No good options for MoCo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Election day is coming soon in MoCo. I have my ballot mostly down, including niche positions like sheriff and registrar of wills. Yet, I still don't know who to choose for County Exec. Jawando seems like a career politician and the whole scandal with the Board of Elections puts me off. Friedson chose not to take public financing, which seems scummy, and attacks his opponents without having much policy besides not raising taxes. I'm leaning Evan but I'm not entirely sure if I should.

Friedson only voted one time to not raise taxes.
Every single time besides this last time he voted to INCREASE taxes.

Glass is better choice than Friedson for all the reasons you mentions plus Friedson's voting record.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going with Jawando. He listens to residents more than either of the other two candidates. He has some ideological tunnel vision on policing that I don’t like, but he’s mostly in step with a majority of the council so there won’t be changes on policing. Based on how Jawando has handled subsidies, land use, and the budget this year, he seems to be considerably smarter and more willing to consider differing views than the other candidates.

It says something to me that Jawando was endorsed by most of the Somerset elected officials even though Friedson is their district rep. Glass has also done a good job working with municipal officials, and he’s my second choice. I would choose Peter James over Friedson because I’d rather give autonomous vehicles a chance than watch Friedson waive all the taxes developers pay.

Jawando is the most likely to raise taxes.

The only council member who proposed keeping tax rates the same and keeping the ITOC is the one most likely to raise taxes? OK.

Jawando's plan was rife with error.

The council president praised Jawando’s plan and then criticized Friedson for not engaging on the budget and lying about it.

No. She praised him for bringing options forward for consideration. Not trying to substance of them.

I still would have preferred the Jawando budget to Friedson’s pleas to keep funding the green bank, kid museum, and other pet projects. For claiming to be such a tax hawk, Friedson sure does like to spend money.

Well, Jawando was performative and not substantive. I am surprised after 8 years on the Council, he isn't more familiar with how the budget works. Friedson knows how the budget works but was protecting his constituent interests. There is no doubt. Neither is perfect.

One wants to raise taxes and the other doesn't.
One doesn't know how to cut spending and the other doesn't seem to have the will to cut spending.
It likely comes down to whether they can appoint competent department directors AND whether they will actually listen to them.

For that, the best chance is Friedson. Jawando is just like Elrich in that regard. He knows everything and he is fine with increasing taxes to pay for sloppy budgets.

You have nailed it by identifying Jawando as performative. However, I am going for Glass, who isn't in developers' pocket.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going with Jawando. He listens to residents more than either of the other two candidates. He has some ideological tunnel vision on policing that I don’t like, but he’s mostly in step with a majority of the council so there won’t be changes on policing. Based on how Jawando has handled subsidies, land use, and the budget this year, he seems to be considerably smarter and more willing to consider differing views than the other candidates.

It says something to me that Jawando was endorsed by most of the Somerset elected officials even though Friedson is their district rep. Glass has also done a good job working with municipal officials, and he’s my second choice. I would choose Peter James over Friedson because I’d rather give autonomous vehicles a chance than watch Friedson waive all the taxes developers pay.

Jawando is the most likely to raise taxes.

The only council member who proposed keeping tax rates the same and keeping the ITOC is the one most likely to raise taxes? OK.

Jawando's plan was rife with error.

The council president praised Jawando’s plan and then criticized Friedson for not engaging on the budget and lying about it.

No. She praised him for bringing options forward for consideration. Not trying to substance of them.

I still would have preferred the Jawando budget to Friedson’s pleas to keep funding the green bank, kid museum, and other pet projects. For claiming to be such a tax hawk, Friedson sure does like to spend money.

Well, Jawando was performative and not substantive. I am surprised after 8 years on the Council, he isn't more familiar with how the budget works. Friedson knows how the budget works but was protecting his constituent interests. There is no doubt. Neither is perfect.

One wants to raise taxes and the other doesn't.
One doesn't know how to cut spending and the other doesn't seem to have the will to cut spending.
It likely comes down to whether they can appoint competent department directors AND whether they will actually listen to them.

For that, the best chance is Friedson. Jawando is just like Elrich in that regard. He knows everything and he is fine with increasing taxes to pay for sloppy budgets.

