MoCo People’s Counsel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How much further would you splice that? Should somebody in a larger house who pays more in property taxes be a greater priority than someone in a smaller house? If I am a homeowner who benefits from a program that provides me relief from paying full property tax, do I still get priority?

And if we are basing priority on who brings the most revenue to the county, should be be paying more attention to large employers and developers than homeowners?

Businesses don’t vote, nor do they have children in schools, which are the largest line item in the county budget, so I don’t think they have priority over longer-term county residents who tend to live in SFH’s.

As for proportional taxes with regards to homeowners…rich people who are paying more are already better represented by virtue of their relationships and social circles, so there’s no need to split hairs to give them even more influence.

So to be clear, you are saying that it is people who vote and own homes with children in schools who should have the highest priority in county government? And by "highest priority" you mean it is their needs (assuming they even have collective needs) that should be catered to in policy-making? And you're not disputing that rich people are *and should be* a higher priority in county policy?

Just want to make sure I'm understanding you.

DP

With the exception of the bolded, I agree 100% with her.

As for the bolded - that’s not what she said. It’s the opposite, in fact. She essentially said “rich people already have enough influence by virtue of being rich, and don’t need any more, as they’re already disproportionately represented”.

You really should work on your own reading comprehension before you attack people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How much further would you splice that? Should somebody in a larger house who pays more in property taxes be a greater priority than someone in a smaller house? If I am a homeowner who benefits from a program that provides me relief from paying full property tax, do I still get priority?

And if we are basing priority on who brings the most revenue to the county, should be be paying more attention to large employers and developers than homeowners?

Businesses don’t vote, nor do they have children in schools, which are the largest line item in the county budget, so I don’t think they have priority over longer-term county residents who tend to live in SFH’s.

As for proportional taxes with regards to homeowners…rich people who are paying more are already better represented by virtue of their relationships and social circles, so there’s no need to split hairs to give them even more influence.

So to be clear, you are saying that it is people who vote and own homes with children in schools who should have the highest priority in county government? And by "highest priority" you mean it is their needs (assuming they even have collective needs) that should be catered to in policy-making? And you're not disputing that rich people are *and should be* a higher priority in county policy?

Just want to make sure I'm understanding you.

DP

With the exception of the bolded, I agree 100% with her.

As for the bolded - that’s not what she said. It’s the opposite, in fact. She essentially said “rich people already have enough influence by virtue of being rich, and don’t need any more, as they’re already disproportionately represented”.

You really should work on your own reading comprehension before you attack people.

How do you view my questions as an attack? I asked them in order to better comprehend.

Regarding rich people, I was trying to understand "enough influence" and "don't need any more". Wanted to clarify whether PP thought that the amount of influence rich people had was the optimal amount, too much, or too little.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How much further would you splice that? Should somebody in a larger house who pays more in property taxes be a greater priority than someone in a smaller house? If I am a homeowner who benefits from a program that provides me relief from paying full property tax, do I still get priority?

And if we are basing priority on who brings the most revenue to the county, should be be paying more attention to large employers and developers than homeowners?

Businesses don’t vote, nor do they have children in schools, which are the largest line item in the county budget, so I don’t think they have priority over longer-term county residents who tend to live in SFH’s.

As for proportional taxes with regards to homeowners…rich people who are paying more are already better represented by virtue of their relationships and social circles, so there’s no need to split hairs to give them even more influence.

So to be clear, you are saying that it is people who vote and own homes with children in schools who should have the highest priority in county government? And by "highest priority" you mean it is their needs (assuming they even have collective needs) that should be catered to in policy-making? And you're not disputing that rich people are *and should be* a higher priority in county policy?

Just want to make sure I'm understanding you.

DP

With the exception of the bolded, I agree 100% with her.

As for the bolded - that’s not what she said. It’s the opposite, in fact. She essentially said “rich people already have enough influence by virtue of being rich, and don’t need any more, as they’re already disproportionately represented”.

You really should work on your own reading comprehension before you attack people.

What is it that you agree with? That county politicians should care more about the needs of homeowners with school-aged children when enacting policy?
Presumably that is based on a belief that these voters pay more for county services and are more directly impacted by decisions that affect the schools than people who pay less for county services and are less impacted by decisions that affect the schools?