Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tax increase would be from 0.032 to 0.033. That works out to be about $100 for every $100,000 you make. Not a big tax increase.

I don’t think I get a good value for 0.032 so I certainly don’t want to pay more. Make all developers pay their fair share before asking me for more.

They voted it down today. No tax increases.

Good news for this year. Next year not so much. They funded their spending by borrowing from a retiree benefit fund. They’re going to have to pay that back and find money for all the spending they added this year. And they’re going to have to do that while they continue to erode the property tax base with giveaways for developers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tax increase would be from 0.032 to 0.033. That works out to be about $100 for every $100,000 you make. Not a big tax increase.

I don’t think I get a good value for 0.032 so I certainly don’t want to pay more. Make all developers pay their fair share before asking me for more.

They voted it down today. No tax increases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The tax increase would be from 0.032 to 0.033. That works out to be about $100 for every $100,000 you make. Not a big tax increase.

I don’t think I get a good value for 0.032 so I certainly don’t want to pay more. Make all developers pay their fair share before asking me for more.

Hard to get there when the County Council are in their pockets...and then appointed the entirety of the new Planning Board so that all of the suggested policy was to developer's ends, all of the Montgomery Planning administrative leadership the Board elevated were in lockstep, there, and all of the research they directed from Planning staff was geared to presume the conclusion.

You'd need to throw out the Council, and that is highly unlikely in hegemonic MoCo. You'd need pitchforks and torches.

Anonymous wrote:The tax increase would be from 0.032 to 0.033. That works out to be about $100 for every $100,000 you make. Not a big tax increase.

I don’t think I get a good value for 0.032 so I certainly don’t want to pay more. Make all developers pay their fair share before asking me for more.

The tax increase would be from 0.032 to 0.033. That works out to be about $100 for every $100,000 you make. Not a big tax increase.

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of people who come to council to testify and support tax increases.

Jawando didn't even try to mitigate increased spending in the MCPS budget, because he is running for executive and can't be the Chair who didn't give MCPS every single thing they want. I wonder if they will strip him of the council Presidency next term now that he has declared his intent to run for another office.

Nobody cares about fiscal responsibility. I can legitimately see the county losing its AAA bond rating.

Maybe Balcombe. It will be interesting to see how she votes in the end. The rest are still enslaved to their respective pet special interest groups

Kate Stewart is council president this term. Jawando is the current VP. Friedson was president last year.

With its being all in the family, they rotate the president/VP positions among those most interested. The agenda remains the same.

There are plenty of people who come to council to testify and support tax increases.

Jawando didn't even try to mitigate increased spending in the MCPS budget, because he is running for executive and can't be the Chair who didn't give MCPS every single thing they want. I wonder if they will strip him of the council Presidency next term now that he has declared his intent to run for another office.

Nobody cares about fiscal responsibility. I can legitimately see the county losing its AAA bond rating.

Maybe Balcombe. It will be interesting to see how she votes in the end. The rest are still enslaved to their respective pet special interest groups

County Council discussed this morning the proposal for the proposed increase to income tax:

Budget gap of around $80M.

Previously proposed property tax increase is off the table.

Concern that a tax retroactive to 1/1/25 would catch those whose jobs have now been eliminated.

Notation that the option for making the tax increase progressive (i.e., local tax brackets) doesn't come into play until 2026.

Extremely tight schedule. Public hearing 5/13 with Council decision required by 5/15 (per state mandate). An increase to next year's tax rates would need to be decided by 7/1.

Concern that there isn't good data on which to make a decision -- unemployment, tax receipts, etc. -- and won't be by the time they have to make a decision. (This doesn't seem to apply when they give out special-interest tax breaks and the like, though... : )

Worry about flight of wealth -- folks moving to lower tax states/jurisdictions, especially those who might have a second house and choose to spend more than half the days of the year there, then recognizing that as their residence and paying all of their income tax in that jurisdiction.

Plenty of talk about burden and anecdotes about neighbors who've reached out asking for them not to do this, and few seem to favor an increase. Significant shifting of responsibility away, given what is happening at the Federal level (not that that is incorrect, but it shouldn't then remain improperly addressed by MoCo/MD, IMO). Nobody wants to cut programs, but reading between the lines, schools would seem to be the most likely to be impacted if they can't figure out a way to raise $ -- one anecdote that didn't seem to gain any traction was about a PTA meeting where members raised their hands when asked if they would support increased tax if it went to schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea: how about the county cuts some spending rather than raising taxes?

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.

The Council recently voted in two cuts...to developer costs 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 vetoed 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.

This was all spot on. Today the council overrode Elrich’s veto of their new developer giveaway.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea: how about the county cuts some spending rather than raising taxes?

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.

The Council recently voted in two cuts...to developer costs 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 vetoed 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.

This was all spot on. Today the council overrode Elrich’s veto of their new developer giveaway.

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.

