Maryland Politics Watch: November 2007

Friday, November 30, 2007

Van Hollen Statement on Death of Jane Lawton

Washington, D.C. –Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) today released the following statement on the death of Jane Lawton:

Jane Lawton’s sudden death today is a devastating loss for our community. She dedicated her life to changing our community and our state for the better. Jane was a dear friend and I am fortunate to have had the opportunity to have worked closely with her on issues that are important to our county and our state. I will always be grateful to Jane for her energetic support of my campaign for Congress.

She was respected in Maryland’s General Assembly for her leadership and public service. She dedicated her career to improving the environment, protecting the Chesapeake Bay and fighting for affordable housing. As we mourn her loss, we should recommit ourselves to carrying on the causes she championed. I extend my deepest sympathies to Jane’s family. I hope that they can find solace in knowing that our entire community is grieving the loss at this sad time.

Remembering Jane Lawton

I got to know Jane Lawton by volunteering on her 2006 campaign for the House of Delegates. Knocking on doors is hot and sweaty work but Jane made it a lot of fun with lots of smiles and hugs--I always enjoyed laughing over the ups and downs of it over cookies at Cafe Monet after we had completed our "walk lists". Jane was inevitably among the last to show up because she got waylaid chatting with people.

Jane never really "campaigned" so much as just talked to people and made friends. She was effective because she was genuinely interested in people and their lives, always making time to ask about you and your family. She enjoyed her own tremendously. I know she got a real kick out of watching Steve sneak up signs for her around the district and Stephanie passionately campaign for her mom. Even as she ran for the House, she was so excited about Kathleen's wedding.

In an era when too many politicians make their name by dividing people even as they accomplish nothing, Jane possessed a healthy mixture of unaffected charm, an ability to bring people together, and a determination to move ahead. I think that's why Jane managed to steer a major piece of environmental legislation through the General Assembly in a session noted primarily for its lack of action on any major bills. Quite an accomplishment even for a senior legislator but amazing in someone who served for such a short time.

Despite over a decade on the Chevy Chase Town Council, including four as its Chairman, Jane was always a bit nervous when it came to public speaking. I never quite knew why. She had experience, good sense, and knew the facts. Let's just say that anyone who can unravel the mysteries of cable policy and explain it in plain English was never going to be out of her depth in the House of Delegates.

I've don't think I've ever met anyone who was as well liked in her neighborhood. When I was knocking on doors for her in our neighborhood, someone practically commanded me to go away and do this in another precinct because "everyone is already going to vote for her here." Of course, he was right--Jane received nearly unanimous support at the polls in her precinct in an extremely competitive primary.

Jane's last fundraiser before the critical Democratic primary was in Chevy Chase. I've never seen people so happy to give their money because it wasn't donating to a politician but helping out an old friend. She packed the house with friends from not just Chevy Chase but all corners of the County who were happy to help.

I know we'll all miss her.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

The Washington Post on Jane Lawton

An article on the life of Del. Jane Lawton will be printed on the front page of the Metro section of the Washington Post on Friday. Maryland Moment has posted tributes to Jane from elected officials from around our state.

A Tribute to Jane Lawton

Adam Pagnucco submitted the following tribute to Jane Lawton. I'd be happy to open up my blog to anyone else who has any thoughts or remembrances they'd like to share about Jane.

Jane Lawton was not only a great state delegate. She was also a warm, wonderful person and no one who knew her will ever forget her.

I first met Jane at the Wheaton Arts District kickoff last summer. At that time, we were launching our guerrilla campaign for a new Forest Glen Metro entrance and we were busily accosting every politician we could find. But Jane was different from everyone else. She was funny, curious, chatting, laughing and utterly without pretension. And she didn’t even mention she was running for office despite the intensity of the campaign season (and the nearby presence of several opponents). Can you imagine that?

But Jane was full of surprises. When ten of us showed up at a state hearing to testify about the horrible Georgia-Forest Glen intersection, Jane actually cheered us on. She told us, “I love you guys! Keep it up!” Far from retreating from us, she embraced us and treated us as if we were her kids.

Others will comment on her political career, including her apprenticeship with U.S. Speaker of the House Carl Albert, her long service as mayor of Chevy Chase, her dominance of the 2006 District 18 delegate election and her remarkable effectiveness on environmental legislation. It is a great shame for Maryland environmentalists that she only served through two general sessions because she had a lot more to offer on protections for the Bay.

But the Jane I will never forget is the sweet, beautiful lady with a great big laugh, a great big smile and a great big hug. Sure, Jane liked to talk about politics, policy issues and the rapacious cable companies she chased in her day job. But she also liked to talk about food, her neighborhood, what was happening in my life (or anyone else she was talking to), and especially her daughters. Jane loved her daughters and could not stop talking about how proud she was of them. She was a sheer delight to be with. Any room Jane entered was a happier place once she walked in. If you were lucky enough to know Jane, you trusted her and you loved her. And she loved us in return.

There will be other state delegates in District 18. But there will never be another Jane Lawton.

Goodbye, Jane

Jane’s passing is a terrible loss for so many people. A loss for the people of District 18, who she served ably and honorably as our delegate in Annapolis. A loss for her fellow delegates, who saw in her the model of what they ought to be: a public servant whose commitment to getting things done outweighed any need to trumpet her own accomplishments. A loss for environmentalists across the state, who had in Jane Lawton a knowledgeable and capable ally. And a loss for those of us who were lucky enough to consider her our friend as well as our delegate.

I never had a conversation with Jane where we didn’t end up laughing over something. Being with her was a joy.

Jane, we will miss you.

Delegate Jane Lawton Passes Away

My only words after seeing this message on WaPo blog and confirmed on MoGa is WOW. I can't believe it. I supported her campaign in 2006, as part of the District 18 slate. But I remember her run for the same seat in 2002, I was handing out literature for Chris Van Hollen's Congressional run at the Wheaton Metro and she was doing the same for her race.

What a gracious and wonderful woman. Jane Lawton had lived here for many years but she never lost that Oklahoma twang in her voice. Her smile went from ear to ear. I never heard her utter a mean word about anyone. I admired her for willingness to learn from others. That is a rare trait among elected officials.

In the regular 2007 session, she played a vital role in the Storm Water Runoff legislation that was part of her committee. (Here a list of things she did in her first session as a Delegate, 2006). I wish I could speak to the 2007 legislation better but I do know that it was boring legislation but very vital to the health of the Bay and to the environment. Her work there was critical and she did not grandstand on her accomplishment. But I heard many other Delegates laud her role. That is a sure sign of respect from her colleagues.

I will add more ... after I catch my breath. But what a terrible loss. My condolences go out to her family.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

MTA Wants Your Uninformed Input

I received the following email from PR Coordinator Kacie Lacy (your tax dollars at work) on the Purple Line:

Dear Community Member:

Mike Madden of the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) asked me to contact you on his behalf. As part of our on-going commitment to public involvement for the Purple Line Study, the MTA will hold Public Open Houses throughout the study area in December. We encourage you and your community members to attend. The meeting dates, locations, and additional meeting information is attached.

Your input along with that of your community members is very important to us and I hope that you will be able to attend one of our Open Houses. Thank you for your interest and continued involvement in this process. Please contact Michael Madden at 410-767-3694 or at mmadden@mtamaryland.com, if you have any questions regarding the Purple Line or our upcoming Open Houses.

Ironically, I received this email telling me how Mike Madden wants my "input" and with an attached post card requesting my "feedback" just after my earlier post explaining that MTA is uninterested in your informed feedback as Mike Madden will not release the ridership study before the meeting. Indeed, it is unclear if any aspect of the ridership study will ever be made public other than its conclusions and MTAs preferred route. The public is not going to be permitted to examine the basis for any of the conclusions because then the public might question them.

That is not a study but an assertion. And it makes a mockery of the pretense of interest in public comment--not to mention the legal requirement for it.

Rep. Gilchrest Faces Another Challenger

There have been rumors for awhile, but tomorrow it becomes official: GOP State Sen. E.J. Pipkin will join State Sen. Andrew Harris in challenging the reelection of fellow Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest. Pipkin gained statewide visibility back in 2004 during his unsuccessful run to replace Barbara Mikulski in the U.S. Senate.

But is this really everything it appears? Is Pipkin really angling to knock Gilchrest out of Congress? Or is this a plan to actually help Gilchrest?

Pipkin would likely divide the anti-incumbent primary vote to Gilchrest’s benefit. Considering the number of prominent Republicans – including former Governor Ehrlich – who have already come out in support of Harris, Gilchrest may feel sufficiently endangered to ask Pipkin to help him out this way.

And Pipkin has nothing to lose by running, since he doesn’t have to vacate his own state senate seat to do it.

If I were Gilchrest, this is the sort of divide-and-conquer plan I would come up with.

On the other hand, this may very well be exactly what it looks like: Pipkin challenging a vulnerable Congressman so he can take his place.

Either way, it should be an interesting primary to watch.

Pseudo-Openness at MTA Purple Line Meetings on Ridership

The Maryland Transit Association will be meeting with people from the community to unveil the ridership study and discuss the Purple Line (see dates and locations below). Unfortunately, the nature of the meetings exhibit that this is really not an open or informative process despite the numerous meetings.

I called MTA to ask some questions and got Mike Madden, the Project Manager, himself. (It turns out that his phone number is posted on MTA's Purple Line website). I asked if MTA would be posting the ridership study on its website prior to the meetings. At a previous Purple Line meeting, I had suggested that it would be helpful if MTA put the information up for the public and was told that this was a good idea.

Mike Madden had "no recollection" of this and explained that there would not be time because MTA would be "refining" its estimates right up until the last minute. At that point, I asked if it was wise to hold all these meetings so soon if the estimates weren't complete yet. Mr. Madden stated that the final estimates wouldn't change much from the preliminary estimates.

I asked if I could see the preliminary estimates if that is the case. Madden said "No, because no information is going to be released before the public meeting." When I asked if it could be posted to the website after the first meeting, he seemed doubtful as the pace of meetings would preclude his staff posting information on the website.

Mike Madden was unmoved by my argument that the public could give better "feedback", a key purpose claimed for the meeting on invitations, if the public had access to information before the meetings. He said that they could respond based on what they saw at the time.

The public shouldn't expect to take much information away from the meeting. Mike Madden said that they would not have copies of the ridership study and that there might or might not be handouts with information on them. At previous meetings, MTA staff was unable to answer specific questions about how cost and ridership estimates were developed.

As it turns out, Mike Madden explained that there will be no public presentation at the meetings, just poster boards with information so the public can ask questions. Perhaps this isn't a bad format. It allows members of the public to ask questions that concern them, though it also prevents members of the public from hearing each other's questions and answers to them.

In short, the meetings are an odd mixture of secrecy with psuedo-openness. The public is welcome to view the findings but not the study behind the findings. Even the findings will be presented only when deemed appropriate by MTA and the public will not be able to receive copies or even summaries of them. It all appears designed to provide an image of consultation without the substance of it.

One wonders why MTA cannot simply make the information more available. If the study has been done properly, surely the ridership numbers should be able to stand up to genuine public scrutiny. MTA will no doubt point to its numerous public meetings as evidence of public consultation. However, the meetings are designed solely to convey MTA's conclusions while hiding the basis for them.

These meetings aren't really a request for "feedback" or even designed to explain the ridership study but a promotional tour. Listening to the public can be tedious and no doubt it is tiresome to present the same information in meeting after meeting. However, it is part of the job and we deserve a genuinely open process--not one designed to promote MTA's preferred Purple Line route in the guise of informing the public and getting public input. MTA can do better.

Monday, December 3, 2007
East Silver Spring Elementary School
631 Silver Spring Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20910

Wednesday, December 5, 2007
College Park City Hall
4500 Knox Road
College Park, MD 20740

Monday, December 10, 2007
Langley Park Community Center
1500 Merrimac Drive
Hyattsville, MD 20783

Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School Cafeteria
4301 East-West Highway
Bethesda, MD 20814

Thursday, December 13, 2007
(Snow Date: Tuesday, December 18, 2007)
West Lanham Hills Recreation Center
7700 Decatur Road
Landover Hills, MD 20784

P.S. Please put your name if you want to post a comment. Thanks.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Annapolis Foreign Policy Watch

If Gov. Martin O'Malley can negotiate peace between the House of Delegates and the Senate, I suppose we are truly living in wondrous times, so why shouldn't peace be made between the Israelis and the Palestinians in Annapolis?

On the other hand, the city's role in the crafting of the Constitution is only guardedly auspicious. When delegates from met in Annapolis in 1786, they agreed that they would meet next year in Philadelphia. Of the thirteen colonies, only five states sent delegates. Maryland, showing the leadership that would leave Virginia as the mother of presidents and Maryland as the mother of Spiro Agnew, did not send delegates to the Convention held in its own capital.

Low expectations are clearly the order of the day in Annapolis. While the general shape of a settlement has been apparent for sometime, no one seems to know how to get from here to there. The main players in the drama are all weakened leaders. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert can only envy President George Bush's dismal approval ratings. One poll showed that 65% of Israelis think that Olmert has no mandate to go to Annapolis and make major concessions; a majority want him removed from office. Such things matter in a democracy and Israeli is a lively, if fractious, one.

Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is really only president in the West Bank as Hamas rules the Gaza Strip. The Gaza strip is small but extremely densely populated, containing over one-third of the Palestinian population. Abbas, as affable as Arab leaders appear to come, is weak too and any willingness to compromise, crucial to negotiations, will be interpreted as weakness. Hamas is already declaring that Abbas has no right to concede an inch of Palestine.

The future is even more dismal. Likud Leader Benjamin Netanyahu appears like to win the next Israeli elections and return as a prime minister opposed to the peace process. It seems unlikely that Abbas could be replaced by a leader more willing to negotiate a peace settlement.

The problems of negotiating peace remain high even leaving aside the current dearth of leadership. Bernard Lewis outlined the problems on the Palestinian side in an opinion piece heavily on realism which is needed here even if it can be as unwelcome as a splash of cold water in the morning:

The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.
If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.

If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.

PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their diplomatic discourse in foreign languages. But that's not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for success. Without genuine acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.

The second problem is that there is the lack of any sign that any Palestinian leader seems able bind his people to an agreement. Leaving aside the current question of Hamas, no Palestinian leader has shown the ability and the inclination to prevent Palestinian attacks on Israel except as part of a short-term strategy.

The Israelis also have a sizable opposition to a peace agreement for a variety of reasons as well. A small minority will even take up arms. The difference is that the Israeli government has shown the ability to enforce discipline on its own people when it desires as demonstrated by the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza.

Is it any wonder that the Bush administration is trying to keep expectations low?

Monday, November 26, 2007

Planning Commissioner Against Open Space Program

Planning Commissioner Allison Bryant isn't a fan of the Legacy Open Space program through which residents can nominate spaces for acquisition by the County if they come on the market:

‘‘I’ve always been disturbed by the idea that a property can be nominated for something by anybody, and it doesn’t belong to them,” Bryant said.
Bryant earlier disclosed his role in opening up the Montgomery College of Art and Design in Wheaton for residential development. The prospect of townhouses being built on the site sparked neighbors’ interest in getting the site into the county’s Legacy Open Space holdings.

Nightmare on Elm Street?

The Gazette posted this article about the playground equipment at the park.

Friday, November 23, 2007

Nonsense from MoCo Republican Adol Owen-Williams

Montgomery County Republican Central Committee member Adol T. Owen-Williams — the man who shouted out “Heil Hitler” when the County Council passed an ordinance barring discrimination against transgender individuals — has been kind enough to share his reasons for opposing the bill. He writes to the Gazette:

My ‘‘Heil Hitler” comment was clearly directed at the council president for the Nazi-like manner in which she ran the vote and would not tolerate public input. My comment about my fear of dead little girls being found in rest rooms was couched in the context of the infamous Hadden Clark, who is in prison for the deaths of Michelle Dorr and Laura Houghteling. He enjoyed dressing like a woman.

Owen-Williams’s reasoning is neither logical nor consistent with the facts.

Of the hundreds of murders that have taken place in Montgomery County in the past twenty years, two of them were committed by this man who apparently “enjoyed dressing like a woman.”

Did Hadden Clark find his victims while dressed as a woman in a women’s restroom?

No.

Michelle Dorr was a young girl who was a friend and neighbor of Clark’s niece. Clark had lived in the same house as his niece, and he murdered Michelle in his niece’s bedroom. Laura Houghteling was a college graduate killed at her mother’s home, where Hadden Clark worked as a gardener. In both cases, the victims knew Clark. Neither murder had anything to do with men stalking bathrooms disguised as women in order to attack “little girls.”

If some twisted male individual wanted to dress as a woman in order to get into women’s bathrooms to murder little girls, are we really supposed to think that the only thing stopping him is a Montgomery County law on who can use a women’s bathroom?

So Mr. Owen-Williams’s opposition to rights for transgender Marylanders certainly isn’t logical.

What Mr. Owen-Williams does not seem particularly interested in is helping to ensure that transgender Marylanders find any accommodation in the law. If — instead of voicing his loud opposition to this bill — he had come up with alternative reasonable legislation to help transgender individuals live complete and dignified lives, I’d be more likely to view his opposition as principled rather than an expression of simple animus.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Leggett Signs Transgender Rights Bill

County Executive Ike Leggett signed a transgender rights bill into law today. Opponents are still apoplectic about the "bathroom problem," claiming that men will now have the right to pose as women to use the women's room and vice-versa. The Post exposed this as a non-problem in any other place which has enacted a similar ordinance:

But officials in cities with similar protections said fears of people abusing the law to gain entry into private facilities were unfounded. Human rights officials in the District, California and Colorado, for instance, reported only a handful of phone calls from employers seeking guidance for legally segregating restrooms or locker rooms. . . .

In the five years since the city of Boulder, Colo., added "gender variance" to its anti-discrimination law, the Office of Human Rights has not had any complaints from businesses or employers, according to Administrator Carmen Atilano. Boulder's code distinguishes between transgender individuals who have had sex reassignment surgery (they may use the facilities of their anatomical sex) and people who are in transition (they must be granted "reasonable accommodations" to access such facilities).

If the District, California, and Colorado residents manage to deal with this issue with maturity, we'll somehow get by too. And perhaps on the eve of our national festival, we can feel thankful that Montgomery County, part of a state and a country founded by people fleeing religious persecution, has taken a step to allow a small minority to live with a bit less fear and more dignity.

On Political Pulse

Delegate Tom Hucker, a MD Delegate from District 20 (Silver Spring, Takoma Park) will be on the Political Pulse political talk show on:

-- Thursday, November 22nd at 9:00 p.m.;
-- Tuesday, November 27th at 9:30 p.m.; and
-- Thursday, November 29th at 9:00 p.m.

The discussion will focus on the Special Legislative Session that just ended in Annapolis. Delegate Hucker will discuss his votes on taxes and slots and discuss other issues that arose during the session. The Special Session was held to address the $1.7 Billion state budget deficit.

Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.

The Post's Verdict on the Special Session

The Maryland General Assembly has gone home for the holiday. We're ready for turkey here as well, so blogging will be light over the next few days.

In a long editorial, the Washington Post editorial board renders its verdict on the special session here. Despite its disappointment that the tax package was not more progressive and over slots, it generally praises the Governor for addressing the structural deficit as well as health care.

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Peter Franchot: Speaking His Mind

No on will accuse Comptroller Peter Franchot of keeping too quiet for the sake of being a team player. Oddly for someone in charge of promoting the State's fiscal health, Franchot denounced the special session to balance the budget as premature. Unlike past comptrollers, Franchot even refused to allow his staff to participate in budget discussions during the special session.

Franchot often mentions his long experience as a member of the Appropriations Committee of the House of Delegates. I doubt if any other long-term member of that Committee learned that the best way to influence the State's budget is not to participate in drafting it. One wonders if his unwillingness to participate in work was the source of his well-known reputation as a "show horse" rather than a workhorse.

