One charge made with increasing ferocity against County Council District 4 candidate Nancy Navarro is that she is allegedly a “tool of the developers.”
Stuart Rochester, a District 4 resident supporting Don Praisner, told the Gazette: “I’m finding that although there is a good deal of respect for Navarro, there is a concern that she is identified, fairly or not, with the pro-business and pro-development forces in the county,” Rochester said. “For that reason she may not be relied on to carry on the positions that Marilyn had.”
Takoma Park activist Mike Tabor, who does not live in the district, wrote the following to the Gazette in endorsing Mr. Praisner: The problem that many have with this election is the quiet support of the fast, uncontrolled growth activists for Navarro. She openly accepts contributions from developers, PACs, special interests and land use attorneys. She is not willing to place limits on those contributions.
The issue erupted at the People’s Community Baptist Church forum last weekend. The Gazette reports:
My belief is that this could lead to a conflict of interest any elected politician making decisions regarding land use issues.
The fear of many of us is that if Navarro is elected, the faster, uncontrolled growth advocates will have a majority on the council once again. Furthermore, a Navarro victory might enable a more developer and business-friendly majority on the council to fill the two vacant positions on the Park and Planning Board.During the only negative exchange in the meeting, Praisner took issue with a Navarro comment in response to a moderator’s question about campaign financing and avoiding undue influence. Navarro had said she was financing her campaign as Marilyn Praisner had, with contributions from many sources, including business interests.
Neighborspac, a MoCo activist group that opposed overdevelopment, raised the issue of politicians and development contributions starting in the 2002 county races. Neighborspac began tabulating contributions from development-connected people or entities and reporting them as a percentage of the total receipts for each candidate. Neighborspac had a point: if a politician received an overwhelming percentage of his or her support from one industry, like real estate, voters had a right to know that. I certainly looked at Neighborspac’s data in 2006 before casting my votes.
“I resent how you represent Marilyn Praisner and her influence,” Donald Praisner said. “In her last year, she was disappointed with you because you were not an independent voice.”
After the meeting, Navarro said she only meant to show she was financing her campaign in the same spirit as Marilyn Praisner had. “I’m not sure why he took my comment negatively,” she said. “I was only referring to public campaign information. If we’re going to talk about financing campaigns, this is what the record shows.”
On Monday, Donald Praisner said that only Navarro is taking money from developers and that Navarro may “undo some of the work my wife did,” referring to provisions supported by Marilyn Praisner and passed by the County Council designed to slow the pace of growth.
But since then, the issue has mutated. Now the standard is not whether a politician accepts an overwhelming majority of his or her contributions from business, but whether a politician accepts any contributions from business at all. Because Navarro has refused to rule out any business contributions, she is accused of being controlled by them. This is a difficult test for any politician to pass, including a very prominent one who is relevant to this race: the late Marilyn J. Praisner.
According to state board of elections data, Mrs. Praisner raised a total $78,056 between 2001 and 2008. Of that total, $32,769 – a full 42% – came from businesses, business owners or corporate lawyers. See the graphic below for the specific contributions.
Among Mrs. Praisner’s contributors was Bryant Foulger, head of construction and real estate giant Foulger Pratt, who gave her $200. That firm is a partner in Downtown Silver Spring developer PFA, against whom a First Amendment demonstration was launched last summer. Companies and relatives of Aris Mardirossian contributed $3,000 to Mrs. Praisner. Mardirossian, developer of Crown Farm in Gaithersburg, is infamous in MoCo for suing civic grand-daddy Wayne Goldstein for the mere act of writing him a letter. Three Linowes and Blocher lawyers contributed a total of $975. And four limited liability companies from Colorado gave Mrs. Praisner a combined total of $2,000 in 2006.
Does any of the above make Marilyn Praisner a “tool of the developers?” Hell no. As I wrote in my tribute to her, “She was a woman of incredible intelligence, great fairness, and most of all, unquestioned honor. Nobody was smarter, tougher, harder-working or more honest.” Mrs. Praisner was a fearless crusader for her constituents and nobody was stupid enough to accuse her of being anything different. She could have taken a million dollars from Mardirossian and she would still have told him “NO.”
