Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work with the Council. The idea that the at-large members represent the county as a whole is nonsense. They know where their bread is buttered.

I would be ok with keeping 2 at-large seats but that's not on the ballot. So, I'm voting no on C (would be very expensive and entirely pointless). Leaning towards yes on D, but not entirely decided.

Same. Would love to know who you are. Lol. I think there are many more of us than people realize...but of course we must tow the party line.

Ahem, Council staff should not use their positions for political advocacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work with the Council. The idea that the at-large members represent the county as a whole is nonsense. They know where their bread is buttered.

I would be ok with keeping 2 at-large seats but that's not on the ballot. So, I'm voting no on C (would be very expensive and entirely pointless). Leaning towards yes on D, but not entirely decided.

Same. Would love to know who you are. Lol. I think there are many more of us than people realize...but of course we must tow the party line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:D means minority interests can hold the whole County hostage. Follow the money - it's always about following the money. Who is funding option D/who venefits from passing option D? From Seventh State:

Real estate interests have accounted for 83% of Nine District’s cash contributions. Interestingly, while Washington Property Company president Charlie Nulsen and the three county employee unions were major Nine District contributors in prior reports, they have not contributed any more since July. Nine District has collected contributions from leaders of the county’s Republican Party, which has raised money for the group on its website. The group has spent money on fees for Baltimore consultant Rowland Strategies, legal fees, robocalls and advertising (especially on Facebook).

Not really. They Council doesn't need a unanimous vote on anything except a tax increase if I'm not mistaken. They can still proceed with their usual legislation and have a few members opposed -- this happens quite often.

As for "follow the money", the people behind C are all the political establishment. C would not have existed unless D was there. The Council scrambled to add C as such a great idea, only once D made it onto the ballot. If C was such a good idea, why didn't they introduce it earlier?

Exactly - the political cabal from Takoma Park and Silver Spring might loose their influence if there are 9 districts where you would actually have to live in to be elected. Look who organized a group against Question D, its all people from TP and SS.

They keep saying that we get more representation from the at large. Frankly, I feel like we get no representation from anyone because they are concerned with down county issues only and balloons.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:D means minority interests can hold the whole County hostage. Follow the money - it's always about following the money. Who is funding option D/who venefits from passing option D? From Seventh State:

Real estate interests have accounted for 83% of Nine District’s cash contributions. Interestingly, while Washington Property Company president Charlie Nulsen and the three county employee unions were major Nine District contributors in prior reports, they have not contributed any more since July. Nine District has collected contributions from leaders of the county’s Republican Party, which has raised money for the group on its website. The group has spent money on fees for Baltimore consultant Rowland Strategies, legal fees, robocalls and advertising (especially on Facebook).

Not really. They Council doesn't need a unanimous vote on anything except a tax increase if I'm not mistaken. They can still proceed with their usual legislation and have a few members opposed -- this happens quite often.

As for "follow the money", the people behind C are all the political establishment. C would not have existed unless D was there. The Council scrambled to add C as such a great idea, only once D made it onto the ballot. If C was such a good idea, why didn't they introduce it earlier?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work with the Council. The idea that the at-large members represent the county as a whole is nonsense. They know where their bread is buttered.

I would be ok with keeping 2 at-large seats but that's not on the ballot. So, I'm voting no on C (would be very expensive and entirely pointless). Leaning towards yes on D, but not entirely decided.

In that case, why wouldn't you vote for D? I know the straw-man argument to vote against it, but I can't imagine that's what's really causing the MoCo Democrats to go nuts against it. What's the real reason? I genuinely want to know why they seem so terrified of it passing.

My guess is a Republican, or at least a centrist Democrat, can win if upcounty has their own district. Damascus/Boyds area.

Look at how the congressional district (Trone's district) was gerrymandered so it runs from Bethesda all the way to Western Maryland. This was done to kick out the one Republican (Roscoe I think his name was?) because they couldn't bear the thought of one of MD's congresspeople being an R.

Yep- it was Roscoe Bartlett. Who was an old cook, but yes- it was absolutely gerrymandered, and that is an insane district to represent Kensington all the way up to the sticks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work with the Council. The idea that the at-large members represent the county as a whole is nonsense. They know where their bread is buttered.

I would be ok with keeping 2 at-large seats but that's not on the ballot. So, I'm voting no on C (would be very expensive and entirely pointless). Leaning towards yes on D, but not entirely decided.

In that case, why wouldn't you vote for D? I know the straw-man argument to vote against it, but I can't imagine that's what's really causing the MoCo Democrats to go nuts against it. What's the real reason? I genuinely want to know why they seem so terrified of it passing.

