In a shocking memo only now making the rounds of Montgomery County’s political and educational communities, Superintendent of Schools Jerry Weast reveals that a mistake in state budget formulas resulted in aid underpayment to the county’s schools of $20-25 million in this current budget year. The result of this underpayment contributed to spending reductions this year and may help strain employee benefits next year.
In Maryland, state aid to public schools is driven by a wealth formula. “Wealthier” school districts receive less aid per pupil than “poorer” school districts. One component of this wealth formula is real property value as calculated by the State Department of Assessments and Taxation (SDAT). Districts with higher average real property values receive less money than those with lower values. (To view this year’s distribution of school aid, see page 17 of this document.)
In FY 2009, state aid for MCPS was actually cut because Montgomery County’s wealth level allegedly increased in comparison to other counties. At the time he learned of the cut, Dr. Weast claims he complained of an error in the calculations to the County Executive, County Council and state delegation. In a memo to the Board of Education released yesterday, Dr. Weast says he has been proven correct. SDAT now admits that it overestimated the value of real property in Montgomery County by $15.8 billion because it double-counted new homes. The result is that Montgomery lost $20-25 million in state aid due from the wealth formula. That money was instead paid out to other school districts in the state.
Dr. Weast also goes into great detail about the consequences of cuts in further state aid. If Montgomery County loses funding under the state’s Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI), a formula that routes money to districts with higher costs of education, and receives less aid under aspects of the state’s wealth formula, MCPS may not be able to fully fund its pension and health obligations. This endangers employee benefits after the school employees gave up $89 million of cost-of-living adjustments.
But that lies in the future. The present problem is the county’s loss of $20-25 million in mandated state aid in the current fiscal year (FY 2009), money that has already been allocated to other school districts in Maryland. That creates a gigantic political problem with multiple dimensions:
1. Who knew and what did they do about it?
In his memo, Dr. Weast said he suspected a shortfall all along and complained about it to the County Executive, County Council and state delegation. Did anyone investigate his complaint? If so, what did they learn? And when did they learn it? Dr. Weast believes the error was discovered as early as August 2008. Was it known earlier? And did anyone at the state level take steps to correct it?
2. Wasted conflict at the County Council
As we covered extensively on this blog, the County Council agonized over the FY 2009 budget. As late as the last days of discussion, County Council Members Phil Andrews, Duchy Trachtenberg and Roger Berliner were proposing furloughs of county employees that would save $20.5 million. The final budget agreement reduced the County Executive’s proposed tax hike by $20 million and called for $8 million in savings by both MCPS and the rest of the government. If the state aid had been calculated properly, these conflicts could have been avoided.
3. Distrust of the Governor
For some time now, Montgomery County’s leaders have felt growing distrust of Governor O’Malley. His unrepentant shorting of school construction money is one reason. MDOT’s significant cuts to both the Purple Line and the Corridor Cities Transitway while protecting funding for Baltimore’s Red Line is another reason. (The school construction money and transit funding were among the promises made by the administration to Montgomery’s delegation in return for their votes on the special session’s tax and slots bills.) This issue will deepen and exacerbate that distrust.
4. Who will act to recover the money?
At present, our informants are unaware of any state plans to pay back the $20-25 million Montgomery is owed in this fiscal year. Will the County Executive, the state delegation or anyone else call the administration to the mat on this one? If not, then what are the consequences to the state of shorting Montgomery County?
Readers, we now have the first burning political issue of 2009.
Update: The Washington Post quotes Governor O'Malley as saying that MCPS will get the $24 million it is owed and that the other districts can keep their overpayment. But Dr. Weast is now accusing the state of a "cover-up" going back several months. My sources say that County Executive Leggett spoke to the Governor on New Year's Eve and the understanding they reached was to "sit down soon to work this out."
Following is the complete text of Dr. Weast’s memo to the Board of Education.
*****
Office of the Superintendent of Schools
Montgomery County Public Schools
Rockville, Maryland
December 30, 2008
Memorandum
To: Members of the Board of Education
From: Jerry D. Weast, Superintendent of Schools
Subject: FY 2010 Operating Budget: State Aid
On December 11, 2008, I transmitted my Recommended FY 2010 Operating Budget to the Board of Education. In prior years, when I sent me budget to the Board, I had the preliminary state aid estimates from the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE). However, I did not receive the preliminary estimates for FY 2010 state aid for public schools until December 22, 2008.
On December 26, 2008, I informed you about these preliminary FY 2010 estimates for state aid. The revenue estimates include an increase in state aid for Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) of $71.1 million (17.8 percent) to $470.4 million. This is $50.3 million higher than the estimates included in my FY 2010 Recommended Operating Budget. These preliminary FY 2010 state aid estimates are subject to change in the Governor’s FY 2010 recommended budget due in January 2009. In addition, any change in state funding formulas made by the General Assembly during the 2009 legislative session will be reflected in the final FY 2010 state aid allocations next April. I expect changes in the revenue from the state by the time the General Assembly approves the budget.
The main reason for this significant increase in state aid is an increase of $57.4 million in basic Foundation aid primarily as a result of an apparent decrease in the relative wealth of Montgomery County compared to other counties in Maryland. Because state aid is wealth equalized, the share of state aid received by Montgomery County is higher than last year. According to the preliminary calculations, Montgomery County would receive $69 million of the $91 million of increased mandated state aid. These figures are a complete reversal from last year’s change in real property wealth, which resulted in MCPS losing state aid for FY 2009. However, the State Department of Assessments and Taxation now recognizes that the real property wealth calculations for Montgomery County were mistaken for FY 2009 by approximately $15.8 billion, possibly because of a double count of new homes. Last year, I informed the Board of Education I felt there had to be an error in the wealth calculation. We also informed the County Executive, County Council and our delegation of a possible error. However, no corrections were made last year. I have learned that the error was discovered as early as August 2008. Preliminary estimates are that we have lost between $20 million and $25 million of mandated state aid this year. The increase in state aid estimated for FY 2010 does not correct the error made last year but appears greater than it should be because of the FY 2009 error.
The FY 2010 state aid for Montgomery County includes $31 million for full funding of the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI) as required by current law. However, GCEI funding is not mandated in the Governor’s budget. As you know, there is discussion that the Governor plans the current year’s allocation of GCEI funding by half, or $9 million. If the GCEI is not funded for FY 2010, MCPS would still receive an increase of $40.1 million over the FY 2009 approved budget instead of $71.1 million. This is only $19.4 million more than the $420 million estimated for state aid in my FY 2010 Recommended Operating Budget. The total of $420 million is an increase of $20.7 million over the FY 2009 state total.
Assuming this increase in state aid of $40.1 million, the operating budget request will have to be increased above the amount of my recommended budget by $19.4 million. The County Council cannot use this additional state aid to reduce the county’s contribution to MCPS because it would be in default of the state Maintenance of Effort requirement. Increased enrollment in FY 2009 requires the county to increase the local contribution to MCPS by $16.2 million. My recommended operating budget assumes that this increase in county contribution will come entirely from savings generated by MCPS this year rather than from new county tax revenues.
Therefore, as a result of these new preliminary state aid estimates, I am amending my recommended budget submitted to you on December 11, 2008. Because of the uncertainty of these additional state funds and the fact that we cannot count on this funding being available in April 2009, we cannot change the budget we have in place. The changes I am making will not affect the $35 million of reductions in the FY 2010 operating budget, the elimination of cost of living adjustments for our employees, or the $20 million in savings that will be generated from the freeze in the current year. My priority is to protect our employees as much as possible from reductions in future years to benefit programs. This can be done by using the additional state funds for expenditures in benefit programs that will require significant budget increases in FY 2011. As you know, my budget did not permit inclusion of $12.3 million scheduled for FY 2010 for the Retiree Health Trust Fund (OPEB). The contribution to OPEB could increase by as much as $24 million in FY 2011. If these additional state funds are available in FY 2010, we should try to adhere to the current eight-year phase-in of OPEB funding and add the $12.3 million to the budget.
Additionally, it is important to add resources to the Employee Benefit Plan (EPB) internal services fund to have sufficient reserves to absorb unanticipated increased costs for health care coverage for active and retired employees. As a result of decisions made last spring to fund the FY 2009 Operating Budget, the trust fund balance of almost $21 million at the end of FY 2008 will be reduced by as much as $10 million this year to fund EPB costs. In addition, my recommended budget for FY 2010 assumes we will need to reduce this fund balance even further. In order to avoid the possibility of a shortfall in the EPB fund that would need to be replenished in FY 2011 and to maintain an appropriate balance in the trust fund, I will recommend that an additional $7.1 million be approved for the fund.
Finally, if additional state aid beyond the $19.4 million is available next spring, I would recommend placing these funds in the MCPS Employees’ Retirement and Pension Systems plan. We anticipate significantly higher retirement payments in FY 2011 because market returns in FY 2009 will be far below actuarial expectations. This would require significant increases in employer contributions in FY 2011 to maintain the funded status of the program. Therefore, it would be prudent to make additional allocations into the plan if there is additional state aid next spring.
Because of the seriousness of the economic situation in the county, the state, and the nation, it is doubtful that MCPS will receive the additional $71 million of state aid. If the only change that is made is the elimination of the GCEI and we receive an additional $40.1 million in state aid, we should attempt to take pressure off of the FY 2011 budget that will result from significant increases for the health and retirement plans. I believe this is the more prudent action the Board can take. If we do not receive the additional $19.4 million above my preliminary projections for state aid, then we would need to eliminate these increases for OPEB and the contributions to the EPB trust fund in the spring.
I still am concerned about the error that was made last year which resulted in an underpayment to MCPS and an overpayment in a similar amount to the other school systems in the state. We should work with the County Executive and our delegation to pursue this with the Governor.
I will continue to keep you informed of further developments on this issue. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Larry A. Bowers, chief operating officer, at 301-279-3626 or Dr. Marshall Spatz, director, Department of Management, Budget, and Planning at 301-279-3547.
JDW:sz
Copy to:
Executive Staff
Ms. Cullison [MCEA]
Ms. Cuttitta [SEIU Local 500]
Dr. Newman [MCAASP]
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
State Error Shorts MoCo Schools $20-25 Million (Updated)
Friday, December 26, 2008
Hoisted from the Comments: Lacefield vs. Pagnucco
For those readers who missed it in the comments section, this exchange between myself and County Executive spokesman Patrick Lacefield about the county's proposed stimulus package is worth reading.
Lacefield:Don't believe everything you read. The Washington Post issued a correction/clarification today that makes clear there is NOT lost revenue from the proposal. Up to $50 million in impact taxes and permitting fees would be DEFERRED for a year for commercial and residential projects to help businesses stuck in recession mud and preserve jobs. Actually that $50 million is an estimate of what County govt. would take in if the economy is humming. Since it's decidedly not, even the deferral dollars are nowhere near that amount. In other words, we are deferring money that, mostly, we aren't getting because projects are not moving forward, something this initiative hopes, modestly, to affect. Permitting fees are an Enterprise Fund (that pays for Permitting Dept. expenses). Impact fees are in the capital budget. And so even this modest deferral has next to nothing to do with the County operating budget, much less the schools operating budget. The County Executive was looking to provide a modest boost for County businesses without it costing much at all. Since this is only a deferral, this proposal does just that.
Pagnucco:Mr. Lacefield:
I consistently used the terms "delayed" and "deferred" to describe the disposition of the revenues. Your problem on that issue is with the Post, not with us.
But let's assume for a moment that you are correct: Business is not paying many of these fees now. What stimulus is produced by deferring fees that business does not even pay? In all my time in the building trades, I have never heard of a contractor creating a job because he was allowed extra time before refiling a building permit!
If the stimulus package has any value to business at all, it must involve actual (if only temporary) relief from fees. And if it does, the delayed revenues must be made up somehow. That is why the timing of the lost COLAs coming right before this stimulus announcement matters.
And that gets to the root of the problem. Someone in the Executive Branch needs to be able to connect these dots and provide good advice to Mr. Leggett. Someone needs to say, "Hmmmm... The employees just gave up their raises. Now is a bad time to bring in business and hand out nice stuff." It's just good political common sense. But no one did that. Why?
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Crisis at WSSC
Last month, I wrote the following about the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC):
...If this agency is not reformed one way or another, things are going to get a lot worse. And then more pipes – and tempers – will explode.I could not have imagined how soon - and how spectacularly that would come true!
Yesterday's life-threatening pipe break, in which the "road literally exploded," was the most predictable disaster in Montgomery County's history. Last summer's giant pipe rupture in Derwood, which shut down most of the county's restaurants for days, was supposed to be a wake-up call. But no one woke up! WSSC is in exactly the same dysfunctional condition that it was then, perhaps even worse.
Someone needs to take responsibility for this mess before people are actually killed. Here is what needs to happen so that WSSC can someday be an agency worthy of the taxpayers.
1. The WSSC Commission, comprised of three members from Montgomery County and three members from Prince George's County, must hire a new General Manager. The position has been vacant for almost a year(!)
2. The Commission must pass a capital plan to finance reconstruction of the pipes. They could not do so last February and the issue has festered ever since.
3. If the Commissioners cannot accomplish both of the above items in two weeks, County Executives Ike Leggett and Jack Johnson must dismiss the entire board and replace them. Every single one of them.
WSSC has been allowed to rot in its petty and destructive internal politics for at least a year. That must end as soon as possible. Or there are going to be more disasters, more "tsunamis" and ocean-style rescues, and possibly even loss of life.
FIX THIS NOW!
Bad Boy Barve Gets a Lump of Coal
After the last few weeks, we may as well just rename this blog Maryland Politics Watch with Kathleen Miller. With the Examiner’s trouble-making reporter grabbing scoops left and right, how is an underpaid blogger supposed to compete? This time Ms. Miller’s target was MoCo’s wisecracking Bad Boy, House Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D-17).
The basic story in Ms. Miller’s article is that Barve and his wife, attorney Maureen Quinn, each purchased homes before they married and received principal residence designations on them from the State’s Department of Assessment and Taxation (SDAT). Principal residence status is important because it confers tax credits from the state and county. Barve and Quinn kept those designations after they married, earning credits on both properties.