So what has Nancy Navarro done to justify treating her differently? Why is she the only candidate to be attacked by illegal, anonymous robo-calls? Why is she the only one accused of being controlled by “special interests?” Why are her critics making an issue of this before she has filed a single campaign finance report?
What we have here is the Politics of Paranoia. Taking a single dollar from a business buys off your integrity and makes you their slave. Or at least that’s what Navarro’s enemies would have you believe.
My advice is to vote the old-fashioned way. Grab the politicians by the lapels. Determine whether they agree with you on the majority of things that you care about, whether they are capable enough to deliver on those priorities and whether you think they are people of good values. If they pass those tests, vote for them. If they don’t, find someone else to vote for. No political jihads. No illegal robo-calls. Just you, your brain, your heart and your vote.
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our local affiliate, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters, endorsed Nancy Navarro.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
The Politics of Paranoia
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
In a perfect world-- anyone who wishes to run for office, would be offered free air time, and a public supported stipend for election materials. Any amont over this would have to come out of their pockets.
This would eliminate the need for fund raising, and any type of slanderous or libelous charges.
During the County Executive race-- Leggett and Silverman took special interest group donations-- the voters did not sem to mind.
My father had a word for people who did favors for money-- it started with the letter "P"-
It is "Politician"
Adam,
Interesting post. My concern you missed the main point. Sure Marilyn received money from developers and so has our CoEx. But neither of them are the ballot April 15.
Don Praisner, Steve Kanstoroom and Pat Ryan all pledged to take no developer dollars. Nancy has.
And for those that don't know, I am a fellow blogger here. I live in the District and I support Don Praisner.
No, I addressed the main point, which is that Navarro's critics are setting up an unreasonable test: she must swear not to take any business money or she is automatically a corporate tool. Marilyn Praisner was never asked to take such a test and she took tons of business money - including developer money. Yet she proved to be independent and fair. The double standard is obvious. And the rhetoric is poisonous.
We'd all be better off if we could do what you do, Kevin: sit down with them, make them talk about what you care about and grill them until you can judge their worth. We may not be able to do that for national-level candidates, but we can certainly do that for state and county candidates.
All,
I deleted my own comments above because I found some typos. Here it is with those minor corrections.
Adam,
Now we disagree. I don't think anyone is setting the test as if you take one developer dollar you are automatically suspect. You may be. But I am not. Still Nancy is the only Democratic candidate taking developer dollars.
Land use and development is the issue. It is the strong subtext to the very larger question. Where does county go from here on growth and development. If you want the ICC you can't get the Purple Line. Anyone who looks at the money coming from the state knows that to be the case. Since we are getting the ICC, we will not be getting the Purple Line anytime soon. We might get it about the time I start living in Leisure World.
In 2006, MoCo elected a slate of people who voted to slow down developer influence and their dollars. We wanted a pause and we are getting it. Now we have to go back to this question less than 2 years after the last election.
Marliyn Praisner was the fifth vote in a nine person council to slow down growth and give us a more reasonable growth policy. Growth is determined by the growth policy, which Marilyn chaired in the Dec 2006- Nov 2007 session.
Marilyn was very much for a slower more managed growth candidate. Her widower has as his #1 issue his growth position. It matches Marilyn's position. Look here and make your own choice:
http://www.peopleforpraisner.org/issues.html
Pat Ryan does the same. Look here.
http://www.patryanforcouncil.com/Platform2.htm
Steve Kanstoroom also lists his position on growth. Look here.
http://www.stevekforcouncil.com/planning_and_infrastructure.shtml
Now go to Nancy Navarro's website. All you see is vague generalities. Look here. She talks about the inner Purple Line, which does not go through the District. Look here.
http://www.nancynavarro.org/transportacion.html
She talks about the County having a downtrend in growth. Look at the first sentence here. I find that hard to believe after the growth in 1990's and early 21st Century.
http://www.nancynavarro.org/communities.html
Ike Leggett mentioned at a recent public event (March 12) the most important issue for a member of the County Council is growth and land use. And on that issue Nancy Navarro is strangely silent. She is also the only person to take developer dollars IN THIS RACE.