Franchot's unwillingness to participate in the special session has not stopped him from denouncing the outcome:

Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot (D), a vocal critic of the special session, said the tax package is "regressive" and "may damage the Maryland economy, which is in a volatile and soft position right now."

This statement probably makes Franchot the first comptroller in Maryland history to talk down the State's economy. However, the real kicker is that Franchot admitted immediately that he has no real idea about the impact of the budget. As it turns out, his office hasn't analyzed it yet:

Franchot, the state's chief tax collector, said his office is reviewing the laws and will soon release a fiscal analysis as it prepares to implement the new tax measures Jan. 1. He said it is too soon to know the full impact.
"We're still searching for the black box," Franchot said, likening the process to "when a plane crashes and you go to find the black box to get the data."

Progressive or Regressive?

Whether the overall budget is regressive or progressive remains a matter of debate:

Nick Johnson, a fiscal director at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the impact of the laws will be "a little uneven across the income scale."

"I think low-income families are going to take a certain amount of a hit," Johnson said. "There's no way around that. They're going to get hit worse than they would have under the governor's original plan." . . .

Sean Dobson, executive director of Progressive Maryland, said the legislative package is "a victory for working families."

"While there is some regressive stuff in there, the overall package represents a win," Dobson said. "What we have now is an improvement over the status quo."

Of course, this debate really remains of interest to insiders. I suspect that most people will dislike "taxes" going up and care less about the impact on the rich or the poor. Remember, America has long been a land that celebrates the wealthy as "winners." Few complained about the relatively flat state income tax during the election campaign.

However, whether we hear much about it, people are right to express interest the impact of the tax plans on people of different incomes just as they should be concerned about its impact on the State's economy. The lower and middle classes have been increasingly squeezed as the cost of housing, health care, and transportation rise faster than incomes. Will the budget plan exacerbate that squeeze and to what extent?

Monday, November 19, 2007

Contacting Our Legislators

Many of us have strong feelings about the issues addressed in the special session that just ended. Like many of the people reading this, I told anyone who’d listen what I wanted my elected officials in Annapolis to do.

But I didn’t tell them what I wanted them to do – at least, I didn’t tell my three delegates. And that makes me wonder about other people.

Did you contact your delegation in Annapolis? And do you think your action or inaction made any difference on how they voted?

I live in District 18, and I wish I had done more.

On the good side, I’ve spoken numerous times with Senator Rich Madaleno about taxes and slots, and I also called his office several times during the special session. He and his staff were pretty clear on what I thought. I know where he stands, too. We are generally in agreement, and I trust him to do the right thing – which includes knowing when and how much to compromise.

But I did not contact Delegates Ana Sol Gutierrez, Jane Lawton, or Jeff Waldstreicher.

Why not? I’m not 100% sure. To some extent, it’s because I know their politics and don’t feel that they need to hear from me. I generally trust them to do the right thing while wading through the thicket of numbers and making the compromises that are part of good legislating.

But on the income tax issue, I really should have called them. Since I wanted to see a more progressive income tax plan, I was especially upset to read that that many members of the Montgomery County delegation were insisting on a less progressive one. And I had no idea what role, if any, the District 18 delegates had in pushing for that change.

Yet I didn’t ask. And I didn’t bother to let the three delegates know what I thought about it, either before or after the deed was done.

Does it matter? I hardly have an inflated view of my importance - I’m just one person, a plain old neighborhood activist who actually has a pretty good relationship with the delegates. And I’ve shared my opinions with them on other matters.

Would calling them early on have had an impact on their thinking or on their votes? I don’t know. But not calling them was a sure-fire way to not have an impact.

What about other people? Did you contact your legislators? Do you think it made a difference?

More generally, could those of us in Maryland’s liberal community have worked more effectively for a more progressive revenue package? Or do we simply not have sufficient numbers among the electorate or in the General Assembly to have accomplished our goals?

Monday Morning on MPW

Taxes
The special session is drawing to a close but it isn't doing so quietly. We have the latest news on General Assembly's income tax plan with an update on the Republican filibuster and which senators, including one from Montgomery, were opposing closing debate early into the morning to prevent passage of the plan. Another post looks at why the Gazette columnists are so cranky about the special session's outcome.

Slots
Adam Pagnucco explains why progressives should not punish legislators who voted for the slots referendum. In a separate post, I take a look at three key votes on slots in the House of Delegates, including information on how each Montgomery delegate voted. Comptroller Peter Franchot hasn't won any friends in Annapolis through his opposition to slots and the special session.

On the Light Side
Kevin Gillogly took a walk through Silver Spring with Ben Cardin, the Penguin, and a former student of mine.

On the Dark Side
Paul Gordon wonders if past Iraq War comments will come back to haunt Sen. Andrew Harris in his congressional bid.

We're Watching: Slots Vote Analysis

Passing slots through the House of Delegates was no easy feat as a previous post outlined. The key vote on the bill passed 86-52; constitutional amendments require 85 votes so slots proponents had only one spare vote. There were also two "poison pill" amendments offered prior to the critical vote on the amendment by slots foe Del. Luiz Simmons (D- 17) designed to make it difficult to reconcile the bill with the Senate and for a referendum to pass.

The first Simmons amendment would have changed the bill to require a county (or Baltimore City) to vote in favor of slots during the referendum in order for slot machines to be placed in that county (or Baltimore County). This amendment was a brilliant strategic move because it altered the referendum to make it one on slots in each county.

In Montgomery, polls suggest that people are much more in favor of allowing slots elsewhere in Maryland than in Montgomery. My guess is that many people elsewhere in the State feel the same way, so this amendment would help juice the anti-slots vote. The amendment failed 61-67 with 13 delegates not voting (only 5 are recorded as "excused"). Note that the delegates who didn't vote held the balance on each of the two Simmons amendments.

This vote was probably the hardest vote for slots supporters because it required them to vote against allowing their constituents to prohibit slots directly in their county through the referendum vote. I'm sure some of Del. Simmons's pro-slots colleagues will take opportunities over the next several years to remind him exactly how much they deeply appreciate his passion on this issue.

The second Simmons amendment would have prohibited people associated with the gambling industry from making campaign donations. This amendment failed 61-66 with 14 delegates not voting (again, only 5 are recorded as "excused").

Based on the outcome of the three votes, it is clear that many delegates did not cast consistent pro or anti-slots votes. Some Democrats who planned to vote against the constitutional amendment probably didn't want to vote for the Simmons amendments in order to avoid: (1) further angering the Governor and the Speaker (not to mention MCEA, which was strongly in favor of the bill), (2) bringing an ignominious end to the special session which would have reflected badly on the Democratic Party, and (3) to help out the Governor early in his term even if they felt that they couldn't vote for slots.

Some Democrats who voted for one or both of the Simmons amendments and then for the constitutional amendment may have wanted to allow the people to decide but then also to give people more control over whether or not slots come to their county. Like slots opponents who voted against the constitutional amendment, they may also worry about the financial might of the gambling industry. Nonetheless, they undercut whatever credit they earned with the Speaker and the Governor by voting for either amendment.

Some might argue that Simmons amendment supporters who voted for the constitutional amendment may have wanted political cover against an anti-slots backlash. I find this unpersuasive as it it hard to see these legislators receiving many thanks from slots opponents after having voted for the constitutional amendment--the central vote on the issue which required 85 votes to pass and could have been defeated if just two delegates changed their votes.

I wonder if some of the delegates who didn't vote despite being present simply felt extremely heavily pressured from both sides and didn't come to a decision in time during the grueling floor session. They may have also wanted to save the Governor from defeat in special session even if they voted against the constitutional amendment.

No doubt there are many other explanations for various vote combinations which I haven't given here, though I have a feeling I'll be hearing some of them soon.

Let's see how Montgomery's delegates voted:

District 14
Del. Herman Taylor played a critical role in keeping the slots bill alive by not voting on either of the two Simmons amendments though he voted against the constitutional amendment. Del. Anne Kaiser cast consistent pro-slots votes. Del. Karen Montgomery is recorded as "excused from voting" for all three votes.

District 15
Dels. Kathleen Dumais and Brian Feldman voted against the first Simmons amendment on requiring a local majority for slots in the referendum for slots to be placed in that jurisdiction. They both also voted against the second Simmons amendment on campaign finance before voting for the constitutional amendment. Del. Craig Rice cast consistent pro-slots votes.

District 16
Del. Bill Bronrott voted for both Simmons amendments before voting for the constitutional amendment. Del. Susan Lee and newly appointed Del. Bill Frick cast consistent pro-slots votes.

District 17
Del. Simmons shocked no one by voting against the constitutional amendment and for both of his own amendments. Equally unsurprising were the consistent votes cast for slots by Del. Kumar Barve, the House Majority Leader and a member of the leadership. Del. Jim Gilchrest voted with Barve (i.e. against Simmons) on all three votes.

District 18
Like Del. Taylor in District 14, Del. Jeff Waldstreicher voted against the constitutional amendment after having not voted on either of the Simmons amendments and thus helping to keep the slots bill alive. Dels. Jane Lawton cast consistent pro-slots votes. Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez voted for the slots amendment but also for the Simmons amendment on campaign finance.

District 19
Before voting for the constitutional amendment, Del. Henry Heller voted for the first Simmons amendment to require a local majority for slots in the referendum to have slots in that jurisdiction. Del. Heller didn't vote on the second Simmons amendment on campaign finance, tacitly helping prevent that amendment for passing. Del. Roger Manno voted the same as Del. Heller except that he cast a negative vote on the second Simmons amendment. Del. Ben Kramer cast consistent anti-slots votes.

District 20
Del. Heather Mizeur voted against the constitutional amendment and for the first Simmons amendment. However, she also voted against the second Simmons amendment. Del. Tom Hucker voted differently from Del. Mizeur on all three votes. He voted for the constitutional amendment having voted against the first Simmons amendment. However, Del. Hucker voted for the second Simmons amendment on campaign donations from slots interests. Del. Sheila Hixon, the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, cast consistent pro-slots votes.

District 39
Like Dels. Mizeur and Hucker in District 20, Dels. Saqib Ali and Charles Barkley cast opposed votes on all three of the slots bills. Del. Ali voted against a constitutional amendment and for the second Simmons amendment. However, he also voted against the first Simmons amendment requiring a local majority for slots to be placed in that jurisdiction. Del. Barkley voted for the constitutional amendment and against the second Simmons amendment. However, Del. Barkley voted for the first Simmons amendment. Newly appointed Del. Kirill Reznick cast consistent pro-slots votes.

Update: Del. Heather Mizeur pointed out gently via email that I had incorrectly reported her vote on the two Simmons amendments as well as confused the order of the votes. I appreciate the correction and have altered the post accordingly. Thanks Heather.

Cranky Gazette

All of the Gazette columnists dislike the outcome of the special session for totally different reasons. Blair Lee writes that Montgomery got taken again by caving on the income tax since its revenues come disproportionately from Montgomery County. However, Blair Lee completely ignores the rest of the tax package, and one should assess it based on the total impact, not just one tax.

My colleague, Allan Lichtman, attacks the Senate, and specifically senators from Montgomery, for exactly the opposite reason. Allan thinks the tax bill is not progressive enough:

State Senators from Montgomery County played a major role in dismantling proposals for a progressive state tax structure. Where was Brian Frosh of Bethesda, the progressive conscience of the Senate for so many years? Where was freshman Sen. Jamie Raskin of Takoma Park, who promised in his campaign against veteran incumbent Ida Ruben to be a progressive hero in the Senate? In what is likely the most important vote they will cast in their four-year term, both senators voted for the regressive tax package, along with nearly every other senator from Montgomery County. Commendably, Frosh and Raskin voted against the slots proposal.
It is understandable that senators from Montgomery County would want to protect their constituents who are relatively more affluent than residents of other jurisdictions. But they should not be protecting the 5 percent to 10 percent of the county’s richest citizens at the expense of everyone else. The rich have already benefited enormously from the tax cuts pushed through Congress by the Bush administration and today rake in more of the national income than at any time since the beginning of the Great Depression in 1929.

Lichtman is right that the affluent have benefited from the Bush tax cuts and essentially argues that the proposed tax bite on them was so small that they would notice it. The latter part of this argument was undermined by the backlash against the bill. They appear to have noticed. Opponents also argue that raising federal taxes doesn't cause Maryland to suffer the same loss in competitiveness vis-a-vis other states, so the place to seek more progressive taxation is in Congress--not the General Assembly.

I discovered a couple of interesting factoids:

(1) Maryland has the 14th most progressive tax structure in the nation according to at one analysis (located using that scientific method of "doing a google"). Maryland is more progressive than such liberal paragons as Massachusetts (27th) and New York (26th). Virginia is just one notch below us in 15th place. Delaware is first in the nation in terms of progressivity but it has very few taxes at all.

(2) Maryland's tax structure is mildly regressive--the tax structure of all but six states is regressive with many being substantially more so than Maryland. Of course, federal taxes, which loom much larger than state and local taxes, shape the overall structure of the tax burden.

Teed Off at Franchot

Comptroller Peter Franchot must be feeling a cool breeze right now. He lobbied against the special session, against slots, and would not even let his staff participate in the budget process. While Franchot may be positioning himself for a primary challenge to Gov. Martin O'Malley, others speculate that Franchot will face a primary challenge if he runs for reelection:

And Franchot’s interference during the special session has further incinerated relationships and fueled speculation that party leaders could field a primary challenger in 2010, probably Baltimore County Executive James T. Smith, who is term-limited.

It looks like an anti-Franchot candidate won' t have to look far for support:

‘‘I think he has hurt himself dramatically...” said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Dist. 27) of Chesapeake Beach. ‘‘He’s become an albatross in terms of moving the Democratic Party forward.”
‘‘I think he needs to revisit his job description. He’s not a policy guy,” said Del. Galen R. Clagett (D-Dist. 3A) of Frederick, who encouraged Franchot to run against Comptroller William Donald Schaefer (D) last year. ‘‘It ain’t what you do, it’s how you do it. Maybe he ought to look for a less flamboyant way to get his message across.”
But Franchot has not backed off. He sent a letter to the presiding officers opposing the special session, protested the Senate’s plan to expand the sales tax to computer services and continued to demonize legalized gambling.
Earlier this year, he clashed with O’Malley (D) and Budget Secretary T. Eloise Foster (D) over increasing salaries for his top staffers. And this week, Franchot lobbied his former House colleagues to vote against slots, placing personal calls to a number of delegates.

And to think we thought all would be quiet with the departure of Comptroller William Donald Schaefer.

Sunday, November 18, 2007

Special Session Winding Up

The Senate voted to accede to the slots proposal adopted by the House of Delegates. The conference committee between the two houses has also agreed on a compromise on the income tax hike:

The compromise plan would make the individual income tax more progressive, would increase the sales and vehicle titling tax rates from 5 percent to 6 percent, and would increase the corporate income tax rate from 7 percent to 8.25 percent.

In a compromise between the chambers, legislative leaders agreed to adding three new income tax brackets for high-earners, changing a tax structure in which most filers qualify for the top rate of 4.75 percent.

Under the proposed new structure, individuals would pay 5 percent on taxable income above $150,000 a year, and couples would pay that rate on taxable income over $200,000 a year. A 5.25 percent bracket would apply to income greater than $300,000 a year for individuals, and $350,000 a year for couples. All income above $500,000 a year would be taxed at 5.5 percent.

The General Assembly also agreed to extend the sales tax to computer services to generate $200 million per year but set the new tax to expire after five years. Finally, legislators asked Gov. Martin O'Malley to cut his proposed budget by $550 million.

The Baltimore Sun has a photo montage if you want to make an Olympic moment out of the closure of the special session.

Update
As of very early in the morning, the Republicans were filibustering successfully the tax bill in the Senate. They were joined by five Democrats: Sens. Brochin, Della, Forehand, Klausmeier, and Stone. The real surprise on the list to me is Montgomery Sen. Jennie Forehand (D-17), an affable woman who represents a safe Democratic district and isn't known for allying with the Republicans. Baltimore City Sen. George Della (D-46) also represents a safe Democratic district but has a poor relationship with Senate President Mike Miller and is probably enjoying the chance to make his life more difficult.

Update II
The tax package passed at 2:36am this morning.

Why Progressives Should Not Punish Legislators Who Voted for the Slots Referendum

by Adam Pagnucco

In two of the most critical, hotly contested votes in at least fifteen years, Maryland’s state legislators recently voted to send the issue of slots to a referendum. Anti-slots voters howled with betrayal. Gambling bosses munched their cigars in glee and stroked the cash in their wallets. The forces of evil massed at the gates of I-95, poised to let loose the dogs of addiction and vice into the Free State. So naturally, liberals should punish the traitorous legislators who signed Maryland over to the armies of immorality. Right?

Wrong.

Here are five reasons progressives should not punish legislators who voted for the slots referendum:

1. A special session collapse would lead to more tax hikes and/or spending cuts later

Throughout the special session, Senate President Mike Miller repeatedly warned that failure to pass a slots referendum might lead to general impasse. If that happened, the legislators would have to take up deficit reduction again in the general session in early 2008. But since new revenue collections would be delayed from the end of 2007 to the summer of 2008, the hikes would now have to be about $500 million greater. The most likely source of further tax hikes would be related to the sales tax as Montgomery County’s delegation would no doubt block any further attempt to raise income taxes on the rich. Alternatively, spending cuts would inevitably affect education aid and state government staffing. No wonder labor unions were urging wavering legislators to support the referendum.

Would more sales tax hikes and reduced education spending really be in the interest of progressives? Of course not, so the legislators faced a “lesser-of-two-evils” choice. In fact, this pattern of decision-making was the hallmark of the entire special session.

2. Relationships with the Governor and the leadership are important

A politician’s effectiveness is to a great degree based on relationships with others, the pursuit of mutual gains and resulting negotiating leverage. In Annapolis, the most important relationships are with the Democratic leadership and the Governor’s office. The leadership has exclusive control of committee assignments, committee chairmanships and, by extension, bill appearances on the floor. The Governor has unusually tight control over budgeting as well as the giant apparatus of state government. Every legislator has to negotiate this set of relationships to accomplish his or her priorities as well as to meet the needs of his or her district. Politicians without relationships become pariahs, howling at the moon while the rest of the pack feasts on the night’s catch.

The slots referendum vote was, to this point, the most important vote in the Governor’s political career. It was also a test of the Democratic leadership’s ability to work together (not always an easy task between the two chambers) and clear the table of troublesome budget problems prior to the next round of elections. Any legislator who rejects both the Governor and the leadership in their hour of greatest need runs the risk of ruining their ability to deliver grants, aid, transportation projects and general services needed by their district. After all, should such a legislator later approach the Governor for help, he or she might well be the recipient of an icy glare and a cool, “Where were you when I needed you?”

Again we see a “lesser-of-two-evils” decision. Don’t blame those legislators who acted to preserve their effectiveness on other liberal priorities and constituent service.

3. No one demonstrated ideological purity

One of the great ironies of the special session is the behavior of some of Montgomery County’s “liberal” delegation. The tax hikes that encountered the greatest resistance among such members were the Governor’s increased income tax rates on Maryland’s wealthiest residents. Their opposition was based on competitiveness with Virginia, but why shouldn’t the same arguments apply to the sales tax or the tobacco tax? Why the selective outrage?

Some of the legislators who opposed slots worked to reduce the added taxes on the rich in the Governor’s income tax proposal and did not utter a peep of protest against the $730 million sales tax hike – yet they still call themselves “progressives.” If you are looking for ideological purity, you may find it in church, but you will not find any in Annapolis.

4. Slots will keep coming back unless they are defeated with a referendum

Slots have been on the verge of passing for years. In 2005, both chambers of the legislature approved slots bills but could not reconcile them. Anti-slots activists have known a painful truth for years: all it takes is a handful of changed votes to get a pro-slots majority in the legislature. Given the rates of turnover in state legislative elections, it is possible that sooner or later slots will finally pass.