The timing of the transactions is important. Ms. Quinn bought her home in Annapolis on 12/22/03. Barve bought his home in Gaithersburg on 8/4/04. The couple married in September 2004. Ever since, SDAT has applied principal residence status to both properties, triggering credits estimated by the Examiner at $5,844.88 on the Annapolis home and $3,575.13 on the Gaithersburg home.
The House Majority Leader (who is also the Chair of the House Revenues Subcommittee) provided this statement to us:Before we got married, my wife and I bought homes and each of us filled out the form saying that the home was our primary residence – which was true. Everybody does this at settlement. We then got married and decided to keep both homes because we could afford both mortgages. We never changed the titles of the properties into joint names because the paperwork seemed unnecessary. If I died, she would get my property and vice versa. We occupy both homes (we live in Annapolis during session – thereby saving the taxpayers the cost of paying for a hotel room for me).
Barve should fire his accountant. When I Googled “Maryland principal residence,” the very first search result was this SDAT regulation, which states in part:
Three years later, our accountant said we would have to fill out a form to declare our Gaithersburg home as our primary residence so that we would get the Homestead credit for the property. We did this. Period.
There are some people who deliberately apply for the credit for investment properties illegally and we wrote the law with them in mind. The situation of a married couple not selling one home was not what we considered. If you recall, there was a news article last year about other legislators from both parties in this situation. Even when reading that article it never occurred to us that we might be in a similar situation.
Maureen and I have tried to be very diligent about NOT getting special treatment of any kind. And, we do whatever our accountant tells us to do.In cases where spouses own two dwellings and claim each occupies one of the residences, the credit will be granted only on the one property used as the principal residence unless the couple is legally separated. There have been several court cases involving tax credits as well as Internal Revenue Service Regulations holding that the “notion of marriage” would be contravened to allow more than one residence.
In his statement, Barve references a law that was passed in 2007 by the General Assembly. That law, which Barve co-sponsored, was spurred by the work of tax activist Louis Wilen and was intended to crack down on landlords who illegally claimed principal residence status for properties they rented out. But the law’s requirement that citizens apply for renewals of their principal residence also ensnared many non-landlords, including several state legislators. In any case, the SDAT regulation prohibiting dual principal residence for married couples predates this law. The Examiner quoted an SDAT manager who said the prohibition “had been that way forever.”
Most of my informants declined to comment on this even on an anonymous basis. Two of them joked that Barve’s real problem is that his partner is of the opposite sex. One spy laughed, “Hey, if they had been an unmarried same-sex couple, this would all be legal!”
Kumar Barve has a lot going for him. He is whip-smart, wickedly funny, has a long institutional memory of the House as a fifth-term Delegate and holds a position of substantial influence. All of these things make him potentially a great asset for Montgomery County in Annapolis. But on the heels of his DUI guilty plea, he is now in the midst of his second negative story in a year. MoCo’s Bad Boy must stay out of more trouble. Can he do it?
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Death of an Institution
By Marc Korman.
Comptroller Peter Franchot recently held a fundraiser in the lobby of the Chevy Chase Bank building in Bethesda. Alex Boyle, Vice Chairman of Chevy Chase, kicked off the event by welcoming everyone to the Chevy Chase Bank building, but then corrected himself to welcome everyone to the Capitol One Building. Montgomery politicians are going to miss more than Chevy Chase Bank’s lobby now that it is being bought by Capital One.
Capital One announced in early December that it was buying Chevy Chase Bank. Over time, Chevy Chase’s ubiquitous branches and ATMs will be converted to Capital One locations. We do not know yet if there will be branches that close, ATMs that disappear, or layoffs. But there is no question that the acquisition by Capital One will bring major changes to the forty year old regional institution.
One of those changes will be political. Chevy Chase Bank is one of seven individual banks with a registered state political action committee in Maryland. There are also PACs for the Banking industry and Mortgage Bankers in general. But of the individual bank PACs, none have been better to Montgomery County politicos than Chevy Chase Bank.
During the 2006 and 2008 cycles, the PAC made $37,200 in donations, $22,700 of which was to Montgomery politicians. That includes over $5,000 to Howard Denis, over $4,000 to George Leventhal and Doug Duncan, and $2,500 to Steve Silverman. Hans Riemer even scored $250, the only non-office holder to receive a donation.
The other individual banks with state PACs in Maryland are Bank of America, BB&T, First Mariner, Mercantile, M&T, and Provident. But none are based in Montgomery County like Chevy Chase is and they have been nowhere near as generous to Montgomery politicians. During the 2006 and 2008 cycles, Bank of America’s state PAC gave $12,350 to Montgomery candidates, First Mariner gave $4,000, Provident gave $2,500, and the others gave nothing.
Here is a complete breakdown of the individual bank donations to Montgomery politicians between December of 2004 and December of 2008.
Chevy Chase MD PAC
Delegate Kumar Barve-$250
Councilman Howard Denis-$5,200
County Executive Doug Duncan-$4,500
Delegate Brian Feldman-$500
Delegate Brian Frosh-$250
Senator Rob Garagiola-$2,000
Delegate Sheila Hixson-$500
Councilman Mike Knapp-$500
County Executive Ike Leggett-$2,000
Councilman George Leventhal-$4,250
Council Challenger Hans Riemer-$250
Councilman Steve Silverman-$2,500
Total Donations in Maryland: $37,200
Total Donations in Montgomery County: $22,700
Bank of America MD PAC
Delegate Kumar Barve-$750
Delegate Bill Bronrott-$100
Delegate Sheila Dixon-$1,750
Comptroller Peter Franchot-$5,000
Attorney General Doug Gansler-$1,500
Senator Rob Garagiola-$1,100
Delegate Susan Lee-$250
Councilman George Leventhal-$700
Delegate Roger Manno-$250
Delegate Herman Taylor-$950
Total Donations in Maryland: $56,435
Total Donations in Montgomery County: $12,350
First Mariner Bank
Comptroller Peter Franchot-$4,000
Total Donations in Maryland: $6,800
Total Donations in Montgomery County: $4,000
Provident
Doug Duncan: $2,500
Total Donations in Maryland: $16,060
Total Donations in Montgomery County: $2,500
Branch Banking and Trust Company MD PAC
Total Donations in Maryland: $3,500
Total Donations in Montgomery County: 0
Horse Breeders or Kids?
A recent Examiner article on a proposal by Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17) to strip a $100 million subsidy from slots to the horse-racing industry raises an interesting question: should slots money go to horse breeders or kids?
Delegate Simmons, perhaps second only to Comptroller Peter Franchot in his fire-breathing opposition to slots, believes that slots money should not be given to the horse-racing industry in a time of billion-dollar state budget deficits. He tells the Examiner, “I can’t stomach giving $100 million each year to bail out a dying business.” Simmons would rather use the money for education, health care and transportation.
Shaun Adamec, a spokesman for Governor Martin O’Malley, responded, “Slots, including the revenue generated by them, is an issue that has been debated for many years, and was ultimately decided by the voters in November.” Adamec’s implication is that Marylanders voted to give the horse racing industry $100 million a year. That, of course, is dead wrong.
HB 4 of the Special Session, which was the constitutional amendment providing for slots, authorizes them for “the primary purpose” of funding prekindergarten through 12th grade education as well as public school and higher education capital projects. It says nothing about horse racing. Neither does the actual ballot language, which only mentions education. Horse racing and other uses of slots money appear in SB 3, the authorizing bill, which was approved by the legislature but not by the voters.
It turns out that education, which is after all the “primary purpose” for slot machines, could be a casualty of the state’s budget crisis. In a recent Gazette article, Senate President Mike Miller said, “I don't intend to support any cuts in education,” but pointedly excluded teacher pensions and the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI) from his definition of cuts. We have discussed teacher pensions before, but the GCEI issue warrants further discussion.
GCEI was part of the 2002 Thornton plan that authorized billions of dollars in new state spending on education aid. The purpose of GCEI was to steer additional aid to jurisdictions where the cost of education was particularly expensive. Former Governor Bob Ehrlich never funded GCEI, but Governor Martin O’Malley initiated a partial phase-in during the special session. The largest recipients of GCEI aid in this fiscal year are Prince George’s County ($23.6 million), Montgomery County ($18.4 million) and Baltimore City ($13.0 million). Thirteen of Maryland’s twenty-four jurisdictions receive at least some GCEI funding and the total amount this year is $75.8 million. (See page 16 of this document for the full distribution.)
In the aftermath of the recent cost-of-living concessions by Montgomery County’s school unions, I asked one of my labor friends what would happen if GCEI were eliminated. “We’ve given everything up,” my source told me. “It would go straight to the classrooms.” That is a calamitous scenario that few politicians would willingly embrace. But according to the Post, the state may now eliminate at least half of this funding.
While slots money will not be available in time for this year’s state budget, it will be rolling in soon enough. If GCEI is zeroed out this year, it may never come back. But if slots money is re-allocated away from the horse industry and towards education – which is of course the “primary purpose” for slot machines – then GCEI could be restored. So this creates one very important question for our state legislators:
Who’s more important? Horse breeders or kids?
Monday, December 22, 2008
Purple Line Alternatives and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This guest blog is by David Salzman. I realize many are worn out from the Purple Line debate but let's keep it civil in the comments. Of course, a variety of viewpoints are expected and welcome on this controversial issue.
This posting provides an apples-to-apples comparison of the medium-investment light-rail transit (LRT) and low-investment bus rapid transit (BRT) vehicles competing for consideration in the inner Purple Line alignment. It analyzes their greenhouse gas performance with all the backup numbers, sources, and calculations spelled out in human-readable and spreadsheet-readable versions.
My objective is to facilitate further analysis, particularly reasoned comments explaining any disagreements with my data or methodology.
Since this blog is ultimately about politics, comments regarding the alignment of public policy with this quantitative evidence (or persistence of policy assertions in contravention of the evidence) are welcomed too.
The Bottom Line:
All of the electrified light-rail transit (LRT) options would emit far more carbon dioxide than displaced from riders' personal cars. In fact a 60-seat light-rail car (TCar) would need to pull 75 passengers from their cars to reach CO2 break-even. The most vigorously pursued option, a medium-investment LRT, would generate 73,049,938 net pounds of carbon dioxide annually (113,423,818 emitted minus 40,373,880 displaced from its new riders' cars), or 25.6 net pounds added per mile traveled per rail car (TCar).
In contrast, all of the bus rapid-transit (BRT) options would pull enough riders out of their cars to yield less total production of carbon dioxide. The most vigorously pursued option, a low-investment BRT running on compressed natural gas (CNG), would save 14,380,310 net lbs of carbon dioxide annually (9,591,681 emitted minus 23,971,991 displaced from its new riders' cars), or 6.61 net lbs of carbon dioxide removed per mile traveled per rapid-transit bus. The BRT system only needs to pull 8 passengers from their cars to reach CO2 break-even. By the Draft EIS's numbers, each BRT vehicle pulls 13 passengers from their cars.
I have imputed a schedule for the LRT from the table of service shown on page 3-3 of the Draft EIS. (Note that the LRT only delivers or collects 1800 passengers per hour each way at Bethesda during the morning rush hour, despite twice that capacity being needed for the document's own figures to tie together.) The notation "6 2-TCar" means six trains per hour, each comprising two 60-seat electrified rail cars.
Weekdays:
5:00 - 7:00 AM 6 1-TCar trains per hour,
7:00 - 9:30 10 3-TCar,
9:30 - 4:00 PM 6 2-TCar,
4:00 - 7:00 10 3-TCar,
7:00 - 9:00 6 2-TCar,
9:00 - midnight 6 1-TCar
Saturday:
12:00 - 3:00 AM 3 1-TCar,
7:00 - 9:30 3 1-TCar,
9:30 - 7:00 PM 6 1-TCar,
7:00 - 9:00 2 2-TCar,
9:00 - midnight 3 1-TCar
Sunday:
12:00 - 3:00 AM 3 1-TCar,
7:00 - 9:30 3 1-TCar,
9:30 - 9:00 PM 6 1-TCar,
9:00 - midnight 3 1-TCar
This totals to 3372 TCar-hours per week, or 1.94 TCars per average train. 68.4% are off-peak.
The table grants the LRT an average passenger load of 89.1% in order to avoid the pollution from less-full trains, though this makes the estimated off-peak ridership absurdly high, e.g. more than 40 passengers all the way until 3:00 AM Saturday and Sunday mornings. The actual service level will consequently need to be higher, especially 5:00 - 7:00 AM weekday mornings, but that would disadvantage the LRT option further and I wanted to give it every reasonable benefit of the doubt since the hard numbers prove it to be such a gawdawful choice anyway.
NOTES for the spreadsheet below:
+ Two versions follow. The first is a straightforward table with all the data sources spelled out and entries explained; the second allows you to recreate the spreadsheet yourself and then waste countless hours trying to contrive a way to make the LRT less awful an environmental choice.
+ The carbon dioxide offset for getting people out of their cars onto rapid transit as new riders will diminish over time, though I don't include the effect. Passenger car technology improves faster than BRT technology, and BRT technology improves faster than LRT technology. In any case, cars turn over every 5 - 7 years on average, so the car fleet adopts gas-saving technology soonest.
+ Only "new trips" save gas by getting people out of their cars. The highest fraction of riders the MTA could stretch itself to claim would be new is 30.7% for the medium-investment LRT and 28.5% for the low-investment BRT. Everybody else would already be taking mass transit anyway, so they save no carbon offsets by switching to the new system. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT POINT.
+ I have not penalized the LRT for spending more carbon dioxide than the bus seat it pulls non-new riders out of, but probably should.
+ Be careful when interpreting the % occupancy figures. 100% occupancy means that every seat is occupied 3 1/2 times on average along the 32-mile circuit, since the average trip length is only 8.92 miles. The Draft EIS calculates the displacement of passenger car vehicle miles traveled (car VMT) for the high-investment LRT option (20,500 new riders), so I have derated the savings for the medium-investment LRT (19,200 new riders) and low-investment LRT (11,400 new riders). But the average trip length remains 8.92 miles whether the rider travels in a passenger car, BR bus, or LRT rail car.
