Nine districts for MoCo

[Anonymous]

Strongly support 9. This strange shift to Takoma Park / silver spring is more progressive than many democrats I know want. Got to give them credit, they are a well run machine to win elections. I miss Ike Leggett. Was far more balanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Strongly support 9. This strange shift to Takoma Park / silver spring is more progressive than many democrats I know want. Got to give them credit, they are a well run machine to win elections. I miss Ike Leggett. Was far more balanced.

Huh? Ike Leggett hasn't been on the County Council since 2002?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with pp. Now everyone has a Council member that represents them plus a couple at large members. This would mean one person only.

The money behind the group pushing for this are Republicans and Developers (please don't, we'd like to KEEP the Ag Reserve!)

The problem is that if most of the At Large members are from one area, then it's a lopsided representation. And not everything thinks the Ag Reserve needs to be kept the way it is.

Why is that a problem? Those are the candidates who got the most votes. If candidates from Clarksburg or Germantown or Potomac were able to persuade enough voters to vote for them, then they would get elected. There's nothing magical, or cheating, about living in Silver Spring. Nine Districts For MoCo is saying, "Well, I can't win under these rules, therefore these rules must be changed so that I can win."

Indeed it's true that not everybody wants to keep the Ag Reserve the way it is. Developers, for example, would love to be able to build subdivisions in the Ag Reserve. Which is why they're helping to fund the campaign.

Very right-wing: lets support the developers (the 1%), give them more of what they want while screwing everybody else. The traffic is a disaster and the schools are overcrowded. But sure, let them build more housing, that will bring more traffic and more students. Oh, lets give them tax incentives to do it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read one good reason why we should not get rid of the At large seats, or increase the seats to 9.

(1) because if you get rid of the at-large seats, then if your district council member is a dud, you're just plain out of luck.
(2) there are currently 9 seats on the county council.

(1) But it's fine for the House of Representatives. If Raskin is a dud, vote him out. You don't get a menu of House members to contact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with pp. Now everyone has a Council member that represents them plus a couple at large members. This would mean one person only.

The money behind the group pushing for this are Republicans and Developers (please don't, we'd like to KEEP the Ag Reserve!)

The problem is that if most of the At Large members are from one area, then it's a lopsided representation. And not everything thinks the Ag Reserve needs to be kept the way it is.

Why is that a problem? Those are the candidates who got the most votes. If candidates from Clarksburg or Germantown or Potomac were able to persuade enough voters to vote for them, then they would get elected. There's nothing magical, or cheating, about living in Silver Spring. Nine Districts For MoCo is saying, "Well, I can't win under these rules, therefore these rules must be changed so that I can win."

Indeed it's true that not everybody wants to keep the Ag Reserve the way it is. Developers, for example, would love to be able to build subdivisions in the Ag Reserve. Which is why they're helping to fund the campaign.

Very right-wing: lets support the developers (the 1%), give them more of what they want while screwing everybody else. The traffic is a disaster and the schools are overcrowded. But sure, let them build more housing, that will bring more traffic and more students. Oh, lets give them tax incentives to do it too.

You mean all the new development which the Council voted in favor of? All the more reason for 9 districts, so we have a member focused specifically on the concerns of Clarksburg or Germantown or Damascus.

[Anonymous]

I'm not naive- I know that Republicans are pushing for 9 districts. I don't particularly want to see Republicans on the council, but I don't think that's a good reason to support or oppose this measure.

It's pretty clear that the balance of at-large positions is intended to make sure power is solidly centered in the population centers of the county. It's basically a form of gerrymandering, decreasing minority views to lower levels than they'd be if things were proportional.

I suspect some of the people opposing this also complain about not enough minorities in Congress. One of the ways you could facilitate that would be create sensible Congressional districts where minorities would naturally have the majority voting power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there’s already an existing thread please let me know.

