Most at-large council members live in Takoma Park or Silver Spring.

Very few live upcounty, just those who represent those districts.

In general, I think upcounty gets the short end of the stick when it comes to any council initiatives, for example transportation planning -- things are just more spread out up there, and there's no Metro station. They seem to forget that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These areas are exempt from the new coming proposal per MoCo 360, so council members these areas who favor this proposal are voting on things that do not impact them:

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.

They are not "exempt". Montgomery County can't change the zoning in municipalities with their own zoning authority [b]because those municipalities have their own zoning authority[/b]. Montgomery County does not have zoning authority over properties in those municipalities.

You post to quibble over a technical vs. colloquial definition of "exempt." Way to get in a last word where the point made by the PP is completely valid, champ!

Anonymous wrote:These areas are exempt from the new coming proposal per MoCo 360, so council members these areas who favor this proposal are voting on things that do not impact them:

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.

They are not "exempt". Montgomery County can't change the zoning in municipalities with their own zoning authority [b]because those municipalities have their own zoning authority[/b]. Montgomery County does not have zoning authority over properties in those municipalities.

These areas are exempt from the new coming proposal per MoCo 360, so council members these areas who favor this proposal are voting on things that do not impact them:

Municipalities with their own zoning authority (Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville, Barnesville, Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove) are not affected by any changes to county zoning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think any of you, even with multiple threads, understand what it is at hand here. There will be NO untouchable area once this rolls out in force, to include Tacoma Park. You should have vote differently, there is no going back.

Love how the developers are reveling in their having bought the County Council for profit and now are teasing SFH-living moderate dems into reconsidering in the hopes they vote for Hogan, flip the senate and keep their tax breaks.

Do you have any evidence that any council member has personally benefited financially from a developer?

Other way around, ding-dong.

Buy influence by helping councilmembers get elected a couple years back. Get paid now with legislation that allows you to profit!

Tease the poor schlimazels that get the raw end of that deal into voting for the republican you then support for senate (they should be angry with the dem councilmembers not up for election this year, right?). Profit more by keeping tax breaks!

Do you have any evidence that developers were major contributors to any councilmembers campaign?

And, secondary question, what motivation to these people have to run for office? Seems to me it is either a desire to do good or a desire to benefit financially. If they aren't benefitting financially, than they must be doing what they think is in the best interest of the community, no?

Yes, in fact, we do:
https://moco360.media/2022/06/29/developer-backed-super-pac-pours-big-money-into-montgomery-county-elections/

Thank you. So it looks like the group spent roughly 225K across 11 candidates, 7 of whom were elected. Let's generously call that a 25K in value to each elected candidate, though it wasn't a direct contribution to their individual campaigns.

In context, it appears that Andrew Friedson raised in the ballpark of 325K in that campaign. His campaign committee raised over 1 million since it was created.
https://andrewfriedson.com/news/mayreport
https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/01/31/fundraising-master-class-andrew-friedson/

To me, the PAC does not qualify as a major contributor that would make Friedson "captured" or "beholden" to that group.

You should see how much the NRA contributes to candidates as a percent of their total. Hint: not much. The influence of these groups is not just in what they make in contributions in the name of their organization, but also what their leaders contribute individually as well as money that the organizations spend on their own. MoCo candidates know that it's dangerous to do battle with the developers.

Just to clarify, I meant that you should look up how much the NRA contributes to candidates for Congress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think any of you, even with multiple threads, understand what it is at hand here. There will be NO untouchable area once this rolls out in force, to include Tacoma Park. You should have vote differently, there is no going back.

Love how the developers are reveling in their having bought the County Council for profit and now are teasing SFH-living moderate dems into reconsidering in the hopes they vote for Hogan, flip the senate and keep their tax breaks.

Do you have any evidence that any council member has personally benefited financially from a developer?

Other way around, ding-dong.

Buy influence by helping councilmembers get elected a couple years back. Get paid now with legislation that allows you to profit!

Tease the poor schlimazels that get the raw end of that deal into voting for the republican you then support for senate (they should be angry with the dem councilmembers not up for election this year, right?). Profit more by keeping tax breaks!