That is key. I sat down with her for 90 minutes before Don was in the race and she talked about everything except growth and development issues. That was telling. Nancy is extremely engaging and personable too. But where is she on growth???
I talked to Cary Lamari, when he was in the race, and Pat Ryan, before I selected a candidate. Both talked about growth and land use from the get go.
Where are Nancy and Don and Pat and Steve on the growth and development? The second question is: what cuts in services or increase in taxes should be imposed on the residents? (I will address that later but for now let's look at the main issue -- Growth Policy / Land Use). That is the real issue -- not how much Marilyn Praisner took from developers in 2001.
Pat, Don and Steve are not taking developer dollars. Nancy is. Good for her. That does not disqualify her. It cost money to run. Now tell us Nancy what is your growth policy and then maybe someone will believe those developer dollars are not going allow them to reopen the County Growth Policy.
That is this race in a nutshell: Growth and Land Use Policy. Everything else is smoke screen.
Kevin, I agree that growth is an important issue. I've blogged about it here and on Just Up the Pike. And I think evaluating the candidates' positions as you do is a legitimate exercise. But Navarro is being held to a different standard than was Marilyn Praisner and I have proven that with the contribution data. And we'll see what the actual contributions in this race are very shortly.
But now you have stated something that not even Navarro's rivals would agree with: "That is this race in a nutshell: Growth and Land Use Policy. Everything else is smoke screen." I just don't think that's true. Look, I'll argue policy area review, master plan conformance, traffic mitigation measures under local area review, the ex parte rule, whether critical lane volume is an appropriate traffic congestion measure and whether zoning text amendments are out of control any day of the week with you or anyone else. But to say that growth is the only issue and that everything else - education, poverty, affordable housing, transportation, the budget - is a "smokescreen" is beyond the pale.
Come on bro, think about that statement. When you sit on it for awhile, I think you'll want to take that one back.
Regardless of contributions, I think Navarro's been making a bit of an error in not really addressing the growth issue at all. It's an issue that matters to a lot of voters in the district, and all I've heard from her campaign is, "Voters in the district care about issues besides growth." Which is true. But they care about growth too. And I don't think she's engaged on the issue in the way she should. So either she'll lose, or she'll win with a large part of her electorate distrusting her on an important issue. Either choice isn't ideal for her.
Contributions aside, I think Navarro's hurting herself by not really addressing the issue of growth. All that's come out of her campaign are vague statements that the voters care about more issues than growth. Which is true. But they care about growth too. There are a dozen ways she could have tried to neutralize the issue, and instead she has pretended like it doesn't exist. So either she loses with most of the slow growth or smart growth voters going for Praisner, Ryan, or Kanstoroom. Or she wins and a sizeable portion of her electorate doesn't trust her, with the 2010 election only two years away.
"That is this race in a nutshell: Growth and Land Use Policy. Everything else is smoke screen."
- Kevin
To suggest that this race is about "growth and Land Use Policy" is to be in denial about the real issues on the ground and to cover said denial in a thick shroud of arrogance. I live in District 4 and I cannot babble jargon about growth and land use. All I know is that Mrs. Praisner's policies appear to have been executed at the expense of District 4. The district badly needs help and quite frankly some growth could help. The place looks like something a bit out of Castro's Cuba - tired, frayed around the edges and Lord knows what we are going to do with the ICC being built on top of such deprivation. I find it extremely eye-opening also that no one has said boo about the demographic changes that have taken place in my district. Not one person. Not one person has spoken to the needs of this long neglected community of immigrants. And in the campaign the only one that has spoken up is Nancy Navarro. And yet, I have to read patronizing nonsense from you Kevin about how this "nice and personable" person has not mastered the alphabet soup of niche issues by those who are used to thinking that the world revolves around them and only them. We must be careful how we communicate because many times it tells us exactly WHAT we are trying to communicate.