Jawando also opposed Friedson’s previous developer giveaway, so he’s actually been consistent in opposing massive giveaways. 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 asks good questions about them even when he ultimately votes for them. In the discussion of this bill and the AHSI, he also seemed to consider public input more than the other members. I appreciated that.

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.

If you’ve been paying attention, he asks questions about everything. The YIMBYs don’t know what to do with him. He’s proposed some very YIMBY things but he also pushed rent control, which most YIMBYs hate, and he’s opposed spending taxpayer money to subsidize market rate housing. (Isn’t it funny how the YIMBYs want the free market when it comes to rent control and zoning but also want massive government intervention when it comes to subsidies? It’s almost as if YIMBYism is less about increasing housing production than it is about choosing whatever policies that increase margins.)

I also think Jawando is one of the few council members who knows what’s in the bills they’re voting on. I don’t always agree with where he lands but I appreciate that he’s thoughtful.

I could see that take, even if it might not be my own. I do agree that many on the Council don't really know what's in the bills they end up supporting, and that's terrible, especially given the high salaries amd staffing allocations they are afforded. I've seen Jawando ask more incisive questions/make more pertinent comment sometimes, but not always. More than some others, for sure.

Still, the question remains. Will MoCo voters allow themselves to be stuck with a County Executive from among the current Councilmembers (Glass, Friedson, Jawando or any other who might declare) or will the poor Council stewardship of residents' interests see a candidate from outside the Council arise & prevail?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea: how about the county cuts some spending rather than raising taxes?

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.

The Council recently voted in two cuts...to developer costs 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 vetoed 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.

This was all spot on. Today the council overrode Elrich’s veto of their new developer giveaway.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea: how about the county cuts some spending rather than raising taxes?

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.

The Council recently voted in two cuts...to developer costs 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 vetoed 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.

This was all spot on. Today the council overrode Elrich’s veto of their new developer giveaway.

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.

Jawando also opposed Friedson’s previous developer giveaway, so he’s actually been consistent in opposing massive giveaways. 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 asks good questions about them even when he ultimately votes for them. In the discussion of this bill and the AHSI, he also seemed to consider public input more than the other members. I appreciated that.

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.

If you’ve been paying attention, he asks questions about everything. The YIMBYs don’t know what to do with him. He’s proposed some very YIMBY things but he also pushed rent control, which most YIMBYs hate, and he’s opposed spending taxpayer money to subsidize market rate housing. (Isn’t it funny how the YIMBYs want the free market when it comes to rent control and zoning but also want massive government intervention when it comes to subsidies? It’s almost as if YIMBYism is less about increasing housing production than it is about choosing whatever policies that increase margins.)

I also think Jawando is one of the few council members who knows what’s in the bills they’re voting on. I don’t always agree with where he lands but I appreciate that he’s thoughtful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea: how about the county cuts some spending rather than raising taxes?

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.

The Council recently voted in two cuts...to developer costs 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 vetoed 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.

This was all spot on. Today the council overrode Elrich’s veto of their new developer giveaway.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea: how about the county cuts some spending rather than raising taxes?

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.

The Council recently voted in two cuts...to developer costs 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 vetoed 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.

This was all spot on. Today the council overrode Elrich’s veto of their new developer giveaway.

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.

Jawando also opposed Friedson’s previous developer giveaway, so he’s actually been consistent in opposing massive giveaways. 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 asks good questions about them even when he ultimately votes for them. In the discussion of this bill and the AHSI, he also seemed to consider public input more than the other members. I appreciated that.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea: how about the county cuts some spending rather than raising taxes?

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.

The Council recently voted in two cuts...to developer costs 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 vetoed 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.

This was all spot on. Today the council overrode Elrich’s veto of their new developer giveaway.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea: how about the county cuts some spending rather than raising taxes?

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.

The Council recently voted in two cuts...to developer costs 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 vetoed 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.

This was all spot on. Today the council overrode Elrich’s veto of their new developer giveaway.

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.

Jawando also opposed Friedson’s previous developer giveaway, so he’s actually been consistent in opposing massive giveaways. 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 asks good questions about them even when he ultimately votes for them. In the discussion of this bill and the AHSI, he also seemed to consider public input more than the other members. I appreciated that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea: how about the county cuts some spending rather than raising taxes?

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.

The Council recently voted in two cuts...to developer costs 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 vetoed 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.

This was all spot on. Today the council overrode Elrich’s veto of their new developer giveaway.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's an idea: how about the county cuts some spending rather than raising taxes?

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.

The Council recently voted in two cuts...to developer costs 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 vetoed 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.

This was all spot on. Today the council overrode Elrich’s veto of their new developer giveaway.

Anonymous wrote:https://bethesdamagazine.com/2025/03/14/elrich-proposes-tax-rate-increase-to-fund-budget/

Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich announced Friday he is proposing a 3.5% property tax rate increase in order to fully fund Montgomery County Public Schools’ (MCPS) $3.65 billion budget request for the upcoming fiscal year.

Of course.

DEI is not cheap.