I’m curious, if you’re strongly for or agains nine districts for moco could you explain why? I’m trying to understand the implication of this structure switch to figure out whether I support.

If you're strongly for the nine districts for Montgomery County idea, chances are that you're a Republican who believes this is the only way to get a Republican on the County Council. Which it won't even do anyway, unless you do a lot of gerrymandering of council district boundaries.

I don't know if people believe that. But Democrats who are a little less liberal than the Silver Spring/Tacoma Park contingent should see it as a chance to break up that majority down there who's doing a lot of stuff much of the County doesn't agree with.

Look, Marc Elrich had a property tax increase recommended in the FY21 budget. The only reason, the "only" reason, it didn't go anywhere was because of COVID.

The sad part about a win for the 9 district idea is that Gabe Albornoz will probably lose in a new election. He had the lowest number of votes of the at-large individuals, and he's the most rational.

Somebody is arguing against the at-large members - the ones who are elected county-wide - on grounds that they don't represent much of the county. I'm speechless.

(Tacoma is a place in Washington state. The place in Montgomery County is Takoma. With a k.)

You must not follow the Council then. In practice, at large members do not care about the rest of the county. Look at what they do. Not what they say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't make it any more rational to know that multiple people (including big downcounty developers) are saying that the council reps WHO ARE ELECTED COUNTY-WIDE don't represent much of the county.

Capital letters for emphasis, not shouting.

Well, for one, they don't represent (not even at all) anyone who isn't a registered Democrat in MoCo (currently 40% of the population) because we didn't get to vote for them in the Primary.

There is no reason to be registered as republican in maryland. If you want your vote to count, be a democrat and start voting for some moderate democrats.

[Anonymous]

I’m a democrat and just looked up the boundaries of my district:
ouncil District boundaries were adopted by the Council in 2012 after the decennial Census. District 4 stretches up Georgia Ave. from Wheaton to the Howard County border. The southern part of the district includes Randolph Hills, Kensington Heights, Aspen Hill, Glenmont, Layhill Village and Colesville (west of MD 650). Moving north, the district includes Ashton, Sandy Spring and Olney. It also includes rural communities up-county, such as Sunshine, Etchison, Brookeville and Laytonsville. Most of the eastern boundary of District 4 is MD 650 (New Hampshire Ave.). The western boundary is MD 124 (Woodfield Rd.) until just south of Watkins Rd.

That’s a large area and has very different needs. Aspen Hill and Etchinson are in the same district. Two different regions with very different needs. I don’t see how both areas can be effectively represented by 1 person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't make it any more rational to know that multiple people (including big downcounty developers) are saying that the council reps WHO ARE ELECTED COUNTY-WIDE don't represent much of the county.

Capital letters for emphasis, not shouting.

Well, for one, they don't represent (not even at all) anyone who isn't a registered Democrat in MoCo (currently 40% of the population) because we didn't get to vote for them in the Primary.

No, that's not how elections work. Or are you going to say that [insert Democratic president of your choice] didn't represent you because you didn't get to vote for him in the primary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You mean all the new development which the Council voted in favor of? All the more reason for 9 districts, so we have a member focused specifically on the concerns of Clarksburg or Germantown or Damascus.

If that's what you want, then there will have to be a lot more than 9 districts. There are maybe 25,000 people in Clarksburg, and another 15,000 or so in Damascus. Germantown might have 100,000 people, but Germantown is not going to vote for Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a democrat and just looked up the boundaries of my district:
ouncil District boundaries were adopted by the Council in 2012 after the decennial Census. District 4 stretches up Georgia Ave. from Wheaton to the Howard County border. The southern part of the district includes Randolph Hills, Kensington Heights, Aspen Hill, Glenmont, Layhill Village and Colesville (west of MD 650). Moving north, the district includes Ashton, Sandy Spring and Olney. It also includes rural communities up-county, such as Sunshine, Etchison, Brookeville and Laytonsville. Most of the eastern boundary of District 4 is MD 650 (New Hampshire Ave.). The western boundary is MD 124 (Woodfield Rd.) until just south of Watkins Rd.