+ I have set the expected MPG per average car in 2030 to the 2007 number of 22.4. Yes, it should be twice as high by then, and the CAFE standard for 2020 is 35 MPG, but I was trying to give the LRT every reasonable advantage to avoid the finding that it is browner and dirtier than cars, where the BRT is greener and cleaner.
+ There should be slight corrections for the vehicles getting heavier with more passengers, but the Draft EIS didn't take the time to deal with that so I'm not going to either.
HUMAN-READABLE VERSION (Version 12/21/2008)
(c) 2008 by David B. Salzman, Ph.D.
The Bottom Line for MedInvest LRT v LowInvest BRT
0.53 lbs of CO2 emitted to move 1 passenger-mile in a car
39.76 lbs of CO2 emitted to move 1 TCar 1 mile
75.08 New passengers per 60-seat TCar for LRT to reach CO2 break-even
408% Avg 24x7 LRT occupancy needed to reach CO2 break-even
113,423,818 Gross lbs of CO2 emitted per year by LRT
73,049,938 Net lbs of CO2 emitted per year by LRT (corrected for displaced cars)
4.41 lbs of CO2 emitted to move 1 bus 1 mile
8.33 New passengers per 60-seat bus to reach CO2 break-even
13.9% Avg BRT occupancy needed to reach CO2 break-even
9,591,681 Gross lbs of CO2 emitted per year by BRT
-14,380,310 Net lbs of CO2 emitted per year by BRT (actually, savings)
THE DETAILS
Data Inputs: Comments Source
16.00 miles/route DEIS pg 6-3
60 seats/TCar DEIS pg 2-31
59 minutes/route for MedInvest LRT DEIS pg 6-3
3,372 TCarHrs/wk imputed from DEIS table 3-3
1738 trainHrs/wk imputed from DEIS table 3-3
550 Peak trainHrs/wk imputed from DEIS table 3-3
62,600 trips/wkdy DEIS pg 6-3
19,200 New trips/wkdy DEIS pg 6-3
$118.00 $/ton for coal in MD http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/qcr_sum.html
$4.70 $/Mbtu for coal in MD http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table4_10_a.html
210.20 CO2 lbs/Mbtu from coal http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html
33.1% Electricity Rcvd at TCar http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs94/ei/elec.html
62,640 btu/mile to power each TCar http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb27/Edition27_Chapter02.pdf
22.4 Car MPG 2007 http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
19.33 CO2 lbs/gallon of gasoline http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm
1.63 Avg # passengers/car http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/html/table_a14.html
-186,400 VMT/wkdy for HiInvest LRT option DEIS pg 3-9
1,031 btu/cf CNG cf refers to cubic foot of (UNcompressed) natural gas at STP
0.122 CO2 lbs per cf CNG http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
37,268 btu/mile of CNG BRT http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb27/Edition27_Chapter02.pdf
40,000 trips/wkdy for LowInvest BRT DEIS pg 6-3
11,400 NewTrips/wkdy for LowInvest BRT DEIS pg 3-5
7,967 BRT miles/wkdy DEIS pg 4-87
LRT TCars:
60 seats/TCar
0.98 hours/route
16.00 miles/route
3,372 TCarHrs/wk
1,738 trainHrs/wk
550 Peak trainHrs/wk
68.4% % TCars off-peak
1.94 Avg TCars/train
3,291,986 seat-miles/wk
LRT passengers:
62,600 trips/wkdy
19,200 New trips/wkdy
30.7% % New riders
7,825 trips/Sunday (guesstimate 1/8 of wkdy)
328,650 trips/wk
100,800 NewTrips/wk
8.92 Avg miles/trip (independent of # of passengers per car)
89.1% Avg occupancy (concocted to be ridiculously high)
53.46 Avg riders/TCar
75.08 | NewPassengers for CO2 break-even (in a 60-seat TCar?)
244.79 | | Total Passengers for break-even (impossible to save CO2 in any LRT)
At power plant:
$118.00 $/ton in MD
$4.70 $/Mbtu in MD
12,553 btu/lb coal
210.20 CO2 lbs/Mbtu
2.64 lbs CO2:coal
At MedInvest LRT train:
33.1% Electricity Rcvd
4,158 effective btu/lb
62,640 btu/mile
15.07 coal lbs/mile
39.76 CO2 lbs/mile
2,181,227 CO2 lbs/wk
0.74 CO2 lbs/TripMile
2.42 CO2 lbs/NewTripMile
Passenger car stats:
22.4 Car MPG 2007
22.4 Car MPG 2030 Obviously this will be a lot higher as cars improve and fleet mix changes!
19.33 CO2 lbs/gallon
0.86 CO2 lbs/mile
1.63 Avg Passengers/car
0.53 CO2 lbs/PassengerMile
4.73 net avg CO2 lbs/trip
Car miles avoided:
-186,400 VMT/wkdy HiInvest
-171,346 VMT/wkdy MedInvest
-21,418 VMT/Sunday (guesstimate 1/8 of wkdy)
-899,565 VMT/wk MedInvest
-40,159 gallons/wk MedInvest
-776,421 CO2 lbs/wk MedInvest
CO2 emissions by MedInvest LRT:
2,181,227 LRT CO2 lbs/wk emitted
-776,421 car CO2 lbs/wk displaced
35.6% net/gross CO2 (needs to be negative for any net savings)
1,404,807 net CO2 lbs/wk emitted
73,049,938 net CO2 lbs/yr (the LRT emits far more CO2 than the cars it displaces)
0.48 net avg CO2 lbs/TripMile
1.56 net avg CO2 lbs/NewTripMile
Compressed Natural Gas:
1,031 btu/cf CNG
0.122 CO2 lbs/cf CNG
118.33 CO2 lbs/Mbtu CNG
37,268 btu/mile CNG BRT
4.41 CO2 lbs/mile CNG BRT
LowInvest BRT:
40,000 trips/wkdy
11,400 NewTrips/wkdy
28.5% % New riders
5,000 trips/Sunday (guesstimate 1/8 of wkdy)
210,000 trips/wk
7,967 BRT miles/wkdy
41,827 BRT miles/wk
CO2 emissions by BRT:
184,455 BRT CO2 lbs/wk emiitted
59.4% Car derating for LowInvest LRT
-461,000 car CO2 lbs/wk displaced
-149.9% car CO2 displacement
-276,544 net CO2 lbs/wk
-14,380,310 net CO2 lbs/yr
-7.36 net avg CO2 lbs/NewTrip (BRT displaces CO2)
44.81 Avg riders/bus
-6.61 net CO2 lbs/mile BRT-cars (the BRT saves CO2)
8.33 | NewPassenger for CO2 break-even (9th new passenger saves CO2)
29.22 | | Total Passengers for break-even (30th total passenger saves CO2)
+ It's easy to put the machine-readable version of the spreadsheet into Excel. First, select and copy it from below and paste it into a word processor. Replace all instances of the five-letters "[tab]" with an actual tab character (e.g. the two characters "^t" in the Replace dialog box in Microsoft Word). Now select the corrected version from your word processor, copy it, bring up a fresh spreadsheet in Excel, click once on cell A10, and paste. If the cell stating "This should be in cell B10" is not in B10 on your computer, then figure out how far off you are, undo the paste, click on a cell that will put B10 where it was supposed to be, and try again. Then check that cell B148 is where it should be too. You can clean up the formatting (percentages, number of decimal places, etc.) by referring to the human-readable version.
SPREADSHEET-READABLE (Version 12/21/2008)
A10[tab]This should be cell B10[tab]
A11[tab](c) 2008 by David B. Salzman, Ph.D.[tab]
A12[tab][tab]
A13[tab]The Bottom Line for MedInvest LRT v LowInvest BRT [tab]
A14[tab]0.53[tab]lbs of CO2 emitted to move 1 passenger-mile in a car
A15[tab]39.76[tab]lbs of CO2 emitted to move 1 TCar 1 mile
A16[tab]75.08[tab]New passengers per 60-seat TCar for LRT to reach CO2 break-even
A17[tab]408%[tab]Avg 24x7 LRT occupancy needed to reach CO2 break-even
A18[tab]113,423,818[tab]Gross lbs of CO2 emitted per year by LRT
A19[tab]73,049,938[tab]Net lbs of CO2 emitted per year by LRT (corrected for displaced cars)
A20[tab]4.41[tab]lbs of CO2 emitted to move 1 bus 1 mile
A21[tab]8.33[tab]New passengers per 60-seat bus to reach CO2 break-even
A22[tab]13.9%[tab]Avg BRT occupancy needed to reach CO2 break-even
A23[tab]9,591,681[tab]Gross lbs of CO2 emitted per year by BRT
A24[tab]-14,380,310[tab]Net lbs of CO2 emitted per year by BRT (actually, savings)
A25[tab][tab]
A26[tab]THE DETAILS[tab]
A27[tab][tab]
A28[tab]Data Inputs:[tab]
A29[tab]16.00[tab] miles/route from DEIS pg 6-3
A30[tab]60[tab] seats/TCar from DEIS pg 2-31
A31[tab]59[tab] minutes/route for MedInvest LRT from DEIS pg 6-3
A32[tab]3372[tab] TCarHrs/wk from imputed from DEIS table 3-3
A33[tab]1738[tab] trainHrs/wk from imputed from DEIS table 3-3
A34[tab]550[tab] Peak trainHrs/wk from imputed from DEIS table 3-3
A35[tab]62600[tab] trips/wkdy from DEIS pg 6-3
A36[tab]19200[tab] New trips/wkdy from DEIS pg 6-3
A37[tab]$118.00[tab] $/ton for coal in MD from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/qcr_sum.html
A38[tab]$4.70[tab] $/Mbtu for coal in MD from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table4_10_a.html
A39[tab]210.20[tab] CO2 lbs/Mbtu from coal from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/co2_article/co2.html
A40[tab]33.1%[tab] Electricity Rcvd at TCar from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs94/ei/elec.html
A41[tab]62640[tab] btu/mile to power each TCar from http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb27/Edition27_Chapter02.pdf
A42[tab]22.4[tab] Car MPG 2007 from http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
A43[tab]19.33[tab] CO2 lbs/gallon of gasoline from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm
A44[tab]1.63[tab] Avg # passengers/car from http://www.bts.gov/publications/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/html/table_a14.html
A45[tab]-186400[tab] VMT/wkdy for HiInvest LRT option from DEIS pg 3-9
A46[tab]1031[tab] btu/cf CNG from cf refers to cubic foot of (UNcompressed) natural gas at STP
A47[tab]0.122[tab] CO2 lbs per cf CNG from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html
A48[tab]37268[tab] btu/mile of CNG BRT from http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb27/Edition27_Chapter02.pdf
A49[tab]40000[tab] trips/wkdy for LowInvest BRT from DEIS pg 6-3
A50[tab]11400[tab] NewTrips/wkdy for LowInvest BRT from DEIS pg 3-5
A51[tab]7967[tab] BRT miles/wkdy from DEIS pg 4-87
A52[tab][tab]
A53[tab]LRT TCars: [tab]
A54[tab]=B30[tab] seats/TCar
A55[tab]=B31/60[tab] hours/route
A56[tab]=B29[tab] miles/route
A57[tab]=B32[tab] TCarHrs/wk
A58[tab]=B33[tab] trainHrs/wk
A59[tab]=B34[tab] Peak trainHrs/wk
A60[tab]=1-B59/B58[tab] % TCars off-peak
A61[tab]=B57/B58[tab] Avg TCars/train
A62[tab]=B54*B56*B57/B55[tab] seat-miles/wk
A63[tab][tab]
A64[tab]LRT passengers:[tab]
A65[tab]=B35[tab] trips/wkdy
A66[tab]=B36[tab] New trips/wkdy
A67[tab]=B66/B65[tab] % New riders
A68[tab]=B65/8[tab] trips/Sunday (guesstimate 1/8 of wkdy)
A69[tab]=5*B65+2*B68[tab] trips/wk
A70[tab]=B67*B69[tab] NewTrips/wk
A71[tab]=(-B107/B70)[tab] Avg miles/trip (independent of # of passengers per car)
A72[tab]=B69*B71/B62[tab] Avg occupancy (concocted to be ridiculously high)
A73[tab]=B72*B54[tab] Avg riders/TCar
A74[tab]=B73*B91/B100[tab] | NewPassenger for CO2 break-even (in a 60-seat TCar?)
A75[tab]=B74/B67[tab] | | Total Passengers for break-even (impossible to save CO2 in any LRT)
A76[tab][tab]
A77[tab]At power plant:[tab]
A78[tab]=B37[tab] $/ton in MD
A79[tab]=B38[tab] $/Mbtu in MD
A80[tab]=(1000000*B78)/(2000*B79)[tab] btu/lb coal
A81[tab]=B39[tab] CO2 lbs/Mbtu
A82[tab]=B81*B80/1000000[tab] lbs CO2:coal
A83[tab][tab]
A84[tab]At MedInvest LRT train:[tab]
A85[tab]=B40[tab] Electricity Rcvd
A86[tab]=B80*B85[tab] effective btu/lb
A87[tab]=B41[tab] btu/mile
A88[tab]=B87/B86[tab] coal lbs/mile
A89[tab]=B88*B82[tab] CO2 lbs/mile
A90[tab]=B89*B56*B57/B55[tab] CO2 lbs/wk
A91[tab]=B89/B73[tab] CO2 lbs/TripMile
A92[tab]=B91/B67[tab] CO2 lbs/NewTripMile
A93[tab][tab]
A94[tab]Passenger car stats:[tab]
A95[tab]=B42[tab] Car MPG 2007
A96[tab]=B95*1.000[tab] Car MPG 2030 Obviously this will be a lot higher as cars improve and fleet mix changes!
