Anonymous wrote:New post on Seventh State. Elrich responded to the county not using the money they were given by being "surprised" the Council was mad about this:

http://www.theseventhstate.com/?p=13986

Following the meeting, which Elrich did not attend, he told Montgomery Community Media he was surprised at the council’s reaction. “There is no way the money goes out the door the next day.” Elrich explained that applications for funds must be gone through to make sure they meet the requirements. “This is the whole thing about allocating money,” he said, adding, “We are not holding money back.”

Is he talking in circles? It's the job of his branch to apply for the money and spend it. They haven't been doing so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree. But lets also be real. Put up the most moderate republican, somebody would be crucified as a RINO, outside of MD. And most folks down here would see the 'R' next to the name and not vote for them. No matter what. Nobody should do that.

Nobody should vote straight party lines without understanding the candidate. People in this county have blind faith in their party and their leader.

and in the words of the greatest musician of our time, Bruce Springsteen, "Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed."

Realistic solution: open primaries. For local offices like Council, everyone gets to vote for all candidates across the ballot, doesn't matter your party or their party. It'll end up being 2 D's on the general ballot, but at least one of them is likely to be moderate.

How to justify it: 1/3 of registered voters in MoCo are independent. Also, we have taxpayer-funded campaign financing, but currently an independent can't even vote (in the primaries) for or against someone whose campaign is being funded by their tax dollars.

Anonymous wrote:
This is all so completely true. The county leadership is horrendous.

But watch on Election Day. Voters will continue voting for the SAME nonsense. It truly makes no sense in such a reportedly ‘educated’ county.

Anonymous wrote:
I agree. But lets also be real. Put up the most moderate republican, somebody would be crucified as a RINO, outside of MD. And most folks down here would see the 'R' next to the name and not vote for them. No matter what. Nobody should do that.

Nobody should vote straight party lines without understanding the candidate. People in this county have blind faith in their party and their leader.

and in the words of the greatest musician of our time, Bruce Springsteen, "Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed."

Following the meeting, which Elrich did not attend, he told Montgomery Community Media he was surprised at the council’s reaction. “There is no way the money goes out the door the next day.” Elrich explained that applications for funds must be gone through to make sure they meet the requirements. “This is the whole thing about allocating money,” he said, adding, “We are not holding money back.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I suppose that's the beauty of democracy. As someone that lives upcounty, I am voting Yes on D, so that I can have the same representation as someone that lives in the lower county.

And speaking of how dumb you are, you entirely missed the point of my post. I was highlighting that even though we can't vote out Elrich, we still have the opportunity to effect change in our local election. Questions A-D show that.

You suggest to the previous poster that they must be from Russia because they suggested that the local election will still yield the same results. Your response was that they were a troll cause Elrich isn't on the ballot. You're wrong. Even though Elrich isnt on the ballot, relevant issues about how he is allowed to operate are. And if A or B is passed, he will have to change how he operates.

You already have it.

The at-large members are all from lower county, really Silver Spring. Which makes sense; the system is designed that way. But that means people in lower county have more representation from people up county. And that's not right. The way its designed right now, those "at-large" members have no reason to pay attention to any up county constituents. I get it; I probably wouldn't either if I didnt need their vote to keep my position. But that doesnt make it right.

9 districts. 9 members.

No, it makes no sense, unless you assume that elected officials can only represent the neighborhoods that they personally live in, and why on earth would you do that?

Some of the at-large members who live downcounty have represented the upcounty far better than the upcounty district council member who actually lives here.

I think we probably just need to disagree on that last point.

To be frank, the real solution is to create two new counties entirely. the needs, lifestyle, and desires are so different. Draw a line somewhere around the ICC and let up county self govern.

An even more unfeasible idea.

Here's a more feasible idea (maybe): for the Republicans of Montgomery County to consider putting up candidates who might actually get Montgomery County voters to vote for them. That's the real issue. You can't get your candidates elected, because the only people who run have ideas that most Montgomery County voters don't support. Try fixing that problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bold is extraordinarily poor leadership. He spent money he didn’t have but expected to have. FEMA reimbursement has ALWAYS been difficult. Why didn’t he know that or plan contingencies around? MCPS has no chance of going back because of complete abdication of leadership responsibility (which gets cheered on here incredibly).

I mean, its a COMPLETE failure of leadership.