Everyone knows that a vampire will not die until a stake is driven through its heart. Defeating slots at the ballot box may be the only way to destroy the creature once and for all.

5. Heed the people

There have always been two sets of arguments around slots. First are the economic arguments. Some consider gambling fees a voluntary levy (putting aside addictions) and therefore superior to involuntary taxes. Others say gambling revenues are at least matched by health and welfare spending (and more intangible costs) associated with remedying the problems of addiction. Second are the moral arguments. Some see gambling as a victimless crime, or not a crime at all, and say the state has no business outlawing it. Others criticize gambling as inherently immoral and destructive of our culture.

Those who argue against a referendum are implying that the citizens of Maryland are too ignorant to weigh the economic arguments and are too corrupt and/or weak-minded to evaluate the moral arguments. These sorts of decisions are beyond the capabilities of average citizens and can only be decided by those who manage to get elected. Is this really what progressives think about the masses?

Why should progressives fear democracy? If the reasons for opposing slots are truly superior, Maryland’s progressive community is more than capable of triumphing at the ballot box. And victory is entirely possible. While polls suggest that a majority of Marylanders favor slots, anti-slots activists are much more motivated than pro-slots voters. Liberals may very well win by getting out their vote in anti-slots strongholds like Montgomery County, Prince George’s County and Ocean City. If that happens, perhaps those who voted for the referendum should be thanked by allowing the people to slay the monster once and for all.

Walking Through Silver Spring with Ben & The Penguin

Ok it was me, Sen Cardin, his wife Myrna, a dozen other supporters, the official mascot of the largest unincorporated town in the US and around a thousand of our closest friends. The rest of you called this the Silver Spring Thanksgiving Day Parade. I call it a people watching watching extravaganza. Besides being a supporter of Sen. Cardin because of his political views, it is so nice to see a Baltimore politician in MoCo outside of the election season.

This was my second Silver Spring parade and with the addition of the 50 foot balloons it had that Macy Day Parade feel. Got to love the Penguin, the official mascot of Silver Spring, christened in December of 2006. (Nice background on SS symbols.)

Now my favorite people watching that masquerades as a parade is the Fourth of July Parade in Takoma Park. Maybe it is the summer weather. Maybe it is the Nation's birthday. But you can never discount the Takoma Park factor.

But any parade that combines, as Silver Spring did, two immortal Presidents, two groups of Presidential candidates supporters, the Skins Marching Band, Boys Scouts, Brownies, elected officials, a half dozen HS marching bands, dancers, singers, clowns, firetrucks, dogs, and Santa can warm any heart to counter the brisk air. And unlike our neighbors in Takoma Park, Silver Springers have a permanent Mayor (see below) who watched all the proceedings from his own Alley.

Ok this is a political blog and the parade route went through Congressional District 4, so it is time to mention why Congressman Al Wynn and challenger Donna Edwards had supporters walking for them but they were not there. They were in the middle of a debate. Interesting turn of events with newcomer Jason Jennings. So in lieu of shots of Wynn and Edwards here are shots of their supporters.

Even though you have many of the same participants in both parades, Takoma Park's is a satirical Kumbaya wrapped in a red, white and blue flag with the grill fired up; Silver Spring's is a Jambalaya wrapped in a red costume, red noses while ones hat pulled down and a scarf pulled up.

Saturday, November 17, 2007

Sen. Andrew Harris and the Iraq War

GOP state Senator Andrew Harris's primary challenge against incumbent Congressman Wayne Gilchrest should be an interesting one to watch next year.

This is the same Sen. Harris who said on the Senate floor last April that sending members of the Maryland National Guard to war with inadequate training and dangerously deficient body armor is not a serious issue that the state should be involved with.

I wonder if the voters in Maryland's first Congressional district - especially those with loved ones in Iraq - will agree?

Friday, November 16, 2007

It's On: House Passes Slots

By a vote of 86-52 (just one more vote than required), the House of Delegates approved a referendum on slots:

Following hours of debate, the House passed a version of Gov. Martin O'Malley's slots referendum bill by a 86-52 vote.

The House amended the bill, which identifies five locations around Maryland, to stipulate that slot parlors must comply with local planning and zoning laws. The change could give local officials more say over slot parlors in their jurisdictions. . . .

Under O'Malley's plan, voters would decide in November 2008 whether to allow 15,000 slot machines at five locations -- one each in Baltimore City and in Anne Arundel, Allegany, Cecil and Worcester counties.

Legislators narrowly voted to reject an amendment to remove Ocean Downs (Worcester County) from the list of locations. The Republican delegate representing Cecil also pleaded for the House to give his constituents the chance to vote on slots for their locality. The House amendment to require compliance with local planning and zoning laws should allow localities to reject slots.

We'll see if the conference committee (in which ardently pro-slots Senate President Mike Miller will have a lot of influence) retains it. My guess is they do because they probably won't be able to pass the final version in the House without it.

The House narrowly rejected an amendment, offered by Del Luiz Simmons (D-19), which would have required slots to be located only in jurisdictions which vote in favor of the referendum:

Another measure failed, 67 to 61, that would have allowed slots parlors only to be located in jurisdictions in which a majority of voters approve the statewide referendum next November.

Simmons, who introduced the amendment, said it would be a way to "make sure that smaller jurisdictions are not victimized by larger jurisdictions."

This was a very clever amendment. It was naturally appealing as it would have helped to assure local control and perhaps appealed to legislators as a means of mitigating backlash against votes in favor of slots by giving their constituents the final say for their areas. At the same time, it would have provided a real incentive for a vote against slots by making it a vote on slots in your area. In Montgomery, for example, polls showed voters favorable to slots in Maryland but much less keen on slots in the County.

The Baltimore Sun reported who voted yea and nay on slots. Among delegates from Montgomery, the following delegates voted against the bill: Saqib Ali (D-39), Charles Barkley (D-39), Ben Kramer (D-19), Heather Mizeur (D-20), Luiz Simmons (D-17), Herman Taylor (D-14), and Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18). Karen Montgomery (D-14) did not vote.

Electoral Ramifications?
While many senators have good relationships with their delegates, others resemble that of Queen Victoria and the Prince of Wales. The referendum may settle the issue definitively, or it may become hotly contested and close in a manner that sets up interesting legislative primaries for 2010. In Districts 15, all state legislators voted in favor. However, in District 16, Sen. Brian Frosh voted against while all three delegates voted in favor.

Luiz Simmons of District 17 was probably the most vocal slots opponent in the House but Sen. Jennie Forehand voted for the bill. In District 18, Sen. Rich Madaleno voted yea but Del. Jeff Waldstreicher voted nay. Sen. Rona Kramer of District 14 voted yes while Del. Herman Taylor voted no. Finally, and perhaps most intriguingly, Del. Saqib Ali of District 39 voted against slots while recently appointed Sen. Nancy King voted for slots.

Update:
The grapevine is reporting that some people are taking the above post to mean that the above delegates all plan to challenge the above senators. Wrong. As I mentioned, many delegations get along well and individual delegates might not want to challenge sitting senators for a number of reasons. It isn't even clear that this issue will be that potent, especially after the people vote on the referendum.

Nevertheless, this sort of issue is precisely the type on which someone who wanted to mount a challenge could, even if I would be surprised to see it rise to anywhere near the level of the abortion votes which allowed several delegates to oust sitting senators in an earlier decade. However, see Eric Luedtke's post over at freestatepolitics for his opinion on potential likely pairings or people who might use the vote to stand out over other potential successors if the senator chooses to retire.

Madaleno Special Session Update

From the Sen. Rich Madaleno:

Progress on the governor’s comprehensive revenue package has been put on hold in the Senate as we await action in the House of Delegates. The Senate President has announced that we will not take further action until the House completes its work on slots. In fact, as I write, the House is debating the slots referendum proposal. It remains unclear at this point as to whether the House will take any action on the companion bill to regulate and administer slots. Fortunately, the Senate President also announced today that he will not scuttle the entire revenue package should the slots bill fail in the House. Should that be the outcome, the slots proposal will be brought up again during the upcoming 2008 regular session.

My colleagues from the Baltimore suburbs remain convinced that slots are essential to selling the revenue plan to their constituents. They are criticized for being tax-and-spend liberals. They believe slots softens this opposition. Interestingly, in our county, those of us who have supported the governor’s plan and the Senate compromise package have been criticized for abandoning our liberal values. It is an interesting dichotomy. The Senate caucus has both liberal and moderate factions. Progress is made only when the two find common ground, as we did with the final package.

In the meantime, the Senate is scheduled to reconvene at 11 a.m. on Saturday, and maybe again on Sunday. This weekend appears to be the deadline for action as many people have travel plans for the Thanksgiving weekend.

The Department of Legislative Services has prepared a useful summary document comparing the actions of both chambers with the governor’s initial plan. It is available at www.mlis.state.md.us under the “budget documents” tab. The major issues of disagreement concern the individual income tax and corporate tax policy. The Senate bill expands the sales tax to computer services, while the House bill has a higher corporate income tax rate and a requirement for combined reporting for corporations. Because no bill from either chamber has yet passed the other chamber, there will be no formal conference committee as is the custom for most measures. Apparently, the leadership of the various committees has been meeting to resolve differences in the bills.

On a different topic, there is a hotly contested race for the Republican nomination for the US House district that stretches from the Baltimore suburbs down to Ocean City. State Senator Andy Harris is challenging the incumbent Wayne Gilchrist. The League of Conservation Voters is running ads against Harris, one of the most conservative senators, in the Baltimore market that attack him for supporting “$100 million for dance halls in MONTGOMERY COUNTY while opposing needed funding for the Chesapeake Bay.” I would assume they are talking about the Strathmore Performing Arts Center and the Glen Echo Park’s Spanish Ballroom. It is interesting that an advocacy group would pick these two projects to attack a Baltimore area legislator. In the end, he voted for them as part of the entire capital budget not as individual projects. I am confident he would have opposed both if debated individually.

The end is near (I hope). I look forward to updating you with the final outcome of this special session.

I think Rich should endorse Andy Harris. It would probably do far more to aid Wayne Gilchrest than the ads paid for by LCV.

Justice O'Connor Against Judicial Elections

Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote a good op-ed in the Wall St. Journal.

Campaign Finance Regulation for MoCo?

Del. Susan Lee (D-16) has introduced legislation which would permit the Montgomery County Council to regulate campaign finance activity for elections for local officials. You can sign up to testify here for the December 15th hearing before the County's legislative delegation at 7PM in the Stella Werner Council Office Building in Rockville.

Dueling Income Tax Plans

The Baltimore Sun produced the above chart showing the three income tax plans currently on offer from Gov. O'Malley, the Senate, and the House. While the differences between the House and the Senate plans seem relatively small to me, reconciling them may not be so easy. Montgomery senators do not appear unified on this question:

Most of the Montgomery County senators who voted in favor of that chamber's tax bill last week said the House version hits upper-income taxpayers too hard, although the House did not go as far as Gov. Martin O'Malley.

Sen. Jennie M. Forehand, a Montgomery County Democrat, said she did not think the top income-tax bracket, for those with incomes more than $500,000 a year, should be higher than 5.5 percent.

"My district has a lot of high-tech, biotech companies that are expanding and trying to recruit some of the top scientists and business people," she said. . . .

Sens. Brian E. Frosh and Michael G. Lenett, both Montgomery County Democrats, said they prefer the House version.

"It will be a source of controversy within the Senate," Frosh said. "There are some folks, especially those from Montgomery County, who think we should take it easier on well-to-do people."

Combined reporting also remains an issue though that appears likely to be resolved in favor of the House's plan to close the loophole:

The House included "combined reporting" in its tax bill.

The House approved O'Malley's proposal to close a "loophole" - referred to as "controlling interest" - that enables some corporations to avoid recordation and transfer taxes by making their real estate part of a limited liability company.

The Senate amended the governor's plan to raise the threshold of what defines a company covered by the tax law change, changed the method of valuing property from the sale amount to the assessed value, and exempted all deals before Jan 1.

"The Senate amendments provide a substantial loophole in the effort we are trying to resolve," said Sen. Richard S. Madaleno Jr., a Montgomery County Democrat who supports the House version.

Sen. Ulysses Currie, chairman of the Budget and Taxation Committee, said he expects a compromise with the House over the personal income tax proposals and the rest of the tax package.

Battle Joined on Fourth Circuit Nominee

Bethesdan Rod Rosenstein, the U.S. Attorney for Maryland, has been nominated for a Maryland seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit has long been seen as the most conservative in the federal judiciary. Judicial appointees have become highly partisan and controversial and the Fourth Circuit currently has only 10 of the 15 judgeships are currently filled. However, staunch opposition by Maryland's two Democratic senators promises to torpedo any chance of Rosenstein being confirmed by the Senate:

Maryland's senators exercise virtual veto power over a nomination from their state, and they have criticized Rosenstein's dearth of legal experience in the state and his lack of strong Maryland roots. They also bemoaned the inability to settle on a compromise candidate with the White House.

"Rod Rosenstein is doing a good job as the U.S. attorney in Maryland, and that's where we need him. He plays a vital role in fighting crime and protecting our communities in Maryland," Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski said in a statement. "In the twilight of the Bush administration, we don't need an acting U.S. attorney in Maryland. In light of the mismanagement of the Bush administration Justice Department, we cannot risk another vacancy."

In the joint statement, Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin added: "I regret that the White House did not listen to our recommendations to keep Rod Rosenstein as U.S. attorney. We had had hoped to work with the administration to find a consensus candidate for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals with deep roots in the Maryland legal community."

Praised for his effective stewardship of about 70 federal prosecutors in Baltimore and Greenbelt, Rosenstein - who remains in the post during the confirmation process - is nonetheless likely to see his nomination wither without the support of Mikulski and Cardin, said one longtime court watcher.

"It's extremely unlikely that he'll be confirmed," said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.

President Bush, long famed for his bipartisan approach, attacked the Senate in response as he continued his tradition in speaking only to groups inside the bubble by giving an address to the conservative Federalist Society:

"The Senate is no longer asking the right question, whether a nominee is someone who will uphold our Constitution and laws," he said in excerpts of a speech he was to deliver last night to the Federalist Society, a conservative group that emphasizes legal matters.

"Instead, nominees are asked to guarantee specific outcomes of cases that might come before the court," he said. "If they refuse - as they should - they often find their nomination ends up in limbo instead of on the Senate floor."

Not all Democrats agree with Mikulski and Cardin's approach. Montgomery State's Attorney John McCarthy supports the nomination:

"I think he is a phenomenal nominee," said Montgomery County State's Attorney John McCarthy, who lauded Rosenstein's efforts to reach out to local prosecutors' offices. "I think he has done an extraordinarily fine job as U.S. attorney, uniformly respected by prosecutors and defense attorneys alike."

And Mikulski did support him for the post of U.S. Attorney. Of course, supporting someone for a temporary post as prosecutor is different than a lifetime appointment to the federal circuit court overseeing Maryland. No doubt our two liberal senators do not relish the idea of solidfying conservative control of this court for many more years. Rosenstein is only 42 and could easily spend decades on the court.

Rolling the Dice on Slots Today?

The House of Delegates is expected to vote sometime today on slots. Apparently, the holdup is being caused by Republicans who were for a referendum before they were against it:

House Speaker Michael E. Busch said last night that the chamber's leaders and O'Malley were working to get the necessary votes. He said that he didn't know how many more votes they needed, but that several Republicans who had said they would vote for the bill have apparently decided against it.

"They seem to be wavering on giving the people a vote on slots through a referendum," the Anne Arundel County Democrat said.

It seems clear that the special session will not be put out of its misery today as a conference committee would be needed to reconcile the budget and slots bills. The House has now shifted away from its strategy of passing an identical slots bill to the Senate as it cannot muster the votes for that approach.

However, today may well be the key day of the special session. I imagine that they can delay and keep hunting for votes. At some point, House leaders are going to have to see if they have the 85 votes needed to pass slots. One can only twist this pretzel of a bill so many times to see if enough people are willing to bite.

Thursday, November 15, 2007

Still Hunting for Slots Votes

The Baltimore Sun reports that House of Delegates leaders are still searching from anywhere for four to ten more votes in order to pass slots. The House Ways and Means Committee is still discussing slots sites but has now removed Frederick and Harford Counties as possible slot sites. Senate President Mike Miller is starting to get hot under the collar:

But that's hardly the only complication. The Ways and Means Committee did not take up a companion bill that lays out the details of how a slots program would be implemented. Some delegates have said they could vote for a referendum to let the people decide on slots but not for the enabling bill, which has left that legislation short of the 71 votes it would need.

The possibility that the referendum bill could pass and the other bill could fail sent Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, the legislature's chief slots proponent, into a tirade. He called the idea of a referendum without enabling legislation "a fraud."

"Quit lying, cheating and stealing the public and convincing them you're doing something you're not," Miller said.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

The Feng Shui of Slots

The House of Delegates continues the enervating quest to find the perfect places to put slot machines around our state according to the Baltimore Sun. As of yesterday, Ocean Downs is out and Frederick is in. After awhile, the decisions take on the character of deciding exactly where we would like the enormous pimples on the face of our state to appear.

Over in the "other body", Senate President Mike Miller continues to profess his undying affection for slots in Maryland with an ardor that makes Romeo look relatively ambivalent about Juliet:

Miller said Wednesday morning that he did not back a Frederick County site because the Senate hadn't considered it, but that he didn't think its inclusion would be a deal-breaker.
"I don't think there are any changes that kill the slots plan in the Senate," he said.

Miller is almost as devoted to slot machines as State Election Administrator Linda Lamone is to our problematic voting machines. Maybe they can sing a chorus of "Stand By Your Machine" to Tammy Wynette's famous ditty together. Still, it's hard to attack a man for being faithful.

Second Senator Steps Down

Sen. J. Robert Hooper (R-Harford) is stepping down from the Maryland Senate due to health problems and the demands of the special session. He has already recommended Del. Barry Glassman as his replacement who will be chosen by the Harford County Republican Central Committee.

Just one year out and we're already down two senators out of forty seven.

MCDCC Ditches Secret Ballot

Maryland Moment, the Washington Post blog, reports that the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee has decided to use open ballots in future votes on appointments to open state legislative and central committee seats:

Montgomery County's Democratic Central Committee has decided to ditch the secret ballot and open up its process for filling vacancies in the General Assembly.

Three Montgomery delegates had introduced legislation this session to try to force the committee's hand to create a more transparent process. But the party has voluntarily decided to change its rules as part of an overhaul of several policies.

Karen Britto, the committee chairman, said the idea was overwhelmingly endorsed to have a "nice, open process so that everyone would know how everyone voted."

Del. Saqib Ali, the sponsor of the legislation, praised the committee and said this afternoon that he would withdraw his bill.

"I applaud the central committee for making the process more transparent and improving it for future elections," he said. "They got out in front of the issue."

Looks like Delegate Saqib Ali won the argument if not the Senate seat.

Chevy Chase Village and Saks

The owners of Saks Fifth Avenue approached Chevy Chase Village about eliminating the requirement that Saks provide a free hour of parking to anyone who parks there. (Saks is located within the boundaries of the Village.) This requirement was part of the agreement years ago to permit the expansion of the original Saks building without adding more parking.

Saks feels that too many people are parking there and then going to their doctor's office in the Barlow or Chevy Chase buildings across Wisconsin Ave. In other words, people are using the right to park free for an hour exactly as originally intended. The main problem according to Saks is that people cannot park close enough to the store entrance.

Pat Harris of Holland and Knight, the attorney for Saks, said that Village residents would continue to receive an hour of free parking as an incentive for the Village to sign off on the idea. Village residents nevertheless torpedoed the proposal during public discussion at the Board of Managers meeting last night. Villagers are probably worried that people will start parking on their streets if they can't park at Saks. Many Chevy Chase Village residents prefer to walk to Friendship Heights anyway.