The notion that somebody represents District 4 simply because they can talk about growth and land use issues non stop is quite frankly silly. And Adam, great post, what is good for the goose must be good for the gander. There must be a reason why Nancy Navarro is being subjected to a double standard; I just don't know what it is and I don't want to know. All I know is that many of us live in the apartments and tenements of Briggs Chaney, White Oak, Georgia Avenue corridor. The only one that has even thought of us is Nancy Navarro. If she does not win on April 15th, it won't be because of us. Because we will go to the polls. We will leave the kitchens of McDonalds, we will take leave from cleaning the homes of the Kevins' of the world and go vote for the one that doesn't talk down to us. And you know who I am talking about.
- James Aramehi
Since there is an actual large development project--in addition to the FDA and Washington Adventist Hospital--in the very near future for the Calverton area, it would be interesting to know the candidates' positions on 1) the pending opening of the Fairland Master Plan, 2) a rumored-soon-to-be introduced ZTA on a new mixed-use zone for the area, 3) infrastructure and transportation issues for the area, and 4) how, as the new District 4 Councilmember, he/she will work with the Valerie Ervin who (surprisingly) represents this corner of the Fairland Master Plan area
It would also be interesting to know if Percontee-affiliated persons and/or Guldesky family members have been making any contributions to this race.
Adam,
I don't why you keep comparing Nancy to Marilyn. Yes, Marilyn did take development money. Yes, Nancy does.
But the issue is who is taking development money in THIS race right now. It is Nancy. Don, Steve and Pat are not.
Nancy could have not taken development money. She did not. She could have capped the amount of money she takes from developers. She did not.
I asked her that exact question in person before her formal announcement and while I was undecided. She would not give me a cap to her campaign funds that would come from development, even when prompted.
All of that is fine. It does not make her a bad person. But then you keep comparing Marilyn's past to Nancy's present you miss the more obvious. That Nancy is only person taking money from developers. The others are not.
That is akin to talking about the sun was shining yesterday when it is raining today and the forecast calls for more rain.
As for growth and development, again I disagree. It is the issue. You are the civic guy not me. What does your civic association talk about most?
And if you don't believe your civic then go to a town meeting with Ike. He has said it twice in the past two weeks. Talk to any of the Council members that we both of know. I did and three of them have all said that the position of Council member deals with land use and development issues for the large extent.
We supported the same candidates in 2006, save the District 5. We disagree this time.
But I do think you are trying to compare Nancy's present to Marilyn's past when the real focus should be the present and future of the all four candidates in THIS race.
Kevin, my civic talks about lots of things: growth, traffic, the Intersection of Death, overcrowded and badly-maintained properties and crime, just to mention a few issues. Out of them all, I'd have to say that crime has received the most attention in the last few months. We're the ones who organized nine civics including 4,440 households to write about car break-ins and ask for a bait car program. We are also starting a Neighborhood Watch program only to see support for such programs targeted by county budget-cutters. You better not run for office and talk about only one issue in my neighborhood because my neighbors are interested in lots of things. I know lots of people from my civic association watch this blog (and Paul Gordon is one of our former presidents), so they can comment if they wish.
As for the contributions, we are starting to argue in circles so let's leave it at this. It's important to know who is contributing to each candidate. Neighborspac performed a valuable public service by making that data easily available to voters. But I object to two phenomena that I have observed in this race.
First, I do not believe that taking one dime from a developer automatically corrupts a human being and outweighs everything else they have ever done. It is one factor to be considered alongside others.
Second, I believe to the extent that someone wishes to apply standards to candidates publicly, they should apply the same standard to every candidate in each race, past and present. Otherwise it erodes the credibility of the standard-setter. District 4 candidate Mike Jones took $100 from a business in 2006 and his opponent, Mrs. Praisner, took thousands. Yet Mrs. Praisner was the acclaimed civic candidate and no one questioned her. Now Navarro is applying the same standards to her campaign as is Mrs. Praisner and she is being criticized. The comparison to Mrs. Praisner is indeed warranted because all of these candidates are seeking to replace her.