One on hand, he gets 183 million in CARES ACT money, but can't get his act together fast enough to figure out to disburse it, and now we run the risk of having to return it to the federal government. Meanwhile, while he figures out the right application process, business closes, families go hungry, and tenants get further behind on rent. But he's "shocked that people would be upset"

And on the other hand, he approves 50 million in hazard pay assuming we would be reimbursed; he was wrong.

He's burning the candle of incompetence from both ends. If it wasn't causing so much damage, it would be an amazing sight to see.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I suppose that's the beauty of democracy. As someone that lives upcounty, I am voting Yes on D, so that I can have the same representation as someone that lives in the lower county.

And speaking of how dumb you are, you entirely missed the point of my post. I was highlighting that even though we can't vote out Elrich, we still have the opportunity to effect change in our local election. Questions A-D show that.

You suggest to the previous poster that they must be from Russia because they suggested that the local election will still yield the same results. Your response was that they were a troll cause Elrich isn't on the ballot. You're wrong. Even though Elrich isnt on the ballot, relevant issues about how he is allowed to operate are. And if A or B is passed, he will have to change how he operates.

You already have it.

The at-large members are all from lower county, really Silver Spring. Which makes sense; the system is designed that way. But that means people in lower county have more representation from people up county. And that's not right. The way its designed right now, those "at-large" members have no reason to pay attention to any up county constituents. I get it; I probably wouldn't either if I didnt need their vote to keep my position. But that doesnt make it right.

9 districts. 9 members.

No, it makes no sense, unless you assume that elected officials can only represent the neighborhoods that they personally live in, and why on earth would you do that?

Some of the at-large members who live downcounty have represented the upcounty far better than the upcounty district council member who actually lives here.

I think we probably just need to disagree on that last point.

To be frank, the real solution is to create two new counties entirely. the needs, lifestyle, and desires are so different. Draw a line somewhere around the ICC and let up county self govern.

An even more unfeasible idea.

Here's a more feasible idea (maybe): for the Republicans of Montgomery County to consider putting up candidates who might actually get Montgomery County voters to vote for them. That's the real issue. You can't get your candidates elected, because the only people who run have ideas that most Montgomery County voters don't support. Try fixing that problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I suppose that's the beauty of democracy. As someone that lives upcounty, I am voting Yes on D, so that I can have the same representation as someone that lives in the lower county.

And speaking of how dumb you are, you entirely missed the point of my post. I was highlighting that even though we can't vote out Elrich, we still have the opportunity to effect change in our local election. Questions A-D show that.

You suggest to the previous poster that they must be from Russia because they suggested that the local election will still yield the same results. Your response was that they were a troll cause Elrich isn't on the ballot. You're wrong. Even though Elrich isnt on the ballot, relevant issues about how he is allowed to operate are. And if A or B is passed, he will have to change how he operates.

You already have it.

The at-large members are all from lower county, really Silver Spring. Which makes sense; the system is designed that way. But that means people in lower county have more representation from people up county. And that's not right. The way its designed right now, those "at-large" members have no reason to pay attention to any up county constituents. I get it; I probably wouldn't either if I didnt need their vote to keep my position. But that doesnt make it right.

9 districts. 9 members.

No, it makes no sense, unless you assume that elected officials can only represent the neighborhoods that they personally live in, and why on earth would you do that?

Some of the at-large members who live downcounty have represented the upcounty far better than the upcounty district council member who actually lives here.

I think we probably just need to disagree on that last point.

To be frank, the real solution is to create two new counties entirely. the needs, lifestyle, and desires are so different. Draw a line somewhere around the ICC and let up county self govern.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not entirely true. You're correct that we can't boot out Comrade Elrich, but we can try to break up their lower county monopoly by voting Yes to D, and try to give this county fair representation.

We can also try to hold them accountable for their foolish decisions by voting yes on B. It's easy for Elrich to approve 50 million in hazard pay when he knows he can easily tax us more. So we need to consider both questions A & B. B is more restrictive, and may not be wise given the hole we have to dig out. But at the very least, we should enact A.

So, don't be so dismissive about this local election. We still have the opportunity to vote for more of the same, or for change and accountability in our local leadership.

Break up the "lower county monopoly" by voting for the county ballot measure that's funded by real estate developers in Bethesda?

And "hold them accountable for their foolish decisions" by voting for the county ballot measure that's proposed by Robin Ficker?