You have nailed it by identifying Jawando as performative. However, I am going for Glass, who isn't in developers' pocket.

I get it. And I am fine if Glass wins. I just feel he's the Riemer in the race between the two in the lead and a vote for him is basically a vote for a Jawando win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going with Jawando. He listens to residents more than either of the other two candidates. He has some ideological tunnel vision on policing that I don’t like, but he’s mostly in step with a majority of the council so there won’t be changes on policing. Based on how Jawando has handled subsidies, land use, and the budget this year, he seems to be considerably smarter and more willing to consider differing views than the other candidates.

It says something to me that Jawando was endorsed by most of the Somerset elected officials even though Friedson is their district rep. Glass has also done a good job working with municipal officials, and he’s my second choice. I would choose Peter James over Friedson because I’d rather give autonomous vehicles a chance than watch Friedson waive all the taxes developers pay.

Jawando is the most likely to raise taxes.

The only council member who proposed keeping tax rates the same and keeping the ITOC is the one most likely to raise taxes? OK.

Jawando's plan was rife with error.

The council president praised Jawando’s plan and then criticized Friedson for not engaging on the budget and lying about it.

No. She praised him for bringing options forward for consideration. Not trying to substance of them.

I still would have preferred the Jawando budget to Friedson’s pleas to keep funding the green bank, kid museum, and other pet projects. For claiming to be such a tax hawk, Friedson sure does like to spend money.

Well, Jawando was performative and not substantive. I am surprised after 8 years on the Council, he isn't more familiar with how the budget works. Friedson knows how the budget works but was protecting his constituent interests. There is no doubt. Neither is perfect.

One wants to raise taxes and the other doesn't.
One doesn't know how to cut spending and the other doesn't seem to have the will to cut spending.
It likely comes down to whether they can appoint competent department directors AND whether they will actually listen to them.

For that, the best chance is Friedson. Jawando is just like Elrich in that regard. He knows everything and he is fine with increasing taxes to pay for sloppy budgets.

You have nailed it by identifying Jawando as performative. However, I am going for Glass, who isn't in developers' pocket.

I get it. And I am fine if Glass wins. I just feel he's the Riemer in the race between the two in the lead and a vote for him is basically a vote for a Jawando win.

I’m just not sure anyone is in the lead, and all three polls bear that out. (Caveat: the polls were before the governor’s endorsement. I would bet Jawando is ahead at the moment.)

And the last council executive was one by a few dozen votes. They are all in it, so it is safe to vote for who you think is best. It isn’t like anybody is the Ross Perot of this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going with Jawando. He listens to residents more than either of the other two candidates. He has some ideological tunnel vision on policing that I don’t like, but he’s mostly in step with a majority of the council so there won’t be changes on policing. Based on how Jawando has handled subsidies, land use, and the budget this year, he seems to be considerably smarter and more willing to consider differing views than the other candidates.

It says something to me that Jawando was endorsed by most of the Somerset elected officials even though Friedson is their district rep. Glass has also done a good job working with municipal officials, and he’s my second choice. I would choose Peter James over Friedson because I’d rather give autonomous vehicles a chance than watch Friedson waive all the taxes developers pay.

Jawando is the most likely to raise taxes.

The only council member who proposed keeping tax rates the same and keeping the ITOC is the one most likely to raise taxes? OK.

Jawando's plan was rife with error.

The council president praised Jawando’s plan and then criticized Friedson for not engaging on the budget and lying about it.

No. She praised him for bringing options forward for consideration. Not trying to substance of them.

I still would have preferred the Jawando budget to Friedson’s pleas to keep funding the green bank, kid museum, and other pet projects. For claiming to be such a tax hawk, Friedson sure does like to spend money.

Well, Jawando was performative and not substantive. I am surprised after 8 years on the Council, he isn't more familiar with how the budget works. Friedson knows how the budget works but was protecting his constituent interests. There is no doubt. Neither is perfect.

One wants to raise taxes and the other doesn't.
One doesn't know how to cut spending and the other doesn't seem to have the will to cut spending.
It likely comes down to whether they can appoint competent department directors AND whether they will actually listen to them.

For that, the best chance is Friedson. Jawando is just like Elrich in that regard. He knows everything and he is fine with increasing taxes to pay for sloppy budgets.

