Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Another reason is that they can create a district that basically will continue to promulgate more Hans Reiner types with two economic zones primarily driving by two major developers, FRIT and Peterson, with the third controlling the votes comprised of Takoma Park “liberals”. So a guaranteed council member that will continue the tradition of being pro-development everywhere but in Takoma Park itself.
So is development in downtown Bethesda and downtown Silver Spring bad or not? Seems like, if everyone in that district votes to further policies that favor Federal Realty and Peterson, then actually it's good? Or are you saying everyone in that district is going to vote against their own interests?
Also, it's R I E M E R. Mis-spelling his name makes you seem very uninformed.
It is a forum and who knows maybe they are typing from their phone. The misspelling is OK to me. Yikes. Not everyone is at their nice home office with a bluetooth keyboard and and triple screen monitors.
TP is the biggest NIMBY and Yes In Your BackYard group. No plans to build for density and just keep all the nice SFH the way they are. Oh but in your neighborhood the TP contingency want to stack development sky high. It is the reason they are incorporated to protect their self interests (that is OK) but then demanding others do as they say (not OK).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Another reason is that they can create a district that basically will continue to promulgate more Hans Reiner types with two economic zones primarily driving by two major developers, FRIT and Peterson, with the third controlling the votes comprised of Takoma Park “liberals”. So a guaranteed council member that will continue the tradition of being pro-development everywhere but in Takoma Park itself.
So is development in downtown Bethesda and downtown Silver Spring bad or not? Seems like, if everyone in that district votes to further policies that favor Federal Realty and Peterson, then actually it's good? Or are you saying everyone in that district is going to vote against their own interests?
Also, it's R I E M E R. Mis-spelling his name makes you seem very uninformed.
Anonymous wrote:
Another reason is that they can create a district that basically will continue to promulgate more Hans Reiner types with two economic zones primarily driving by two major developers, FRIT and Peterson, with the third controlling the votes comprised of Takoma Park “liberals”. So a guaranteed council member that will continue the tradition of being pro-development everywhere but in Takoma Park itself.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Takoma Park and North Bethesda are included in this long and narrow strip? Is it for white, hispanic, or black voters to vote together?
Are you asking why proposed district [something] runs primarily east-west, parallel to the district proposed for Bethesda/Potomac and the district proposed for Gaithersburg/Rockville? My guess is that it's primarily geometry. That's the space left between those proposed districts and the proposed east county district.
Incidentally, it would be really great to have a map that wasn't a screenshot/photo...
Here is an interactive zoomable version of the final map:
Here is interactive zoomable version of map
https://gismontgomery.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=e74800c960094a05a4f88a45586fc634
The reason for this odd shape is that once you have a AA plurality east distirct, Hispanic plurality Wheaton district, the only choices for the SS/Tpk distirct is to do this or cut up parts of Chevy Chase and Bethesda.
We discussed a few reasons in meetings about why this makes a bit of sense… that distirct runs northwest along a train line, has a lot of transit focused areas, and SS / North Bethesda are the bookends in terms of population centers in this district and both have lots large buildings with lots of renters/condos.
I do feel along the middle it gets a little too thin for my taste but otherwise I had a pretty similar district on my map that didn’t get selected.
Commissioner Jason Makstein
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Takoma Park and North Bethesda are included in this long and narrow strip? Is it for white, hispanic, or black voters to vote together?
Are you asking why proposed district [something] runs primarily east-west, parallel to the district proposed for Bethesda/Potomac and the district proposed for Gaithersburg/Rockville? My guess is that it's primarily geometry. That's the space left between those proposed districts and the proposed east county district.
Incidentally, it would be really great to have a map that wasn't a screenshot/photo...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Takoma Park and North Bethesda are included in this long and narrow strip? Is it for white, hispanic, or black voters to vote together?
Are you asking why proposed district [something] runs primarily east-west, parallel to the district proposed for Bethesda/Potomac and the district proposed for Gaithersburg/Rockville? My guess is that it's primarily geometry. That's the space left between those proposed districts and the proposed east county district.
Incidentally, it would be really great to have a map that wasn't a screenshot/photo...
Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why Takoma Park and North Bethesda are included in this long and narrow strip? Is it for white, hispanic, or black voters to vote together?
Anonymous wrote:You didn't have to vote no, Mr. Makstein. You chose to vote no.
Also, your map split Olney and lumped Clarksburg in with the Patuxent watershed.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
The bigger impact is having 11 council members rather than 9. That was the alternative Evan Glass proposed rather than lose any at-large representation. The council doesn't want to lose its at-large seats because those ensure a very progressive majority on the council.
They will claim a desire for racial and ethnic representation in the districts, but it's really about ensuring a progressive majority.
Whatever Evan Glass's motivation may or may not have been:
-the motivation for abolishing the at-large seats was reducing the representation from the more populous, more-likely-to-vote downcounty areas on the county council
-my motivation for voting to retain the at-large seats was so that I will still have county council members to contact if my district county council rep is terrible
Please trust me on this -- if they don't agree with whatever you want, they just refer you right to your district councilmember. They are only there to further their own agendas.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
The bigger impact is having 11 council members rather than 9. That was the alternative Evan Glass proposed rather than lose any at-large representation. The council doesn't want to lose its at-large seats because those ensure a very progressive majority on the council.
They will claim a desire for racial and ethnic representation in the districts, but it's really about ensuring a progressive majority.
Whatever Evan Glass's motivation may or may not have been:
-the motivation for abolishing the at-large seats was reducing the representation from the more populous, more-likely-to-vote downcounty areas on the county council
-my motivation for voting to retain the at-large seats was so that I will still have county council members to contact if my district county council rep is terrible
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Now I’m sure you’re wrong since you didn’t come back and defend your knee-jerk response to what is a pretty good map. Clarksburg wanted their own district and got it. Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Potomac didn’t want to be lumped in with the Ag Reserve (which was done 30 years ago to combine the districts of the two Republicans who were on the Council at the time into one - one of the ended up moving. 😀) East County wanted their own district and got it. The North Bethesda to Takoma Park district makes sense because they are all inner ring densely populated suburbs with similar goals/issues etc. Regarding the two majority Black and Hispanic districts, that’s something that has always been encouraged by the Voting Rights Act. I don’t think the VRA applies to councilmanic districts within states but obviously the majority of the panel thought it was a good philosophy to follow.
It wasn't done 30 years ago. It was done 10 years ago when Berliner was in office.