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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some, at least 1, council member probably wants to be voted out. They can then say they stood up for "attainable" (for developers and people with inherited $$$ etc.) housing and get paid by some developer friends to lobby or be on a board.

Another odd conspiracy fantasy.

The simpler explanation is that the council members sincerely believe they are supporting a good policy.

Um, not infantilizing them here. They're not that stupid. Hard to understand the mind of a politician, I know.

Speaking of infantilizing, "People who disagree with me are either stupid or on the take" is kind of an infantile opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When 2026 comes, vote out Friedman, Glass, and Fani Gonzalez.

I wonder about Mink. She often claims to support the vulnerable, so we will see if she supports this gentrification.

Curious about this too. She is the council member for the Woodmoor area which is vehemently against this proposal. So many people are.

So many affluent homeowners are. (All affluent homeowners are people, but many people are not affluent homeowners.)

As noted three pages back, characterizing those with concerns about the AHS as "affluent homeowners" is a strawman description supporting a red herring deflection. It ignores the socioeconomic diversity of those who have spoken against it, including at the listening sessions in the two locations most proximate to Mink's district, where, again, one would think, of any, those would be the most likely to show a preponderance of support for the AHS if it was broadly/majority based, yet at each that was not the case.

I don't even know what a "strawman description supporting a red herring deflection" would be.

The loudest, most vocal, most vehement opposition comes from homeowners in Bethesda and Chevy Chase. That is just a plain statement of fact.

For a supposedly educated demographic, those on DCUM pushing for the AHS demonstrate rather convenient selective ignorance.

The issue posed was Mink's position, which is yet to be made public. One poster noted the relative vulnerability of her constituency. Another noted the opposition from Woodmoor, another part of her district, among many, which is also fact, as we've seen significant concerns expressed by a preponderance of those at the listening sessions, and that opposition has come broadly, across socioeconomic/demographic lines.

The strawman of "affluent homeowners" in response ignores this broadly demonstrated opposition, redirecting debate away from that posited towards one set up for demonization along the demographic lines that the concerns already have crossed. One presumes, then, that this is because addressing the substance of the original debate is not conducive to the position taken by the one setting up the strawman. That deflection towards something less relevant (and fueled by a half-truth/lie of omission in this case) is called a red herring.

Referencing B/CC opposition being vehement and drawing conclusions about relative affluence, there, is, at best, a side note, though I would not doubt either that relative affluence or that vehemence. That is not in Mink's district, however, and opposition, both vehement and more reserved, has come from her constituency across those demographic lines.

Make no mistake -- there has been support for AHS voiced, as well, and the listening sessions that would tend to draw from her area were not as decidedly opposed as that at the BCC auditorium. The numbers at those, however, still were not with proponents of the plan.

These, also, are plain statements of fact, but considerably more relevant to Mink's position.

[Anonymous]

Referring to affluent homeowners as affluent homeowners is not demonizing affluent homeowners.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Referring to affluent homeowners as affluent homeowners is not demonizing affluent homeowners.

Perhaps, perhaps not, given the context. But, agian given the context, it presents a half-truth/lie of omission vis-a-vis its one-sided characterization of those demonstrating considerable opposition to the AHS.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Referring to affluent homeowners as affluent homeowners is not demonizing affluent homeowners.

Wait it’s bad to be an affluent homeowner in Bethesda now?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Referring to affluent homeowners as affluent homeowners is not demonizing affluent homeowners.

Wait it’s bad to be an affluent homeowner in Bethesda now?

Apparently affluent homeowners in Bethesda consider it an insult if they are described as affluent homeowners in Bethesda?

[Anonymous]

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.

It does not beg the question. It might raise the question, maybe, although in fact I don't think it does.

Why have community engagement/input? To give people an opportunity to express their opinions. Fortunately, public meetings are not the only opportunity for community engagement/input. If you have ever attended even one public meeting in Montgomery County, you will know that attendance at public meetings skews old, white, and affluent. And no, that's not an insult. It's just an accurate description of who attends public meetings in Montgomery County. I fit into that demographic, myself.

[Anonymous]

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.

It does not beg the question. It might raise the question, maybe, although in fact I don't think it does.

Why have community engagement/input? To give people an opportunity to express their opinions. Fortunately, public meetings are not the only opportunity for community engagement/input. If you have ever attended even one public meeting in Montgomery County, you will know that attendance at public meetings skews old, white, and affluent. And no, that's not an insult. It's just an accurate description of who attends public meetings in Montgomery County. I fit into that demographic, myself.

Lovely racist, ageist and classist way of saying we should have community input, then ignore it when inconvenient to an agenda.

There hasn't been public feedback of similar or greater scope indicating the opposite of the general sentiments expressed at the listening sessions. Maybe if there was a more accurate way to gauge the interest of MoCo residents...Oh, wait, there is! A ballot initiative!

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

It does not beg the question. It might raise the question, maybe, although in fact I don't think it does.

Why have community engagement/input? To give people an opportunity to express their opinions. Fortunately, public meetings are not the only opportunity for community engagement/input. If you have ever attended even one public meeting in Montgomery County, you will know that attendance at public meetings skews old, white, and affluent. And no, that's not an insult. It's just an accurate description of who attends public meetings in Montgomery County. I fit into that demographic, myself.

Lovely racist, ageist and classist way of saying we should have community input, then ignore it when inconvenient to an agenda.

There hasn't been public feedback of similar or greater scope indicating the opposite of the general sentiments expressed at the listening sessions. Maybe if there was a more accurate way to gauge the interest of MoCo residents...Oh, wait, there is! A ballot initiative!

It is not racist, ageist, or classist to state the fact that people who attend public meetings are very disproportionately white, old, and affluent, compared to the overall population of Montgomery County. I have been to plenty of public meetings where every attendee appeared to be a white person, and where I (in my 50s) was among the youngest people in the room. 59.4% of the population of Montgomery County isn't non-Hispanic white. 82.3% of the population of Montgomery County is under age 65. 34.5% of housing units in Montgomery County are occupied by renters. Half of households in Montgomery County have an income less than $125,583. How does that compare to the people who attend public meetings?

If you want to put your time and effort into a ballot initiative, have at it. It's your time and effort.

[Anonymous]

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.