MoCo Question B would be a disaster
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
I understand why people would be inclined to vote for it - Never raising property taxes above the rate of inflation, ever again. I understand that the first thing people will say in defense of this ballot measure would be something about the government having a spending problem, we need to lower taxes to bring in business, etc etc etc.
Question A is a perfectly adequate compromise that incentivizes smart spending by the county government. It is a countermeasure proposed by Andrew Friedson - arguably the most fiscally conservative councilmember, a protege of Peter Franchot, a pro-business moderate guy who has been one of the biggest critics of the left wing of the council and the left-leaning Executive. I plan on voting for Friedson's amendment. You might also retort, "well of course, the council supports and amendment that protects their salaries & jobs!" Fair enough. However, even the Politburo's own hand-chosen county executive, Marc Elrich, has taken measures to lower starting salaries of department heads and eliminate vacant staff positions. Question B is dangerous because it's not just a property tax cap, it's a property tax revenue cap. That means that you still might be paying higher property taxes depending on your assessments. It's not a measure to force fiscal responsibility and rein in spending - it's a measure to shift the tax burden AWAY from newer residents, often occupants of high-end luxury condos or McMansions, and ONTO long-time homeowners who are not as wealthy. If you are concerned about your property taxes going up during a pandemic, I hear you - but if this happens it's probably because you're sitting on pretty darn good property value. Question B would make it worse for those for whom this could really make or break things, to the benefit of those for whom these taxes would be a drop in the bucket. Furthermore, now is the time we need to beef up our HHS. Actually, last year was the time we needed to beef up HHS. Elrich even had to make cuts to HHS last year because of the shortfall passed to him at the last minute by Ike. Would it be fair to say the Council should reprioritize certain government initiatives, midlevel staff positions and instead shift money to HHS? Absolutely. But implementing a tax cap is not the way to do this. We are also more than certain to lose our AAA bond rating if we do this, as former CE Ike Leggett says in the blog linked below. Leggett, who has been quiet on county issues, is retired and doesn't really have a dog in the fight, came out to make this important call: http://www.theseventhstate.com/?p=13886 Leggett also argues against Nine Districts (Question D), which I plan on voting against but don't feel as strongly about. It would suck IMO to lose our at-large council members, but not nearly as much as it would be to flush MoCo down the fiscal toilet. Please consider that due to the pandemic and economic slowdown, inflation may be at ZERO. This would be devastating if our revenue growth was zero. Robin Ficker, zany as he is, is smart enough to play to the selfish id of the Montgomery County voter. Of the 70-odd percent of MoCo voters who will vote for Biden, Raskin, and Trone, how many of them will feel good about themselves for voting D down the ballot and think it excuses them for voting for a Ficker amendment? Please vote for Andrew Friedson (Question A) not Robin Ficker (Question B). |
Anonymous
|
Nope, absolutely not. Everyone is tightening their belts and MoCo needs to do the same. Yes it will hurt during this fiscal austerity, but DO NOT give County Execs cart blanche to raise taxes.