Moreover, can anyone seriously believe that the County would willingly write into the zoning amendment that only people living in Chevy Chase Village would still have the right to park free for one hour? It doesn't even pass the laugh test. Stand-up comics and politicians live for this kind of material.

In any case, the villagers would have to depend on the goodwill of Saks to continue allowing them to park there. My guess is that wouldn't last long after the ink was dry on the zoning amendment. In any case, the Village wasn't being offered anything they didn't already have, so the incentive wasn't really much of an incentive.

The price of even limited freedom to park is eternal vigilance.

More on Wynn-Edwards Debate

After my posting last week asking for the candidates to supply videos of the debate, I have received private responses saying they are interested. So there is some hope that between videos and the blogs we will have another way for the candidates to reach out to voters of CD4.

I sat next to the Gazette reporter, Agnes Jasinski, for about half of the debate. Her story appeared today. I think it captured the mood of the debate.

Legacy Open Space and the Twinbrook Sector Plan

The Planning Board has posted its revised agenda for its November 15th meeting.

At 7PM, a public hearing is scheduled on revisions to the Twinbrook Sector Plan. The major proposed revision is a mixed-use community called the Avalon by the Twinbrook Metro Station. The written submissions received so far by the Planning Board do not indicate major objections to the proposed change.

At 1PM, Legacy Open Space Director Brenda Sandberg will present her recommendations on the Legacy Open Space program. The program makes properties eligible for purchase should they come on the market. It does not commit the County to purchasing the properties (and certainly does not initiate any sort of condemnation proceeding or force a sale) though it does make them eligible for purchase through the Legacy Open Space program if they come on the market. Sandberg is recommending seven new sites for the Legacy Open Space program:

1) Beverly Property, Broad Run Watershed, Poolesville
2) Wild Acres/Grosvenor Mansion Property, Bethesda
3) Milton Property, Capitol View Park
4) Hickey and Offut, Bethesda
5) Ireland Drive/National Park Seminary Carriage Trails, Silver Spring
6) National 4H Council Headquarters, Chevy Chase
7) Montgomery College of Art and Design, Wheaton

Sandberg is also recommending against Legacy Open Space designation for several sites:

8) Selden Island/Walker Village Site
9) Edson Lane Forest
10) Woodmont East Phase II

The negative decision on Edson Lane Forest includes a rather passionate set of paragraphs calling for preservation of the forest and relocation of a proposed workforce housing project to another location in the same general area. Yet the memo to the Board also states:

Despite the value of retaining forest in urban areas, staff does not believe this site meets the overall Legacy Open Space criteria of “best of the best”. In addition, the isolated site is not appropriate for park ownership due to use and management concerns.

More detail would help justify these statements. As written, they appear idiosyncratic and vague.

Here is what the memo to the Planning Board states on Woodmont East:

A nomination was very recently received for the Woodmont East development site in downtown Bethesda. The site is at the corner of Bethesda and Woodmont Avenues and the Capital Crescent Trail runs through the site, making the site a potentially important urban open space. An initial evaluation of the site was included in the staff memo on the Preliminary Plan/Development Plan that was reviewed by the Planning Board on November 8, 2007. That Preliminary/Development Plan was deferred at the request of the applicant. Legacy Open Space staff will continue to review the application and bring a staff recommendation to the Planning Board in the future, as appropriate.

I was pleasantly surprised to read that staff will continue to review the application for LOS since Brenda Sandberg was the most emphatic in her opposition to open space at this site in my meeting with her and other members of planning staff. She insisted it would have to be entirely hardscape with some plantings, though it appears that this decision is being revisited as well in favor of a more sensible view of a mix of hard surface paths around and among green spaces and plantings.

The Board may want to question Sandberg about the LOS process. Before recommending against LOS for Woodmont East, Sandberg met with developers and planning staffers who had already recommended approval of the preliminary plan (which the developers ultimately withdrew under pressure from the Planning Board) but not with members of the community. The staff of the LOS program was under unreasonable pressure to produce a decision quickly--in less than eight days I am told even though the developers had requested an extension which had two more months to run.

It strikes me that this matter was badly handled and the process should be reformed to be more inclusive of the community. Placing blame is far less important than fixing the process so that community trust, already badly shaken, can be restored. After the staff presents its report on LOS, members of the public can testify and should do so to encourage reform in this area. Again, the problem may be not so much with the ultimate decisions but with a process which undermines confidence in them.

They'll Vote for Slots . . . If the Price is Right!

The Baltimore Sun reports:

The hunt for votes has intensified in Annapolis as the House of Delegates weighs a measure that would put slot machine gambling before the voters in November 2008, possibly ending years of gridlock in the state capital over the issue. Supporters were scrambling yesterday to line up the final votes to ensure the "super-majority" needed for the referendum to clear the House, where opposition to slots has been strong.

Not only are legislators lobbying one another, but the Democratic governor is talking to legislators to garner support for the historic referendum. House leaders have taken preliminary whip counts, and Del. Kumar P. Barve, the majority leader, said yesterday that they are probably close to lining up the needed 85 votes.

The article doesn't quite do justice to the bidding war which must be going on behind the scenes. The real untold story is what promises legislators are extracting in return for their support.

One legislator who says he changed his mind for other reasons is first-term Democrat Craig Rice (D-15):

When Gov. Martin O'Malley proposed a voter referendum on legalizing slot machine gambling, freshman Del. Craig L. Rice opposed it because he thought the General Assembly should decide major policy decisions and not send them to the ballot box.

But Rice changed his mind when fellow legislators who represent the proposed sites for slots parlors asked him to vote for the referendum.

"Slots are not proposed for my district, so I deferred to them," said Rice, a Democrat who represents Montgomery County.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Pleas for Mercy in Bromwell Case

Supporters of former Sen. Thomas Bromwell are pleading for a lenient sentencing:

Bromwell, 58, admitted in July that he accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs from a Baltimore construction company executive in return for securing publicly funded contracts.

Recommended sentencing guidelines call for a federal prison term for Bromwell of at least 6 1/2 years. But his defense attorney is now asking U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz to depart from those guidelines, based in large part on the persuasive power of the letters.

You can read the letters (in .pdf format) here and here as well as the memo on sentencing from Bromwell's lawyer. Bromwell's son, Eric Bromwell (D-8), currently represents part of Baltimore County in the House of Delegates.

House of Delegates Cuts Budget

The House of Delegates has cut about $498 million from the State budget according to the Washington Post (see also the article in the Baltimore Sun):

The Maryland House of Delegates overwhelmingly voted this afternoon to direct Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) to cut about $498 million from the next fiscal year's budget by slowing planned spending growth on several state education, health-care and environmental initiatives.
In a 103 to 36 vote along party lines in the Democratic-controlled chamber, delegates voted to save about $150 million by scaling back the formula used to fund public schools, as well as to eliminate 750 vacant state jobs. The spending cuts are a key component of O'Malley's plan to eliminate a projected budget deficit of at least $1.5 billion during a special legislative session.
Del. Norman H. Conway (D-Wicomico), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said trimming the budget will return "fiscal prudence and social responsibility" to Maryland's government. . . .
The House bill is similar to legislation passed by the Senate last week calling for $515 million in spending cuts. But several differences will need to be reconciled by conference committees. The House spelled out detailed program cuts to recommend to O'Malley, whereas the Senate bill was far less specific.
Delegates also trimmed spending on stem cell research grants, from $23 million to $20 million this year, and recommended that O'Malley maintain the reduced level of funding next year.
In a move projected to save about $31 million next year, the committee decided to eliminate a property tax exemption for machinery and equipment that is used by utility companies to generate electricity.
"Do people like the cuts?" asked Del. Melony G. Griffith (D-Prince George's). "No, they don't. . . . Every program that's served by state dollars believes they are the most critical program in this state."

However, the House still hasn't approved slots, a key aspect of the Senate budget plan. There are also differences in the income tax. The two houses will also need to agree on a single list of spending cuts as there are difference between the House bill and the Senate bill.

Transgender Protections Approved

According to the Washington Post, the Council approved new transgender protections despite the bathroom fracas:

The Montgomery County Council unanimously approved protections today for transgender individuals in housing and employment, despite vigorous protests from a coalition of conservative groups that said the measure would lead to indecent exposure in locker rooms and restrooms.
Without discussion, the council voted 8-0 to join 13 states and the District in outlawing discrimination based on a person's gender identity. County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) is expected to sign the measure, according to his spokesman.
Council member Roger Berliner (D-Bethesda-Potomac) called the measure a "step forward on civil rights."
Outside the council building in Rockville this afternoon, about 20 protesters urged the council to reject the measure and carried signs that read "Protect Our Kids" and "Fight Indecent Exposure." Opponents seized on a component of the bill that would prohibit discrimination in public accommodations.

Council Approves Changes to Growth Policy

According to the Washington Post, the Montgomery County Council approved several new development-related tax increases:

The tax increases on new construction, of more than $15,000 per single-family house, will take effect Dec. 1. Officials predicted a rush at the county's permitting department in the next two weeks for builders looking to beat the deadline.
The 7 to 1 vote in favor of the growth policy, with Nancy Floreen (D-At Large) the only dissenter, came after nearly 11 months of debate. The details as well as many broader themes encouraging denser development in the county's more urban areas were developed by the county's planning board, then sent to the council for final approval.
The council unanimously approved related tax increases that would more than double most taxes paid by builders when they apply for their building permits. Members voted 7 to 1, with Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) dissenting, to increase the recordation tax collected at real estate closings, but delayed it until March 1. . . .

Under the council's plan, the tax on a new single-family house increases from $6,264 to $10,649 for transportation and from $9,111 to $20,456 for schools. The taxes had not been increased for several years.

Regardless of the change, residents near metro stops should not expect the pace of development to slow. When I spoke with Josh Sloan, a M-NCPPC staffer, on Woodmont East, he made clear that virtually any development would pass the traffic test in Bethesda under either the old or new test.

Bethesda Development Activity

Below are pictures of three files provided to me by the Planning Board. The first is a map of development activity in the Bethesda Central Business District. The second is a list of pending projects, as in projects which have been proposed but are not yet formally approved by the Planning Board. The third is a list of approved projects which have not yet been built (on the top part of the page) or have already been constructed (on the bottom part of the page). The figures are hard to see as posted but just click on them to get the full-size image.

Listen to Woodmont East Testimony

You can download and listen to testimony from the Planning Board meeting on Woodmont East using Windows Media Player. The developer finished up their testimony around 1:35PM with intensive questioning on the County's rights to the property around that time. Ben Ross of ACT was the first to testify (in favor of the project) followed by Town of Chevy Chase Councilman Mier Wolf's strong critique of the process as well as the plan itself and then by Wayne Phyillaier and Pat Baptiste of the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail. (Former Planning Board Member Pat Baptiste's testimony starts just before 2PM.)

It's Time for the Special Session Roundup

Check out the cartoons on the special session in the Annapolis Capital.

The House of Delegates is still in the middle of slots-a-palooza according to the Washington Post. Frederick County is now being floated as a potential slots site despite the opposition of many politicians from that county. Since virtually all are Republicans who vote against just about everything anyway, I'm not sure that anyone cares about their opposition to the idea. The current thinking, to use the term loosely, is that Frederick is on the way to Charles Town Races and Slots from Montgomery and would grab that business without having to put a slots parlor in Poolesville. Of course, it's also on the way to Allegany County so why put one there too? The editorial board of the Washington Post continues to oppose slots:

[P]ro-gambling interests have already spent almost $4 million in the last few years in a so-far-fruitless effort to have the legislature authorize thousands of slot machines at racetracks and gambling parlors. That spending comprised $1.25 million funneled directly to candidates and political parties since 2003 -- including donations to the former and current governor -- plus an additional $2.6 million in lobbying expenditures in the last two years alone. It's a good bet that those outlays would look like a modest down payment compared to the sums the gambling lobby is prepared to dump in a referendum. It's an equally good bet that many voters would look askance at such an obviously self-interested crusade for self-enrichment.

A referendum is not yet a done deal. Because it involves a constitutional amendment, it will need 85 votes to clear the 141-seat House. We hope the votes aren't there. Still, slots have tied the General Assembly in knots in recent years, and Mr. Miller has given every indication that he is willing to paralyze the current effort to close a budget deficit of at least $1.5 billion if he does not get at least a referendum. Battle-weary lawmakers may simply throw up their hands. If they do, it should be to fight another day and defeat at the polls a slots proposal that will foster corruption and gambling addiction while primarily hurting the poor.

The House of Delegates is also proposing to cut $498 million from the state budget (see also the AP story replicated in the Delmarva Daily Times). Education appears to be the primary victim with $150 million of the cuts coming from limits in inflation increases to the Thornton plan. The Baltimore Sun also reports that the both the House and the Senate budget plans will force "working families" to pay more in taxes, contrary to Gov. O'Malley's promises and the budget he submitted to the General Assembly. Jean Marbella of the Sun chalks up the placing of slots in Ocean Downs as another broken promise.

The Examiner's Maryland Politics page is just tired at this point. A commentary by Tom Schaller titled "It's Time for Maryland's Comptroller Schaefer to retire" still appears on the page.

Dancing in the Dark

Gov. Martin O'Malley took a night off from the joys of the special session to go to the Bruce Springsteen concert with his wife at whatever they're calling the Verizon Center this week. The best part for him was probably that the Washington Post called him a "youngster." I prefer The Police myself.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Slots and the Art of Compromise

During the Ehrlich administration, I vigorously opposed slots. It seemed to me that Gov. Ehrlich and his allies were trying to avoid asking our state’s residents - especially the wealthiest ones - to responsibly pay for our societal needs.

Had any of my District 18 representatives voted for slots, it could have cost them my vote in the next election. But none did.

Now that the governor who’s pushing slots is a Democrat, has my opinion of the idea changed? No, I still think it’s a terrible way to finance a government. And all other things being equal, I’d still react quite negatively to a pro-slots vote by someone from the District 18 delegation.

But all other things are not equal. They’re not even close.

This time around, slots are being offered as part of a large, complex, and long-overdue package designed to address our state’s budget problems for the long term - a package that includes substantial tax increases of the type that previous administrations recklessly avoided. This time, slots aren’t simply a dodge or a gimmick.

And when all of the individual bills comprising this large budget package have to be agreed upon by a majority of 141 delegates and 47 senators, that means compromise is called for. You have to take the bad with the good. There are those who are now supporting the types of necessary tax increases that they avoided talking about before. I can see where slots opponents would have to give some in order to negotiate a workable agreement.

That's the art of compromise. And it's part of responsible governing.

Delegate Roll Call

Complete listing for DC area delegates available from the Washington Post.

Del. Ben Kramer (D-Montgomery) followed this lead of his sister, Sen. Rona Kramer, is voting against the bill increasing the sales tax, the vehicle titling tax, and the tobacco tax which passed 80-56. Del. Luiz Simmons (D-Montgomery) also voted no. Dels. Wood (D-St. Mary's) and Sophocleus (D-Anne Arundel) also voted no. No other Democrats from Montgomery, Prince George's, Charles, Calvert, Howard, or St. Mary's voted no (assuming that the Post included all delegates from these counties in the DC area and not just some of them). No Republicans voted in favor.

The income tax bill passed the House on a vote of 82-55. The same delegates who voted no on the first bill also voted no on this one. They were joined by Dels. Beidle (D-Anne Arundel), Dumais (D-Montgomery), Feldman (D-Montgomery), Levy (D-Charles), and Walker (D-Prince George's). Once again, no Republicans voted yes. Dels. Jameson (D-Charles) and Montgomery (D-Montgomery) did not vote on either bill.

Sen. Madaleno Special Session Update

From the desk of Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-18):

While it may be a holiday for some, the General Assembly remains busy with the work of the special session. Later today, the House of Delegates will be voting on the governor's health care proposal as well as their Chesapeake Bay initiative. Summaries of these bills and the House tax package is available on-line at: www.mlis.state.md.us under the tab "Budget Documents."

Also today, the House Ways & Means and Appropriations Committees are scheduled to begin voting on the Budget Reconciliation Act and the slots package. My tentative understanding of the House tax package is that it is $200 million below the Senate package. Thus, this difference will have to made up in additional budget cuts. Appropriations' subcommittees have been meeting this morning reviewing various reduction options. In addition, rumors persist that there are not the sufficient votes in the House (85 needed) to pass the slots referendum legislation. Should the House vote down the slots measure, I am fearful the entire special session would collapse.

Because the House has yet to vote on several key parts of the revenue plan, our next Senate session has been postponed from Tuesday to Thursday morning. This delay will give Senate leadership the chance to develop a strategy in response to any unexpected House action.

Like me, Rich shares this touching naivety that people actually will look up documents. Indeed, I suspect one reason Rich is so effective in the legislature is that he is one of the few people who (1) actually reads the budget, and (2) understands it.

Budget Woes in Montgomery Too

The Gazette arguably buried its lead by giving a brief mention of Montgomery's sizable budget deficit towards the end of an article on the proposed bill to ban discrimination against transgender people:

Added to that, Leggett (D) said, is the county’s projected deficit — $308 million for the fiscal year that begins July 1. The executive said he has been amazed at how many people who do not understand Montgomery’s budget problems.

Looks like the pain is just getting started.

Lobbying for Slots

The Baltimore Sun reports that lobbyists spent millions pushing slots during the past several years. Perhaps the most unseemly aspect of the cash bonanza involves attempts to influence the selection of sites:

At least $800,000 flowed into candidate campaign coffers from track operators since 2003, The Sun's analysis found. And nearly half of that came from interests controlled by Rickman, a Montgomery County developer who owns Ocean Downs racetrack, one of the five sites singled out in the Senate-approved slots referendum bill.

"In my view, there is an undeniable connection between the history of political donations and the allocation of sites, and the potential allocation of sites," said Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons, a Montgomery County Democrat who has proposed outlawing contributions from gambling interests.

Officials with the Maryland Jockey Club and affiliated entities gave $267,000, records show. About $30,000 of that amount came from former Jockey Club CEO Joseph A. De Francis and family members; he stands to benefit should slots go to Laurel Park. Horse farmers, breeders and leaders of associations that represent them donated $252,000.

Rickman, his family and his companies provided by far the largest sum, giving $382,000 - more than four times as much in the period as any other pro-slots or pro-gambling interest.

State campaign finance law allows single donors or corporations to give only $4,000 during an election cycle to individual candidates. But Rickman reached this goal, now as in the past, using a variety of limited liability corporations that operate out of his Rockville offices in a practice that watchdog group Common Cause has said gives donors too much influence.

It's hardly a surprise as the right to operate slots is like a license to print money. The Sun also printed a nice graphic showing lobbying fees paid and campaign contributions made to produce slots--a truly bipartisan source of cash.

One slots advocate didn't have to be paid off. The Washington Post reports on how Secretary of Labor Tom Perez has become one of the most passionate advocates for slots in the State.

"I certainly hear from many friends in the progressive community who say, 'Tom, how can you support slots?' " Perez said in a recent interview. "I give them a simple answer.

"I'm motivated in large part because I want to address the problems of the uninsured. I want to address the undereducated, and I want to address the challenges confronting people who are living in the shadows of our communities. The reality is we need a funding source to address these challenges."

The Post explained how Perez had a "road to Charleston Races" conversion and Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18) defended Perez's actions:

Prior to studying the issue for O'Malley, Perez said he had never been to a gambling parlor. "This is not how I'd choose to spend my entertainment dollars," he said.
But after visiting slots venues in West Virginia and Delaware, Perez said he found that using a portion of slots proceeds to subsidize racing purses has revitalized the horse-racing and breeding industries in those states. He said he is convinced that Maryland can mitigate the potential social costs associated with gambling by being selective on locations.

Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Montgomery), who worked with Perez in the Clinton administration, said she doesn't consider her friend's support of slots to be a "philosophical transformation."

"I think Tom is being a good soldier," Gutierrez said. "He's joined the administration, and the administration has put out this proposal, and it's the role of the Cabinet to support this proposal."