A97[tab]=8.788*2.2[tab] CO2 lbs/gallon
A98[tab]=B97/B96[tab] CO2 lbs/mile
A99[tab]=B44[tab] Avg Passengers/car
A100[tab]=B98/B99[tab] CO2 lbs/PassengerMile
A101[tab]=B100*B71[tab] net avg CO2 lbs/trip
A102[tab][tab]
A103[tab]Car miles avoided:[tab]
A104[tab]=B45[tab] VMT/wkdy HiInvest
A105[tab]=B104*B65/68100[tab] VMT/wkdy MedInvest
A106[tab]=B105/8[tab] VMT/Sunday (guesstimate 1/8 of wkdy)
A107[tab]=5*B105+2*B106[tab] VMT/wk MedInvest
A108[tab]=B107/B96[tab] gallons/wk MedInvest
A109[tab]=B97*B108[tab] CO2 lbs/wk MedInvest
A110[tab][tab]
A111[tab]CO2 emissions by MedInvest LRT:[tab]
A112[tab]=B90[tab] LRT CO2 lbs/wk emitted
A113[tab]=B109[tab] car CO2 lbs/wk displaced
A114[tab]=1-B115/B112[tab] net/gross CO2 (needs to be negative for any net savings)
A115[tab]=B112+B113[tab] net CO2 lbs/wk emitted
A116[tab]=52*B115[tab] net CO2 lbs/yr (the LRT emits far more CO2 than the cars it displaces)
A117[tab]= B91*(1-B114)[tab] net avg CO2 lbs/TripMile
A118[tab]= B117*B92/B91[tab] net avg CO2 lbs/NewTripMile
A119[tab][tab]
A120[tab]Compressed Natural Gas:[tab]
A121[tab]=B46[tab] btu/cf CNG
A122[tab]=B47[tab] CO2 lbs/cf CNG
A123[tab]=1000000*B122/B121[tab] CO2 lbs/Mbtu CNG
A124[tab]=B48[tab] btu/mile CNG BRT
A125[tab]=B123*B124/1000000[tab] CO2 lbs/mile CNG BRT
A126[tab][tab]
A127[tab]LowInvest BRT:[tab]
A128[tab]=B49[tab] trips/wkdy
A129[tab]=B50[tab] NewTrips/wkdy
A130[tab]=B129/B128[tab] % New riders
A131[tab]=B128/8[tab] trips/Sunday (guesstimate 1/8 of wkdy)
A132[tab]=5*B128+2*B131[tab] trips/wk
A133[tab]=B51[tab] BRT miles/wkdy
A134[tab]=B133*B132/B128[tab] BRT miles/wk
A135[tab][tab]
A136[tab]CO2 emissions by BRT:[tab]
A137[tab]=B125*B134[tab] BRT CO2 lbs/wk emiitted
A138[tab]=B129/B66[tab] Car derating for LowInvest LRT
A139[tab]=B138*B109[tab] car CO2 lbs/wk displaced
A140[tab]=B141/B137[tab] net/gross CO2 (needs to be negative for any savings)
A141[tab]=B137+B139[tab] net CO2 lbs/wk
A142[tab]=52*B141[tab] net CO2 lbs/yr
A143[tab]=(B139/B88)/B86[tab] net avg CO2 lbs/NewTrip (BRT displaces CO2)
A144[tab]=B71*B132/B134[tab] Avg riders/bus
A145[tab]=B125*B140[tab] net CO2 lbs/mile BRT-cars (the BRT saves CO2)
A146[tab]=B125/B100[tab] | NewPassengers for CO2 break-even (9th new passenger saves CO2)
A147[tab]=B146/B130[tab] | | Total Passengers for break-even (30th total passenger saves CO2)
A148[tab]This should be cell B148[tab]
How Not to Deal with Labor
Kathleen Miller's account of the budget argument between County Executive Ike Leggett, County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg and MCGEO President Gino Renne reveals just how bad the county's financial situation is. But even worse is the state of its relations with its labor unions.
As someone who has been in the labor movement for more than 14 years, it is difficult to imagine any poorer handling of public sector labor relations than I am witnessing now. The school unions just gave up $89 million in COLAs, most of which is now being used to finance $50 million of meaningless giveaways to business. And now MCGEO is being threatened with further cutbacks. For what? More giveaways to other groups in the county?
The building trades unions have occasionally engaged in concessionary bargaining over the years, notably during the recession of the early 1980s. We did it so that our employers could preserve jobs and protect their competitiveness. It would have been unthinkable for our employers to use those concessions to give discounts to suppliers or freebies to their favorite business partners. In fact, we were all squeezed by the recession together. And we survived by concentrating on the bottom line: solvency and a return to profitability.
So long as the county is handing out benefits to some groups while eliminating compensation and jobs for its employees, it will have no credibility with its workforce. The entire process of bargaining will be more painful, more difficult and more personal. And those involved, from the union leaders down to the rank-and-file, will never forget it.
If deficit reduction is the goal, then the last thing the county should do is delay revenues. The county should apply the savings from the unions directly to the deficit. But if the county's real goal is to practice hardball and play favorites, then all it has to do is keep doing what it is doing. This could very well be a long, hard, bitter budget season with big-time consequences in 2010.
MPW Interview (Updated)
I am the subject of the Examiner's three-minute interview today.
Update: My friend Hans Riemer posted this comment on the interview:
I read MPW all the time. It's a great blog. But I'm a little concerned that Pagnucco gave the Examiner a photo with sunglasses. I mean who does that?? What does Pagnucco have to hide? Maybe it's time for someone to watch the watcher...That's what I get for making fun of his Facebook profile picture with Obama!
Is This Really Stimulus?
The Post wrote a short article on County Executive Ike Leggett's stimulus proposal on Friday. But in scrutinizing the details, we have yet to find where the "stimulus" is!
Here are the eleven components of the proposal from the county's press release:1. Increase Local, Small Business Reserve Program (LSBRP) gross annual sales thresholds for local small businesses in the wholesale, retail and services sectors to $5 million from the current levels of $2 million for wholesale businesses or $2.5 million for retail goods and non-construction services, and to $14 million from $7 million for construction services and manufacturing. Also proposed is to increase the employee complement limits from 15 to 30 for wholesale and retail businesses, from 20 to 40 for manufacturing businesses, and from 25 to 50 for businesses in the service and construction sectors.
Items 1 and 2 are legitimately helpful since they steer more money to local and small businesses (although perhaps we should have been doing this all along). But can anyone tell me which of these other measures actually create jobs? Item 4, which delays impact tax payments, may actually slow down the county's ability to build roads and schools. Item 7 prolongs APF reviews for development projects, enabling a developer to sit on a project longer and perhaps leading to delayed construction. Item 8, requiring fiscal impact analysis, is already essentially performed by county staff on new bills. And items 10 and 11, which set up networking forums and business fairs, are already performed by the county's Chambers of Commerce. Not a single new job will be created by Items 3 through 11.
2. Increase the required percentage of Local, Small Business Reserve Program (LSBRP) participation in annual contracting from the present level of 10% to 20%.
3. Generally, delay up to 18 months, the effective dates of new legislation and regulations that have a substantial economic impact on business.
4. Allow, upon request, deferral of payment of permitting fees and impact taxes for a period of up to twelve months from their current due date.
5. Increase permit application expiration period to eighteen months for those permits associated with new residential and commercial construction.
6. Increase expiration period for inactive building permits to twelve months.
7. Extend the validity period for existing Adequate Public Facility reviews from five (5) years to seven (7) years.
8. Provide an economic and fiscal impact analysis as part of any legislation or regulatory change. The analysis to include an assessment of the impact on both the County and the parties being regulated.
9. Unbundle large County contracts. County requirements that have traditionally been bundled together for administrative and cost savings benefit should be scrutinized as candidates for unbundling.
10. Create a Local Business Networking Forum to provide networking opportunities for small businesses to connect with potential partners.
11. Hold business fairs in the evenings and/or weekends at several county locations, such as the Regional Services Centers. Limit participation to small businesses with annual revenue of $5 million or less.
The County Council has already moved on real stimulus by jump-starting a number of state projects through issuing liquor bonds. Further borrowing to finance transportation work would lead to more job creation and more long-lasting investment than any of the items above. (Perhaps the county should start by resurfacing the streets in the neighborhoods destroyed by WSSC.)
And finally, this proposal double-crosses the county's workers. The school employees just gave up raises totaling $89 million for the purpose of deficit reduction. Instead, most of that money will now be used to finance the above package that will cost $50 million in delayed revenues according to the Post. Lost employee raises will definitely have a negative impact on the economy, and now they will be replaced by a costly "stimulus" proposal that may not create a single new job.
Deferred revenue, little or no job growth and wasted county employee wage concessions. I guess I have to give this proposal credit for one thing: multi-tasking!
Sunday, December 21, 2008
New Report: Maryland Budget Situation "Devastating"
The Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute just issued a new report on the state budget. Its conclusions are as dark as can be imagined.
The main points of the report are:
1. Economic growth in the state "has all but ground to a halt and has perhaps now reversed." Consumer spending, the housing market and the retail sector may not have hit bottom and job losses are likely.
2. The state budget deficit now stands at $391 million for the current fiscal year (which ends on 6/30/09) and $1.87 billion for the next fiscal year.
3. The state's Spending Affordability Committee's recommended increase of 0.7% is the lowest hike in its 25-year history and would fall well short of inflation. The committee recommended reducing the state workforce by 1,000 positions. Currently, there are 3,300 vacant positions not including legislative and higher education employees.
4. The employee furloughs recommended by the Governor will only contribute less than 9% of the amount needed to balance the state budget.
5. The authors write:The spending cuts needed to address budget gaps of this size would lead to a catastrophic threat to state programs and Maryland's most vulnerable families and citizens... An all-cut solution to the budget may not be practical. It's time to re-open revenue options as part of a comprehensive budget solution.
This last bit of advice is unlikely to be heeded. The vast majority of the state politicians I talk to agree with Senator Nancy King (D-39), a member of the Senate's Budget and Taxation Committee, who recently told the Gazette, "There is absolutely no interest in any taxes at all."
That sentiment will prevent the state from doing anything about its Crisis in Transportation. And now we will see its impact on education, health care and public safety, which together account for 83% of the state's budget. We are about to find out what "devastating" really means.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Ike Leggett's Letter to County Employees
County Executive Ike Leggett sent the following letter to county employees last night.
Dear Fellow County Employee:
On behalf of nearly one million Montgomery County residents, I want to thank you for all that you are doing on behalf of our County.
Montgomery County is a great place to live, work, play, raise a family, and grow a business. Your professionalism, dedication, and commitment to excellence help make Montgomery County one of the finest communities in the nation.
You are a valued member of Montgomery County’s team. That’s why I want to share directly with you information about the enormous challenges we are facing.
The County must resolve our current economic difficulties, caused by the housing slump, the national recession, and the State’s budget crisis. As with all local jurisdictions, Montgomery County faces a large budget gap between our projected resources and the services we expect to provide for the next fiscal year that begins July 1, 2009. We now expect that shortfall to be at least $500 million. And this figure does not include possible reductions in state aid for Montgomery County that have yet to be decided. The state has just doubled its previous estimates of its shortfalls for this fiscal year and next. Also, we do not yet know when we’ll see the “bottom” of our nation’s economic crisis.
Last year, County residents received significant state and local tax hikes. With the hardships many families are facing, we cannot impose a further burden on them. That’s why I have pledged not to increase taxes again. This means that the County’s budget recommendations for next year, which I will release in March, will include substantial reductions in projected spending.
No one could have anticipated the extent of this current economic crisis, but you have been a partner over the first two years of my administration as I have worked diligently to reduce County government agency spending and to provide a budget plan that is sustainable not only for the short term, but for our long term futures as well. From a 14 percent increase in the year before I took office, I reduced the budget increase to 6.7 percent and, then, last year, to 1.5 percent. I have initiated a hiring freeze and eliminated 225 positions. My current six-year capital budget increased by only 1 percent compared to an average of 25 percent for each of the previous two cycles.
But these measures are not nearly enough in this current economic crisis.
When the County Council passed the fiscal year 2009 budget last May, there was an $8 million gap remaining for resolution this year. Two million dollars of that gap will be met through better-than-expected savings from our early retirement program and from limiting senior management pay. I have also proposed two possible furlough days for all County government employees to save the remaining $6 million. In the near future, I will inform you whether furlough days are necessary for this current year. I, as well as all my senior managers and department directors, will be furloughed if County employees are asked to make such sacrifices.
The remaining budget gap we are projecting for next year is still daunting. The County Council has just approved $33 million in reductions that I proposed to help reduce spending for this fiscal year. This savings would be applied to help with our $500 million gap for FY 2010. Still, we have a long way to go to make up the projected shortfall, which may further increase due to additional state budget reductions and the ongoing national economic downturn.
Most recently, I asked all County departments for a second round of reductions from the original proposed budget levels for the next fiscal year. I am asking for a 7 percent reduction in non-Public Safety tax-supported departments, 5 percent for proprietary funds, and 3.5 percent for Public Safety departments and the Department of Health & Human Services.
I know that none of this is easy for you and your family. But Montgomery County is not immune from the current economic downturn.
I’m confident our County will weather these difficult challenges – and ultimately come out far stronger. It won’t be easy, but working together we can make it happen.
I will stay in regular touch with you as things develop. And I hope you won’t hesitate to contact me at ocemail@montgomerycountymd.gov.
I wish you and yours a happy, healthy and safe holiday season.
Isiah Leggett
PartyStat
By Marc Korman.
At December’s Maryland Democratic Party meeting, the Party’s 2008 Election Report was distributed. The Governor affectionately referred to the numbers within as PartyStat, in line with his various initiatives through the years like StateStat and BayStat to use numbers to improve government’s effectiveness. The numbers are impressive.
Maryland has not gone Republican since the Reagan landslide of 1984 and, of course, Obama got our 10 electoral votes. 1,628,995 Marylanders voted for Obama, an increase of 294,526 voters from Kerry’s share in 2004. In fact, Obama increased on Kerry’s share of the vote in every county in the state. Here in Montgomery, the increase was 5.6% (40,508 voters). The largest increases in the Democratic column were in Charles County (11.8%, 14,281 voters) and Frederick County (9.3%, 14,510 voters).
Maryland is not thought of as a battleground in presidential elections, but it is thought of as an ATM. We maintained our ATM reputation in 2008, providing just over $19 million in donations to the Obama campaign. At the same time, the state party raised $2.9 million.
But Maryland’s contribution was not just financial. Marylanders also gave their time and energy to the winning effort. The state made 1.4 million phone calls to battleground states and sent 3,600 volunteers to Pennsylvania and Virginia during the last weekend of the election. 2,852 Marylanders actually moved to battleground states during the election. Maryland projected the greatest effort for the Democrats to other states except for California, which has 30 million more people and almost 6 million more registered Democrats. According to the Governor, the effort of Marylanders in battleground states was recognized by the governors of Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, and elsewhere.
