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

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

Something of this magnitude should absolutely be on the ballot. It won’t be, though, because the council knows it would fail. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

We've been over this in other threads.

[b]1. The current councilmembers did not run with anything like the current scope or depth of the AHS on their platform.[/b]
2. Just because the Council [i]can[/i] enact the legislation doesn't mean it [i]should[/i], 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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

While there cannot be the expectation that a candidate express views on every possible issue they might face, that was not the claim.  The nuance of the may have escaped you.

The purpose of pointing out that councilmembers did not run on anything like the scope and depth of ths AHS was to provide a direct counter to the previously expressed point (also marked as "1") about representative democracy.  When taken with the counter to the previously expressed "2" (where you comment about fundamental rights ignores the clearly expressed "[i]in the abstract[/i]"), it suggests that the Council enacting legislation against popular will is not justified merely because of its operation as part of a "representative democracy."

Clearly, the Council [i]might[/i] act in such a way.  That does not mean it [i]should[/i].

How kind of you to allow that ballot initiatives might proceed according to the laws governing them.  How terribly convenient for Planning to have held the scope and depth of the AHS close, not releasing it to the public until [i]after[/i] such an initiative became effectively unmountable for the current election cycle.  Care to support a special election to examine the validity of assumptions maintained by those pushing density that listening session sentiment was not representative enough of county residents?[/quote]

You can carry on however you want, in whatever moral high dudgeon you want. It would be a mistake to assume that everyone shares and agrees with your moral high dudgeon. It's your own time you're wasting, though. No, I do not support a special election about zoning, and if you actually get to the point of collecting signatures, you will not get mine.[/quote]

Great.  I would not make such an assumption of universal agreement with my position, and I hope those elected representatives make no such assumption of their own without touching much firmer ground, given the preponderance of feedback provided at the listening sessions.[/quote]

And I hope that the elected representatives understand that the people at the listening sessions are not representative of the voters of Montgomery County. I am pretty sure they do, because it's a well-known problem.[/quote]

As long as they don't make the assumption of the opposite general sentiment among the non-attendees.  They'd need some other mechanism to ascertain that.  Like a ballot initiative.[/quote]

The County Council votes on legislation all the time. Should they have ballot initiatives to ascertain public sentiment about all of those things too? For example, on October 1, they considered the following legislation:

Bill 15-24, Taxation - Public Safety Officers - Bi-County Agency Police
Bill 16-24, Development Impact Tax - Amendments
Bill 17-24, Administration - Department of Technology and Enterprise Business Solutions (TEBS) - Non-merit Positions

And on September 24, they had an interview with the County Executive’s nominee for Chief of Behavioral Health and Crisis Services.

I certainly don't remember any of the County Council candidates expressing their opinions about any of those things in 2022. How sneaky and underhanded of them.
[/quote]

...aaaaannnndddd exactly none of those is as sweeping or carries the potential negative heft of the AHS.  Which is why that, particularly, warrants greater scrutiny and assurance of popular support prior to associated legislation being adopted.

Folks should look into 16-24, though, with development impact tax reductions not coming with offsetting funding dedicated to transportation and schools.[/quote]

Hey, maybe there should be a ballot initiative about that too. In fact, what do we even have the County Council for?[/quote]

Now we are getting somewhere.[/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