And this line - If you are concerned about your property taxes going up during a pandemic, I hear you - but if this happens it's probably because you're sitting on pretty darn good property value is bullshit and arrogant. The value of homes are going up now because of the lack of inventory and don't for a second think that MoCo isn't just waiting to take us all to the cleaners with these valuations. All while many people have seen a drop in personal income. Wanting to be able to stay in my home and not driven out due to excessive property taxes is not selfish. VOTE AGAINST QUESTION A AND FOR QUESTION B |
Anonymous
This is such a short-sighted mentality and the reason why Robin Ficker is able to influence the County so much playing to people's selfish instincts. You might as well have voted for him as County Executive since he has impacted things a whole lot more than Elrich does. In the short term you *might* save money. Maybe. In the long term, your property values will plummet as Prince George's overtakes MoCo in infrastructure and schools (!). Think long term gains not short term gratification. Friedson not Ficker. VOTE FOR QUESTION A AGAINST QUESTION B |
Anonymous
| If you want to see what the impact of Question B will be on Montgomery County see what happened when Prince Georges County passed TRIM in 1978. Rapid decline of schools (I was a high school student when TRIM passed; my school was unrecognizable by the time I graduated. Programs gutted, class sizes exploding). Property values plummeted due to the decline of services in the county. Business development nearly ceased. It's been 40 years and the county is still lagging behind. The previous county executive, Rushern Baker, tried very hard to repeal TRIM without success. Question B is another bad idea from the mind of Robin Ficker. Please don't fall for this. |
Anonymous
| I see this as benefiting the wealthy |
Anonymous
| Honestly, if Robin Ficker suggests something, it's a sign to me that it's a bad idea. |
Anonymous
Wanting to be able to stay in my home is short sighted. Sure buddy whatever you say. |
Anonymous
Robin Ficker has already passed two charter amendments - the one requiring the unanimous council vote on property taxes, and term limits. Neither amendments have had good outcomes IMO. Term limits is not out of the ordinary for counties, but IMHO it has unnecessarily hyper-politicized everything and creates a bad incentive for third-term council members to concern themselves more with their next move and less with actually getting things done. Case in point Riemer vs Elrich bickering. People like to laugh at Ficker, point out that he's a perennial candidate who always loses, but it can be argued that he has had more impact with his charter amendments than any single council member. Term Limits has its merits, and its costs, but Question B will cause irreparable damage that will far outlive the 78-year-old gadfly. |
Anonymous
|
I think people need to be aware that we currently have in Montgomery County, and Question B will make more strict, a revenue cap from property taxes bound by inflation as defined by the CPI.
I think it's kind of weird to have a cap on revenues, and not on the tax rate. It means the County's revenues don't increase based on economic growth, except through income and sales taxes which make up a smaller share of revenues. But to make that cap permanent by preventing the Council from ever exceeding it, even with a unanimous vote, is deeply imprudent. It's based on the idea that the representatives you elect are fundamentally irresponsible - which is odd, since the County has a AAA bond rating (that this change would put at risk). |
Anonymous
Yes, and also keep in mind that some of Montgomery County's most pro-business, fiscally prudent voices are against this... Ike Leggett David Blair - the moderate choice for County Executive who almost won in 2018 Connie Morella - centrist Republican former congresswoman The Washington Post editorial board I think the above accurately represent the political tenor of most Montgomery County voters - fiscally prudent, socially progressive, moderate Democrats (Morella is R but probably votes D nowadays) who don't bend to misguided populist anger. This is not simply Bernie Sanders/AOC/Marc Elrich stance. Do you agree with these people above, or do you agree with Robin Ficker? |
Anonymous
| Is there a good reason for me to vote *for* question A? I'm inclined to vote NO for both A and B. I don't see why it should require a unanimous vote. That's just going to cause the council to reject anything that might lead to more moderates on the council. |
Anonymous
The status quo is that increasing property tax revenue requires a unanimous vote. Question A would change what can be increased from revenue to the rate. Limiting revenue growth to inflation doesn't make sense to me - I want better public services and I want public employees to be able to afford to live here when property values go up. |
Anonymous
|
Services will be cut. Libraries, police, fire, transportation. If you can't raise taxes.
They haven't recovered from the Recession because Leggett sank a lot of the restored revenues into raises for union collective bargaining agreements. Particularly in the year he ran for reelection. Don't look too closely at the fiscal mess Elrich is creating. You won't be able to sleep at night. A cap won't end bad governance. Vote him out. |
Anonymous
|
Boo hoo.
Long time residents don't deserve squat. Everyone pays. OP is a long time resident trying to tax 'new comers' more because they ready got theirs. Too bad. Can't afford to move here any more then move. Same thing happens in NJ. Tax the haves. All of them. |
Anonymous
PP here. What? I didn't realize that. There's a revenue cap now? How does that even work with assessments changing? Is the cap on a county-wide basis, or for a particular home? Either way, that makes no sense. I'll definitely vote for A then. |