Your Taxes Are Going Up--Just How Much Remains in Doubt

Over the weekend, the House of Delegates got busy and passed its own version of the tax plans. Perhaps the most useful article published on the topic is simply a summary of the differences between the House and Senate plans published by the Washington Post:

Personal income tax
SENATE: Adds brackets of 5 percent for single filers with taxable income above $150,000 and joint filers above $200,000; and 5.5 percent for all filers above $500,000. Increases personal exemption and exemption for dependents from $2,400 to $2,600.
HOUSE: Modifies brackets to include 5.25 percent for single filers with taxable income above $125,000 and joint filers above $175,000; 5.5 percent for single filers above $150,000 and joint filers above $200,000; and 5.75 percent for single filers above $200,000 and joint filers above $250,000. Alters $2,400 personal exemption and exemption for dependents to $600 to $3,200, depending upon income.
Corporate income tax
SENATE: Increases rate from 7 to 8 percent.
HOUSE: Increases rate from 7 to 8.75 percent.
Sales tax
SENATE: Increases rate from 5 to 6 percent; applies the tax to computer services and video arcades.
HOUSE: Increases rate from 5 to 6 percent; no expansion of the tax to additional services.
Hotel tax
SENATE: No change to the 5 percent rate.
HOUSE: Raises the rate from 5 to 7.5 percent.
Tobacco tax
SENATE: Raises tax on a pack of cigarettes from $1 to $2.
HOUSE: Same as Senate.
Vehicle titling tax
SENATE: Raises rate from 5 to 6 percent.
HOUSE: Same as Senate.

Another Washington Post article focused on the difficulty in reconciling the differences between the House and the Senate. To my unpracticed eye, the bills don't look that far apart. On the other hand, the Senate bill did only pass by one vote. Moreover, the House has yet to pass a bill on a slots referendum. (And some areas are squawking at the idea of becoming slots locations, including White Marsh reports the Examiner and Ocean Downs reports the Delmarva Daily Times.

As in the Senate, Montgomery legislators played a critical role in reducing the top income tax rates, though many members of the delegation were apparently pressured into voting for the version that passed through threats to reduce spending on items near and dear to Montgomery's:

A "whip count" taken Friday night by House leaders showed that a majority of Montgomery's 24 delegates opposed the bill and that support in the chamber fell short of the 71 votes needed for its passage.

Nineteen members of Montgomery's all-Democratic delegation wound up voting for the bill, however. Only four, including Del. Brian J. Feldman, the chairman of Montgomery's House delegation, voted against the legislation. One delegation member was absent.

Some Montgomery lawmakers suggested that the shift was driven by an alternate proposal to balance the budget that was floated Saturday afternoon by House leaders. That plan withdrew $460 million in new transportation spending, a major priority for the Washington area.

The alternative also would have capped the income tax rate that county governments could impose on residents, a move that would have hit Montgomery particularly hard. Also absent from the plan was funding for the so-called geographic cost of education index, a formula designed to send additional dollars to counties, including Montgomery, where the cost of education is more expensive.

The Baltimore Sun also printed an article suggesting similarly that Montgomery House legislators were outfoxed on the income tax question.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Transgender Bill: The "Religious Liberty" Feint

According to the Sunday Washington Post, opponents of the Montgomery County transgender anti-discrimination bill would like to see exemptions for hiring by religious institutions, including religious schools. The same argument is being used by right-wing Christian groups across the country as an excuse to oppose ENDA: that the law will force people to violate their religious beliefs by hiring gay people.

We’re supposed to believe that the opponents have a principled position based on religious freedom, rather than an unprincipled one based on animus towards gay, lesbian, and transgender people.

However, despite the lofty commitment to religious freedom they claim to have, the Christian Right does not demand that laws banning discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, etc. have exemptions for religious institutions or belief.

Why not? Under the principles they cite when trying to scuttle protections for LGBT individuals, someone should have the right to keep blacks out of his business establishment if his religious beliefs are that God created the races to remain separate. And if a woman believes that physical infirmities are God’s way of cursing sinners and marking them as evil, then the law should protect her right not to hire someone with a disability. If a man believes that women should stay at home and be submissive to their husbands, why should the government coerce him into violating his religious tenets by hiring married women in management positions?

Yet right-wing anti-LGBT Christians do not argue that exemptions are necessary for these types of discrimination. They demand these exemptions only when lesbians, gays, and transgender people will be hurt.

That’s not a principle. That’s animus.

And labeling it “religious” doesn’t make it any less wrong.

As for demanding a statutory exemption solely for their own particular religious belief - Can there be a better example of demanding "special rights?"

Franchot Silent on Corporate Tax Loopholes

C. Fraser Smith of the Baltimore Sun reports that Comptroller Peter Franchot's progressive act is only for public consumption:

The Democratic Party's Senate caucus was full of grumbling last week about Comptroller Peter Franchot, who called Gov. Martin O'Malley's tax reform package a "pounding" for the poor.

At the same time, Mr. Franchot was stepping away from the governor's proposal to require taxes of some mega-corporations that currently pay no taxes in Maryland. Mr. Franchot had absented himself from the Budget and Tax Committee's effort to craft an acceptable loophole-closing bill.

Democrats were baffled by Mr. Franchot's absence from the corporate tax debate, because he has styled himself a staunch liberal. His office, moreover, is responsible for collecting taxes. A recent study showed that nearly half of Maryland's largest for-profit companies did not pay corporate income taxes in 2005.

One widespread speculation explaining his silence on the issue: The officers of these corporations often make substantial campaign contributions. Maybe the comptroller was looking ahead to his next campaign.

Several senators thought Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler should investigate Mr. Franchot for failing to do his job. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. - chuckling - said he was sure Mr. Gansler would be happy to oblige: Even now, Mr. Franchot and Mr. Gansler are viewed as rivals for their party's gubernatorial nomination in some future election.

Not only did Franchot himself not participate in the Budget and Tax Committee's debates on the budget, he also did not send his staff in contrast to former Comptrollers Louis Goldstein and William Donald Schaefer. Many of these long-time staffers have a lot of knowledge which would have been especially useful this year since many of the budget experts in the Department of Legislative Services are relatively new to the job. Perhaps not the best move on Franchot's part after getting in a very public wrangle with the governor over his decision to greatly expand the size of the Office of the Comptroller's payroll.

Bathrooms, Always Bathrooms

The right-wingers are out to torpedo the expected approval by the Montgomery County Council of a bill to outlaw discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of gender identity.

I recently received a copy of an alert from Don Wildmon’s American Family Association, categorizing this as a bill that would legalize indecent exposure. The latest right-wing talking point seems to be that girls in restrooms and locker rooms will be forced to see male genitalia from a man dressed as a woman.

Their e-mail states:

"’Any place of public accommodation...must not...make any distinction based on gender identity.’ Gender identity is defined as ‘an individual's actual or perceived gender...’ The bill puts girls and women at risk by opening women's restrooms and locker rooms to men who dress as women. The bill virtually eliminates gender distinctions by allowing Montgomery County residents to choose if they are male or female even when the choice conflicts with their biological sex.

“The bill, slated for a vote on Tuesday, Nov. 13, would add 'gender identity' as a protected class for 'transgenders.' It would guarantee the right to use public facilities consistent with the person's gender identity ‘publicly and exclusively expressed or asserted.’ No sex change is necessary.”

Of course, this is just a red herring. You don't hear the bill's opponents demanding fairness to transgender people, saying that they would happily support a tough anti-discrimination bill as long as the bathroom issue were somehow "taken care of."

But, just for the sake of argument, let’s take them at their word: Let’s categorize everything by genitalia, ignoring all other factors.

Take an anatomically male person who identifies as a woman and who presents herself as a woman in every way (clothing, make-up, etc.). Let’s call her Dale. What do you think would happen to Dale upon entering and using a men’s bathroom? I suspect she’d be beaten up. At a minimum, she’d have to live with the terror of physical assault every time she used a public restroom, locker room, etc.

The Christian right says they don’t want Dale using women’s facilities. But would they be comfortable with someone appearing to be a woman using men’s facilities? Somehow, I doubt it. So what do they want people like Dale to do?

What members of the religious right really seem to want is a world where transgender people don’t exist.

But transgender people do exist. And it is long past time for our society to welcome them as part of us.

I hope none of the County Council members buckle under to the hate mail and calls they are receiving from the right-wingers.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Too Close for Mike Miller's Comfort?

Keep an eye on that list of nay votes on the Senate tax bill - the one that barely scraped by with no votes to spare.

Senate president Mike Miller cannot possibly be happy with how close he came to losing this bill - or with the Democrats who voted against it.

Living in Montgomery County, I’m particularly interested in the only no-vote from my county: Rona Kramer’s. She’s the new chair of the Montgomery County Senate delegation.

Montgomery County successfully got the bill amended to have a smaller income tax increase. So when Kramer voted against the bill, I suspect she did not endear herself to the president. I’ll be interested to see if this affects her ability to get things done in Mike Miller’s Senate. (And make no mistake. It is Mike Miller’s Senate).

This Weekend on MPW

The Washington Post pillories the Senate tax plan, singling out the Montgomery delegation for lacking liberal spine. Find out who voted for and against the tax package and slots.

Primary View: an overview of congressional primaries in Maryland's 1st, 4th, and 8th Districts. Also don't miss Kevin Gillogly's post on the Fourth District debate and invite to post your campaign videos here.

What does it take to be an Uberlobbyist?

Metro plans to ruin your New Year's party with a hefty fare increase.

I'm still celebrating our victory for a park at Woodmont East. Read about testimony at the hearing and the outcome; more testimony and who testified; and Councilman Berliner's post-hearing letter.

Primary View

I know that at least three Maryland congressional races feature primaries this year:

Eighth District
Chris Van Hollen is the most popular politician in Montgomery County but that doesn't dissuade Deborah Vollmer who ran against him in the Democratic primary in 2006 and received just 8.7 percent of the vote. Once again, Deborah is running because she believes that Rep. Van Hollen is too supportive of the Iraq War.

Fourth District:
Don't miss Kevin Gillogly's coverage of the Wynn-Edwards debate and request for videos which we'd be happy to post here. It has been a good week for Donna Edwards, who nearly beat incumbent Rep. Al Wynn last time and is back for a rematch. Edwards has been endorsed by EMILY's list which should help her raise significant funds. The League of Conservation Voters has also endorsed Edwards though my colleague Prof. Ron Walters at the University of Maryland discounts the importance of the latter endorsement:

Ronald W. Walters, a professor in government and politics at the University of Maryland, College Park, said endorsements generally are not that important unless they come with money or volunteers.

Karpinski said his organization would be ‘‘helpful” to the Edwards campaign. ‘‘We have several different ways we may engage in this race,” he said.

Walters said Wynn is going to have to pay attention to polls and to what people are saying about him.

‘‘He seems to know where he is, in another potentially tight race,” Walters said. ‘‘I think he’s making an effort. It’s a question whether people perceive that’s sufficient.”

Wynn’s campaign manager, Lori Sherwood, said the league endorsed Edwards in her last campaign.

Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi is solidly behind Wynn. Posts on the topic on freestatepolitics.org and dailykos.org favor Edwards (see posts by Kos himsefl here, here, here, and here).

First District:
According to the Gazette, moderate Republican Wayne Gilchrest faces one of his toughest primary challenges ever in his Eastern Shore-based district. Gilchrest certainly feels it is one of the nastiest:

Gilchrest, seeking his 10th term representing Maryland’s 1st District, compared political campaigns to having irritable bowel syndrome, with some ‘‘flare-ups” more severe than others.
‘‘Some flare-ups are mild and some flare-ups are just like crushing glass in your bowel. This is less mild,” he said. ‘‘With [IBS] you do what you need to do to take care of your bowel. In a political campaign you do what you can to take care of your integrity and your soul.”

Gilchrest faces several challengers. As discussed in an earlier post, State Sen. Andrew Harris has been endorsed by Robert Ehrlich. Besides Andy Harris, Gilchrest is also begin challenged by Dr. Joe Arminio, Attorney John Lee Walter, and Joseph Banks. Harris appears the most formidable as he has raised over $500,000. You can jump down the rabbit hole and find out what the Republicans think about this race at Brian Griffiths, monoblogue, and Red Maryland, which clearly seems behind Andy Harris since he is listed as a "friend" on the blogroll while the incumbent is an unperson.

Uberlobbyist 2007

According to this week's Gazette:

Uberlobbyist Bruce Bereano testified before the House Ways and Means on Saturday that a proposed sales tax on tattoos and body piercings would be "a tax on culture."

If he was able to say that with a straight face, he earned his fee.

Unhappy New Year from Metro

The Washington Post reports that Metro fares are going up on January 1:

The biggest increases would affect rush-hour subway riders, who make up the largest portion of daily users. The proposal would increase rush-hour boarding charges by 30 cents to $1.65 and increase the maximum fare per trip by 80 cents to $4.70.
A $1.15 increase in parking fees would be added at Metro lots, where spots cost as much as $4. The cost to take a bus would rise a dime for cash-paying passengers, though it would remain $1.25 for riders who pay with electronic SmarTrip cards.
The increases are aimed at raising $109 million to help close a projected shortfall in next year's budget.

I'm glad I'm not going to be sitting on the dais at the hearings on this one.

Testimony on Woodmont East II

The testimony from the community on the preliminary plan for the proposed development at Woodmont East II played a critical role in convincing the Planning Board to go against both the developers and even their own staff in their discussion of the plan. Nelson Rosenbaum, the author of two well-known texts on land use and urban planning, was especially devastating in his assessment of the Staff Report:

I have read the staff report on the proposed development in depth and I am frankly appalled at the shallow and capricious nature of the planning analysis underlying the recommendation for approval. Many of the staff findings sound as if they were written by the developer rather than by disinterested planning analysts. In particular, the staff findings on the proposed plaza that serves as the project’s core open space component rest upon nothing but conjecture. Despite use of loaded terms like "attractive gathering place”, “interesting water features and art features” and “experientially integrated outdoor space” , the staff acknowledges that “most of the details need to be worked out as the final easements, building footprints and circulation patterns are established”. In other words, trust us to provide you, the citizens, with whatever the developer comes up with. This is not an acceptable standard for planning process in Montgomery County, MD. At an emergency meeting called by County Councilman Roger Berliner, the project’s landscape architect could show nothing more than vague sketches of what the plaza might look like. What we were able to glean is that the so-called plaza would in reality be more like a “slot canyon”, with an 120 foot glass wall on one side and an overhanging bridge blocking out the sun. . . .

We need a center -- a town square in our community. This could be accomplished by the developer meeting with the community to understand its needs and then revising its plans appropriately. Or it could be accomplished by the county government acquiring the necessary property through the Legacy Open Space program. Or perhaps a combination of both. What we don’t want is a bum’s rush to development approval and dismissal of our concerns by the planning staff with a pat on the head. Again, the staff work on the application submitted by three Bethesda citizen’s organization for a Legacy Open Space initiative at this site is appalling. The staff dismisses the application without serious analysis, emphasizing the availability of other parks that are not even remotely comparable in significance or location to the proposed site. The Planning Board can surely do better in its staff work.

The head of the Legacy Open Space program met with the attorney for the developers but not with supporters of the application or members of the community in advance of the decision. While the Legacy Open Space Advisory Board was presented with a negative view on the application from planning staff, community members were not offered an opportunity to present a countervailing viewpoint.

According to accounts, the Planning Board repudiated central conclusions of the staff report which were vigorously defended by the staff when a small group, including myself, met with them the day before the hearing. The Planning Board rejected the following conclusions supported by staff and the developer:

The developer's rights to Reed Street. The attorney for the developer was forced to concede under questioning that the County does not accept this position. It is surprising that the planning staff maintained otherwise when I met with them.

The Master Plan mandates this development. The testimony of Pat Baptiste and Jim Humphrey was extremely effective in countering these claims. Both cited chapter and verse from the Master Plan to great effect.

Existing parks are adequate. The staff report argued that Elm Street Park and the park next to Bethesda Library are sufficiently close despite being across the major arteries of Wisconsin Ave. or Arlington Rd. Planning staff also mentioned that the proximity of the Discovery Trail--a truly undiscovered and unknown open space as Jon Weintraub explained. Planning staff suggested that more kiosks were needed to direct people to other open spaces, suggesting a lack of appreciation for the idea of organic development. In contrast, the Planning Board understood that the community desires an urban park and gathering place at Woodmont East, a quite different sort of park than these neighborhood parks. Members of the Board went to so far as to declare that the proximity of these other parks should be ignored in revisiting this issue.

Green space won't work. The staff report was emphatic that only a hardscape park in the manner of Bethesda Metro Center--not exactly a roaring success--could be constructed in the space. The Planning Board does not agree.

The "floating bar" over the open space creates an "outdoor living room." As Linda Skalet aptly pointed out, "floating bar" is an Orwellian name for a 10-story building which blocks out the sunlight over much of the so-called "open space". This adoption of developer terminology like this was another strong indication of problems with the report. On many versions of the plan the "floating bar" only appeared as two barely visible dotted lines, masking how it covered the open space.

I was extremely pleased to hear the Planning Board voice these opinions as they reflect my own as expressed in my written testimony to the Planning Board.

I was perplexed to hear that the only two people who testified in favor of the plan represented the Action Committee for Transit (ACT) and the Coalition for Smarter Growth. While supporters of smart growth certainly favor higher density, they also view open space as vital in increasingly dense urban areas, as exemplified by Portland, Oregon--a paragon of smart growth. Open space is critical in order to avoid the aspects of high-density development which many feel undermine the success of development in Rosslyn or Crystal City. The inevitable rise in density which will accompany the many projects planned for downtown Bethesda is why we need a park at this location.

The opposition to this small urban park in a central location raises the question as to whether ACT and the Coalition really favor "smart growth" and "transit" or merely the development which can be justified in its name. Ben Ross of ACT was seen huddling in conference with the developers after the meeting. How did proponents of "smart growth" get so estranged from the community?

More Testimony on Woodmont East II

From Jon Weintraub of the Bethesda Civic Association:

We need to maintain the open epicenter of downtown Bethesda with the green space and its air, and light that we have opposite Gifford’s and the movie theater between Thyme Square and Mon Ami Gabi. We cannot support the cavernous linear park in this proposal. Let me be more specific:

The County is NOT getting enough by giving up Reed Street. This is a very bad deal for the County and its citizens in downtown Bethesda!

The staff report overestimates nearby green space and open space. Most of this reported space is NOT in the epicenter of our downtown where residents and visitors congregate. For example, no one knows what the “Discovery Trail” open space is or whether it meets a need. Let’s meet in front of Barnes and Noble and ask people if they know what the “Discovery Trail” is. If we bet an ice cream cone on this, I would reach a year’s worth before you would get a half a dozen. [emphasis mine]

The design of this building and its 132 foot bar greatly limits the exposure of sunlight to the remaining open space. There are alternatives that must be explored before the county approves this design and gives up Reed Street.

The citizens of downtown Bethesda do not need another “hardscape.” We have a big area of concrete in front of the metro. We do not need a 75 foot wide paved landscape. What we do need is to maximize this space for a “green public commons”, a true gathering space for our kids and grandchildren, as suggested by County Councilman Berliner.

From Stephen Seidel:

The staff report states that the “project provides a series of open spaces that are both functional and attractive” and that the proposal “will create a new public plaza in this important area of Bethesda that will serve as an attractive community gathering place…” In contrast, my concern and one shared by many in the community, is that added to several major development projects that have already been approved, this project will inevitably result in pervasive overcrowding while also eliminating the last piece of truly open space in this critical gathering place in downtown Bethesda.

