MOCO is in the 300K-under 1M bucket. A big hike in property will hurt them. It will r educe the numbers of buyers because people stretching to afford a home will need to reduce their house buying budget to meet the debt to income threshold with higher property taxes. It will price seniors out of their homes or cut substantially into their retirement savings.

The county can't raise the income tax. The property tax is it's main source of revenue. If question B passes make no mistake the rate will go down every year unless the housing market crashes and thus will affect public services including schools, roads and public safety. The county has very limited options for raising revenues to make up for that loss.

They can cut unnecessary expenses. The hazard pay essential employees received should had been much less and stopped when the state moved to phase 2. Bloated pensions and salaries need to be cut. salary freezes. get rid of bogus positions. Stop giving money to developers. If the county wasnt so wasteful, people would be more.supportive of a tax increase.for essential services.

Forced caps on admin positions at the CO. Amyway, I'd rather not vote for B but I don't think we can otherwise trust the council to reign in spending. As to C and D, they sound all well and good but C just create new council and staff positions and will add millions in administrative overheads, I'm voting against that too. D will probably result ins some net savings but still not sure this change is beneficial so why vote for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question B allows the county to push back on the unions. The unions don't want an income tax hike but don't care about a property tax increase. No property tax increase = no money to keep giving the unions whatever they want. Its the only way to a balanced budget.

I also find it amazing that the Elrich supporters seem to think that a property tax really only hurts millionaires living in Potomac. Newsflash but the multi-millionaires living in Potomac do not care about a big hike in property tax and there are not many of them in the count much toward the revenues.

The vast majority of property in MOCO is in the 300K-under 1M bucket. A big hike in property will hurt them. It will r educe the numbers of buyers because people stretching to afford a home will need to reduce their house buying budget to meet the debt to income threshold with higher property taxes. It will price seniors out of their homes or cut substantially into their retirement savings.

The county can't raise the income tax. The property tax is it's main source of revenue. If question B passes make no mistake the rate will go down every year unless the housing market crashes and thus will affect public services including schools, roads and public safety. The county has very limited options for raising revenues to make up for that loss.

They can cut unnecessary expenses. The hazard pay essential employees received should had been much less and stopped when the state moved to phase 2. Bloated pensions and salaries need to be cut. salary freezes. get rid of bogus positions. Stop giving money to developers. If the county wasnt so wasteful, people would be more.supportive of a tax increase.for essential services.

Forced caps on admin positions at the CO. Amyway, I'd rather not vote for B but I don't think we can otherwise trust the council to reign in spending. As to C and D, they sound all well and good but C just create new council and staff positions and will add millions in administrative overheads, I'm voting against that too. D will probably result ins some net savings but still not sure this change is beneficial so why vote for it.

C is definitely not good because it adds to the county's cost problems. Adding two council member positions will probably cost taxpayers at least $1M more each year, and that compounds. Council members make about 140ish, with benefits on top. They have their associated staff too, with their benefits. Lots of overhead. Not sure if they get pensions, but it all adds up. By comparison, Fairfax County pays its Board of Supervisors about 90k each year. Howard County pays 80k. Council compensation is just the tip of the iceberg, but it's very representative of how much excess Moco spends and why Moco lags behind neighboring counties (more pay, less results?). Moco really needs to do a comprehensive review of its costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Forced caps on admin positions at the CO. Amyway, I'd rather not vote for B but I don't think we can otherwise trust the council to reign in spending. As to C and D, they sound all well and good but C just create new council and staff positions and will add millions in administrative overheads, I'm voting against that too. D will probably result ins some net savings but still not sure this change is beneficial so why vote for it.

D gives a real voice to those upcounty, where all the growth has been.

Here's an opinion piece in favor of it:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/opinion/opinion-eliminate-at-large-council-seats-which-reward-concentrated-power/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Forced caps on admin positions at the CO. Amyway, I'd rather not vote for B but I don't think we can otherwise trust the council to reign in spending. As to C and D, they sound all well and good but C just create new council and staff positions and will add millions in administrative overheads, I'm voting against that too. D will probably result ins some net savings but still not sure this change is beneficial so why vote for it.

D gives a real voice to those upcounty, where all the growth has been.

Here's an opinion piece in favor of it:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/opinion/opinion-eliminate-at-large-council-seats-which-reward-concentrated-power/

A good comment from tha article:

I read somewhere that the idea of at-large seats dates back to the post-Civil War South as a way to make sure minorities did not gain political power. Since most all counties were heavily white the minority vote could be easily overcome by at-large voting. However, if one large entity were broken down to several smaller entities, minorities might gain control of at least one small entity since minorities usually were highly concentrated in certain areas (due to housing discrimination). I'm definitely voting for D and B and again st C and A.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Forced caps on admin positions at the CO. Amyway, I'd rather not vote for B but I don't think we can otherwise trust the council to reign in spending. As to C and D, they sound all well and good but C just create new council and staff positions and will add millions in administrative overheads, I'm voting against that too. D will probably result ins some net savings but still not sure this change is beneficial so why vote for it.