Do you have any evidence that developers were major contributors to any councilmembers campaign?

And, secondary question, what motivation to these people have to run for office? Seems to me it is either a desire to do good or a desire to benefit financially. If they aren't benefitting financially, than they must be doing what they think is in the best interest of the community, no?

Yes, in fact, we do:
https://moco360.media/2022/06/29/developer-backed-super-pac-pours-big-money-into-montgomery-county-elections/

Thank you. So it looks like the group spent roughly 225K across 11 candidates, 7 of whom were elected. Let's generously call that a 25K in value to each elected candidate, though it wasn't a direct contribution to their individual campaigns.

In context, it appears that Andrew Friedson raised in the ballpark of 325K in that campaign. His campaign committee raised over 1 million since it was created.
https://andrewfriedson.com/news/mayreport
https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/01/31/fundraising-master-class-andrew-friedson/

To me, the PAC does not qualify as a major contributor that would make Friedson "captured" or "beholden" to that group.

You should see how much the NRA contributes to candidates as a percent of their total. Hint: not much. The influence of these groups is not just in what they make in contributions in the name of their organization, but also what their leaders contribute individually as well as money that the organizations spend on their own. MoCo candidates know that it's dangerous to do battle with the developers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think any of you, even with multiple threads, understand what it is at hand here. There will be NO untouchable area once this rolls out in force, to include Tacoma Park. You should have vote differently, there is no going back.

Love how the developers are reveling in their having bought the County Council for profit and now are teasing SFH-living moderate dems into reconsidering in the hopes they vote for Hogan, flip the senate and keep their tax breaks.

Do you have any evidence that any council member has personally benefited financially from a developer?

Other way around, ding-dong.

Buy influence by helping councilmembers get elected a couple years back. Get paid now with legislation that allows you to profit!

Tease the poor schlimazels that get the raw end of that deal into voting for the republican you then support for senate (they should be angry with the dem councilmembers not up for election this year, right?). Profit more by keeping tax breaks!

Do you have any evidence that developers were major contributors to any councilmembers campaign?

And, secondary question, what motivation to these people have to run for office? Seems to me it is either a desire to do good or a desire to benefit financially. If they aren't benefitting financially, than they must be doing what they think is in the best interest of the community, no?

Yes, in fact, we do:
https://moco360.media/2022/06/29/developer-backed-super-pac-pours-big-money-into-montgomery-county-elections/

Thank you. So it looks like the group spent roughly 225K across 11 candidates, 7 of whom were elected. Let's generously call that a 25K in value to each elected candidate, though it wasn't a direct contribution to their individual campaigns.

In context, it appears that Andrew Friedson raised in the ballpark of 325K in that campaign. His campaign committee raised over 1 million since it was created.
https://andrewfriedson.com/news/mayreport
https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/01/31/fundraising-master-class-andrew-friedson/

To me, the PAC does not qualify as a major contributor that would make Friedson "captured" or "beholden" to that group.

From that Montgomery Perspective article:

"Where does Friedson’s money come from? Since 2017, 82% of his contributions have come from individuals and 17% have come from business entities (including corporations and PACs). That understates his business community support as many business owners and managers contribute as individuals."

That 17% of ~$1.3M raised over 7 years would be about $222k. That $25k imputed 2022 contribution from that one PAC over just two-months would have been over 10% of Friedson's total haul from non-individuals over over seven years, and they had, at that time, more money to spend left than they had spent already in the leadup to the following month's primary. So, sure, clearly not a major contributor

Per the MoCo360 article, the group also was trying to unseat Elrich in favor of developer-friendly Blair, and avowedly for that purpose, as Elrich suggested their aim was "offloading the cost of roads, schools and other public facilities needed to support continued growth in the county" -- exactly what we are seeing, now.

One wonders what Johanna Berkson, Friedson's campaign chair when he first ran, per the Friedson site linked, might have to say about her statement at that time:

“I am so amazed by the overwhelming enthusiasm we’ve seen for Andrew’s vision to Ease the Montgomery County Squeeze on our schools, our roads, and our families."

What a complete crock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think any of you, even with multiple threads, understand what it is at hand here. There will be NO untouchable area once this rolls out in force, to include Tacoma Park. You should have vote differently, there is no going back.