You have nailed it by identifying Jawando as performative. However, I am going for Glass, who isn't in developers' pocket.

I get it. And I am fine if Glass wins. I just feel he's the Riemer in the race between the two in the lead and a vote for him is basically a vote for a Jawando win.

I understand the comparison, but not a single poll from 2022 had Riemer ahead of (or even statistically tied with) his opponents. All polls we’ve seen have shown that Jawando, Glass, and Friedson are statistically tied. This is a different beast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, there are no good options. We have three candidates for county executive that are similar enough that for me I’m going to pick the lesser of three evils. Which to me is not Jwando or Glass. Of the three and Friedson seems to be the most levelheaded and the one who’s least likely to dig us deeper in a hole as much as the other two.

Curious why you think that. I'm looking for level-headed, but concluded that Glass most fit that bill.

I'm not PP, and don't know what their opinion is based on, but I work with Council and agree with this take. Friedson is the most practical/realistic of the three. For what it's worth.

Thanks for this. Can you give an example?

Sorry, no, don't want to out myself. You'll just have to decide to trust a random internet stranger. Or not 😂 And I don't mean this as a dig at Evan or to suggest that he's off the wall or anything. I very honestly have not decided which of them to vote for yet. But yes, Andrew is, in my opinion, the more logical one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, there are no good options. We have three candidates for county executive that are similar enough that for me I’m going to pick the lesser of three evils. Which to me is not Jwando or Glass. Of the three and Friedson seems to be the most levelheaded and the one who’s least likely to dig us deeper in a hole as much as the other two.

Curious why you think that. I'm looking for level-headed, but concluded that Glass most fit that bill.

I'm not PP, and don't know what their opinion is based on, but I work with Council and agree with this take. Friedson is the most practical/realistic of the three. For what it's worth.

Thanks for this. Can you give an example?

Sorry, no, don't want to out myself. You'll just have to decide to trust a random internet stranger. Or not 😂 And I don't mean this as a dig at Evan or to suggest that he's off the wall or anything. I very honestly have not decided which of them to vote for yet. But yes, Andrew is, in my opinion, the more logical one.

I disagree. How is it logical to vote for spending increases and oppose revenue to fund them? How is it logical to disinvest in growth? How is it logical to crusade against taxes and then turn around and spend surpluses on subsidies for corporations? How logical is it to pay companies to create jobs at 75 percent AMI and then create a housing program whose minimum income requirement is 120 percent AMI? His record does not support who he claims to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am going with Jawando. He listens to residents more than either of the other two candidates. He has some ideological tunnel vision on policing that I don’t like, but he’s mostly in step with a majority of the council so there won’t be changes on policing. Based on how Jawando has handled subsidies, land use, and the budget this year, he seems to be considerably smarter and more willing to consider differing views than the other candidates.

It says something to me that Jawando was endorsed by most of the Somerset elected officials even though Friedson is their district rep. Glass has also done a good job working with municipal officials, and he’s my second choice. I would choose Peter James over Friedson because I’d rather give autonomous vehicles a chance than watch Friedson waive all the taxes developers pay.

Jawando is the most likely to raise taxes.

The only council member who proposed keeping tax rates the same and keeping the ITOC is the one most likely to raise taxes? OK.

Jawando's plan was rife with error.

The council president praised Jawando’s plan and then criticized Friedson for not engaging on the budget and lying about it.

No. She praised him for bringing options forward for consideration. Not trying to substance of them.

I still would have preferred the Jawando budget to Friedson’s pleas to keep funding the green bank, kid museum, and other pet projects. For claiming to be such a tax hawk, Friedson sure does like to spend money.

Well, Jawando was performative and not substantive. I am surprised after 8 years on the Council, he isn't more familiar with how the budget works. Friedson knows how the budget works but was protecting his constituent interests. There is no doubt. Neither is perfect.

One wants to raise taxes and the other doesn't.
One doesn't know how to cut spending and the other doesn't seem to have the will to cut spending.
It likely comes down to whether they can appoint competent department directors AND whether they will actually listen to them.