Given the success of the Ficker Amendment, it was not all sunshine and roses for Democrats in Maryland. But at the presidential level the state really came through for Barack Obama. To all of you who were a part of these efforts, whether it was writing a check, crowding into an Obama office to make phone calls, dialing from home, or hoofing it in Virginia or another state, thank you.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Long Knives for Franchot, Part Four
The Knives of Annapolis are getting longer every day for Peter Franchot. But L’enfant Terrible of Takoma Park may just stick it to his enemies before they stick it to him.
Peter Franchot was first elected to the House of Delegates in 1986. So what did he do? He immediately ran against then-freshman Congresswoman Connie Morella in a “notably aggressive” campaign. Franchot then embarked on a long career of press-hounding, glory-seeking and blood-feuding (especially with former pariah Delegate Dana Dembrow). After he was re-elected to his fifth term in 2002, Franchot became hungry again for higher office. And he soon found a convenient target: the increasingly erratic Comptroller, William Donald Schaefer. Franchot quickly began dogging Schaefer and capitalizing on his every mis-step. Here is just one example: shortly after Schaefer criticized a McDonald’s employee for not speaking English, Franchot organized a news conference at which Latino leaders and Democratic legislators denounced him. Franchot’s surprise win in 2006 was the product of four years of courtship of the labor, environmental and minority communities: the heart of Maryland’s left.
Franchot has never lost his edge and remains the favorite against any rival. Here’s why.
1. Franchot is the only statewide candidate for the office.
Prior to 2004, then-Delegate Franchot was known only in Montgomery County and mainly in his home turf of Takoma Park. But his campaign against Schaefer and his crusade against slots have turned him into a true statewide figure. Only Governor O’Malley and the two U.S. Senators are better known than Franchot. Jim Smith, Brian Feldman and almost every other possible contender are local or regional candidates at this point who must work to build name recognition outside their home areas.
2. Franchot has never stopped running for Comptroller.
Consider this: since being elected, Franchot has raised a total of $1.1 million – nearly equal to the $1.6 million he raised during the previous four years. He has retired nearly all of the $750,000 home mortgage debt he incurred in his run and has spent $223,767 on salaries for campaign staff through 10/24/08. That’s right – he has been paying campaign staff ever since his election. One of his salary recipients was none other than Scott Arceneaux, the former campaign manager for Doug Duncan who later headed Marylanders United to Stop Slots. Arceneaux received $15,000 from Franchot in January and February 2008 before joining the anti-slots campaign (and launching the ad that was so hated by Annapolis Democrats).
3. Franchot’s press skills far exceed any opponent.
This is obvious but also extremely important. Franchot understands how to work the press better than any other politician in Maryland. He is always ready with a great quote and is constantly creating a story – exactly the things that reporters love. Do Democratic primary voters really care that he has offended Big Daddy? Of course not – all they know is his name. And that is more than the vast majority of them know about any of his potential opponents.
4. Franchot can avoid responsibility for any problems.
The leaders in Annapolis have been making an unusually large number of tough decisions over the last two years – raising taxes, cutting spending, calling for slots – and there is more to come. But Franchot need not sully himself in the dirty details of it. He can merely stand on the outside and criticize the unhappy outcomes. Are you a moderate Democrat in the Baltimore suburbs who disliked the special session’s tax hikes? Peter Franchot, who has criticized the special session since Day One, agrees with you. Are you a liberal in Montgomery County who dislikes spending cuts? Peter Franchot, who called for a blue-ribbon commission instead, agrees with you. Are you a slots opponent? Of course, Peter Franchot is on your side. Who cares about whether Franchot has genuine alternatives for closing the state’s budget deficits? Such tactics infuriate Franchot’s enemies (especially Big Daddy) but they make for great politics.
5. Franchot’s strength in the Washington suburbs is tough to overcome.
In the 2006 primary election, Franchot received more votes from Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties (111,912) than did Janet Owens (60,088) and William Donald Schaefer (38,154) combined. No Baltimore-area politician will be able to beat Franchot in the state’s two largest Democratic jurisdictions. As of 10/31/08, there were 589,064 registered Democrats in Baltimore City and Baltimore County vs. 696,537 in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. Another fact: of the 202,122 newly registered Democrats between 10/31/06 and 10/31/08, 46% came from Montgomery and Prince George’s. Doug Gansler’s victory over Stu Simms proved that a candidate from the Washington suburbs could finally defeat a Baltimore candidate in a statewide race. Peter Franchot, who currently has more statewide name recognition than does Gansler, could very well prove that again.
6. His potential rivals may already be too late.
Franchot effectively started his race against Schaefer at least two years prior to election day. He needed that time to build his case against the incumbent and form alliances outside his home jurisdiction. Neither Jim Smith nor Brian Feldman nor anyone else has begun a similar effort – yet. If anyone wants to take on Franchot, they must obtain the support of the Governor and Big Daddy and start raising money and making the rounds as soon as possible. It will take that long to mount a winning challenge against one of the most hyper-competitive campaigners the state has seen in a long time.
And Franchot’s fanatical nature may be his greatest edge. One of my informants told me, “I’m done betting against Peter Franchot. I’m not saying he’s a lock to win. But every time I’ve bet against him, I’ve been wrong.” Another longtime political observer told me, “A race against Franchot is not for the faint of heart; he is fearless and will go down fighting.”
Peter Franchot’s next election campaign is well underway. Phase One was his opposition to the unpopular special session. Phase Two was the anti-slots campaign. Franchot has already established his message: Don’t Trust Annapolis Politicians. He will use it against anyone backed by the Governor and Mike Miller. He will argue that his opponent – whoever it is – is a “machine politician” under control by “gambling interests.” He will implore the Democratic primary electorate, a group well to the left of the general electorate that voted for slots, to retain him as its protector. Franchot's campaign will claim that only he can be trusted to look out for the poor, the weak and the victims of poorly-conceived tax hikes and spending cuts.
And so there are many long knives waiting for Peter Franchot in Annapolis. But the Comptroller just may have the longest – and the bloodiest – knife of them all.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Fall of the Blogs
Two of Maryland’s most prominent blogs stopped publishing last week. We remember both of them today.
Free State Politics was a member of the first wave of left-wing political blogs in Maryland. Founded in March 2005 on Blogger, it was eventually taken over by contributor Isaac Smith and moved to a separate site. From the beginning, FSP was intended to be a community blog. Any reader could start an account and begin writing. If the content was really good, the blog’s moderators had the ability to promote it to the front page.
And the content was often a cut above. In addition to Isaac, the site featured MCEA Board Member Eric Luedtke, Annapolis blogger Paul Foer, Crablaw author Bruce Godfrey, the impish “Gilbert” from Takoma Park and the virulent “Lefty” from parts unknown. Through the fall of 2007, FSP was often the most-read political blog in the state. And it spawned a direct challenger: Red Maryland, a conservative multi-author blog with its own roster of dogged and occasionally deranged bloggers.
But on Wednesday, Isaac Smith posted this: I've been doing this unofficially for a while now, so I might as well make it official: I'm putting this blog on hiatus for the foreseeable future. Free State Politics has been a labor of love for me for the last year and a half or so, but it's not something I can attend to with anything near the level of commitment it deserves. It was easier when it was a side project I was doing during grad school, but trying to fit in blog posts (and good ones, at that) with my current work situation -- i.e., underemployed and trying to find a better job in the midst of a world-historical recession -- just isn't feasible anymore. I want to thank my other co-bloggers, in particular Eric, Andy, OnBackground, and Bruce, for all their contributions, which usually were better than my own. Hopefully soon I (or someone else) can give this site a reboot; until then, enjoy Maryland Politics Watch, Lost on the Shore, and other Maryland political blogs out there.
Thanks for the news, views and fun, Isaac.
PolitickerMD ceased operations last Friday. As we wrote a year ago, PolitickerMD was started in late 2007 as part of a network of state political news sites owned by New Jersey real estate millionaire Jared Kushner. These sites looked like blogs, but actually functioned more like online MSM sites complete with paid staff.
According to Politico, the Politicker network is downsizing from seventeen states to six states. One of the lost states will be Maryland. Politico reports that the dropped sites will remain online but not be updated. Kushner is even leaving open the possibility that one or more of them might be revived if justified by financial considerations.
PolitickerMD had great potential but never lived up to it. On the positive side, it was truly a statewide site. Its reporters went into every corner of Maryland and reported on events from Annapolis power struggles down to town council elections. On the negative side, its stories rarely contained any perspective. Many of them were little more than short snippets, quick quotes or links to Post or Sun articles. But they did provide fodder for commentary by others.
And so not even the blogosphere is safe from the historic dislocations in the media that we are witnessing. For-profit sites are buffeted by the same economic forces that are battering print and television journalism. Amateur sites are plagued by the demands of time, work and real life that consume the rest of us.
Goodbye, FSP and PolitickerMD. We’ll miss you. But we also eagerly look forward to the next generation of Maryland blogdom.
Long Knives for Franchot, Part Three
Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith is a logical choice for Governor O’Malley and Senate President Mike Miller to launch a challenge against hated Comptroller Peter Franchot. But what if Smith decides not to run? Is District 15 Delegate Brian Feldman the answer? We asked our spies and, as usual, they did not disappoint.
Brian Feldman is a two-term Delegate from Potomac. When he first ran for the House in 2002, three of the four members of the district delegation (Senator Jean Roesser and Delegates Jean Cryor and Richard LaVay) were Republicans. Democratic Delegate Mark Shriver had just lost a Congressional primary to then-District 18 Senator Chris Van Hollen. In the general election, Feldman finished just 683 votes behind Cryor, then a two-term veteran and the sole surviving Republican. In his second term, Feldman earned an Economic Matters subcommittee chairmanship and became Montgomery County’s House Delegation Chair in 2007. In our MPW poll, Feldman was voted the 15th-most influential elected official in Montgomery County.
Feldman is an unusual figure in this county because he has admirers across our political spectrum. Moderates and liberals alike praise his intelligence, patience and hard work. In fact, despite my best efforts, I have not located anyone who despises him. (Trust me – that is rare for a politician.) As a CPA and a tax lawyer, he is extremely well qualified to be Comptroller. His reputation as a consensus builder would make him an attractive alternative to the Governor and Big Daddy, who above all do not want more Franchot-esque eruptions.
So does Brian Feldman have what it takes to defeat Peter Franchot? Here is what four of my best-connected informants have to say:
Spy #1:Basically, Brian has to tap into the vast hatred that Peter has in the Democratic Party right now. Also, Jim Smith has to NOT run. So, yes, Brian could win. If Jim Smith did not run, O’Malley would gladly put Brian (or any reasonable person) on his ticket. Being from Montgomery County, Brian would be best. Brian would not need to raise as much money as Peter, he would just need to be on Martin's Team.
Spy #2:
One other thing, Brian could develop a really good argument -- governmental efficiency. He could expand the portfolio of the Comptroller to include internal management audit control, sort of an “Inspector General” type function. He could make a lot of hay by training his sights on specific examples of governmental waste starting with the Comptroller’s Office. This could be embarrassing for Peter. He could also go after auditing abuse - always a perennial favorite.
Of course, Peter is still the favorite to win because the voters like him. But the election is still a long ways off.I can’t believe it really. It certainly is true that Brian has a good background for it, given his time in the legislature and the fact that he's a lawyer and a CPA. For a legislator he's a better than average fundraiser, but would have to step it up big time for a statewide run.
Spy #3:
No doubt Peter has angered many in the Democratic establishment, but how many of those people will really pony up with time and money to help Feldman?
Peter did a lot to grease the skids a few years prior to his run by rallying up the progressives. Brian would need to make tons of friends and can’t just be the anti-Peter.
Now I tend to be a skeptic, but I'm guessing it’s just a crazy rumor, and if I were Brian, I wouldn’t confirm or deny it. I would just smile and be glad that people were talking about me in a good light. The more you get talked about in political circles about “big” things, the slightly more likely that good things happen.Personally, while I think Feldman would be the best fit for Comptroller based on his background, experience, smarts and temperament, I’d like to see him as Speaker, Majority Leader, or Economic Matters Chairman -- and I don’t think any of these are out of the question. He presents a strong viable alternative to some others seen as being in the running for those spots -- and his leadership talents are very, very strong. I don’t think that it hurts Feldman to be mentioned in the article. In fact, I think it helps brand him as a viable statewide leader overall, and gets people thinking about him for a near to mid term leadership spot.
Spy #4:O’Malley should be careful about encouraging challengers to Franchot for Comptroller, since it could just persuade Franchot to run against O'Malley.
Brian Feldman has many supporters in the county who believe he could move up in Annapolis. They would hate to see him leave politics prematurely. But if he actually became Comptroller, he would excel in the job. Would the voters understand that? Not if Peter Franchot has his way. And the incumbent Comptroller is not done yet – not by a long shot. We conclude in Part Four.
Feldman is one of several bright, smart, handsome young men from Montgomery County who don’t want to wait forever to move up the ladder but may have to wait for a long time, since Chris Van Hollen has to wait to run for Senator Mikulski’s seat and Rob Garagiola has to wait to run for Chris Van Hollen’s seat.
Basically I think it would be a mistake for Brian to give up his House seat for a long-shot statewide race right now, unless he’s really prepared to end his political career at this relatively early stage.
On Political Pulse
Michael Busch, the Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates will be on the "Political Pulse" TV Show on:
--Thursday, December 18th at 9:00 p.m.;
--Tuesday, December 23rd at 9:30 p.m.;
--Thursday, December 25th at 9:00 p.m; and
--Tuesday, December 30th at 9:30 p.m.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Speaker Busch will discuss the economy, the deficit that the State is facing, the upcoming 90 day Legislative Session which starts in January, 2009, some issues regarding Montgomery County and what it's like to be the Speaker.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Edgerley Resigns at DBED
The Baltimore Business Journal is reporting that David Edgerley, Maryland's Secretary of the Department of Business & Economic Development (DBED), is resigning.