That’s a large area and has very different needs. Aspen Hill and Etchinson are in the same district. Two different regions with very different needs. I don’t see how both areas can be effectively represented by 1 person.

I agree, it makes sense to expand the number of seats on the County Council. We've had 9 councilmembers since 1990, when the population of the county was 765,000. To keep the ratios constant, there should be 12 or 13 councilmembers. The other council proposal on the November ballot (the one that's NOT supported by upcounty Republicans and downcounty developers) would expand the number of councilmembers to 11, and I think that's a good start.

I will add, by the way, that the districts were deliberately drawn that way, so that each councilmember's district would include a range of county communities. Each council district has some more densely-populated areas and some more rural areas. The only way to get a council district that might elect a Republican, if this ballot measure to get rid of at-large councilmembers passes, would be to draw the boundaries to form a big crescent around the outside of the county. Do Poolesville and Sunshine have the same needs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a democrat and just looked up the boundaries of my district:
ouncil District boundaries were adopted by the Council in 2012 after the decennial Census. District 4 stretches up Georgia Ave. from Wheaton to the Howard County border. The southern part of the district includes Randolph Hills, Kensington Heights, Aspen Hill, Glenmont, Layhill Village and Colesville (west of MD 650). Moving north, the district includes Ashton, Sandy Spring and Olney. It also includes rural communities up-county, such as Sunshine, Etchison, Brookeville and Laytonsville. Most of the eastern boundary of District 4 is MD 650 (New Hampshire Ave.). The western boundary is MD 124 (Woodfield Rd.) until just south of Watkins Rd.

That’s a large area and has very different needs. Aspen Hill and Etchinson are in the same district. Two different regions with very different needs. I don’t see how both areas can be effectively represented by 1 person.

I agree, it makes sense to expand the number of seats on the County Council. We've had 9 councilmembers since 1990, when the population of the county was 765,000. To keep the ratios constant, there should be 12 or 13 councilmembers. The other council proposal on the November ballot (the one that's NOT supported by upcounty Republicans and downcounty developers) would expand the number of councilmembers to 11, and I think that's a good start.

I will add, by the way, that the districts were deliberately drawn that way, so that each councilmember's district would include a range of county communities. Each council district has some more densely-populated areas and some more rural areas. The only way to get a council district that might elect a Republican, if this ballot measure to get rid of at-large councilmembers passes, would be to draw the boundaries to form a big crescent around the outside of the county. Do Poolesville and Sunshine have the same needs?

And that's a technique used to suppress minority views, even if they have a majority in a geographical area.

I generally agree it would be tough for a Republican to get a seat, although I think it's certainly plausible that a Damascus/Clarksburg district might elect one. The bigger issue, though, is whether they'd elect a Democrat with different positions and priorities, which I think is quite likely.

And I'd say 4 at-large positions is too many. 2 seems like a good compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there’s already an existing thread please let me know.

I’m curious, if you’re strongly for or agains nine districts for moco could you explain why? I’m trying to understand the implication of this structure switch to figure out whether I support.

Strongly support. The main reason is that it’s not clear to me who the at-large representatives actually represent. When I contact my district representative, I always get a response. The at-large members rarely respond. I think they notionally represent too many people to actually represent anyone.

The second reason is that the council is so lacking in ideological diversity that large numbers of people feel disenfranchised. I don’t mind nine Democrats, but that the nine Democrats vote unanimously or 8-1 on so many things suggests we need more ideological diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Strongly support 9. This strange shift to Takoma Park / silver spring is more progressive than many democrats I know want. Got to give them credit, they are a well run machine to win elections. I miss Ike Leggett. Was far more balanced.

Huh? Ike Leggett hasn't been on the County Council since 2002?

He was county exec 2006 -2018 and kept the council functioning better than this chaos