Numerous other people testified on the project. The great range of area from which supporters of a park is a testament to the importance of preserving this open space. I'm grateful and thank them all, including:

Pat Baptiste & Wayne Phyillaier of the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail.
Richard Battaglia.
Pam Browning of the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition.
Pat Burda of the Town of Chevy Chase's Long-Range Planning Committee.
Ara Casey of the Ayrlawn Citizens Association.
Matt Chalfant.
James Crilley of The Hamlet.
Lee Eiden.
Ilaya Hopkins of the East Bethesda Citizens Association.
Jim Humphrey of the Montgomery County Civic Federation.
Zoie Jennings-Aguil.
Penina Maya.
Patrick Mazuzan of Oakmont.
Donald McCubbin of Take Back Bethesda.
Judith McGuire.
Maureen Jais-Mick of the Edgemoor Citizens Association.
Linda Miler.
Stephen Seidel.
Naomi Spinrad of the Chevy Chase West Citizens Association.
Deborah Vollmer.
Jon Weintraub & Linda Skalet of the Bethesda Civic Association.
Mier Wolf, Councilman and Former Mayor of the Town of Chevy Chase.

And, of course, Councilmen Roger Berliner and Marc Elrich who spoke out against the preliminary plan in advance of the Planning Board hearing.

Friday, November 09, 2007

Dueling Videos: Wynn-Edwards Round II

Walking into the auditorium of Blair HS last night to watch the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland debate sponsored by the Greater Silver Spring Democratic Club I took my seat and looked around the room where video cameras, camcorders, and digital cameras were everywhere. I could not help think back to the debate at PG CC on August 16, 2006 where Wynn staffers went after an Edwards supporter and it was caught on videotape. That one single incident changed the dynamics of the 2006 primary race more than any other event. And it was not even the candidates themselves. Since then it seems both sides are recording everything to protect themselves and record their opponent. Well why not let the campaigns get their message out here? Call it dueling videos.

A quick review of YouTube found several videos from both sides that outline their positions. Here is a link to a recent Donna Edwards video as well as one from a Wynn fundraiser with the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, supporting Al Wynn.

This blog space could be used to regularly post videos from the candidates outlining their positions. So I ask now do any of the candidates have copies of the debate that they want to share. Our viewership at Maryland Politics Watch (MPW) is around 230 hits a day and climbing. We are among the top blogs for Maryland Politics. This is the largest race we will have where the candidates are here to talk the issues. (The Presidential candidates come here to raise money.)

There are only 106 days to the election. Outline here via videos and comments why you should be the next Congressional Representative from Maryland Four. So here is your chance to educate the voters; ball is in your court.

Ground rules for Wynn-Edwards II: at the debate there were only a dozen of the 150 people who were undecided on this contest. Both sides have large pools of supporters that feel passionately about their candidate. Let's keep things civil. I will have little tolerance for people that post personal attacks and don't have the guts to sign their real name to it. This blog, unlike others, has contributors that sign their name. So do the same or risk having your remarks deleted.

And on to the House of Delegates

The Washington Post editorial board attacked witheringly the Senate budget plan as far too regressive, calling it "An Air Kiss to the Rich" and making especially pointed attacks on Montgomery senators. All MoCo senators supported the plan except Delegation Chair Rona Kramer who favored making the plan less progressive.

Meanwhile, the Baltimore Sun valuably explains the different paths being taken by the House and the Senate in their approach to the budget.

Senate Vote on Tax Package

Here is the final tally on the tax package adopted by the Senate along with selected breakdowns by party and region. The vote was 24-23.

Selected Breakdowns by Party and Region:
Republicans: 0 Yea, 14 Nay
Montgomery (all are Democrats): 7 Yea, 1 Nay
Prince George's (all are Democrats): 8 Yea, 0 Nay
Baltimore City (all are Democrats): 5 Yea, 1 Nay
Baltimore County Democrats: 2 Yea, 4 Nay

VOTING YEA (24):
Britt (D-Prince George's)
Conway (D-Baltimore City)
Currie (D-Prince George's)
Exum (D-Prince George's)
Forehand (D-Montgomery)
Frosh (D-Montgomery)
Garagiola (D-Montgomery)
Gladden (D-Baltimore City)
Jones (D-Baltimore City)
Kasemeyer (D-Baltimore County and Howard)
Kelley (D-Baltimore County)
King (D-Montgomery)
Lenett (D-Montgomery)
Madaleno (D-Montgomery)
McFadden (D-Baltimore City)
Middleton (D-Charles)
Miller (D-Prince George's and Calvert)
Muse (D-Prince George's)
Peters (D-Prince George's)
Pinsky (D-Prince George's)
Pugh (D-Baltimore City)
Raskin (D-Montgomery)
Robey (D-Howard)
Rosapepe (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's)

VOTING NAY (23):
Astle (D-Anne Arundel)
Brinkley (R-Frederick and Carroll)
Brochin (D-Baltimore County)
Colburn (R-Eastern Shore)
DeGrange (D-Anne Arundel)
Della (D-Baltimore City)
Dyson (D-Southern MD)
Edwards (R-Western MD)
Greenip (R-Anne Arundel)
Haines (R-Baltimore County and Carroll)
Harris (R-Baltimore County and Harford)
Hooper (R-Harford)
Jacobs (R-Cecil and Harford)
Kittleman (R-Carroll and Howard)
Klausmeier (D-Baltimore County)
Kramer (D-Montgomery)
Mooney (R-Frederick and Washington)
Munson (R-Washington)
Pipkin (R-Eastern Shore)
Simonaire (R-Anne Arundel)
Stoltzfus (R-Eastern Shore)
Stone (D-Baltimore County)
Zirkin (D-Baltimore County)

Interestingly, no Republicans broke from their party to oppose final passage of the tax package even though three voted for slots. Their votes were critical to passing the slots referendum and if they had voted against slots, it would've killed the package. On the other hand, four Democrats who voted against slots voted for the tax package: Frosh, Muse Pinsky, and Raskin; they could've killed slots by voting down the tax package but chose to support it. Della was the only Democratic senator to vote against slots and the tax package and is the only Democrat to claim to have opposed slots solidly.

All senators from Baltimore City, Montgomery, and Prince George's voted for the bill except Sen. Rona Kramer (D-Montgomery). In contrast, most senators from Baltimore County voted against the bill.

Middle Class Tax Relief Package Passes House

From Rep. Chris Van Hollen's office:

Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) today hailed the House passage of H.R. 3996, the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007. The legislation, which passed on a vote of 216 to 193, protects 23 million middle-class families from being hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax and includes a series of other provisions that provide tax relief to working families.

“Whatever its original intent, the AMT is today a poster child of tax policy gone awry,” said Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). “As we work towards comprehensive tax reform — including full repeal of the AMT — it is imperative that we act promptly to keep this tax tsunami from crashing down on 23 million unsuspecting American taxpayers. Moreover, with the national debt now exceeding $9 trillion, I am pleased that we are moving forward with this AMT patch in a fiscally responsible manner so that future generations will not have to spend their lives paying for the choices we make today.” The bill:

Provides 30 million homeowners with property tax relief
Helps 12 million children by expanding the child tax credit
Benefits 11 million families through the State and local sales tax deduction
Helps 4.5 million families better afford college with the tuition deduction
Saves 3.4 million teachers money with a deduction for classroom expenses
Provides thousands of American troops in combat with tax relief under the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The Temporary Tax Relief Act included two bipartisan amendments introduced by Congressman Van Hollen. The first Van Hollen Amendment – patterned after the AMT Credit Fairness and Relief Act (HR 3861) - would eliminate the injustice imposed upon hardworking Americans caused by the unintended and unanticipated effects of the AMT as it relates to Incentive Stock Options. As a result of this unfair provision many Americans are currently forced to pay taxes on phantom income – income they never received. The second Van Hollen amendment would repeal the IRS’s authority to enter into contracts with private companies to collect federal income taxes.

Senate Vote on Slots

Here is the final tally on the slots bill adopted by the Senate along with selected breakdowns by party and region. The vote was 31-15 with one abstention. The measure needed 29 votes to pass.

Selected Breakdowns by Party and Region:
Republicans: 3 Yea, 10 Nay, 1 Absent
Montgomery (all are Democrats): 6 Yea, 2 Nay
Prince George's (all are Democrats): 6 Yea, 2 Nay
Baltimore City (all are Democrats): 5 Yea, 1 Nay
Baltimore County Democrats: 6 Yea, 0 Nay

VOTING YEA (31):
Astle (D-Anne Arundel)
Britt (D-Prince George's)
Brochin (D-Baltimore County)
Colburn (R-Eastern Shore)
Conway (D-Baltimore City)
Currie (D-Prince George's)
DeGrange (D-Anne Arundel)
Dyson (D-Southern MD)
Edwards (R-Western MD)
Exum (D-Prince George's)
Forehand (D-Montgomery)
Garagiola (D-Montgomery)
Gladden (D-Baltimore City)
Jones (D-Baltimore City)
Kasemeyer (D-Baltimore County and Howard)
Kelley (D-Baltimore County)
King (D-Montgomery)
Klausmeier (D-Baltimore County)
Kramer (D-Montgomery)
Lenett (D-Montgomery)
Madaleno (D-Montgomery)
McFadden (D-Baltimore City)
Middleton (D-Charles)
Miller (D-Prince George's and Calvert)
Munson (R-Washington)
Peters (D-Prince George's)
Pugh (D-Baltimore City)
Robey (D-Howard)
Rosapepe (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's)
Stone (D-Baltimore County)
Zirkin (D-Baltimore County)

VOTING NAY (15):
Brinkley (R-Frederick and Carroll)
Della (D-Baltimore City)
Frosh (D-Montgomery)
Greenip (R-Anne Arundel)
Haines (R-Baltimore County and Carroll)
Harris (R-Baltimore County and Harford)
Jacobs (R-Cecil and Harford)
Kittleman (R-Carroll and Howard)
Mooney (R-Frederick and Washington)
Muse (D-Prince George's)
Pinsky (D-Prince George's)
Pipkin (R-Eastern Shore)
Raskin (D-Montgomery)
Simonaire (R-Anne Arundel)
Stoltzfus (R-Eastern Shore)

ABSENT (1):
Hooper (R-Harford)

Three Republicans broke from their party's opposition to slots in the special session to vote for the bill. Democratic votes against did not come from any particular region of the State. Lopsided majorities of Democrats from Baltimore, Baltimore City, Montgomery, and Prince George's voted for the bill. Brian Frosh (D-16) was the only senator who is seen as a potential successor to Miller who voted no.

Councilman Berliner on Woodmont East Decision

Councilman Roger Berliner issued the following statement after the Planning Board meeting on Woodmont East II yesterday:

Congratulations to everyone who worked so hard to preserve open space in the heart of Bethesda. After 3 ½ hours of effective testimony from the community and increasingly skeptical questions from the Board, the developers withdrew the application. As Chairman Hanson was reported to have said, this project needs to be totally reoriented – it should first focus on the public space and then build in a manner that enhances that space. It is my hope that the developers will choose to work with the community in a formal, collaborative process to produce a result that we can all be proud of.Publish Post

I know that many people appreciate Councilman Berliner's strong leadership on this question in convening public meetings on the project, speaking out before the Planning Board meeting, and developing an alternative vision for this space. Thanks also to Councilman Marc Elrich who joined in these efforts to protect valuable open space.

Friday on MPW

Special Session Roundup

ENDA Passes the House. However, Equality Maryland Not Celebrating

Federal Realty/JBG Loses on Woodmont East at the Planning Board

Court Rules Against ICC Opponents; Last Barrier to ICC Toppled

Special Session Roundup

Both the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post report that the Maryland Senate approved a referendum on slots. The referendum was approved on a 31-15 vote. Here is where the money goes:

If approved by voters next November, the slots bill would generate about $650 million a year for the state, nearly $400 million a year for the parlor operators and more than $75 million a year for enhanced payouts in horse races -- a practice that is in place in several neighboring states.

An amendment sponsored by Bethesda Sen. Brian Frosh (D-16) should be of interest to snowbirds who winter in Florida and claim residency there but return to the Old Line State in Winter. The amendment alters the definition of residency in Maryland to anyone who spends three months of year in Maryland. In other words, you can go to Florida but Maryland still wants your tax revenue. The amendment passed on a 24-23 vote. According to the Washington Post, the amendment would yield another $58 million in tax revenue.

Unfortunately, the General Assembly website does not show how individual senators voted on measures until several days later which is a pity because I'd enjoy reporting how individual senators voted.

ENDA Passes the House but Equality MD Not Celebrating

Equality Maryland issued the following statement via email after the passage of the Employment and Non-Discrimination Act by the U.S. House of Representatives (no link because I cannot find it on the EM website):

Yesterday, the United States House of Representatives voted 235-184 to pass H.R. 3685, a non-inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which protects workers from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation alone, and not gender identity. This is the first time the United States House of Representatives has passed an employment nondiscrimination act that, if enacted, would ban discrimination against most lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people in the workplace. The bill has an uphill battle in the Senate and would almost certainly be vetoed by President Bush.

For some, the passage of a non-inclusive ENDA feels like an important symbolic victory, even though it will not be signed into law to tangibly help lesbian, gay or bisexual Americans in the immediacy. Equality Maryland acknowledges three decades of work by our allies in Congress and by national LGBT organizations who have been passionate and determined to bring this civil rights legislation before Congress. Certainly, passing ENDA may serve an educational value for society as a whole as to the discrimination faced by some in our community. Still, Equality Maryland remains concerned that passage of a non-inclusive bill damages efforts to pass truly inclusive legislation both in Maryland and at a time when such legislation will have the support of the President of the United States.

Equality Maryland is part of the United ENDA coalition which issued the following negative statement (reproduced by Equality Maryland):

While the passage in the House of Representatives today of this stripped down ENDA is deeply disappointing, we have seen a tremendous shift in the commitment of a growing number of legislators to only support an inclusive ENDA in the future when passage in the Senate and the signature of a new President make the enactment of comprehensive employment protections a possibility. We remain frustrated and disappointed that an inferior bill was brought to the floor. The stripping away of gender identity not only abandons transgender people - the most vulnerable within the LGBT community - it ignores the reality that gender identity and expression are at the root of much anti-gay discrimination.

Meanwhile, the Human Rights Campaign issued the following upbeat statement:

"Today, we witnessed the making of civil rights history in the U.S. House of Representatives by the passing of ENDA," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "This vote by Congress is an important step at ensuring that millions of gay and lesbian Americans will never again have to go to work in fear of losing their jobs because of who they are."

In 31 states, it is currently legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. In 39 states, it is legal to fire a person for being transgender.

The Human Rights Campaign helped introduce ENDA 13 years ago to prevent workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. This year, for the first time, HRC and allies on the Hill included gender identity in the bill to also protect transgender workers. One month ago, House leadership made it clear that Congress did not have the votes to pass HR 2015, which prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This week, House Rules Committee reported out Congressman Frank’s HR 3685, a bill that protects only sexual orientation, to the floor.

While HRC was disappointed that HR 3685 did not include protections for transgender Americans, it believes the successful passage of Congressman Frank’s bill is a step forward for all Americans, and that it paves the way for additional progress to outlaw workplace discrimination based on gender identity.

"Our fight for equality will not be won overnight," said Solmonese. "It will be won one step at a time, and we will not give up until we reach the finish line. This is a critical piece of legislation and a major step toward the finish line for all Americans."

Throughout history, Congress has often taken an incremental approach toward equality for other civil rights and business regulatory legislation. For example, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was introduced in five consecutive congresses for eight years and was vetoed twice by former President Bush before it was finally signed into law on February 5, 1993, by President Clinton. Each time the FMLA was introduced, Members built upon the protection from the previous year’s legislative action.

Additionally, each piece of civil rights legislation passed by Congress -- in 1957, 1960, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1990 -- continued the legislative path of the expansion of essential civil rights protections in law.

On Tuesday, the Human Rights Campaign joined the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR); the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), among other organizations in the civil rights community, in support of the bill that would make it illegal for employers to discriminate on sexual orientation. The letter was signed by 10 national civil rights and worker protection organizations representing millions of Americans.

The Advocate reports that 70% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people supported HRC's position that an ENDA without protections for transgender people is better than no ENDA at all.

I expressed my thoughts immediately after the passage of ENDA here. Below is an except from the transcript of the YouTube which I posted yesterday of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) fighting with his usual passion and skill for the passage of the bill on the floor of the House. I found it far more eloquent and moving than any official statements or polls:

Mr. Speaker, we say here that we don't take things personally, and usually that is true. Members, Mr. Speaker, will have to forgive me. I take it a little personally.

Thirty-five years ago, I filed a bill to try to get rid of discrimination based on sexual orientation. As we sit here today, there are millions of Americans in States where this is not the law. By the way, 19 States have such a law. In no case has it led to that decision [i.e. same-sex marriage]. The Massachusetts law passed in 1989, that did not lead to the decision in 2004. Unrelated.

But here is the deal. I used to be someone subject to this prejudice, and, through luck, circumstance, I got to be a big shot. I am now above that prejudice. But I feel an obligation to 15-year-olds dreading to go to school because of the torments, to people afraid that they will lose their job in a gas station if someone finds out who they love. I feel an obligation to use the status I have been lucky enough to get to help them.

I want to ask my colleagues here, Mr. Speaker, on a personal basis, please, don't fall for this sham. Don't send me out of here having failed to help those people.

Thanks Barney.

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Post Hightlights Ali-King Discord in District 39

The Washington Post highlighted clashes between Del. Saqib Ali (D) and Sen. Nancy King (D) in District 39. Readers will recall that Sen. P.J. Hogan recently stepped down and both Ali and King vied for the appointment to the open senate seat. The Central Committee selected King. The Post blogger, and King, imply that Ali's disagreement are sour grapes without actually using the words, though there is also substance at issue:

Their latest dispute involves part of Gov. Martin O'Malley's revenue plan that includes a movement toward "combined reporting," a method of collecting corporate income taxes that seeks to capture revenue lost by businesses that shelter income in out-of-state subsidiaries. And Ali said he took umbrage that King not only supported the budget committee's decision to delete O'Malley's provision from the revenue bill, but that she introduced a bill of her own that would essentially do the same thing.

"One way to kill something is to say we're going to study it," Ali said of King's legislation to study combined reporting. "I'm not sure why this is where she decided to take her stand."

King said there is not enough information on combined reporting, and that's why she thinks a study is warranted. "I'm not against combined reporting, I just think we need more information before we start it," she said.

As for Ali's questioning her every move: King said, "It all follows along. I'll probably be doing this for three years."

Federal Realty/JBG Loses on Woodmont East at the Planning Board

The Planning Board pleasantly stunned the community and did not endorse the preliminary plan for Woodmont East II despite the strong push from the developers and a very positive report from the Planning Board's staff. Regrettably, I could not attend the meeting and testify (that having to earn a living thing getting in the way again), though I submitted a memo to the Planning Board outlining my objections to the Staff Report. According to my many sources, an amazing job was done by the many park proponents. More to come.

ICC Opponents Lose Lawsuit

A federal judge ruled in favor of the government and ruled that construction of the ICC can go ahead:

He wrote that government agencies abided by federal law outlining how highway projects' environmental impacts must be analyzed before they are approved. The judge noted the "extensive record and the agencies' level of technical expertise and experience."

"Although [the government agencies'] actions in some instances may not have been a paragon of perfection, the court, nonetheless, cannot find anything that rises to the level of a meaningful violation" of federal requirements, Williams wrote in a 106-page opinion issued this afternoon. "For all of these reasons, the court concludes that there is no legal or equitable basis to prevent the Inter-County Connector from moving forward."

The lawsuit was the last realistic hope of ICC opponents. Even the lawsuit was a long shot as the government usually wins these cases. Gov. Martin O'Malley has expressed strong support for the ICC so I think we can expect the State to move quickly to construct it.

Thursday on Maryland Politics Watch

Kevin Gillogly gives an insider's perspective on the Rockville election.

The Washington Post does not have a single article on Maryland's special session but we have a roundup here of the Budget Wars (Episode II: The Progressives Strike Back).