This story does not have as many political implications as David Weaver's resignation, but you do have to feel for Edgerley. Consider the following three events that were not his fault:
1. The colossal anti-union website scandal that started under his predecessors and revealed the fault lines between labor and the O'Malley administration.
2. The slide in the state's business tax climate from 24th to 45th in one year when no other state dropped more than three places.
3. The fact that DBED will now have to take budget cuts and furloughs like every other department in state government.
Given the above (especially item two), selling the state to business might be just as appealing as trying to sell saltwater to fishermen!
What Does Weaver's Departure from Franchot's Office Mean? (Updated)
Maryland Moment is reporting that Comptroller Peter Franchot's Chief of Staff David Weaver has been hired for the same position by Congressman Chris Van Hollen. This is big news but its full meaning is unclear.
David Weaver is one of Montgomery County's smartest and most-respected political operatives. He served as Doug Duncan's spokesman for 12 years and ran a media-friendly political operation for Franchot. My sources singled out Weaver for special praise in my Long Knives for Franchot series, which I have now had to edit. “He’s the last person I would want to go up against,” said one spy who has known Weaver for a long time.
Weaver was one of Franchot's biggest weapons but now he is gone. A staff job for Chris Van Hollen is definitely attractive. But is there more to this? Does David Weaver know something that the rest of us don't?
Update: Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16) released this statement:David Weaver is one of the most talented and decent people I have ever met in my three decades in politics and public policy. I spent nearly eight years on Capitol Hill as an aide to the previous Democrat who represented Maryland's 8th Congressional District -- Michael D. Barnes. I know from that experience and from a decade representing part of the 8th District in the General Assembly that Congressman Van Hollen and the people he represents will be extremely well served with David Weaver as Chief of Staff.
Here's what some of our undercover informants had to say:David is going back to his legislative roots. He’s a smart guy and will thrive on the Hill. Leaving “Peter the Isolated” for “Chris the Hero” is clearly a big step up for him.
Weaver was much too smart to be working for the Comptroller. Guess he had to because there wasn't anything else at the time, but it is a huge win for Van Hollen to get someone of his caliber.
David has outstanding political instincts and has likely concluded that the long-term upside potential of hitching his wagon to the Franchot show horse is exceedingly limited while the downside exposure of being tied to, and tainted by, this guy is huge.
David Weaver is very talented in managing both political and communications strategies. Despite what many think, they are separate disciplines. David is unusual in that he can do both at a very, very high level. This is a real loss for Peter Franchot. Peter's formula for success relies on generating ink and stirring the political pot with a populist message. It's a house of cards, a bubble that so far he's been able to stay on top of. I wonder if David's departure is the first step in the bursting of the Franchot bubble. Never count Peter out, but this is a big loss. If you're Weaver and Van Hollen calls, why wouldn't you take the job? As head of DCCC and liaison to the White House, Van Hollen will be right in the middle of the political intrigue at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Maryland's Request for Stimulus Money
Following is a letter from Governor Martin O'Malley to Congressman Chris Van Hollen requesting federal stimulus aid. The Governor sent identical letters to the rest of the state's Congressional delegation.
State of Maryland
Office of the Governor
December 8, 2008
The Honorable Chris Van Hollen
U.S. House of Representatives
2412 RHOB
Washington, DC 20515-2008
Dear Congressman Van Hollen:
Last week, I had the opportunity to join governors from across our nation at a bi-partisan meeting with President-Elect Barack Obama and Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden. I am pleased that the incoming Administration has moved quickly during the transition process to secure input from the nation’s governors with regard to the economic challenges facing the states.
We discussed, in large part, the fact that governors continue to be faced with the unfortunate necessity of making strong cuts to programs that their constituents need the most and looking to their own workforce to make sacrifices to this end. One of our requests was that, in beginning work on an economic recovery package, the new Administration work with the Congress to provide governors with maximum flexibility to respond to the very unique needs of their communities.
Specifically, we encouraged them to consider some of the following priorities as they collaborate with you:An expansion of unemployment insurance – to preserve workers’ expiring benefits;
As you prepare for the start of the 111th Congress and continue efforts to address the national economic crisis, I wanted to provide you with an update on the changing dynamics impacting Maryland’s transportation, public works and housing infrastructure programs. Several pieces of federal legislation are proposed for expedited action in January, many of which would provide much needed relief to the strained transportation system, provide the resources necessary to initiate construction of priority projects in our State, and create hundreds of new jobs to recharge the flailing state and national economies.
Medicaid funding (in the form of increased Federal Medical Assistance Percentage) for states so that they can continue to provide health care to the growing populations that need it in these difficult times;
An aggressive investment in the kinds of “ready-to-go” infrastructure improvement projects – construction and/or repair of roads, bridges, tunnels, transit systems, parks, sewers, energy efficiency upgrades, information technology systems, (health IT, public safety and other services) and schools, to offer only a few examples – that can immediately put America back to work in a targeted and efficient manner; and
A flexible block grant to states that can be used to craft the most appropriate solutions to the very unique challenges they face.
Speaking specifically to our transportation needs, due to declining revenues this summer and fall, the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) made budgetary deferrals of over $1.1 billion to the State’s six-year transportation improvement program. Prolonged impacts of vehicle titling requirements and motor fuel taxes will require us to make even deeper cuts into the capital programs for transit and highways as well as pare back the operating budgets of all MDOT agencies. We therefore stand ready to make immediate use of federal funding, should it be provided to states through Congressional action.
MDOT has identified at least 50 projects with a total estimated cost of more than $310 million that could be underway or advertised within 180 days of enactment of federal infrastructure funding provisions in an economic recovery bill. Among these projects are $100 million in highway resurfacing, $50 million in bridge rehabilitation, and $15 million in safety improvements that would provide guardrails, traffic signal upgrades and accessibility improvements. Another $18 million could go to Baltimore area transit needs, $48 million to MARC rail projects, and $83 million for aviation. Furthermore, full funding is needed for the Army Corps of Engineers Operating and Maintenance budget to ensure that critical dredging projects in the Chesapeake Bay do not slip, endangering maritime safety, the flow of commerce and the environmental health of the Bay.
Moreover, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) has identified more than 100 much needed water and wastewater infrastructure projects with a total estimated cost of nearly $1 billion that could commence construction within the required time frame. Many of these projects will significantly and directly benefit the Chesapeake Bay by reducing nutrient pollution to the Bay and its tributaries. They include construction of new or upgraded wastewater treatment plants, installation of enhanced nutrient removal technology at wastewater treatment plants discharging into the Bay or its tributaries, the replacement and upgrade of sewer lines with inadequate capacity to reduce sewer overflows and storm management projects to reduce runoff of pollutants into streams and other water bodies.
In addition, the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) has identified a range of infrastructure projects nominated by nine small local governments as well as 14 affordable rental housing projects that will help address critical needs across the State. The finance and construction of both types of activities has been severely limited in the wake of the ongoing challenges in the financial markets. The infrastructure projects, which total $100 million, range from water and sewer projects in BRAC-impacted Aberdeen to street improvements in Berlin to a police station in Laurel. The affordable rental housing projects total $119 million in construction costs and would create 1,080 units to serve individuals with disabilities, seniors, and families. These developments include projects that will revitalize public housing, build capacity in BRAC-impacted jurisdictions, and preserve existing affordable housing units. The projects will help address Maryland’s projected shortfall of 151,000 affordable/workforce rental housing units while creating an estimated 1,600 full time equivalent positions during construction stimulating $66 million in wages and salaries.
Not only would an infusion of funds keep hard-working people employed, it would allow us to deliver infrastructure improvements that will last beyond the immediate economic crisis.
We urge you to give us the tools to initiate work expeditiously, by waiving matching requirements and according us the flexibility to apply the funds in line with our needs as envisioned in the Consolidated Transportation Program for federally eligible highway and transit projects. For our part, I pledge these funds will be administered in a timely and accountable manner; if we cannot activate these “shovel ready” projects in the time allotted by statutory rules, we will return the money to the federal government. But make no mistake: I have no doubt about our ability to deliver these projects.
Thank you for your continued dedication to the State of Maryland and for your strong support during a time when everyone stands ready to pitch in for the greater good of the nation.
Sincerely,
Martin O’Malley
Governor
Long Knives for Franchot, Part Two
Comptroller Peter Franchot has steadily expanded his enemies list from Senate President Mike Miller to Governor Martin O’Malley to the General Assembly as a whole to the state Democratic Party. Not even his controversial predecessor, William Donald Schaefer, went this far. He is virtually begging for a primary challenge. But who could take him out?
The most-commonly mentioned possible candidate is Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith. Smith’s political career goes back to 1978, when he first became a Baltimore County Council Member, and paused for 16 years while he was a Circuit Court judge. In 2001, Smith resigned his judgeship to run for County Executive, beating a Republican with 56% of the vote while Bob Ehrlich carried the county in his successful campaign for Governor. Smith was then re-elected with 77% of the vote in the primary and 66% in the general election. He has attracted support from business, labor and many other players in his county and reported a campaign balance of $495,348.07 last January despite being term-limited.
Smith is a particularly attractive Comptroller challenger for the Governor for several reasons. First, Smith’s Chief of Staff is none other than Peter O’Malley, the Governor’s brother. Second, Smith’s age (68 in 2010) will likely prevent him from having ambitions for higher office, which will not earn the resistance of the current Governor’s hopeful successors. Third, Smith can be counted on to not rock the boat of the O’Malley-Miller-Busch-State Democratic team. Finally, Smith’s long record of success in Baltimore County, historically a swing jurisdiction, leads some to believe that he will be a strong centrist candidate statewide.
But there are two problems with Smith as a challenger. First, he underwent triple-bypass open heart surgery in August. Does he have the stamina to barnstorm across Maryland for more than a year? Second, Smith seems temperamentally ill-suited to a contentious matchup with the hypercompetitive Franchot. Check out this 2004 account from Baltimore Magazine posted on Smith’s own website: Jim Smith is a terrible politician. “He's not a gifted, natural politician -- nobody would deny that,” says Sun reporter Andy Green, who covered Smith for almost two years. “Which is not to say he's a bad county executive…”
These may be admirable traits on the part of Jim Smith, but is a person who is a “terrible politician” truly ready for a doomsday showdown with ultra-political Peter Franchot?
Smith admits he hates the political side of the job. “So much of politics is gamesmanship for the sake of the game, not for the responsibility of governing,” says the 62-year-old Democrat.
If Smith decides to run, the Governor and Big Daddy will clear the field for him and make sure he has the resources to compete. But what if Smith stays out? Then another challenger will have to be found. And the Post has identified such a potential candidate: District 15 Delegate Brian Feldman. More in Part Three.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Chevy Chase Town Council Meeting
The following is a brief summary of last Wednesday's Town Council meeting:
The Town Council approved a variance allowing Jim Roy to build a covered porch on the front of his property at 4511 Elm Street.
After a public hearing, the Council unanimously voted to adopt the Chevy Chase Challenge Climate Action Plan with a few small changes. The Council expressed its gratitude to the Environment Committee, particularly its Chair Judy McGuire, for all of their hard work. I believe that Judy was also the only one to speak at the public hearing and that the Council received no written comments.
The Council discussed the Community Services Survey, focusing primarily on the issue of public safety. The Council reiterated its desire to work on improving public lighting and support for the Public Services Committee's review of the issue. The Council also noted high levels of satisfaction with many areas, including staff performance.
Town Manager Todd Hoffman outlined his proposal the Council consider establishing a Capital Fund. A key purpose of the fund would be to make sure that the Town sets aside enough money to pay for expected capital costs, such as sidewalk maintenance and replacement, as well as future capital projects, such as potential land acquisitions for new parks or playgrounds.
Public Services Committee Liaison Al Lang presented a proposal to widen Oakridge Avenue. All members of the Council noted that the reaction of the residents in the area was unanimously negative to the proposal and a lack of a need for additional parking at this time. Many comments expressed satisfaction with the new sidewalks and a desire to leave well enough alone.
Who Wants to be on the Board of Elections?
From Alan Banov, Vice-Chairman, MCDCC.
Sam Statland, President of the Montgomery County Board of Elections, has resigned, and the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee requests applications to be nominated as a substitute Board member at its January 2009 meeting.
The County Board of Elections consists of five regular members (3 Democrats and 2 Republicans) and two substitute members (1 Democrat and 1 Republican). The other Democrats on the Board are Members John Sullivan and Jerry Garson and Substitute Member Rosalyn Pelles. By virtue of Mr. Statland’s resignation, Ms. Pelles has become a regular member.
At its regular meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2008, MCDCC will vote to nominate a candidate to be the new Democratic member. The Members of the Board of Elections serve for a four-year term and oversee the operations of the Board. Their work requires attendance at regular monthly meetings and considerable work, day and night, in the periods before, during, and after primaries and general elections. Board members receive a small stipend.
MCDCC is soliciting applications from registered Democrats who wish to serve as substitute Election Board member for the remainder of the current term, which ends in 2010. Experience with elections or the Elections Board is highly desirable.
To Apply: Please send a letter of interest and a resume or biographical sketch to the MCDCC at 3720 Farragut Avenue, Suite 303, Kensington, MD 20895-2195, or e-mail or fax them to MontgomeryDems@msn.com or 301-946-1002. The deadline to apply is 12:00 noon, Friday, January 9, 2009. Applicants will be interviewed by a committee of the MCDCC, starting at 7:30 p.m., January 12, in the order in which applications are received. Applicants will be notified on the afternoon of January 9 about the times of the interviews. Minorities, as well as women, are encouraged to apply.
Alan Banov (Legalrun@aol.com) and Karen Czapanskiy (KarenSyma@yahoo.com), are the chair and co-chair, respectively, of MCDCC Board of Elections Review Committee. Also serving on the committee are MCDCC Secretary Elliot Chabot and MCDCC Member Milt Minneman. The committee will make its recommendations at the January 13 MCDCC meeting. Applicants will be invited to appear at that meeting, but will not be expected to say anything more than to introduce themselves. The MCDCC will recommend that Governor Martin O’Malley appoint its selected candidate to the vacancy.