For that, the best chance is Friedson. Jawando is just like Elrich in that regard. He knows everything and he is fine with increasing taxes to pay for sloppy budgets.

You have nailed it by identifying Jawando as performative. However, I am going for Glass, who isn't in developers' pocket.

I get it. And I am fine if Glass wins. I just feel he's the Riemer in the race between the two in the lead and a vote for him is basically a vote for a Jawando win.

I understand the comparison, but not a single poll from 2022 had Riemer ahead of (or even statistically tied with) his opponents. All polls we’ve seen have shown that Jawando, Glass, and Friedson are statistically tied. This is a different beast.

Well that gives me some comfort then. Jawando would be a disastrous executive. The less chance he has, the better. But the big money fights seem to be between him and Friedson. Who knows? Maybe that will tilt everything in favor of Glass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, there are no good options. We have three candidates for county executive that are similar enough that for me I’m going to pick the lesser of three evils. Which to me is not Jwando or Glass. Of the three and Friedson seems to be the most levelheaded and the one who’s least likely to dig us deeper in a hole as much as the other two.

Curious why you think that. I'm looking for level-headed, but concluded that Glass most fit that bill.

I'm not PP, and don't know what their opinion is based on, but I work with Council and agree with this take. Friedson is the most practical/realistic of the three. For what it's worth.

Thanks for this. Can you give an example?

Sorry, no, don't want to out myself. You'll just have to decide to trust a random internet stranger. Or not 😂 And I don't mean this as a dig at Evan or to suggest that he's off the wall or anything. I very honestly have not decided which of them to vote for yet. But yes, Andrew is, in my opinion, the more logical one.

I disagree. How is it logical to vote for spending increases and oppose revenue to fund them? How is it logical to disinvest in growth? How is it logical to crusade against taxes and then turn around and spend surpluses on subsidies for corporations? How logical is it to pay companies to create jobs at 75 percent AMI and then create a housing program whose minimum income requirement is 120 percent AMI? His record does not support who he claims to be.

Which program are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

Which idiot is the father of “no turn on red”??

[Anonymous]

Friedson is the clear choice. He's running as fiscally conservative (hah) but he's certainly the least likely to continue to destroy the county's finances by funding useless giveaways. Jawando and Glass will accelerate the decline,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which idiot is the father of “no turn on red”??

Always Elrich. Also the "bike lanes." Vision zero = zero traffic movement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which idiot is the father of “no turn on red”??

It is Glass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Friedson is the clear choice. He's running as fiscally conservative (hah) but he's certainly the least likely to continue to destroy the county's finances by funding useless giveaways. Jawando and Glass will accelerate the decline,

Friedson is the author of the most useless and most expensive giveaways. His talking points sound fiscally conservative. His record tells a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree, there are no good options. We have three candidates for county executive that are similar enough that for me I’m going to pick the lesser of three evils. Which to me is not Jwando or Glass. Of the three and Friedson seems to be the most levelheaded and the one who’s least likely to dig us deeper in a hole as much as the other two.

Curious why you think that. I'm looking for level-headed, but concluded that Glass most fit that bill.

I'm not PP, and don't know what their opinion is based on, but I work with Council and agree with this take. Friedson is the most practical/realistic of the three. For what it's worth.

Thanks for this. Can you give an example?

Sorry, no, don't want to out myself. You'll just have to decide to trust a random internet stranger. Or not 😂 And I don't mean this as a dig at Evan or to suggest that he's off the wall or anything. I very honestly have not decided which of them to vote for yet. But yes, Andrew is, in my opinion, the more logical one.

I disagree. How is it logical to vote for spending increases and oppose revenue to fund them? How is it logical to disinvest in growth? How is it logical to crusade against taxes and then turn around and spend surpluses on subsidies for corporations? How logical is it to pay companies to create jobs at 75 percent AMI and then create a housing program whose minimum income requirement is 120 percent AMI? His record does not support who he claims to be.

Which program are you referring to?

Attainable Housing Strategies Initiative:

The workforce housing program places controls on properties to, generally, maintain their affordability for at least 20 years for those with incomes at or below 120 percent of the area-wide median income (AMI), currently at $157,440 for a couple.

This is the same income level that developers build for anyway, so I’m not sure why it needed incentives in the first place.