D gives a real voice to those upcounty, where all the growth has been.

Here's an opinion piece in favor of it:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/opinion/opinion-eliminate-at-large-council-seats-which-reward-concentrated-power/

A good comment from tha article:

I read somewhere that the idea of at-large seats dates back to the post-Civil War South as a way to make sure minorities did not gain political power. Since most all counties were heavily white the minority vote could be easily overcome by at-large voting. However, if one large entity were broken down to several smaller entities, minorities might gain control of at least one small entity since minorities usually were highly concentrated in certain areas (due to housing discrimination). I'm definitely voting for D and B and again st C and A.

Yep:
https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/At-Large-Voting-Frequently-Asked-Questions-1.pdf

I'm voting for D. But I'm voting for A, not B. It's silly to prohibit any tax increase. We don't know what situations the county will find itself in in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Forced caps on admin positions at the CO. Amyway, I'd rather not vote for B but I don't think we can otherwise trust the council to reign in spending. As to C and D, they sound all well and good but C just create new council and staff positions and will add millions in administrative overheads, I'm voting against that too. D will probably result ins some net savings but still not sure this change is beneficial so why vote for it.

D gives a real voice to those upcounty, where all the growth has been.

Here's an opinion piece in favor of it:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/opinion/opinion-eliminate-at-large-council-seats-which-reward-concentrated-power/

A good comment from tha article:

I read somewhere that the idea of at-large seats dates back to the post-Civil War South as a way to make sure minorities did not gain political power. Since most all counties were heavily white the minority vote could be easily overcome by at-large voting. However, if one large entity were broken down to several smaller entities, minorities might gain control of at least one small entity since minorities usually were highly concentrated in certain areas (due to housing discrimination). I'm definitely voting for D and B and again st C and A.

Yep:
https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/At-Large-Voting-Frequently-Asked-Questions-1.pdf

I'm voting for D. But I'm voting for A, not B. It's silly to prohibit any tax increase. We don't know what situations the county will find itself in in the future.

What's the case for voting for A, though? There's already a cap that exists, or seems like it's working and, as you say, you don't know what situations will exist down the road. I personally prefer giving my elected representatives freedom to figure out what we need, if they screw that up there's an election to fix it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Forced caps on admin positions at the CO. Amyway, I'd rather not vote for B but I don't think we can otherwise trust the council to reign in spending. As to C and D, they sound all well and good but C just create new council and staff positions and will add millions in administrative overheads, I'm voting against that too. D will probably result ins some net savings but still not sure this change is beneficial so why vote for it.

D gives a real voice to those upcounty, where all the growth has been.

Here's an opinion piece in favor of it:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/opinion/opinion-eliminate-at-large-council-seats-which-reward-concentrated-power/

A good comment from tha article:

I read somewhere that the idea of at-large seats dates back to the post-Civil War South as a way to make sure minorities did not gain political power. Since most all counties were heavily white the minority vote could be easily overcome by at-large voting. However, if one large entity were broken down to several smaller entities, minorities might gain control of at least one small entity since minorities usually were highly concentrated in certain areas (due to housing discrimination). I'm definitely voting for D and B and again st C and A.

Yep:
https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/At-Large-Voting-Frequently-Asked-Questions-1.pdf

I'm voting for D. But I'm voting for A, not B. It's silly to prohibit any tax increase. We don't know what situations the county will find itself in in the future.

What's the case for voting for A, though? There's already a cap that exists, or seems like it's working and, as you say, you don't know what situations will exist down the road. I personally prefer giving my elected representatives freedom to figure out what we need, if they screw that up there's an election to fix it.

Because having to work backwards to figure out the property tax rate each year is needlessly complicated. Fixing the property tax rate is much easier to manage than trying to cap the overall revenue.

[Anonymous]

Question A eliminates the cap on tax revenues, and creates a cap on the tax rate. As with the current cap, the Council can override the cap with a unanimous vote. As it is, the cap forces the rate to go down every year until the Council overrides the cap every several years. It's kind of silly. We should have a stable tax rate. Capping revenues is lunacy.

[Anonymous]

From all the kerfuffle on these boards, it seems that the only logical thing to do is to vote against every MoCo ballot measure.

Vote against A and B. So leave the property tax system as it currently is. (Although B sounds fun, it also seems risky.)