Long Knives for Franchot, Part One
In the aftermath of the slots campaign, Comptroller Peter Franchot is unquestionably the most hated man in Annapolis. As I write this, the preponderance of insider speculation is that it will be difficult for Governor Martin O’Malley and Senate President Mike Miller to resist the temptation to run someone against him. But if they try to get rid of Franchot, can they succeed?
It was not always this way. In 2006, Franchot’s predecessor, former Governor William Donald Schaefer, had become an embarrassment to the state Democrats. Schaefer’s comment that AIDS patients “brought it on themselves,” his tirade against McDonald’s workers who did not speak English and his blatant ogling of an aide to Governor Ehrlich fueled a barn-burning three-way election. Then-Delegate Peter Franchot, the surprise winner, had a reputation for going his own way in Annapolis but few expected him to behave as badly as Schaefer.
As soon as he took office, Franchot made clear he wanted to be a player in ways that exceeded the historical role of the Comptroller. He quickly proclaimed himself the state’s “Chief Fiscal Officer,” started showing up at news conferences everywhere and described himself as “an independent, fiscal watchdog who's a progressive.” That drew a quick rebuke from Big Daddy, who said he was elected to serve as a “tax collector, not as a policymaker.”
As long as Franchot’s battles were primarily against Miller, he benefitted. Big Daddy is the most feared man in Annapolis but he is not particularly well-liked, especially in the House of Delegates. Many legislators secretly enjoyed Franchot’s tweaks of Miller, something that few others dare to do. Some were willing to overlook Franchot’s behavior as the actions of a long-time gadfly. About a year ago, one Baltimore-area lawmaker told me, “That’s just Peter being Peter.”
But then Franchot started to go after Governor O’Malley, criticizing the 2007 special session, taunting the Governor over Montgomery County school construction money and demanding that the Governor “call off the attack dogs” during his anti-slots campaign. That made Annapolis legislators nervous. The office of Maryland Governor is unusually powerful by U.S. standards, especially over budgetary matters. Few legislators are interested in direct confrontation with the Governor and many became wary of getting too close to Franchot.
Franchot broadened his attacks during the slots campaign, when he told Prince George’s County church leaders, “We see what comes out of Annapolis... we know we can't trust them.” The anti-slots ad slamming “Annapolis Politicians” made matters worse. But the breaking point came when the state Democrats refused to let Franchot speak at their 2008 gala, prompting him to rant that the party “has become indebted to the national gambling industry.”
Franchot’s continued escalation of hostilities has earned him legions of enemies. One of my better-placed sources tells me:Beyond the slots issue where Peter at least arguably took a principled position (regardless of his contrary position on the same issue a decade earlier) and beyond his daily shots at the Democratic Governor which serve no clear cut purpose other than to get Peter’s name in the paper, many including myself are perplexed by the self-serving shots he’s now begun taking at the Democratic State Legislature. If this continues during the difficult upcoming Session, I think the chances of a serious primary challenge go way up. If he tones it down, the chances of such a challenge go down.
Peter Franchot is capable of many things, but “toning it down” does not appear to be one of them. That means he may very well attract a primary challenge. More on that in Part Two.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Porcari: System Preservation Should Come First
MDOT Secretary John Porcari is making clear that Maryland's share of the federal infrastructure stimulus package will be headed in large part to system preservation. Following is his comment on the issue to the National Journal's Transportation Blog:For an economic recovery plan to be effecitive, it must move quickly to first preserve the jobs that remain, and hopefully create more jobs. This argues for two approaches: 1) Utilize existing federal programs and formulas, and; 2) focus on system preservation projects.
The Secretary's thinking is in line with other transportation experts across the country. Rebuilding bridges, resurfacing highways and purchasing new rail cars and buses are non-controversial activities that are both necessary and can be started immediately. This is good news for my building trades brothers in the Laborers and Operating Engineers unions as well as businesses and commuters.
The existing federal programs and formulas are well known and understood (though not necessarily fair to those of us that are "donor" states). Getting projects out the door is the highest priority, and this is the fastest way to do it. And focusing on system preservation-- "fix it first"-- is the right priority, and avoids a state versus local (or regional) fight.
In Maryland, the project planning process begins with local priority lists. We have a collabrative process in determining project priorities. In the case of system preservation projects, these priorities are straightforward. They are then approved through the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), so they have already had extensive public input.
The reality is that most, if not all, of the states have more system preservation projects today than are likely to be funded. These investments in bridges, rail transit, highway rebuildng and bus replacement will preserve and create jobs not just in our states, but in regions where the materials, vehicles and supplies are produced.
The Sun is reporting that MDOT has sent a project list to the state's Congressional delegation. We have asked for a copy of that list and will post it when we receive it.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thursday Night Smackdown!
Last night, business and labor squared off on the CARR bill in one of the more entertaining bouts of the state hearing season. But there is a lot more to this story than the controversy over just one bill. Tensions are on the rise between two of the county’s most influential groups as Budget Armageddon builds steadily to its bloody climax.
Delegates Susan Lee (D-16), Brian Feldman (D-15), Anne Kaiser (D-14), Roger Manno (D-19) and Bill Bronrott (D-16)
But first, supporters and opponents of the CARR bill made their case at the House Delegation’s hearing on local bills. Five supporters testified, including three from labor: Bonnie Cullison, President of MCEA; Bob Stewart, Executive Director of MCGEO and Sean Dobson, Executive Director of Progressive Maryland. Their main points were:
1. The bill authorizes commercial property tax hikes by the County Council but does not mandate them.
2. The residential share of the county’s assessable property base has been climbing steadily for many years.
3. Splitting the residential from the commercial property tax rates would make it easier for the County Council to raise taxes without incurring a homeowner property tax revolt.
Sean Dobson, Delegate Al Carr (D-18), Bob Stewart and Bonnie Cullison
Nine opponents testified, including representatives from four Chambers of Commerce, one trade association and four businesses. Their main points were:
1. Residential property owners benefit from the homeowners property tax credit and the 10% annual cap in principal residence tax bill increases, neither of which are available to business.
2. The cumulative impacts of the special session tax hikes and county commercial property tax increase under the CARR bill would put the county at a crippling disadvantage.
3. Businesses are reeling under the terrible economy and further cost increases will put some of them over the edge.
The arguments on both sides have some merit and mirror my blog posts on the issue. But politicians are creatures of the moment. They want to know why something must be passed now. While the supporters talk about correcting what they see as historical inequities, opponents talk about the devastating consequences of tax hikes in the current environment. Alexandra Whitaker’s Get Real Consulting was named the Emerging Business of the Year when it was in the Rockville incubator. Shortly after leaving, Ms. Whitaker claims that her business is in a “delicate state of growth” and would lose customers if they must pass on the cost of a lease increase. David Fraser Hidalgo of Sandglass Systems in Kensington said, “Any increase in property taxes would have a devastating impact on our margins and our employees.” These arguments are particularly strong in a bad economic climate and are reinforced by an anti-tax disposition among the state’s politicians. The supporters find it difficult to counter them and as a result, none of our sources believe the bill will pass next year.
Alexandra Whitaker from Get Real Consulting, Kathleen Kittrick from Verizon, MoCo Chamber VP Lisa Fadden, Joshua Bokee from Comcast
But the CARR bill debate has illuminated a number of changes in Montgomery’s body politic. Three of them are:
1. The Re-Emergence of Business
Labor is a long-time power center in the county. Of the eighteen most-influential non-elected citizens in our recent poll, six are active in the labor movement. The leaders of MCEA, MCGEO and SEIU are especially visible. But last night spotlighted an increasingly important hidden hand in the county’s policy debates: Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce Vice-President Lisa Fadden. Brainy, relentless and occasionally combustible, Ms. Fadden attracts many comments from our spies.
“Smart and talented,” says one. “I think she's an intelligent advocate for the business community,” says another. One old hand comments, “She’s more effective than most lobbyists many years her senior.” And one particularly effusive spy gushed:Lisa Fadden is young, smart (really smart), brash, cute and knows what she thinks. She has no fear. She is not cut out of the old mold, in fact she represents what the future for leaders in this county look like. They are not waiting for anybody to give them permission to do or say what they think. Look out – the future has arrived.
Your author would not go that far, though we certainly enjoy covering brash characters on this blog. But Ms. Fadden is part of a youth movement that is slowly infiltrating many parts of the county’s political life. Business is one example. The Chamber of Commerce was once personified by its brilliant and imperious former CEO Rich Parsons and was thought to be primarily interested in development and the ICC. But the Chamber has diversified its interests over the last two years and is starting to mobilize its membership in ways reminiscent of civic associations. (See their revolt against Nancy Floreen’s parking space tax.) The economy is damaging the business community, but it is as politically relevant as ever.
2. Distrust is Building Between Business and Labor
The business and labor communities have a common interest in pursuing a revitalized economy. Labor in both the public and private sectors benefits from job creation, and job creation only happens when businesses are profitable. But the CARR bill dispute has interfered with their ability to work together.
Last spring, labor’s top priority was defending its cost-of-living adjustments. Many individuals inside the business world grumbled about those raises, but the business associations stayed out of the COLA debate. And none of the county’s major business associations opposed the recently-passed prevailing wage law. That silence benefited labor and isolated its opponents. But in advocating for the CARR bill, labor is pushing a measure that business considers “discriminatory” and “punitive.” Business feels the same outrage that labor would have felt had business opposed their COLAs.
School Board President Nancy Navarro offered substantial appeal to both business and labor during the County District 4 Special Election. Her campaign combined dozens of union member volunteer canvassers with influential business fundraisers. In the current atmosphere, that level of cooperation would be unlikely to occur if such an election were held today. Both business and labor may pay the price if an opening is created for candidates hostile to both of them.
3. Distraction from Armageddon
Even if passed, the CARR bill would not offer a total solution for the county’s budget problems. Judging from Senate President Mike Miller’s comments at the Committee for Montgomery breakfast on Monday, those problems are about to get a lot worse. Ann Marimow scooped the room in obtaining this post-speech quote from Big Daddy, which warrants repeating here:“There are going to have to be some adjustments,” Miller said after his formal remarks. “The county that gives big salaries and big benefits is going to have to make some adjustments.”
This is an existential and naked threat to labor, and not just in Montgomery County. Baltimore City and Prince George’s County also benefit from the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI), which directs education aid to jurisdictions with higher schooling costs. All counties benefit from the state’s assumption of teacher pension liabilities. Both of these items are now at risk. If they are cut by the state, the public employee unions will be hit with layoffs and permanent budget difficulties in addition to the loss of their COLAs.
Labor’s political capital is limited. The more that is spent on the CARR bill, the less will be available for more important items. Refocusing on the priorities that really matter may be the only way to fend off Budget Armageddon.
Maryland and Obama’s Stimulus Package
By Sharon Dooley.
The message posted by Adam from the Obama Saturday message could hold great promise for Montgomery County’s transportation dilemma.
The recent series about Council member Marc Elrich’s bus rapid transit (BRT) proposals and options for the Purple Line transit mentions the costs and problems in trying to pull all of this together. But a drive through the down county shows the discussion is passionate and divisive as signs are popping up like winter cabbages throughout the area. Along Jones Bridge Road one sees signs stating “No BRT on Jones Bridge”, while further east one sees signs about no routing along Wayne Avenue. Additionally “Save the trail” and “Purple line now” signs continue to proliferate and add to the visual pollution of opinions. Routes have been proposed for light rail along the Capital Crescent Trail and bus rapid transit along Jones Bridge or even along the beltway, among others.
In this down-county route, options have been discussed about underground, above ground, and almost every thing except a monorail. Alternatives are proposed for the east and west terminal stations. There are great commercial gambles in attempting to guess which route will prevail and just who will be the final owners of which critical – and potentially quite profitable - properties along the chosen routes. Business concerns are said to be funding some of the activists on each side. Preservationists and environmentalists are finding some areas of concert and others of confusion. No one person is seemingly positioned to be the “decider” here, and maybe that is a good thing. There appears to be enough that is both positive and negative about many of these suggestions that dilution of the ultimate decision-making by a committee of some sort may well provide excellent political cover when and if a route is chosen.
However, in the middle of this debate about one section of the county is the fact that we have an entire county that is approaching gridlock in multiple areas as has been discussed in the previous series. (This is not the place to address the problem potentials of BRAC.) Companies who complain about delayed deliveries, or have to change routes due to construction or congestion frequently describe the cost to businesses. But the one question that is too important to be overlooked is how we, as an increasingly urban county, can provide adequate transportation to the approximately one million people who live here NOW? It appears abundantly clear that we must construct transit of some type to provide an east-west conduit for those who work within the county. It is also obvious that the orientation of the Metro, planned as it was in the 1950’s when we had bedroom communities sending all of their workers downtown to the city is no longer the operational model. The long-planned, much maligned (and properly so, in my opinion) Inter-County Connector will not serve this function for the working commuter and gobbles up most of our state transportation efforts in dollars and sense.
The Cross-county BRT routes that were presented by Marc Elrich in the previous week hold much promise, in my opinion. In my 2006 campaign I encouraged commuter express buses be established from Park and Rides at the county lines whether at the Prince George border or along our borders with Howard and Frederick Counties and encouraged major employers to supply van pool pick-ups from those same lots. This could have reduced the enormous parking lots at some of our new bio-techs, especially in the upcounty, where workers find 270 to be such a huge bottle neck.
Park and Planning needs to again look at the traffic planning areas and try to find more experts from outside the area who have done things differently. And, as Adam discussed, the traffic mitigation solutions utilized here at times ask for suspension of one's belief system! Portland, Oregon is expanding light rail to its various suburbs and as Delegate Al Carr recently noted, Cleveland is looking at varied expansions for its transit. Toronto is known for creative and non-automobile related solutions. While these are major cities and Montgomery County is not a city, it shares many of the same urban concerns seen in big cities.
Now – back to the title of this piece – Obama – stimulus and Montgomery County.
