Anonymous wrote:MoCo is dying. Can’t wait to get out of here.

I’m trying to help kill it. I’m a registered dem just so I vote for the absolute most batshit crazy people I can in the primaries.

My thought (which have no basis in evidence) is that Moco combines old indifference (CC) with pie in the sky liberalism (Takoma Park). MD overall has some negatives like Baltimore. VA has been able to navigate changing winds more nimbly. Maybe it's AAP and better tax structures?

MoCo is dying. Can’t wait to get out of here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you Jacob Sesker? Harpswell Strategies represents developers, so the source is very biased.

I have no use for the MoCo county council for the most part, but you don't increase an economy by disregarding the environment. We live in a coastal state. Maryland and MoCo should be more focused on environmental issues, not less. Younger generations have no idea how much the environment has been degraded over the past 4-5 decades. They have no baseline. And OP's arguments are tiresome. Yes, new buildings should be better weatherized and use geothermal heat. Yes, the county should buy electric vehicles as it replaces older buses and cars. They should also go a step further if feasible and try to move toward renewable energy. OP says nobody is asking the question s/he is asking, but lots of people are. They may have different answers, sorry.

Every time local politicians concern themselves with national/international issues, it means that local services have/will decline. They need to stay in their lane.

Environmental issues ARE local.

They really aren't. We can't make any dent in climate change alone. At all. It's a waste of money. It just makes people feel good.

Now, if the feds offered subsidies to all state and local governments to put some of these changes in place, that's different. That's using federal funds rather than local funds, which as the article says, should be directed to basic public services. And it impacts the entire nation. That would do some good. What MoCo is doing is like me trimming my toenails in an effort to lose weight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you Jacob Sesker? Harpswell Strategies represents developers, so the source is very biased.

I have no use for the MoCo county council for the most part, but you don't increase an economy by disregarding the environment. We live in a coastal state. Maryland and MoCo should be more focused on environmental issues, not less. Younger generations have no idea how much the environment has been degraded over the past 4-5 decades. They have no baseline. And OP's arguments are tiresome. Yes, new buildings should be better weatherized and use geothermal heat. Yes, the county should buy electric vehicles as it replaces older buses and cars. They should also go a step further if feasible and try to move toward renewable energy. OP says nobody is asking the question s/he is asking, but lots of people are. They may have different answers, sorry.

Every time local politicians concern themselves with national/international issues, it means that local services have/will decline. They need to stay in their lane.

Environmental issues ARE local.

Anonymous wrote:OP, are you Jacob Sesker? Harpswell Strategies represents developers, so the source is very biased.

I have no use for the MoCo county council for the most part, but you don't increase an economy by disregarding the environment. We live in a coastal state. Maryland and MoCo should be more focused on environmental issues, not less. Younger generations have no idea how much the environment has been degraded over the past 4-5 decades. They have no baseline. And OP's arguments are tiresome. Yes, new buildings should be better weatherized and use geothermal heat. Yes, the county should buy electric vehicles as it replaces older buses and cars. They should also go a step further if feasible and try to move toward renewable energy. OP says nobody is asking the question s/he is asking, but lots of people are. They may have different answers, sorry.

Every time local politicians concern themselves with national/international issues, it means that local services have/will decline. They need to stay in their lane.

I mean you could have waited until Monday to start the weekly MoCo bashing. There is already at least one for this week.

OP, are you Jacob Sesker? Harpswell Strategies represents developers, so the source is very biased.

I have no use for the MoCo county council for the most part, but you don't increase an economy by disregarding the environment. We live in a coastal state. Maryland and MoCo should be more focused on environmental issues, not less. Younger generations have no idea how much the environment has been degraded over the past 4-5 decades. They have no baseline. And OP's arguments are tiresome. Yes, new buildings should be better weatherized and use geothermal heat. Yes, the county should buy electric vehicles as it replaces older buses and cars. They should also go a step further if feasible and try to move toward renewable energy. OP says nobody is asking the question s/he is asking, but lots of people are. They may have different answers, sorry.

Anonymous wrote:Can you do a TLDR?

I don't understand why one of the most education counties in the US needs everything boiled down to a tweet.

Anonymous wrote:The thread comparing businesses in VA vs. MoCo made me wonder why MoCo isn't very attractive to businesses. And we do need businesses to grow the economy. We are seeing some high-income flight from the county, which leads to more concentrated poverty. And if that grows, we won't be able to support the funding needed for the progressive policies everyone loves.

What has been giving me pause lately is Elrich's and to some extent the Council's huge investments in combatting climate change. The new Net Zero policies for new buildings is escalating building costs, often by 10% or more, and in turn will escalate debt service payments, which eat into available operating budget funds to make all the county services run. While it is important to be prudent about our contribution to greenhouse gases, I think this goal needs to be thoughtfully balanced with providing critical infrastructure services to county residents, like public safety, education, transportation. A county alone will never have any significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. We alone are not enough to stop the environmental bomb that has already been dropped. That will take a global effort, more like the Paris Agreement. I'm not saying we shouldn't care. I am saying, we probably shouldn't be spending as much as we are. We are limited in our spending, unlike the feds. We are required to have a balanced budget. Should be be spending the additional $ to purchase all-electric vehicles in the county fleet at the expense of keeping existing fleet vehicles in good repair? Does that matter more if it's public safety vehicles vs. just administrative vehicles used by mid-level managers? Should our buildings be Net Zero when other existing buildings are falling down? (Poolesville I'm looking at your schools). Or is there a reasonable, fiscally prudent middle ground that balances policy and practicality?

