Reply to Elrich vetoes controversial planning board member

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Elrich vetoes controversial planning board member"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I could be wrong about this, but I believe the process now is if the county wishes to override this, they need a unanimous vote, no?[/quote]

No. 9 votes. [/quote]

Ah, thanks.

So they need 9 out of 11.

3 of whom voted for another candidate (not Hendrick, forget his or her name).

Will be interesting to see if they vote as a bloc, to show Elrich, or if they use this as an opportunity to re-open the door for the other person. [/quote]

Right, 8 councilmembers voted for James Hedrick, 3 councilmembers (Jawando, Mink, Sayles) voted for Cherri Branson. If I were a councilmember, I would vote to override Elrich's veto if for no other reason than to assert the county council's prerogative over the county executive to appoint the Planning Board commissioners, but I am not a councilmember, so who knows?[/quote]

That’s one way they could go. The risk in going that way is that the Council alone would own the Hedrick appointment and any problems he causes. Hedrick isn’t as caustic as Casey Anderson, but he’s pretty caustic and was a big Casey Anderson fan. The board worked efficiently and quietly without the small but vocal YIMBY contingent represented there. The council would have been better off choosing Branson. [/quote]

I would not use the words "efficient" or "quiet" to describe Branson's short time on the Planning Board, in my experience of it. Or "non-caustic."

Plus the other two appointees will also potentially cause problems. Anyone can potentially cause problems. And Hedrick is knowledgeable.[/quote]

Really? She seemed very pleasant in the meetings I watched. I know she wasn’t the white male that YIMBYs expect to have in this role, [b]so maybe that’s your issue?[/b] Where were the scandals during the past few months? There were none. Projects got approved as quickly as they were presented, with no derisive comments or drama, just as it should be.

The difference between Hedrick and the other board members is that Elrich approved the other two, so they’re shared liabilities. [/quote]

No, it's not.

It's interesting that, of the three Planning Board commissioners, all of whom a person could be concerned about for various reasons, Elrich only vetoed one - don't you think?[/quote]

Not that interesting. Should he have also vetoed the ones he didn’t find objectionable? That would seem kind of arbitrary. [/quote]

Interesting that he didn't find the other two objectionable. Just the one who had criticized him.[/quote]

The Republican most certainly criticized him and the other candidate used to work for him so not sure what your point is except that you think the white male candidate had more experience on the planning board than the black female who was actually on the planning board and used to be on the council, which runs the planning board.

But relax. It’s been really fun to see the YIMBYs waste a weekend getting worked up over this, but the council will vote to override, probably after one or more of the Branson supporters gets support for one of their initiatives from their colleagues in exchange for overriding. Maybe it will be leaf blowers. Maybe it will be traffic stops. Maybe it will be the DTSS safety plan. We’ll never know what backroom deal was cut but rest assured there will be a backroom deal because this is about politics now, not Hedrick. [/quote]

Weird statement. It's always about politics, because land use and transportation planning are inherently political issues.

The Council doesn't run the Planning Board. They appoint the Planning Board commissioners, which is not at all the same thing.[/quote]

Sigh. The council appoints members, is the only body that can fire members, is the only body that can approve important documents like master plans, and is the only body that can change zoning. But yeah the council doesn’t run the planning board according to you. [/quote]

According to state law.[/quote]

Yes, all of those authorities mentioned above, which together constitute the authority to run the planning board, are in state law. [/quote]

https://law.justia.com/codes/maryland/2021/land-use/division-ii/[/quote]

Now post the link to the section that says the Planning Board is autonomous, has a source of funding independent from the council, and gets to decide which members to hire and fire. [/quote]

Read the law.[/quote]

I have. The law does not grant the board autonomy, requires funding to come from the council, and only allows the council to hire and fire members. There was just a big argument about hiring and firing a couple months ago. Maybe you missed it. Answer this: Did the board decide on its own to write Thrive or did it do it because the council president directed it to? And who gave final approval to Thrive after deciding that parts of it needed to be rewritten by outside consultants?[/quote]

Is M-NCPPC a state-level agency? Yes. As established by state law.[/quote]

So you think the governor controls the planning board? The planning board was established by state law with provisions for local (council) control. The council has always thought it owns the planning board and combined with the sweeping authorities over personnel and budget, they do. [/quote]

I don't know why you want to keep on pounding the table instead of the facts or the law, but if that's what you want to do, then that's what you should do.

Or you could check out a copy of Royce Hanson's book "Suburb" from the library, and read it.[/quote]

I am pounding both the law and the facts. You seem to think that the board operates entirely autonomously or under the authority of the governor (?) which lacks both a textual and factual basis. [/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