Love how the developers are reveling in their having bought the County Council for profit and now are teasing SFH-living moderate dems into reconsidering in the hopes they vote for Hogan, flip the senate and keep their tax breaks.

Do you have any evidence that any council member has personally benefited financially from a developer?

Other way around, ding-dong.

Buy influence by helping councilmembers get elected a couple years back. Get paid now with legislation that allows you to profit!

Tease the poor schlimazels that get the raw end of that deal into voting for the republican you then support for senate (they should be angry with the dem councilmembers not up for election this year, right?). Profit more by keeping tax breaks!

Do you have any evidence that developers were major contributors to any councilmembers campaign?

And, secondary question, what motivation to these people have to run for office? Seems to me it is either a desire to do good or a desire to benefit financially. If they aren't benefitting financially, than they must be doing what they think is in the best interest of the community, no?

Yes, in fact, we do:
https://moco360.media/2022/06/29/developer-backed-super-pac-pours-big-money-into-montgomery-county-elections/

Thank you. So it looks like the group spent roughly 225K across 11 candidates, 7 of whom were elected. Let's generously call that a 25K in value to each elected candidate, though it wasn't a direct contribution to their individual campaigns.

In context, it appears that Andrew Friedson raised in the ballpark of 325K in that campaign. His campaign committee raised over 1 million since it was created.
https://andrewfriedson.com/news/mayreport
https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/01/31/fundraising-master-class-andrew-friedson/

To me, the PAC does not qualify as a major contributor that would make Friedson "captured" or "beholden" to that group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think any of you, even with multiple threads, understand what it is at hand here. There will be NO untouchable area once this rolls out in force, to include Tacoma Park. You should have vote differently, there is no going back.

Love how the developers are reveling in their having bought the County Council for profit and now are teasing SFH-living moderate dems into reconsidering in the hopes they vote for Hogan, flip the senate and keep their tax breaks.

Do you have any evidence that any council member has personally benefited financially from a developer?

Other way around, ding-dong.

Buy influence by helping councilmembers get elected a couple years back. Get paid now with legislation that allows you to profit!

Tease the poor schlimazels that get the raw end of that deal into voting for the republican you then support for senate (they should be angry with the dem councilmembers not up for election this year, right?). Profit more by keeping tax breaks!

Do you have any evidence that developers were major contributors to any councilmembers campaign?

And, secondary question, what motivation to these people have to run for office? Seems to me it is either a desire to do good or a desire to benefit financially. If they aren't benefitting financially, than they must be doing what they think is in the best interest of the community, no?

Yes, in fact, we do:
https://moco360.media/2022/06/29/developer-backed-super-pac-pours-big-money-into-montgomery-county-elections/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think any of you, even with multiple threads, understand what it is at hand here. There will be NO untouchable area once this rolls out in force, to include Tacoma Park. You should have vote differently, there is no going back.

Love how the developers are reveling in their having bought the County Council for profit and now are teasing SFH-living moderate dems into reconsidering in the hopes they vote for Hogan, flip the senate and keep their tax breaks.

Do you have any evidence that any council member has personally benefited financially from a developer?

Here you go...

https://moco360.media/2022/06/29/developer-backed-super-pac-pours-big-money-into-montgomery-county-elections/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think any of you, even with multiple threads, understand what it is at hand here. There will be NO untouchable area once this rolls out in force, to include Tacoma Park. You should have vote differently, there is no going back.

Love how the developers are reveling in their having bought the County Council for profit and now are teasing SFH-living moderate dems into reconsidering in the hopes they vote for Hogan, flip the senate and keep their tax breaks.

Do you have any evidence that any council member has personally benefited financially from a developer?

Other way around, ding-dong.

Buy influence by helping councilmembers get elected a couple years back. Get paid now with legislation that allows you to profit!

Tease the poor schlimazels that get the raw end of that deal into voting for the republican you then support for senate (they should be angry with the dem councilmembers not up for election this year, right?). Profit more by keeping tax breaks!

Do you have any evidence that developers were major contributors to any councilmembers campaign?