My guess is a Republican, or at least a centrist Democrat, can win if upcounty has their own district. Damascus/Boyds area.

Look at how the congressional district (Trone's district) was gerrymandered so it runs from Bethesda all the way to Western Maryland. This was done to kick out the one Republican (Roscoe I think his name was?) because they couldn't bear the thought of one of MD's congresspeople being an R.

Anonymous wrote:D means minority interests can hold the whole County hostage. Follow the money - it's always about following the money. Who is funding option D/who venefits from passing option D? From Seventh State:

Real estate interests have accounted for 83% of Nine District’s cash contributions. Interestingly, while Washington Property Company president Charlie Nulsen and the three county employee unions were major Nine District contributors in prior reports, they have not contributed any more since July. Nine District has collected contributions from leaders of the county’s Republican Party, which has raised money for the group on its website. The group has spent money on fees for Baltimore consultant Rowland Strategies, legal fees, robocalls and advertising (especially on Facebook).

Anonymous wrote:I'd feel better about D passing if A and not B passed.

A would shift the property tax regulation to rate, not revenue. This means that the tax ***RATE*** would be more consistent, so that you wouldn't have to worry about another 8% increase you can't afford.... but that REVENUE can still grow with new assessments.

Question B would be the most dangerous and reckless thing you could do to a county, and as-is it would still be a risk if D passed, because you need the unanimous vote to raise property tax REVENUE. All it would take is one crackpot to dig his (and it probably would be a he) heels in and prevent any revenue increases. Once again it's REVENUE not RATE. We'd all like to see more moderation of tax rates, but capping tax revenue is absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work with the Council. The idea that the at-large members represent the county as a whole is nonsense. They know where their bread is buttered.

I would be ok with keeping 2 at-large seats but that's not on the ballot. So, I'm voting no on C (would be very expensive and entirely pointless). Leaning towards yes on D, but not entirely decided.

Same. Would love to know who you are. Lol. I think there are many more of us than people realize...but of course we must tow the party line.

It's not just the party line - I'm quite liberal and actually agree with a lot of what the Council does. But I know that politics tends to work best when there is some diversity of thought. For many years now, the Council has been an echo chamber. Just 9 people repeating what each other. There's very little substantive discussion, few challenges that force anyone to really think about and defend their positions, etc. I mean, I cannot stress how much time and taxpayer money is currently spent so that these individuals can make statements "just to reiterate . . ." what the last one said. Listen to a council session sometime. Adding two more people to that echo chamber would be nothing but painful. And I see that, in practice, no one really knows or cares about a large swath of the County which is less populous, and that the unique needs of those areas often go unmet.

Look, I love MoCo. We have it all here - high density urban areas, suburbs, rural, and agricultural areas. It's a beautiful place to live. But, having such a large and diverse county makes local governing more challenging than in a lot of other jurisdictions. And the current council setup isn't effective in meeting those challenges. Don't get me wrong - there are lots of other significant reasons we're not meeting those challenges, including specific people, but the structure of the Council is definitely a factor.

And I think I just talked myself I to voting for D - hah!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work with the Council. The idea that the at-large members represent the county as a whole is nonsense. They know where their bread is buttered.

I would be ok with keeping 2 at-large seats but that's not on the ballot. So, I'm voting no on C (would be very expensive and entirely pointless). Leaning towards yes on D, but not entirely decided.

Same. Would love to know who you are. Lol. I think there are many more of us than people realize...but of course we must tow the party line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work with the Council. The idea that the at-large members represent the county as a whole is nonsense. They know where their bread is buttered.

I would be ok with keeping 2 at-large seats but that's not on the ballot. So, I'm voting no on C (would be very expensive and entirely pointless). Leaning towards yes on D, but not entirely decided.

In that case, why wouldn't you vote for D? I know the straw-man argument to vote against it, but I can't imagine that's what's really causing the MoCo Democrats to go nuts against it. What's the real reason? I genuinely want to know why they seem so terrified of it passing.

Anonymous wrote:I work with the Council. The idea that the at-large members represent the county as a whole is nonsense. They know where their bread is buttered.

I would be ok with keeping 2 at-large seats but that's not on the ballot. So, I'm voting no on C (would be very expensive and entirely pointless). Leaning towards yes on D, but not entirely decided.

Anonymous wrote:I work with the Council. The idea that the at-large members represent the county as a whole is nonsense. They know where their bread is buttered.

I would be ok with keeping 2 at-large seats but that's not on the ballot. So, I'm voting no on C (would be very expensive and entirely pointless). Leaning towards yes on D, but not entirely decided.