Vote against C and D. So leave the council as it currently is. Honestly, this one seems like a no-brainer. Voting for C is nuts because it increases the number of council members, i.e., the cost to the county. Voting for D is also nuts, because it reduces the number of council members any individual person can elect in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Forced caps on admin positions at the CO. Amyway, I'd rather not vote for B but I don't think we can otherwise trust the council to reign in spending. As to C and D, they sound all well and good but C just create new council and staff positions and will add millions in administrative overheads, I'm voting against that too. D will probably result ins some net savings but still not sure this change is beneficial so why vote for it.

D gives a real voice to those upcounty, where all the growth has been.

Here's an opinion piece in favor of it:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/opinion/opinion-eliminate-at-large-council-seats-which-reward-concentrated-power/

A good comment from tha article:

I read somewhere that the idea of at-large seats dates back to the post-Civil War South as a way to make sure minorities did not gain political power. Since most all counties were heavily white the minority vote could be easily overcome by at-large voting. However, if one large entity were broken down to several smaller entities, minorities might gain control of at least one small entity since minorities usually were highly concentrated in certain areas (due to housing discrimination). I'm definitely voting for D and B and again st C and A.

This is interesting. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Forced caps on admin positions at the CO. Amyway, I'd rather not vote for B but I don't think we can otherwise trust the council to reign in spending. As to C and D, they sound all well and good but C just create new council and staff positions and will add millions in administrative overheads, I'm voting against that too. D will probably result ins some net savings but still not sure this change is beneficial so why vote for it.

D gives a real voice to those upcounty, where all the growth has been.

Here's an opinion piece in favor of it:
https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/opinion/opinion-eliminate-at-large-council-seats-which-reward-concentrated-power/

To keep staff costs neutral MOCO could do 8 districts and 1 at large. Fairfax is 9 + 1 at large but Sully has only been a district since 1991. The future now current Chairman is Mackay from the Lee district [now has Chair + district and is a block with Mount Vernon]and organized coalitions which are unofficial have still caused completely weird and inequitable bond projects for schools and community centers.

So in a MOCO 9 districts you still could get some bizarre outcomes but nothing like the current 2 for 70% of the population and 2 district for 30% with all at large for the 30%. Of course those in power don't want this to pass- 3 at large would be gone.

Taxes? MOCO has some checks on property tax increases. Fairfax County has none. It's fair market value X the rate the board chooses. Even more aggregious are special tax districts which were put in decades ago. Reston's was to pay for a construction bond- that was paid off in 1999. Lee and Mount Vernon Districts have or will have sites with similar purposed. No special tax districts.

More districts doesn't provide equity and FX based on a vague survey plans a whopper of a rate increase. Things are not better across the river because some in power have more power than others in the same party. Meanwhile MD and VA and MOCO and FX should have gotten off their a$$es on the FEMA money. Bowser did. No excuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

A good comment from tha article:

I read somewhere that the idea of at-large seats dates back to the post-Civil War South as a way to make sure minorities did not gain political power. Since most all counties were heavily white the minority vote could be easily overcome by at-large voting. However, if one large entity were broken down to several smaller entities, minorities might gain control of at least one small entity since minorities usually were highly concentrated in certain areas (due to housing discrimination). I'm definitely voting for D and B and again st C and A.

You think it's a good comment? I think it's a foolish comment. Of the 4 at-large members who purportedly exclusively represent "Silver Spring":

-1 is an African-American
-1 is a Hispanic-American
-1 is the first openly gay member of the County Council

And the "Silver Spring area" (i.e., most of the east county) is an enormously diverse part of the county. If you're looking for places in Montgomery County where the white folks live and the non-white folks don't, it's not the east county.

Meanwhile, the people pushing ballot measure D are...white folks: upcounty/west county Republicans and big Bethesda developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

A good comment from tha article:

I read somewhere that the idea of at-large seats dates back to the post-Civil War South as a way to make sure minorities did not gain political power. Since most all counties were heavily white the minority vote could be easily overcome by at-large voting. However, if one large entity were broken down to several smaller entities, minorities might gain control of at least one small entity since minorities usually were highly concentrated in certain areas (due to housing discrimination). I'm definitely voting for D and B and again st C and A.

You think it's a good comment? I think it's a foolish comment. Of the 4 at-large members who purportedly exclusively represent "Silver Spring":

-1 is an African-American
-1 is a Hispanic-American
-1 is the first openly gay member of the County Council

And the "Silver Spring area" (i.e., most of the east county) is an enormously diverse part of the county. If you're looking for places in Montgomery County where the white folks live and the non-white folks don't, it's not the east county.

Meanwhile, the people pushing ballot measure D are...white folks: upcounty/west county Republicans and big Bethesda developers.

So, at-large seats are bad and discriminatory, unless you like the people that happen to get elected?

I get what your saying. I know the people financially supporting Question D don't have pure intentions. But I still thinking moving away from at-large seats is the right thing to do to ensure the council appropriately reflects the county as a whole.