Nobody is asking these questions. The article below says the lack of decent local media coverage combined with our polarized society where we govern and vote by a litmus test of progressive policies isn't doing us any good. The article below argues that wealth and income distribution policies, in particular, should be financed at higher levels, such as state or federal government. And that local governments need to focus on basic infrastructure that supports business and labor, and creates the "physical and social environments" valued by residents.

If we use local funds to support low-income residents in a variety of ways, that is a moral choice (and a good one) but not an economic-growth choice. We are not investing in growing the economy that will continue to support the income and property taxes we need to fund everything. So where else do we look for that money? We just keep investing in bioscience, even though that really hasn't gotten us out of the funding and spending rut we are in.

At what point are people going to look more closely at county spending -- more than just how it aligns with our political values?

From the article, "The pervasive myth of MoCo’s exceptionalism continues to lead its progressive policymaking institutions to recommend new ways to extract value from land and the means of production to solve societal problems that may not be solvable at a local level. I think the evidence is clear that there is no more juice to be squeezed, and that our new idea for sources of future economic and revenue growth is the same as our last idea, the results of which have been disappointing to say the least."

https://harpswellstrategies.com/a-primer-on-local-economies-and-government-taxing-and-spending/

That my friend, is how you kill a perfectly good county over time. I've been here 30 years and the difference is night and day. Sad truly. And yes, we plan to move in 3 years after we retire. There is nothing for us here.

Can you do a TLDR?

MoCo is basically the CHAZ of Seattle, but with more polished leadership and a compliant tax base.


But the idiocy is exactly the same.

"MoCo's exceptionalism" is, in fact, a sign of arrogance. MoCo has some very bright people who think that they are so smart that they (and only they) can solve problems that have perplexed others for centuries, if not longer. MoCo will not solve racism, poverty, unequal income distribution, climate change, etc, even within MoCo. [And I am a moderate lifelong Democrat.]

Sorry to say it but liberalism and business acumen don’t match. Just read the article by George McGovern when he tried to open a B&B in Vermont after his political career ended. Moco Pols would be wise to take heed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203406404578070543545022704

But Moco will keep Moco’ing - that’s why we left. Well and declining school quality.

The thread comparing businesses in VA vs. MoCo made me wonder why MoCo isn't very attractive to businesses. And we do need businesses to grow the economy. We are seeing some high-income flight from the county, which leads to more concentrated poverty. And if that grows, we won't be able to support the funding needed for the progressive policies everyone loves.

What has been giving me pause lately is Elrich's and to some extent the Council's huge investments in combatting climate change. The new Net Zero policies for new buildings is escalating building costs, often by 10% or more, and in turn will escalate debt service payments, which eat into available operating budget funds to make all the county services run. While it is important to be prudent about our contribution to greenhouse gases, I think this goal needs to be thoughtfully balanced with providing critical infrastructure services to county residents, like public safety, education, transportation. A county alone will never have any significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. We alone are not enough to stop the environmental bomb that has already been dropped. That will take a global effort, more like the Paris Agreement. I'm not saying we shouldn't care. I am saying, we probably shouldn't be spending as much as we are. We are limited in our spending, unlike the feds. We are required to have a balanced budget. Should be be spending the additional $ to purchase all-electric vehicles in the county fleet at the expense of keeping existing fleet vehicles in good repair? Does that matter more if it's public safety vehicles vs. just administrative vehicles used by mid-level managers? Should our buildings be Net Zero when other existing buildings are falling down? (Poolesville I'm looking at your schools). Or is there a reasonable, fiscally prudent middle ground that balances policy and practicality?

Nobody is asking these questions. The article below says the lack of decent local media coverage combined with our polarized society where we govern and vote by a litmus test of progressive policies isn't doing us any good. The article below argues that wealth and income distribution policies, in particular, should be financed at higher levels, such as state or federal government. And that local governments need to focus on basic infrastructure that supports business and labor, and creates the "physical and social environments" valued by residents.

If we use local funds to support low-income residents in a variety of ways, that is a moral choice (and a good one) but not an economic-growth choice. We are not investing in growing the economy that will continue to support the income and property taxes we need to fund everything. So where else do we look for that money? We just keep investing in bioscience, even though that really hasn't gotten us out of the funding and spending rut we are in.

At what point are people going to look more closely at county spending -- more than just how it aligns with our political values?

From the article, "The pervasive myth of MoCo’s exceptionalism continues to lead its progressive policymaking institutions to recommend new ways to extract value from land and the means of production to solve societal problems that may not be solvable at a local level. I think the evidence is clear that there is no more juice to be squeezed, and that our new idea for sources of future economic and revenue growth is the same as our last idea, the results of which have been disappointing to say the least."

https://harpswellstrategies.com/a-primer-on-local-economies-and-government-taxing-and-spending/