The Chevy Chase Town Council met last night; read my account see photos of this somewhat contentious meeting.

Development issues just won't go away; the hearing on Woodmont East is today. Political Pulse has development expert Jim Humphrey on the show.

Finally, I outline current divisions within the gay-rights movement and discuss yesterday's passage of the Employment and Non-Discrimination Act by the U.S. House.

ENDA Passes the House

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has led the fight to pass the Employment and Non-Discrimination Act for over three decades. Thanks to his untiring efforts, it passed the House yesterday. The New York Times reports that the bill is likely to pass the Senate early in the new year. What a difference Democratic control of Congress makes.

The Republicans tried to kill the bill not by honestly admitting that they favor continued discrimination but through endless specious attempts to claim that the bill somehow legalizes gay marriage. The following YouTube makes plain their parliamentary maneuvers but also, more importantly, shows at least one reason I'm proud to be a Democrat.

I suspect the bill will do more as a symbol than in terms of actual prevention of discrimination. This bill is a public statement by the body representing the people of this country that gays and lesbians are a part of the fabric of the American family. That truth may eventually lead to gay marriage and is reflected in the rapid evolution of public opinion on this issue. It may also lead to the end of the ability of Republicans to divide us and gain power based on such questions. I'm not sure which the formerly-Grand Old Party fears more.

Woodmont East Park Hearing Today

The Gazette and the Washington Post both published articles highlighting Councilman Roger Berliner's proposal for a park at Woodmont East. Today, the Planning Board will hold a hearing on Woodmont East at approximately 2:30PM at 8787 Georgia Ave. If you can, go and be vocal in your support for a park.

Even though the hearing was scheduled for the middle of a workday and the Planning Board ignored requests to move it to a different time, many people want to testify on this project. One day in advance of the hearing, the Planning Board decided to limit public comment to three hours. I've explained my views on the official staff report on the project here. In addition to Councilman Berliner, Councilman Marc Elrich has expressed his support for a park.

Meanwhile, the developer is refusing to talk to the press, having not returned calls or declined interviews with both the Gazette and the Washington Post.

Thursday Special Session Roundup

According to the Baltimore Sun, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a Washington based non-partisan, non-profit research group, released a study today showing that Gov. Martin O'Malley's tax plan was much kinder to low-income Marylanders than the version being considered by the state Senate. The Department of Legislative Services agrees:

The governor has tried to sell his plan to the public by saying that for most families, his proposals to reduce the state property tax and make the state income tax more fair would more than make up for his plan to increase the sales tax from 5 percent to 6 percent. But figures from the Department of Legislative Services show that the Senate's amendments erased any benefits middle-income Marylanders might have received.

The department estimated that a family with an income of $75,000 a year would pay $166 more, and a family with an annual income of $150,000 would pay an extra $332.

Gov. O'Malley says he wants to revive the property and income tax cuts eliminated by the Senate which he says would make the plan more fair. Eric Luedtke reports that four senators from Montgomery are mounting an effort to amend the Senate bill to make it more progressive though the post doesn't give details on the proposal or which MoCo senators are supporting it.

Comptroller Peter Franchot continued to redefine his role as tribune for the people rather than bean counter and did not miss an opportunity to blast the Senate. He even took to the Web with an attack on the Senate plan. Comptroller Franchot labeled the Senate plan "a regressive pounding of working families and the working poor." Now that he has gone after the Governor and the Senate, I guess the House of Delegates is up next.

Another Sun article reports that the O'Malley lobbying effort relies more on the philosophy of you catch more politicians with honey than with vinegar. Meanwhile, Republican senators didn't show up the Senate session and then felt hurt when the Democrats made light jokes about their absence. I'm sure we all feel their pain.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

A Winner Has Many Parents and A Loser is an Orphan: What Happened In The Rockville Mayoral Race

Dear Readers, I have been involved in the recently completed Rockville Municipal election and my candidate, Drew Powell, lost. We came in 3rd in a three horse race to be the next Mayor of Rockville. So how do you write a summary of an election where you lose? Carefully, because any criticism of the winning team could be construed as sour grapes when your side lost. Winners get to write the ending, not losers.

The title of this posting is true because elections are a birth. If your side wins you stay up most of the night, lights on, upbeat music playing, passing along good cheer, maybe a cigar, while scores of new found friends are hugging and high fiving each other. It is almost impossible to wipe the smile off of your face. True believers, family and close friends are mixed in with the causal acquaintances where no one cares about distinctions. It is a time to celebrate everything that is good about the American political system. If you lose your party is over in about 10 minutes and those that remain are the one or two true believers sitting in a dimly lit room with the shades drawn looking at each other and saying "what happened?" The hardest part is the self-examination. It is even harder to do when you have been running on raw emotion for the past four days. You are tired but not sleepy, angry but not postal, lonely but not alone, and hungry but not eating. So it is best to give yourself some time to collect your thoughts -- and move away from the ledge.

For first timers (both candidates and the hard core supporters) losing is terrible. Losing sides may think that their world has collapsed but they are wrong. Losing an election is neither war nor death. Emotionally it is akin to breaking up with your first girlfriend (or boyfriend) as a teenager. It is not the end of the world but sure feels like it. Just as teenage love occurs when you do not having the emotional skills to cope with a personal rejection, losing an election tests your core beliefs. It is painful. It is something to be experienced and not posted in a blog. Rejection at the polls requires you to develop your emotional skills. Just like talking to a parent about your first breakup, it helps to have someone who you can talk to about this most public of rejections. That is why campaigns are like adolescence romance it is huge to the teenager but as an adult you know that the youngster's world has not collapsed. There are bigger things ahead. We just don't know what it is. Still losing an election that you are emotionally invested in hurts like heck.

I feel sorry for political activists that have never experienced defeat because they have probably never pushed themselves nor never tested the limits of what government can be: a vehicle for positive change, a place to bring new thinking to old ideas, a chance to leave this place a bit better than before. Isn't that the reason for getting into politics in the first place? But the risk of losing steers many political activists to be safe. And so we get the politics of least resistance. And that leads to middling policy and not true change.

A victory is twice as sweet if it has as its core a previous loss. You appreciate the winning moment more. At the same time, if you never experience a win in politics then you never get the chance to make a difference and you might as well join a gardening club or risk being compared to perennial candidate Harold Stassen.

The Danger In Victory
The danger of an electoral victory is you think you have a mandate to change things that the voters may not have given you. But no one knows the current answer to that future question. After a win you are at your zenith. Plato described in "The Republic" that the ultimate authority should be a citizen king who act as a benevolent dictator. On the morning after an election all winners are benevolent dictators. Unfortunately with each passing day that ultimate authority erodes until the next winning campaign. Still the winners have a mandate to change things as they see fit. And wasn't that the reason for the sacrifice in the first place?

If you lose an election then you find yourself curled away in your own cubby hole reluctant to venture out except to bark at someone. That's not a good thing to do. Remember the sun will come up tomorrow.

It takes guts to run for public office. Regardless of the candidate you should thank them for at least trying. I have never run and don't know if I ever will. But I like to help candidates that can make a community a better place. Unfortunately, last night in Rockville the voters did not want what my side offered.

So what happened in Rockville?
The short answer is obvious -- we did not get enough votes. The medium answer is: The contest did not center on our issues. We could not frame the key issues facing Rockville properly to the electorate; and we did not build the right coalition of supporters. The real answer is equally simple: it was not our time.

With each subsequent election, I learn more about myself. I learned that I am a product of all that I have met and all that I have touched. I was touched by many people. Most importantly by the candidate, Drew Powell (on the left). He is a good man with a desire to make Rockville a better place and I failed him in reaching this goal. I hope he finds a way to remain involved in his town and our county. He is an asset to our community. Drew, please find a way to continue to make our world better.

Why get involved in Rockville?
I think what Rockville does inside its city limits has a huge impact on the rest of the county, regardless of where you live. Rockville is our county seat. It is the geographic center of the county. Rockville Pike/ Rt. 355/ Hungerford Drive is the spine of the county. Having a correct spine keeps everything else in place. It is why I tried to make a difference in Rockville. We had a good candidate and good message, but we failed to get our message out and we lost.

What didn't happen in Rockville
I have been reading the blogs and the papers about how this race was divisive. Not really. I have seen a lot worse and even the stuff worse that I have seen in other elections has been quite tame. I think it is easy to jump to calling things "negative politics" if you don't want to respond. I think it is easy for reporters to discount things that disagrees with their hypothesis and never gave a fair hearing to what we were saying. I also think -- to be fair to the main reporter -- covering the 14 campaigns of Rockville is next to impossible considering the space limitations of newsprint. The debates were virtually unworkable due to the sheer size of the candidates. I also think news articles love to highlight conflict and horse race features of any campaign. They have a chance to instruct when I keep forgetting their goal is to get us to read the ads of the paper first and the articles second and to inform third. As for the debates, I have no better idea of how to organize a debate with so many people running.

But as I said at the beginning any criticism from me will sound like sour grapes. Why did we lose? Not enough votes and we failed to get our message out. It was that simple. Did the "right" people win? Sure. They always do. If you want to know the details then ask the winners, they earned the right to complete the story.

But it was a fun ride with a disappointing ending -- for me at least. For the winners, it was pure joy. So I tip my hat to the new Mayor and to the new members of the city council. Good luck to all. For me, I will remember the call from my girlfriend eager to know the results of the election. After I gave her the news she did her best to cheer me up. Just like a parent would do after one's first teenage romance gone astray. I appreciated that.

Chevy Chase Town Council Meeting

Councilmembers Kathy Strom, Lance Hoffman, and Rob Enelow

The Town Council met at the 4-H Center earlier tonight because the Town Hall was already booked. At first, it looked like this might be the most well-attended Council meeting in history but it turned out just to be bus loads of of kids arriving at the 4-H Center. Nonetheless, around forty town residents came to the meeting, mostly to comment on the proposed amendments to the Town Charter.

The public comments section at the beginning of the meeting was unusually active. Several residents expressed that the Town needs to move more quickly to adopt the new FAR (floor-to-area ratio) regulations for land use in order to help constrain the size of new homes. One couple also complained that the Town Staff was not properly enforcing existing regulations and that meetings and approvals were allowed to go forward even if the applications were incomplete despite clearly-defined rules and procedures.

One woman made a plea on behalf of herself and many other parents to improve the playground equipment in the park by the Leland Center. She suggested the Town explore various alternatives to speed up improvements as the County is not scheduled to improve the playground for a couple of years. (The Town Council discussed this matter further after I had to leave the meeting.) I spoke briefly about the hearing tomorrow on the proposed development at Woodmont East and efforts to promote a park at that site.

At several points during the meeting, residents also asked for more communication from the Council and the Town. One suggested that the Council find a way to post drafts of the minutes from the last Council meeting during the last meeting. Similar sentiments reverberated during the public hearing on the proposed Charter amendments. Residents (and Councilmembers) responded positively to a suggestion from Councilwoman Kathy Strom that short document explaining reasons for the changes be sent to town residents in advance of the next meeting.

Kudos to Mayor Linna Barnes (pictured above right) on striking the difficult balance between keeping control of the meeting and allowing an unusually high level of comment from residents and interplay between the Council, the Town Attorney, and residents which I think helped to reassure residents that most of the proposed changes to the Town Charter are relatively minor. Having said that, I think there is a consensus among many residents that communication with residents can still be improved.

This view was further reflected in the sensitivity of the Charter amendment related to regulating the ability of the public to comment at Council meeting. The Council explained helpfully that the amendment was crafted not with the intent to squelch public comment but to allow the Council to hold markup sessions where they can workout the details after public comment has occurred.

The other sensitive amendment related to the taxation of personal property. Town Clerk Andi Silverstone and Town Attorney David Podolsky unpacked the tax terms for the crowd which felt relieved when they learned that this was a tax on businesses (not personal property like cars or furniture despite the name) and that the Town had been collecting this tax for ages. In other words, Town residents were happy to learn that no increase in taxes was set to occur.

The Council then moved to consider variance requests. Councilman Mier Wolf (pictured above left) encouraged in jest one applicant to run for the Council as a former mayor had lived in her house. She demurred on the grounds that she had already served in the Wisconsin legislature (!) but expressed sympathy with the Council (which had listened patiently to an earful earlier in the meeting). At that point, I had to leave the meeting which still had many topics to review.

On Political Pulse

Jim Humphrey, the Chairman of the Montgomery County Civic Federations Planning & Land Use Committee, will be on Political Pulse on:

Thursday, November 8th at 9 p.m. and
Tuesday, November 13th at 9:30 p.m.

to talk about the County Council's vote next week on the development growth policy in the County. This is a hot topic and Jim Humphrey is quite knowledgeable.

Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.

On Maryland Politics Watch Today

Just to make sure you don't miss anything "below the fold" of the blog:

Councilman Roger Berliner has lent his support to a park at Woodmont East in Bethesda. Councilman Marc Elrich also supports the park. Meanwhile, residents near Georgia Ave. have unified in an organization called GreenSpaceonGeorgia.org to fight to get a property designated as Legacy Open Space and to protect green space near their communities.

Meanwhile, debate over the county growth policy grinds on but planning staff explained to me that new traffic restrictions are unlikely to limit any projects in Bethesda. Coverage of the special session and major changes made to O'Malley's budget plan by the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee is below as well.

Of course, there is an election roundup including information on races in Rockville and Gaithersburg as well as events in Virginia. Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18) of Chevy Chase and the County's senior Latino elected official fought for one of the two slates in Gaithersburg. See an additional post on controversy in the Gaithersburg election.

However, the next post addresses the issue of divisions within the gay-rights movement over legislative strategy.

Gay Rights Movement Divided on Legislative Strategy

The strong divisions with the organizations advocating greater rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people (often called LGBT by the groups but known colloquially as the "gay rights movement") have become quite public recently. Specifically, controversy has centered over whether pro-LGBT groups should support legislation which does not include transgender people.

The Human Rights Campaign, the major national lobby, has argued that Congress should pass the Employment and Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) even if it does not include protections for transgender people:

[I]t appeared there are not the votes to pass an all inclusive version of ENDA and in an open letter to members of Congress, HRC, the NAACP, the National Education Association, the National Employment Lawyers Association, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Federation of State, County, Municipal Employees and a number of other groups said they would support ENDA without gender identity.

The letter says that it is "beyond dispute that transgender employees are particularly in need of those protections. They face far more pervasive and severe bias in the workplace and society as a whole."

But it goes on to say: "As civil rights organizations, however, we are no strangers to painful compromise in the quest for equal protection of the law for all Americans. From the Civil Rights Act of 1957 through the almost-passed District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, legislative progress in the area of civil and human rights has almost always been incremental in nature. With each significant step toward progress, the civil rights community has also faced difficult and sometimes even agonizing tradeoffs. We have always recognized, however, that each legislative breakthrough has paved the way for additional progress in the future.

"With respect to ENDA, we take the same view."

"While we are greatly disappointed that the current version of ENDA is not fully inclusive, our sense of frustration in this case is directed at those who would clearly prefer to see no one from the gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender community protected at all."

Equality Maryland, the state's largest pro-LGBT lobby, has forcefully attacked and opposed efforts to pass a version of ENDA without protections for transgender people:

In an unprecedented show of unity, more than 90 leading national and state groups, including Equality Maryland, signed onto a letter in support of one inclusive ENDA. This letter was delivered to Congress yesterday. (To view the letter, click here.) As a result, Democratic leadership has postponed mark-up of the bill, giving our community a renewed opportunity to pass an inclusive ENDA. If you have not already done so, please urge your member of Congress to support only an inclusive ENDA.

Equality Maryland will continue to work for and support only legislation that is explicitly inclusive of "gender identity" language to assure the protection of the full LGBT community. This is a core principle of our organization. There is no state law in Maryland protecting individuals from discrimination on the basis of gender identity, while discrimination based on sexual orientation has been covered under state law since 2001. Maryland's LGBT community knows firsthand the difficulties we face in "going back" for transgender anti-discrimination protections after passing a partial anti-discrimination bill. Since 2002, every state that has passed an anti-discrimination law has passed an inclusive law. Inclusive legislation is not just a moral imperative; it is politically wise.

The divisions over the issue were apparent at Equality Maryland's Jazz Brunch. While EM Executive Director Dan Furmansky reiterated the organization's commitment to passing only more inclusive legislation, this all-or-nothing approach was attacked by the recipient of the major award, Victor Basile, a former president of the Human Rights Campaign.

Equality Maryland did accept legislation excluding protections for transgender people when fighting for the state equivalent of ENDA, though it now continues to fight hard to pass new legislation which would be more inclusive. Indeed, protections for transgender people were EM's major legislative priority in the previous regular legislative session.

Rep. Barney Frank, an architect of ENDA who has fought for years to get it passed, was supposed to speak at the Equality Maryland Jazz Brunch and was listed on the program. However, he was "unable to join" the hundreds of people in attendance at the last minute. Frank also disagrees with the Equality Maryland's stance on ENDA and explained his view in a statement to House replicated on his website:

We are at a differential stage in public understanding of these issues. We've been dealing explicitly and increasingly openly with prejudice based on sexual orientation for almost 40 years, since the Stonewall Riots of 1969 and since then.

The millions of people that talk openly and to take on the prejudice against people who are transgendered is newer. It is also the case that prejudice begins with people reacting against those who are different from them in some way. People are rarely prejudiced against their clones. So we have this situation where there is more prejudice in this society today against people who are transgendered than against people who are gay and lesbian, partly because we have been working longer at dealing with the sex orientation prejudice; partly because the greater the difference, the greater the prejudice is to start, the more people fail to identify, the more they are put off by differences, especially when those differences come in matters of the greatest personal intimacy. . . .

So this is the question we now face. I am convinced that the votes are there to pass a bill that bans discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment. I am also convinced that if we were to put up a bill that included people of transgender, that part would be stricken on a vote, and, unfortunately, a fairly heavy vote. . . .

I had hoped that we would have a vote upon a transgender-inclusive bill and win. Getting a large vote in this body to say no to transgender inclusion will make it harder in the future to change that situation, partly because my junior Senator, as the Presidential candidate, was unfairly pilloried. His remark was caricatured about his vote on Iraq. He quite sensibly voted for one version of funding for Iraq and then voted against another. He phrased it inartfully. What he did was correct.

Meanwhile, at the local level, Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg continues to try to get Montgomery County to pass protections for transgender people in the hope that the State and the country will follow our lead. She recently issued a press release defending her bill against attacks:

Despite the efforts of a small group of ideologically motivated individuals to raise fears and continue discriminatory policies, support for the Montgomery County Council’s proposal to protect the rights of transgender individuals remains strong, Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg, chief sponsor of the legislation, said today.

The legislation, which has been discussed in a worksession of the Council’s Health and Human Services Committee and at a legislative hearing before the full Council, is scheduled for a vote for adoption by the Council on Tuesday, Nov. 13.

I attended the press conference held by Councilwoman Trachtenberg to show support for the legislation. Councilman Marc Elrich expressed his strong support as well as his hope that the legislation would soon pass the Council unanimously. One of Councilwoman Trachtenberg's aides, Dana Beyer, who is a transgender person (and ran for delegate in District 18 in 2006), spoke eloquently on the bill, answering questions from the press with well-organized facts and aplomb.

More on Gaithersburg Elections

Gaithersblog has some interesting analysis of the election dynamics in the City:

From what I’ve seen and heard, one thing that seems to be getting people the most upset is the involvement of County-, State- and Federal-level politicians in this effort. County Executive Ike Leggett lent his picture and his words to the most recent mailing, and listed supporters include County Council members, County Board of Education members, the Maryland Secretary of Labor and even a US Congressman. This is, to my knowledge, unprecedented in a Gaithersburg City Council race, and I think that it is arguable whether it is appropriate.

I'll be curious to hear if and how Gaithersburg follows up on campaign finance complaints. Apparently, City staff removed quite a few illegal signs posted by One Gaithersburg during the campaign according to the Gazette.

