Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Metropolitan DC Local Politics
Reply to "Elrich proposes MoCo property tax increase"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Here's an idea: how about the county cuts some spending rather than raising taxes?[/quote] The council is looking for cuts. Problem is, they can't cut MCPS at all because of state law, so the cuts are to other services that take a disproportionate share of the reductions. They could refuse to go over maintenance of effort for MCPS. Treat it as a ceiling and not a floor. Nobody will do that as they ramp up for reelection. [/quote] The Council recently voted in two cuts...[i]to developer costs[/i] via Evan Glass' bill 22-24 and Andrew Friedson's & Natali Fani-Gonzalez's bill 2-25. One deferred tax collection, the other effectivelly eliminated it for mamy years for certain conversion projects. Each was expedited, making public review more difficult. Each was put forward with measures to make them retroactive, applying to projects that clearly did not need the support. Each failed to provide conditions to ensure the public cost was not borne in cases where it might not be needed. Each failed to account for its own budget effect and/or infrastructure burden, leaving a resulting need to cut programs, increase taxes or issue bonds in future years. Each typified the kinds of legislation put forth by the Council and obviated the constituencies the Council favors: the developer/real estate industry and incoming residents over neighborhoods and current residents. Each was [i]vetoed[/i] by Elrich, but the first had its veto overridden by the entire Council and the second likely will see the same, with only Jawando positioning himself differently in the lead-up to the next election.[/quote] This was all spot on. Today the council overrode Elrich’s veto of their new developer giveaway.[/quote] So we know that each of the Councilmembers gunning for the County Executive seat, whether declared or not, is an eminently accountable party to causing Montgomery County's underfunding and, therefore, the additional tax burden (with clear benefit to particular constituencies, much the same as the upcoming benefit, nationally, to the very wealthy at the expense of the broad majority bearing tarriff burdens). The question is whether MoCo voters might look for someone outside the Council, given how poorly they have performed as stewards of residents' interests, to fill that seat, with Elrich now term-limited. Or will any of Glass, Friedson or Jawando (who rather conveniently for someone pursuing the office found a voice, ineffective as it was, against Friedson's proposal, and rather suddenly, too, given prior positioning) -- or any of their Council peers who might throw their hat in the ring -- simply waltz into office once dispatching the others in the primary, cementing and furthering the structural deficits they've created with not even a veto (meaningless as Elrich's have been) to slow things down.[/quote] [quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Here's an idea: how about the county cuts some spending rather than raising taxes?[/quote] The council is looking for cuts. Problem is, they can't cut MCPS at all because of state law, so the cuts are to other services that take a disproportionate share of the reductions. They could refuse to go over maintenance of effort for MCPS. Treat it as a ceiling and not a floor. Nobody will do that as they ramp up for reelection. [/quote] The Council recently voted in two cuts...[i]to developer costs[/i] via Evan Glass' bill 22-24 and Andrew Friedson's & Natali Fani-Gonzalez's bill 2-25. One deferred tax collection, the other effectivelly eliminated it for mamy years for certain conversion projects. Each was expedited, making public review more difficult. Each was put forward with measures to make them retroactive, applying to projects that clearly did not need the support. Each failed to provide conditions to ensure the public cost was not borne in cases where it might not be needed. Each failed to account for its own budget effect and/or infrastructure burden, leaving a resulting need to cut programs, increase taxes or issue bonds in future years. Each typified the kinds of legislation put forth by the Council and obviated the constituencies the Council favors: the developer/real estate industry and incoming residents over neighborhoods and current residents. Each was [i]vetoed[/i] by Elrich, but the first had its veto overridden by the entire Council and the second likely will see the same, with only Jawando positioning himself differently in the lead-up to the next election.[/quote] This was all spot on. Today the council overrode Elrich’s veto of their new developer giveaway.[/quote] So we know that each of the Councilmembers gunning for the County Executive seat, whether declared or not, is an eminently accountable party to causing Montgomery County's underfunding and, therefore, the additional tax burden (with clear benefit to particular constituencies, much the same as the upcoming benefit, nationally, to the very wealthy at the expense of the broad majority bearing tarriff burdens). The question is whether MoCo voters might look for someone outside the Council, given how poorly they have performed as stewards of residents' interests, to fill that seat, with Elrich now term-limited. Or will any of Glass, Friedson or [b]Jawando (who rather conveniently for someone pursuing the office found a voice, ineffective as it was, against Friedson's proposal, and rather suddenly, too, given prior positioning) [/b]-- or any of their Council peers who might throw their hat in the ring -- simply waltz into office once dispatching the others in the primary, cementing and furthering the structural deficits they've created with not even a veto (meaningless as Elrich's have been) to slow things down.[/quote] [b]Jawando also opposed Friedson’s previous developer giveaway, so he’s actually been consistent in opposing massive giveaways.[/b] It’s unfortunate that Jawando voted for the Glass bill. The Glass bill isn’t nearly as costly but actually incentivizes delays by deferring payments. Jawando has cast a lot of pro-development votes, so he’s definitely not an Elrich-style NIMBY, but he seems skeptical of supply side policies and [b]asks good questions about them even when he ultimately votes for them.[/b] In the discussion of this bill and the AHSI, he also seemed to consider public input more than the other members. I appreciated that. [/quote] Actually, it was the same thing, just the previous iteration and not yet with any proposed legislation, only the AHS from Planning. Jawando siezed on the public discontent, there, to make his move against his presumed primary primary opponent (assuming Glass presents a less credible challenge than Friedaon), coming out publicly against it. In this one instance, he's asked questions, sure. Prior to that, however, it doesn't seem that there has been that incisiveness. Being presented with information that points to various legislation (some his own) being bad for current residents and then voting for those, anyway (and supporting veto overrides) is what he and the rest of the current Council have done repeatedly. Jawando's a leopard trying to change his spots for public perception/political ambition, not a real alternative to the other two.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