And, secondary question, what motivation to these people have to run for office? Seems to me it is either a desire to do good or a desire to benefit financially. If they aren't benefitting financially, than they must be doing what they think is in the best interest of the community, no?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think any of you, even with multiple threads, understand what it is at hand here. There will be NO untouchable area once this rolls out in force, to include Tacoma Park. You should have vote differently, there is no going back.

Love how the developers are reveling in their having bought the County Council for profit and now are teasing SFH-living moderate dems into reconsidering in the hopes they vote for Hogan, flip the senate and keep their tax breaks.

Do you have any evidence that any council member has personally benefited financially from a developer?

Other way around, ding-dong.

Buy influence by helping councilmembers get elected a couple years back. Get paid now with legislation that allows you to profit!

Tease the poor schlimazels that get the raw end of that deal into voting for the republican you then support for senate (they should be angry with the dem councilmembers not up for election this year, right?). Profit more by keeping tax breaks!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of them live in areas where public sewer is banned. They won't be impacted either as long their neighborhood is limited to well and septic. Septic systems make it difficult and uneconomical to significantly increase density especially if the soil is bad.

What's your argument here? Are you saying that multi-unit housing should be allowed on septic, even though it doesn't work? Or are you saying that multi-unit housing should not be allowed on public sewer, on grounds that it isn't allowed on septic because it doesn't work on septic? Or maybe you're in favor of extending public sewer to areas that are on septic, so that multi-unit housing can be allowed in those areas?

Generally, in my opinion, it's a good idea to avoid taking actions that will increase the numbers of failing septic systems.

They are hypocritical, multifamily housing for every neighborhood, but their own. One of these people in particular is around 500 feet away from public sewer and they could change the sewer map for their own neighborhood if they truly want to promote affordable housing. However, he won't do this because it will impact their own neighborhood. Density for thee, but not for me if the motto of this hypocritical progressive board. Very similar to Obama preaching about upzoning middle class suburban neighborhoods while he owns a posh beach house in the Hamptons.

Are you saying that one county council member could and should change the public sewer map? If that were true, that would be super shady. It is not true, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of them live in areas where public sewer is banned. They won't be impacted either as long their neighborhood is limited to well and septic. Septic systems make it difficult and uneconomical to significantly increase density especially if the soil is bad.

What's your argument here? Are you saying that multi-unit housing should be allowed on septic, even though it doesn't work? Or are you saying that multi-unit housing should not be allowed on public sewer, on grounds that it isn't allowed on septic because it doesn't work on septic? Or maybe you're in favor of extending public sewer to areas that are on septic, so that multi-unit housing can be allowed in those areas?

Generally, in my opinion, it's a good idea to avoid taking actions that will increase the numbers of failing septic systems.

They are hypocritical, multifamily housing for every neighborhood, but their own. One of these people in particular is around 500 feet away from public sewer and they could change the sewer map for their own neighborhood if they truly want to promote affordable housing. However, he won't do this because it will impact their own neighborhood. Density for thee, but not for me if the motto of this hypocritical progressive board. Very similar to Obama preaching about upzoning middle class suburban neighborhoods while he owns a posh beach house in the Hamptons.

Again, I'm wondering how far your understanding of "hypocrisy" extends. You do know that our ENTIRE legislative and executive branch is built on people making decisions about things that don't have an immediate impact on their own life, right?

Even at the hyper local level, city councilmembers vote on whether to proceed on individual development projects. Should they be prohibited from doing that if the project is not within 100 feet of their own home? not in the school cluster their children attend? Where is the line here?

County Council members should not get to vote on how much to allocate to MCPS unless they have a child currently enrolled in MCPS!!!!

Actually I kinda hate to even suggest that, lest somebody think it's a good idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do not think any of you, even with multiple threads, understand what it is at hand here. There will be NO untouchable area once this rolls out in force, to include Tacoma Park. You should have vote differently, there is no going back.

Love how the developers are reveling in their having bought the County Council for profit and now are teasing SFH-living moderate dems into reconsidering in the hopes they vote for Hogan, flip the senate and keep their tax breaks.

Do you have any evidence that any council member has personally benefited financially from a developer?