Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Wow all the people thinking 50k is pocket change are welcome to wire that amount to my bank tomorrow! 50k is a ton to have tied up in one stock and yes, does present a conflict of interest.
But it’s not a question of $50k. It’s a question of how much an outside actor could move the value up or down. A massive move—10%—is $5k.
It’s not just the stock. He also has an imputed interest arising from his spouse’s employment. And it’s not about the amount of money but about an appearance of impropriety. If this is his standard for public conduct, what does that say about what he does behind closed doors? This is corrupt behavior. A little corruption isn’t ok. It’s all rotten.
Similarly, all of the County Council members who own property in Montgomery County should recuse themselves from voting on the general plan update, and all of the County Council members who have children under 18 should recuse themselves from voting on the school budget. They have an imputed interest arising from their property ownership/children. It's about the appearance of impropriety! A little corruption isn't ok!
Wait, what?
Typical Riemer bro. Your only argumentation style is to take things to illogical extremes in an effort to distract from bad facts.
No, not all council members should recuse if they own their houses. But there’s a difference between merely owning your house and being a real estate investor and landlord as Riemer is. Nor should they recuse from MCPS budget deliberations if they have kids in school. But they should recuse if their spouse works for MCPS and the budget would affect their income or continued employment.
This is merely the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Riemer.
He votes on landlord-tenant bills even though he’s a landlord.
He rushed through a big tax break for Mitch Rales, who was a big campaign donor.
He rushed through a loophole-laden tax break for Grosvenor that doesn’t even require the developer to build the thing that was the stated purpose of the tax break.
He rushed through an undemocratic BID for Silver Spring even after council staff found it would hurt small businesses to the benefit of big landlords.
He’s now rushing through another loophole-laden tax break for developers countywide.
Finally, everyone here is fixated on the stock. The stock isn’t that much money. His spouse, though, is the breadwinner in that household. Is it helpful to Pfizer when a local government mandates vaccination? It unquestionably is, even if no particular local government represents a large amount of potential revenue for Pfizer. Mandates generate momentum for more mandates. Private employers on the fence can take comfort when governments mandate the vaccine for their employees. Riemer should not participate in matters that benefit his spouse’s employer, and this mandate very clearly does.
It’s good policy to mandate the vaccine. It’s bad government for Riemer to participate in that decision.