Senate Budget Committee Makes Major Changes to O'Malley's Plan

The Senate Budget and Taxation Committee is making major changes to Gov. Martin O'Malley's budget plan. They make the income plan less progressive and more favorable to high-income tax payers and Montgomery County. Meanwhile slots, including a slight change to give more of the profits to slots operators, and a one-cent increase in the sales tax sailed through the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee as did a tobacco tax increase. More information is in the report from the Baltimore Sun:

Top-earning Marylanders and big businesses got a break yesterday when a Senate panel amended Gov. Martin O'Malley's revenue package by reducing top income tax rates and eliminating a measure designed to ensure that multi-state corporations pay taxes.

The Budget and Taxation Committee also voted to eliminate some of the breaks the governor had included for lower-income households and against O'Malley's proposal to reduce the state property tax by 3 cents per $100 over the next three years.

The panel moved to extend the state sales tax to include computer services, landscaping and arcade games, but not to other services recommended by O'Malley. And the governor's plan to tie the gas tax to increases in the cost of construction materials also failed in the committee.

But the committee easily approved O'Malley's proposal to hold a referendum in November 2008 on allowing up to 15,000 slot machines at five sites. . . .

O'Malley's initial plan called for an extension of the sales tax to cover real estate management, health clubs, tanning salons and massage therapy. Representatives of those industries lobbied hard against their inclusion in the bill, and yesterday, the Senate committee removed them.

But instead of the $60 million that would have been generated from expanding the sales tax in O'Malley's bill, the Senate committee opted for tapping computer services, landscaping and arcades - a $300 million annual hit of which those industries had no warning. None of them was considered as part of a hearing on taxing services conducted Saturday by the House Ways and Means Committee. . . .

The Senate committee approved O'Malley's proposal to increase Maryland's sales tax rate from 5 percent to 6 percent.

Another significant change to the governor's plan came in his proposal to make the state income tax more progressive. O'Malley called for a new bracket of 6 percent for individuals making more than $150,000 a year and couples making more than $200,000. A 6.5 percent bracket would kick in for all income above $500,000 a year.

But the plan approved by the Senate committee would reduce those top brackets to 5 percent and 5.5 percent. That change could help win the support of Montgomery County legislators.

"The sense is that our county may be disproportionately impacted by that, and unlike other parts of the state, we sit across the river from Virginia and down the road from D.C.," said Del. Brian Feldman, the Democrat who chairs the Montgomery County delegation.

The Senate's plan also eliminated benefits that O'Malley had built into his income tax plan to help offset the impact of the sales tax increase on low- and middle-income Marylanders. O'Malley's proposal included a new lower bracket for the first $15,000 in income, which the Senate deleted. He also called for a tax credit for low-income workers to offset some of the higher sales tax, which the Senate also rejected.

Other parts of O'Malley's plan made it through largely intact. His slots proposal easily cleared the committee and won the support of some Republicans. The biggest change was to increase the take for slots parlor operators from 30 percent to 33 percent, a change that senators said was necessary to ensure the development of high-quality facilities.

The panel approved two other O'Malley proposals: to close a so-called loophole that allows companies to transfer real estate without paying the transfer tax and to double the tobacco tax to $2 per pack of cigarettes. The Senate previously blocked both of those measures.

The committee also set aside more than $50 million from the new tax measures for Chesapeake Bay cleanup. About $400 million would go to transportation projects.

Marc Elrich Supports Park; Info on GreenSpaceonGeorgia.org

Marc Elrich has agreed to join with Roger Berliner in supporting a new park at Woodmont East II. Thanks to both of them for their support for one of last bits of green space in the heart of Bethesda.

Meanwhile, I've learned of another fight over green space and development near Georgia Ave. Residents there are being urged to cross a dangerous intersection at Georgia Ave. to find green space. Check out greenspaceongeorgia.org for more information:

GreenSpaceonGeorgia.org is a coalition of residents from Plyers Mill Crossing, Plyers Mill Estates, Carroll Knolls, and McKenney Hills communities. Our current efforts are in opposition to the proposed development of townhouses on the current site of The School of Art + Design at Montgomery College on Georgia Avenue at Evans Drive. Instead, we support the development of a neighborhood park, with a focus on active open green space and community use.

Residents can testify on the key Legacy Open Space meeting at 4PM on November 15th.

The staff report on Woodmont East says that green space located across the major arteries of Wisconsin Ave. and Arlington Rd. is just fine in Bethesda. Indeed, staffers at the Planning Board explained to me yesterday that the solution to any lack of green space in the heart of Bethesda is more kiosks (!) directing people where to find the green space elsewhere instead of working to sustain and support natural gathering places. Maybe kiosks will be recommended as a solution to green space issues on Georgia Ave. too.

Debate Over Growth Policy Grinds On

The Montgomery County Council voted to increase fees on developers and up the recordation tax in test votes on the County's growth policy:

In a series of test votes on changes to the county's growth policy, a five-member majority solidified around proposals they say will tighten controls on development and allow some growth. Final action is expected Tuesday.
The council backed plans that would, for example, increase the transportation tax that pays for roads or transit on a new single-family detached house from $6,264 to $10,649 and increase the schools tax that pays for classrooms on the same house from $9,111 to $20,456. . . .

The tax plan was backed by a majority, with members Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) and Nancy Floreen (D-At large) abstaining, and Roger Berliner (D-Potomac-Bethesda) and Valerie Ervin (D-Silver Spring) absent for the vote. Council member George L. Leventhal (D-At large) missed the day-long session because he is recovering from injuries sustained last week in a car accident.

Council members Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville), Berliner, Marc Elrich (D-At Large), Marilyn Praisner (D-Eastern County) and Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large) began coalescing late last week around a Berliner-Elrich plan to recalibrate traffic tests and require developers to pay extra fees to diminish the impact of their projects on roads and schools.

The council did find unanimity on one issue: Members backed an increase in the recordation tax paid at closing on real-estate transactions. Trachtenberg, who proposed the increase, said the plan could bring an extra $10 million annually to pay for rental subsidies and infrastructure.

Developers think that the new fees are too "onerous" and County Executive Ike Leggett worries that the increase in the recordation tax will discourage first-time home buyers.

Meanwhile, the Coalition for Smarter Growth thinks the plan doesn't do enough to encourage more growth near Metro stops. They needn't worry too much. When I was at the Planning Board yesterday, planning staffer Josh Sloan explained to me that the proposed new traffic test for development would not prevent virtually any project from being built in Bethesda.

Election Roundup

What a night. Thanks to the many readers who followed the results with me and helped correct my mistakes in the comments section. Now to the roundup:

A number of hot races were held in Maryland municipalities. You can find results from Gaithersburg here and coverage of GOTV efforts here. In Rockville, incumbent Bob Dorsey was defeated for reelection to the City Council and Susan Hoffman captured the mayoralty; complete results here. Results from other cities in Montgomery and Prince George's available from the Washington Post. The state's largest city predictably made Sheila Dixon the first woman elected mayor; I think she may also be the first African-American woman elected to head a major American city since Sharon Pratt Dixon in Washington, D.C.

Democrats won a 21-19 majority in the Virginia Senate. You can get official Virginia results at the State Board of Elections. Perhaps the most prominent Republican to go down to defeat was Sen. Jeanmarie Devolites Davis (R-Fairfax City), the wife of U.S. Rep. Tom Davis. One seat narrowly held by a Republican appears likely to go to a recount at Sen. Ken Cuccinelli (R) holds just a 91 vote lead over his Democratic opponent. Democrats experienced a net gain of four seats in the Virginia House of Delegates but Republicans retained control by a 54-45 margin with one independent.

While Mississippi Republican Haley Barbour held the governor's mansion in Mississippi, Kentucky Democrats celebrated retaking the governor's office in a thumping 60% win over the incumbent Republican.

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Democrats Win Clear Majority in Virginia

Rich Madaleno informs me that Virginia's Lt. Gov. is a Republican so the Dems need 21 seats to have a majority and take control. The good news is that they just accomplished that goal. The Democrats have 21 seats with one seat still up in the air according to Not Larry Sabato over in Virginia.

Larry Sabato says on his Crystal Ball website: "Republican candidates have told the Crystal Ball that Bush and Iraq are the heaviest weights around their necks." OK, not a revolutionary insight but true nonetheless.

Tonight's election was in some ways a test drive of a strategy of running on immigration. Does the failure of Republicans to hold the Virginia Senate deter the GOP from running on that strategy? Or is that all they've got?

Gutierrez Campaigned in Gaithersburg

Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez campaigned for the One Gaithersburg slate according to reports in the Gazette:

With horns blasting and a megaphone blaring slogans, the One Gaithersburg candidates led a 30-car caravan through the city on Sunday to encourage voter turnout on Tuesday.
Ahmed Ali, Solis and Spiegel, dressed in dark suits, rode in the bed of a red pickup truck for nearly two hours waving to city residents.
State Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Dist. 17) rode with the candidates and using the megaphone, called to potential voters in English and Spanish, while Sam Rodriguez of Baltimore filmed the ride with plans to place his video on the Internet.
‘‘Unite Gaithersburg, don’t divide Gaithersburg!” cried Gutierrez, a Chevy Chase resident for more than 50 years. ‘‘Progressive candidates who will make a difference!” Other times, she called out: ‘‘Affordable housing, not boarded-up housing!” then in Spanish: ‘‘Se ve! Se siente! La gente esta presente!” or ‘‘You can see it! You can feel it! The people are here!”
Under the banner of One Gaithersburg, dozens of supporters piled into cars to join the caravan, honking their way from Olde Towne to Muddy Branch to Kentlands to Lakeforest Shopping Center and back.
The caravan bearing American flags and green balloons wound through traffic meeting curious stares, smiles, waves and bemusement.

I haven't spoken with Ana but I imagine she supported the pro-immigrant and progressive views of the One Gaithersburg slate. Both Solis and Ali lost though Spiegel (also endorsed by Mayor Katz, like the other winners) was elected. Election results here.

And Now Rockville . . .

Rockville has posted its results on the city website:

Mayor
Susan Hoffman: 2733
Mark Pierzchala: 1591
Drew Powell: 1475

Council (Top Four Elected):
Piotr (Peter) Gajewski: 3019
John Britton: 2609
Anne Robbins: 2426
Phyllis Marcuccio: 2397
Carl Henn: 2284
Bob Dorsey: 1844
Brigitta Mullican: 1870
Richard Gottfried: 1858
Tracy Pakulniewicz-Chidiac: 1336
Theo Anderson: 1333
Eric Kuohwa Wang: 550

College Park and Greenbelt Results In

In Greenbelt, all of the incumbents were reelected. For College Park, I'm putting in results only for contested races here. Check out the photo finish in District 2! Patrick Wojahn was one of the plaintiffs in the unsuccessful lawsuit for gay marriage.

District 1 (Two Seats)
Patrick Wojahn: 221
Jonathan Molinatto: 163
Lawrence Bleau: 137
William Flanigen: 77

District 2 (Two Seats)
Robert Catlin (incumbent): 95
John Perry (incumbent): 95
Stacey Baca: 94

Three City Council Incumbents Turned Out in Bowie

Mayor
G. Frederick Robinson (incumbent): 5773
D. Michael Lyles: 1782

At-Large City Council
Geraldine Valentino-Smith: 5907
Dennis Brady (incumbent): 4880
Leon C. Buck, Jr.: 1597

District 1
James L. Marcos (incumbent): 1489
Pauletta Handy: 459

District 2
Diane M. Polangin: 967
Kevin W. Conroy (incumbent): 608
James A. Golato: 557
Other: 203

District 3
Todd W. Turner (incumbent): 784
Henri Gardner: 530
Mary Ellen Winlund: 122

District 4
Issac C. Trouth: 1028
Troy S. Stewart: 548

Three out of four city council incumbents running for reelection were defeated today. I know nothing about these races but clearly people in Bowie want change. On the other hand, they seem pleased with the Mayor.

Dems Take Virginia Senate!

According to Not Larry Sabato, the Democrats now have twenty seats, enough for control with the support of the Lt. Governor. There are still three seats left undeclared so the Democrats could still win an outright majority.

An amazing achievement and a validation of the leadership of Democratic Govs. Kaine and Warner who must be feeling mighty good about his chances in the U.S. Senate race next year.

Update: Democrats lead in two of the remaining three seats though they remain too close to call.

Gaithersburg Results In

Unofficial results suggest a landslide for the three candidates supported by Mayor Sidney Katz:

Ahmed Ali - 917
Shawn Ali - 460
Jud Ashman - 2,241
Cathy C. Drzyzgula - 2,418
Wilson Lee Faris - 982
Carlos Solis - 993
Ryan Spiegel - 2,000

Carlos Solis and Ahmed Ali, endorsed by One Gaithersburg. Ryan Spiegel was endorsed by One Gaithersburg but was also endorsed by Mayor Katz. Despite receiving endorsements from both of the two major slates, Spiegel interestingly came in last of the three winners. The two other candidates on the One Gaithersburg slate trailed badly. Wilson Lee Faris, the most strongly anti-immigrant candidate did comparably well.

The election results have to be read as a resounding endorsement of Mayor Katz. None of the incumbents sought reelection and his preferred candidates won all of the seats by a margin of more than 2-1.

Dems 1 Seat Away in Virginia

Not Larry Sabato has called enough races so that the Democrats are just one seat away from taking control of the Virginia Senate. The Lieutenant Governor is a Democrat so I assume that the Democrats control the chamber if it is tied. Not Larry currently predicts 19 seats for the Democrats with just 16 seats for the Republicans and five seats still uncalled.

Note: The Virginia State Board of Elections is posting unofficial results.

Election Results

MPW will attempt to blog election results as they arrive. Stay tuned. . .

With around 25% of the vote counted, they are already predicting a landslide victory for the Democratic ticket in Kentucky. The Democratic ticket of Beshear/Mongiardo has won about 62% of the vote against the incumbent scandal-tarred Republican ticket of Fletcher/Rudolph. So 2007 is a wash in terms of gubernatorial elections with the Democrats trading a loss in Louisiana for a win in Kentucky.

Not Larry Sabato is already predicting Virginia Senate races. NLS reports that Jeanmarie Devolites Davis (R) has lost to Chap Peterson (D), and John Welch (R) has lost to Bobby Mathieson (D). So far, that's a net pickup of two for the Dems battling to take back the Virginia Senate.

Update: Republicans hold in one key race as Jill Vogel (R) defeats Karen Schultz (D).

Update II: Republicans hold in another key Virginia Senate race as Jackson Miller (R) beats Jeanette Rishell (D). However, Ken Cuccinelli (R) is currently trailing Janet S. Oleszek (D) though the final result is not yet clear.

Voting Problems . . . Again

The Washington Post reports:

Scores of voters in Rockville, who are choosing a new mayor and four City Council members today, were mistakenly identified as having already voted by absentee ballot when they arrived this morning at polling places throughout the city.
The error, which raised concerns among candidates about double-voting, occurred after the State Board of Elections sent Rockville officials the wrong copy of a voter database.
"It was our mistake, and we'll review our procedures to make sure this type of mistake doesn't happen again," said Ross Goldstein, deputy administrator for the elections board. The state's list marked voters with a home address that begins with the number five as absentee voters in the electronic poll books.
Goldstein said city election officials were instructed to allow these voters to cast ballots on touch-screen machines and to keep track of their names in handwritten lists. To ensure that voters are casting only one ballot, Goldstein said officials are being told to compare the names of the voters affected by the glitch to those who actually cast absentee ballots. He estimated that roughly 10 percent of Rockville's 28,000 registered voters were affected.

Berliner Supports Park at Woodmont East

Apparently, I am not the only critical of the staff report on Woodmont East. My councilman agrees; Councilman Roger Berliner has sent a letter to the Planning Board Chairman critical of the staff report on the proposed project at Woodmont East II. Here is an excerpt:

Intense controversy has been created by two distinct aspects of the applicant's proposal: (1) construction of a 132 foot tall so-called "floating" bar across, and on top of, the open space that exists today [footnote 1 here: Notwithstanding repeated requests, the project sponsors have never shared a drawing of what this structure would look like from street level nor does the staff report contain one. Instead, almost all the drawings show mere dotted lines that make it appear as though the building were made of plexiglass, which could account for the report's description of it as "floating."]; and (2) an eight story hotel that would form a Woodmont Avenue "street wall" and extend into and further diminish the amount of open space.

The areas of controversy essentially define two competing visions of what is appropriate for this parcel:

* A Tokyo-like "Linear Park": The combination of the so-called "connector bar" and hotel would replace the currently under-optimized open space with the staff report describes as an "expansive" 75 foot wide, paved hardscape "linear park." This "linear park" must accommodate many uses, including 13 feet for the Capital Crescent Trail, up tot 38 feet for the Purple Line, retail users, and the public. The report acknowledges this poses a "difficult" challenge. Nonetheless, the report extols the virtues of this linear park, including what it describes as a "protected outdoor living room" (formed by the 30 foot ceiling of the building that would "float" on top of this space). [footnote 2 here: In discussions at a public forum that I hosted on this proposed development, the applicants described this "outdoor living room" as comparable to projects built in Tokyo, Japan. Community members were somewhat less charitable in their description--they argued it was closer to a "slot canyon."]

* A Green Commons: The other vision, as reflected in this numerous e-mails that your office (and mine) has received on this proposal, is to maximize this space for a "green public commons," a true gathering place in a natural setting. [footnote 3 here: Unfortunately, the report does not assess the loss of direct sunlight that would result from the construction of the "connector bar." Yet it adopts verbatim the following language from the applicants proposal: "the play of afternoon sun . . . will service to activate its facade."] . . . Contrary to your staff's suggestion that an urban paved "hardscape" is inevitable, these drawings depict the "garden" quality recognized as critical to Bethesda's character in the Sector Plan. [footnote 4 here: Staff points out that there are "green" areas within several blocks of this particular parcel, essentially arguing that a green open space here is not necessary. It is respectfully submitted that green spaces are not always fungible, and that the needs to this particular parcel are not satisfied by green space on the other side of Wisconsin Avenue.] Moreover, as the renderings make clear, this space is possible while still accommodating the construction of two state-of-the-art "green" buildings and is much more capable of ultimately accommodating the Purple Line.

One aspect of Councilman Berliner's letter which I especially like is that support for a park is not anti-development. Precisely because so much development is already approved near to that intersection is why more open space is needed there. A local landscape architect kindly produced drawings of a more attractive alternative to the current proposal (second drawing here).

Elections in Six Cities Today

The Washington Post summarizes the elections today in Rockville, Gaithersburg, Takoma Park, Greenbelt, College Park, and Bowie. As I've discussed in earlier posts, the battles appear relatively quiet in Takoma Park but hard fought in Rockville and especially Gaithersburg.

As the Slots Turn

The slots package continues to evolve. Apparently, the Maryland Senate plans to up the share of the profits kept by slots operators by 10 percent:

Senators indicated yesterday that they anticipate some changes in that proposal as well, including an increase in the share of proceeds that slot-parlor operators would be allowed to keep. Miller said he expects the share retained by operators at the five sites authorized by the bill would increase from 30 to 33 percent.

Meanwhile, the Baltimore Sun reports that Senate President Mike Miller continues to oppose a slots referendum. House Speaker Michael Busch continues to express his desire to see a resolution on this issue and much greater flexibility than last year:

"Both sides will look to fine tune a little bit, but the fact that they're moving legislation is important," Busch said.

Slots legislation is speeding through the Senate but may face barriers on the floor depending on whether it requires a constitutional amendment:

Senate leaders said they expect the framework of O'Malley's bill to clear the Budget and Taxation Committee and make it to the full Senate by the end of the week.

"I think the votes are here probably to pass it," said the committee's chairman, Sen. Ulysses Currie, a Prince George's County Democrat.

Whether it will have the necessary support on the Senate floor is less clear. Putting a constitutional amendment like the one O'Malley proposed on the ballot requires