How dumb do you think we are?

So you’re saying that MC only gets awful choices at all levels?

No, I'm saying, isn't it curious that big real-estate developers in Bethesda are funding the ballot measure that would get rid of the at-large seats on the County Council, ostensibly to increase the upcounty's voice on the County Council?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I suppose that's the beauty of democracy. As someone that lives upcounty, I am voting Yes on D, so that I can have the same representation as someone that lives in the lower county.

And speaking of how dumb you are, you entirely missed the point of my post. I was highlighting that even though we can't vote out Elrich, we still have the opportunity to effect change in our local election. Questions A-D show that.

You suggest to the previous poster that they must be from Russia because they suggested that the local election will still yield the same results. Your response was that they were a troll cause Elrich isn't on the ballot. You're wrong. Even though Elrich isnt on the ballot, relevant issues about how he is allowed to operate are. And if A or B is passed, he will have to change how he operates.

You already have it.

The at-large members are all from lower county, really Silver Spring. Which makes sense; the system is designed that way. But that means people in lower county have more representation from people up county. And that's not right. The way its designed right now, those "at-large" members have no reason to pay attention to any up county constituents. I get it; I probably wouldn't either if I didnt need their vote to keep my position. But that doesnt make it right.

9 districts. 9 members.

No, it makes no sense, unless you assume that elected officials can only represent the neighborhoods that they personally live in, and why on earth would you do that?

Some of the at-large members who live downcounty have represented the upcounty far better than the upcounty district council member who actually lives here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I suppose that's the beauty of democracy. As someone that lives upcounty, I am voting Yes on D, so that I can have the same representation as someone that lives in the lower county.

And speaking of how dumb you are, you entirely missed the point of my post. I was highlighting that even though we can't vote out Elrich, we still have the opportunity to effect change in our local election. Questions A-D show that.

You suggest to the previous poster that they must be from Russia because they suggested that the local election will still yield the same results. Your response was that they were a troll cause Elrich isn't on the ballot. You're wrong. Even though Elrich isnt on the ballot, relevant issues about how he is allowed to operate are. And if A or B is passed, he will have to change how he operates.

You already have it.

The at-large members are all from lower county, really Silver Spring. Which makes sense; the system is designed that way. But that means people in lower county have more representation from people up county. And that's not right. The way its designed right now, those "at-large" members have no reason to pay attention to any up county constituents. I get it; I probably wouldn't either if I didnt need their vote to keep my position. But that doesnt make it right.

9 districts. 9 members.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I suppose that's the beauty of democracy. As someone that lives upcounty, I am voting Yes on D, so that I can have the same representation as someone that lives in the lower county.

And speaking of how dumb you are, you entirely missed the point of my post. I was highlighting that even though we can't vote out Elrich, we still have the opportunity to effect change in our local election. Questions A-D show that.

You suggest to the previous poster that they must be from Russia because they suggested that the local election will still yield the same results. Your response was that they were a troll cause Elrich isn't on the ballot. You're wrong. Even though Elrich isnt on the ballot, relevant issues about how he is allowed to operate are. And if A or B is passed, he will have to change how he operates.

You already have it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not entirely true. You're correct that we can't boot out Comrade Elrich, but we can try to break up their lower county monopoly by voting Yes to D, and try to give this county fair representation.

We can also try to hold them accountable for their foolish decisions by voting yes on B. It's easy for Elrich to approve 50 million in hazard pay when he knows he can easily tax us more. So we need to consider both questions A & B. B is more restrictive, and may not be wise given the hole we have to dig out. But at the very least, we should enact A.

So, don't be so dismissive about this local election. We still have the opportunity to vote for more of the same, or for change and accountability in our local leadership.

Break up the "lower county monopoly" by voting for the county ballot measure that's funded by real estate developers in Bethesda?

And "hold them accountable for their foolish decisions" by voting for the county ballot measure that's proposed by Robin Ficker?

How dumb do you think we are?

So you’re saying that MC only gets awful choices at all levels?

Anonymous wrote:

The bold is extraordinarily poor leadership. He spent money he didn’t have but expected to have. FEMA reimbursement has ALWAYS been difficult. Why didn’t he know that or plan contingencies around? MCPS has no chance of going back because of complete abdication of leadership responsibility (which gets cheered on here incredibly).