And I believe Marilyn Praisner had it exactly right. She ran her campaigns and her council office the right way - her way. She did not allow outside groups or critics to impose their standards on her, even if it meant being left off the Apple Ballot in 2006. I admired her fierce independence then and now. It had nothing to do with money and everything to do with her character. Her potential successors - none of whom have a record of submitting to developers - deserve the same consideration she received.
Just FYI -- Pat Ryan's filing is now available, listing the $4000 from the firefighters and about $3600 from individual contributers (including two contributions -- that's suspicious -- from some guy named Benefiel who must surely be a very wealthy developer).
Navarro, Praisner and Kanstoroom are not yet posted.
Pat Ryan has pledged not to take developer money, so I found the accusation surprising that he supposedly accepted such donations (not that I would care if he did).
But it turns out this is completely untrue (see below) -- which raises a question to me about why the staff member of a sitting County Councilmember is out there making such accusations. I know that in the midst of a campaign some officials are taking sides, but what's been extremely disappointing to me is that the way this has manifested itself is in completely negative tactics, whisper campaigns, innuendo, accusations without grounding, and sometimes flat-out character assassination.
Part of this is obviously part of the hyper-divisive, completely unproductive dialogue on growth/development that our esteemed Councilmembers (and our Executive) have now created -- but I can't help but think a good deal of it is an attempt to unfairly tarnish other candidates in an attempt to gain some electoral advantage.
What I have yet to see emerge is a *real* discussion of the issues facing the County (yes including development, but also going *beyond * development -- how about health care, crime, job creation, diversity, etc????).
And no, who is donating to candidates does not constitute a discussion about development -- it constitutes a witchhunt and a stigmatizing/polarizing dialogue. It is especially unhelpful in this race because, let's be honest - before the campaigning even began -- almost all of the candidates already decided their campaign strategy was going to be to vilify some candidates as in the pocket of developers -- so they simply declined to take that money (or knew they wouldn't get it anyway).
That being the case, whether a candidate is actually pro-development or not, the business community has few options left among the remaining candidates, since almost all of them have drawn a line in the sand about whether they think all business people (and their contributions) are evil.
Get real!
In any case, lest the witch-hunt continue, a simple google search for Michael Benefiel reveals that he is not a developer, but a consultant to non-profits to make their lobbying more effective! I found his company's bio on the website of an environmental conference he was attending. Quite suspicious indeed!
Michael Benefiel,
www.PersuasiveInformation.com
Persuasive Information provides lobbying training and public interest advocacy to nonprofit organizations. Among specific areas of expertise are international organizations, U.S. foreign affairs, and legislative processes.
Providing earth-friendly information technology is a new area of interest and business development.
Ah, Mike, that was said completely tongue-in-cheek :-) in response to an earlier post of Adam's.
Having missed this eloquent discourse somehow - I am now chiming in late. During the 2006 race Marilyn Praisner was endorsed by Neighbors PAC, as were several other candidates, including the current county executive. All pledged to restrict their contributions from the development interests to under 1/3 of their total collections. These promises, to the best of my knowledge, were kept. Compare these if you will to the finances of Council Woman Floreen and current Council President Knapp and former candidate Silverman. All were heavily financed by development interests to the exclusion of contributions of regular voters. Why go after the $50.00 from folks like Adam when you'll be sure to have those in the growth industries max out at $4000.00 each? Guess who gets the space at their tables? I, for one, would appreciate seeing public financing for council races to address this very issue.
Having missed this eloquent discourse somehow - I am now chiming in late. During the 2006 race Marilyn Praisner was endorsed by Neighbors PAC, as were several other candidates, including the current county executive. All pledged to restrict their contributions from the development interests to under 1/3 of their total collections. These promises, to the best of my knowledge, were kept. Compare these if you will to the finances of Council Woman Floreen and current Council President Knapp and former candidate Silverman. All were heavily financed by development interests to the exclusion of contributions of regular voters. Why go after the $50.00 from folks like Adam when you'll be sure to have those in the growth industries max out at $4000.00 each? Guess who gets the space at their tables? I, for one, would appreciate seeing public financing for council races to address this very issue.
Thanks...
Caltel
Article
Post a Comment