As was mentioned, President-elect Obama wants infrastructure stimulus projects that are set and ready to go, but are waiting for funding. This means that municipal or state areas have had the routes decided, the environmental impact studies are completed and there is agreement on the process by the community. To me that states clearly – let’s get on with the Corridor Cities Transit way (CCT) – it certainly meets each of these criteria. The CCT is primed and ready to go – the BRT pilot project can start here. Even though I think light rail might be the ultimate solution, were the line to be completed all the way to Frederick County as originally planned, Bus Rapid Transit could be ready to go in fairly short order; the route would provide good jobs and a necessary stimulus to the tax base here in the county. It is a cost-effective solution, and, although by no means inexpensive, this could jump-start this long delayed project. I think the council under the direction of new council President Phil Andrews – known for his environmental views – should have a plan ready for County Executive Ike Leggett to endorse before January 20th and get it ready to present to our new President on January 21st. (Now I know they go on vacation shortly and this might be a stretch – but a near approximation might well accomplish the same goal. California is already jumping forward with its wish list; Maryland should not lag far behind.)
Once we can implement this, and residents see the efficacy of the initiative, then we should be easily able to step in and gradually add those other BRT transit corridor routes proposed by Councilmember Elrich across the county. Also, by that time maybe those claims and counter claims in the down-county about purple-line routes and means will have been decided by a commission established by Governor O’Malley and the SHA. The SHA in its most recent MARC transportation decision has decided to decrease the numbers of routes and trains serving in Montgomery County, even though ridership is up along the Montgomery County MARC routes. In some convoluted thinking the gas tax – which comes from cars on the road – helps fund MARC, which takes drivers out of their cars, so when drivers drive less there is less money for trains. Reports of a recent hearing will be shared in a future article.
Next problem: convincing commuters to leave their cars – also more on that later.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Economy Must Be Really Bad If We Are Talking About Alcohol
By Marc Korman.
In some of the darkest days of the Great Depression, our legislators were not passing jobs programs or crafting fiscal stimulus packages, but were busy repealing the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibition. This time, instead of increasing access to alcohol to get us through our economic malaise, plans are afoot to make it harder to buy a drink. The Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative has unveiled a new plan to help insure all Marylanders, partly paid for by an increase in alcohol taxes.
The proposal is described this way:Alcohol Tax: We propose to increase the state excise tax on alcohol in FY 2010. The state taxes on beer and wine have not increased since 1972, and the state tax on spirits has not increased since 1955. Maryland currently has the eighth-lowest tax in the nation for beer, the thirteenth-lowest tax for wine, and the third-lowest tax for spirits. We therefore propose a “Dime a Drink” increase in the state excise tax to $1.16 per gallon for beer, $2.96 per gallon for wine, and $10.03 per gallon for spirits. In addition to the revenue raised, an increase in the alcohol tax has public health benefits from the reduction of binge drinking, particularly among youths. We estimate total state revenue from the increase in the alcohol tax will be $1,015.0 million over the five-year budget window, with revenue of $197.0 in 2010. This revenue estimate incorporates the likely reduction in alcohol consumption caused by the higher net prices.
Maryland’s current tax rates on alcohol are $.09 per gallon for beer, $.40 per gallon for wine, and $1.50 per gallon of spirits, so the initiative is proposing some pretty hefty hikes. There are also federal taxes on alcohol, so it is not just the state taking a sip out of your beer.
Using so called sin taxes to pay for healthcare is not a new concept. In Maryland, an increase in the tobacco tax by $1.00 a pack (for a total of $2.00 a pack) during the 2007 Special Session helped pay for an expansion of the state Medicaid program to cover 100,000 of the state’s 800,000 uninsured.
Still, these proposed alcohol tax hikes are a bit extreme and unrealistic. These rates would make Maryland the highest taxer in the nation on beer and wine, and the eighth highest for spirits. Problematic for Montgomery County, where prices can already be a little higher due to direct control of alcohol sales, the District of Columbia would have significantly lower rates. I already know many people who travel out of Maryland for alcohol, and this could increase the trend. According to the Tax Foundation’s compilation of state taxes, the surrounding states alcohol tax rates are:
Beer/gallon Wine/gallon Spirits/gallon
DC $.09 $.30 $1.50 DE $.16 $.97 $3.75 MD $.09 $.40 $1.50
VA $.256 $1.51 $14.54
The proposal is also significantly more than even legislative leaders on this issue have been willing to promote. Here are the 2008 legislation session alcohol tax proposals:
Beer/gallon Wine/gallon Spirits/gallon
Gutierrez $.25 $1.00 $3.50
Bronrott/ $.27 $1.20 $4.50
Madeleno
Forehand $.54 $1.20 $4.50
I have been a proponent of the County trying to get increased revenue from alcohol sales. The County Executive should also rethink his opposition to opening County liquor stores on Sundays. One commenter on MPW even offered the suggestion that stores be open on Sunday instead of a weekday to keep operating costs roughly the same. Reforms like these, coupled with a modest increase in the alcohol tax, would make good policy both fiscally and socially.
Of course, given the perceived tax revolt, it is unlikely the General Assembly will raise taxes before the 2010 election. If they do, the funding will not go to new programs but will help balance the budget.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Environmental Defense Fund Withdraws Support from PL Now
EDF sent the following letter to Purple Line Now:
Dear Colleagues:
It was recently called to my attention that the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) remains listed on your website, http://www.purplelinenow.com/published/how_you_can_help/supporter_list.html, as a supporter of the Inner Purple Line Light Rail Transit (LRT) proposal. Please remove us from your list of supporters.
EDF continues to support the proposal for a circumferential dedicated transitway within the Purple Line corridor, as we have for many years.
However, additional information has surfaced since 2002 on the likely impacts and design of the Inner Purple Line LRT, as proposed by Maryland Department of Transportation (DOT). Recent analysis by Sam Schwartz for the Town of Chevy Chase has convinced EDF that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Purple Line has not fairly considered Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternatives. Impacts to the viability of the Capital Crescent Trail and urban design problems posed at the western terminus of the LRT in downtown Bethesda need to be more fully considered. The large job growth that BRAC will bring to the National Institutes for Health and the Naval Medical Center area also make the Jones Bridge BRT option a viable one that deserves greater consideration. With the large budget deficits that Maryland faces, it is not prudent to dismiss the highly cost-effective BRT options for the Purple Line corridor. It appears BRT would also be more effective at reducing greenhouse gases and cutting use of motor vehicles in the corridor and the region. EDF is concerned that the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the Purple Line is seriously flawed, as was the EIS for the Intercounty Connector.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Replogle
Transportation Director
Environmental Defense Fund
Maryland GOP is its Own Worst Enemy
Normally, one of the few advantages to being a minority party is greater unity. Party leaders in those circumstances can sometimes put aside their differences to rally behind the common goal of seizing power. But that is far from the case with Maryland’s Republican Party.
In September, the House GOP released a fiscal plan calling for tax cuts, a spending freeze and a slots license auction that they claim would raise more money than would the slots referendum. Democrats criticized them for not being specific about their spending cuts. However, in a March 2008 budget proposal, House Republicans did offer a few specific cuts which we reproduce below:
A few notes on the acronyms. OPEB refers to “other post-employment benefits,” which are primarily comprised of health benefits for retirees. The Government Accounting Standards Board recently required state and local governments to report the value of their unfunded liabilities, prompting many governments to establish contribution schedules to minimize them. The Republican proposal would delay the state’s plan to fund its OPEB liabilities. (One wonders if that would impact the state’s credit rating.) GCEI refers to the “geographic cost of education index,” a component of the Thornton state education plan that channels money to jurisdictions with higher education costs. The primary beneficiaries of GCEI, which was partially funded for the first time by the O’Malley administration, are Baltimore City, Prince George’s County and Montgomery County. Because none of those jurisdictions are represented by Republicans, it makes a sort of self-serving sense for them to target those areas for cuts.
And so, here are some real spending cuts suggested by Republicans. The problem is that they are opposed... by other Republicans. When we pointed out in a prior post that new Senate GOP Leader Allan Kittleman denounced spending cuts proposed by the Governor, Senator Kittleman commented in part:Governor O’Malley’s proposal to now cut one-quarter billion dollars from a budget only three months old will wreak havoc to state employees and those who depend upon state services for their livelihood. We are distressed at the prospect of drastic cuts that could have been avoided if the Administration had opted for restraint in new spending over the last two years...
In addition, the silence of the Senate GOP to the House GOP’s plan is deafening.
Maryland’s employees are facing job losses or furloughs in addition to cuts to other resources that will hamper their abilities to perform their jobs. This did not have to happen if wise budget decisions had been made earlier in the formation of the budget.
State employees are dedicated, hard-working public servants who do not deserve this personal crisis in their lives due solely to misguided budget policy of the current Administration.
Maryland’s Republicans have two inter-related problems. First, their House and Senate delegations cannot work together. That is exacerbated by disagreements within each caucus. Speaker Mike Busch and Big Daddy are licking their chops over this because these coordination problems make it that much easier to roll over the GOP.
But secondly, and much more seriously, the Republican Party cannot figure out what it stands for. Is it a Democrat-lite party as represented by Senator Kittleman’s comments? Is it a conservative party in line with Senator Alex Mooney and Delegate Don Dwyer? Or is it just a rag-tag bunch of dead-enders united only by the “R” next to their names and a common resentment of Governor O’Malley? The party is avoiding these questions and is instead bogged down in tactical and personal debates, such as whether to get rid of its current state chairman, making accusations of "arrogance" against Congressional candidate Andy Harris and gleefully indulging in scratching, hissing cat fights.
My advice to the GOP is to be true to itself and follow the path of Red Maryland. In line with the state’s conservative bloggers, the party should advocate for 1. drastic spending cuts, 2. paying state workers the minimum wage, 3. privatizing transportation projects, 4. spying on groups with a “shady past,” 5. the notion that man-made global warming is “sheer utopian nonsense,” and 6. wishing for a Bradley Effect to stop Democrats. They might not get a lot of votes with these positions, but at least they’d stand for something!
On Political Pulse
Fomer U.S. Senator Joseph Tydings (D. Maryland) will on the Political Pulse TV Show on:
Thursday, December 11th at 9 p.m. and
Tuesday, December 16th at 9:30 p.m.
Senator Tydings served in the Maryland House of Delegates, was the United States Attorney for Maryland in his early thirties and was elected as a United States Senator in his mid-30's and served in the Senate from 1965-1971.
He was also good friends with President John Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy.
In the interview, Senator Tydings will talk about his political career and his friendship with President Kennedy and Senator Kennedy.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Is Larry Giammo Going to Run Against Phil Andrews? (Updated)
Recent events indicate that former Rockville Mayor Larry Giammo is considering a run for County Council against District 3 Council Member Phil Andrews. Giammo is denying it, but there are reasons to believe the rumors have some credibility.
Larry Giammo served three terms as Mayor of Rockville from 2001 through 2007. His tenure is best known for the creation of the new Rockville Town Center and the adoption of a tough Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance intended to slow growth. Giammo, along with Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman, was one of the few politicians in Montgomery County to endorse Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley over County Executive Doug Duncan in the 2006 Gubernatorial Primary.
One of my sources describes Giammo’s last term (2005-2007) in this way:His third and final term was marred by interpersonal problems. He decided to run for re-election because Town Square was not yet complete, but it seemed his heart was not in the job. He was absent from council meetings, and did not restrain his temper with certain council members – this was remarked upon and it got in the way of his effectiveness.
Giammo entered the private sector after he left office. But in the last two months, he has resumed his political visibility. Our sources report that he began attending public meetings again, including those related to the controversial Bealls Grant II affordable housing project. On October 14, Giammo updated his personal website which now reads much like a campaign site. On December 2, Giammo authored a guest blog on Bealls Grant II, his first ever on Rockville Central, which drew an immediate response from current Mayor Susan Hoffmann.
It seemed clear during that last term that he did not enjoy being an elected official very much. The open question is whether that was a blip, or whether that was the true colors emerging.
But none of this compares to Giammo’s stinging letter to the Gazette opposing County Council Member Phil Andrews’ plan to replace Ike Leggett’s proposed ambulance fee with speed camera revenues. In the letter, Giammo says, “Andrews’ proposal does not appear to conform to state law. It's time for Andrews and his colleagues to get serious about focusing on finding truly meaningful ways to address the county's pending budget crisis.” This letter produced immediate emails flying around the county’s political class.
There is now considerable speculation that Giammo would like to return to public life, although not to the Rockville City government. One informant reports that Giammo briefly considered running for County Executive in 2006, but was deterred by the presence of both Steve Silverman and Ike Leggett in the race. Another source says, “Giammo doesn’t like Phil. That’s not news.” Does all of this information point to a run against Andrews for County Council?
There is no question that the county’s public employee unions detest Phil Andrews. Indeed, some of their comments about him are literally unprintable. He has gone from being the champion of the county’s living wage law in 2002 to the loudest critic of the public unions’ contracts, which he repeatedly labels as “unsustainable.” “He used to be with us, but something changed,” says one source close to the labor movement. “I don’t know what happened, but now he’s against us on everything.” Andrews’ most recent opposition to labor’s priorities includes his advocacy for a two-point cost of living reduction in public union contracts last spring and his vote against the county’s new prevailing wage law. There is no question that if labor found a credible opponent, they would do everything in their power to remove Phil Andrews.
Could Giammo be such an opponent? One of our informants says, “He has strong name ID and support in the city, but it’s unclear how far that goes beyond. He is not a natural politician, so some of the networking and collaboration does not seem to come second-nature. So it is not clear what lasting alliances he has made on the county level.” Another spy says, “We'll have to keep an eye out. But he should be warned: nobody is a more aggressive door-knocker than Phil.”
The business community will also be a factor. Andrews, a longtime ICC opponent, claimed in 2006 that he was “the number one target of development interests in this year’s election.” Andrews refuses all developer and PAC contributions, making him one of the more underfunded County Council candidates. But some in the business community appreciate Andrews’ fiscal conservatism and may not see the growth-restricting Giammo as any better on development.
Andrews holds three advantages over Giammo: a three-term incumbency, the visibility coming from his upcoming term as County Council President and the fact that the City of Rockville only accounts for part of District 3. For his part, Giammo told me, “I have no plans to run for anything.” My spies label this a non-denial denial and point out that two years is a long time in politics. One thing is sure: if Larry Giammo does run against Phil Andrews, it will be one hell of a race.
Update: A couple of my sources say that Giammo is more likely to run for County Executive than County Council. That scenario will probably materialize only if Ike Leggett appears vulnerable in 2010. And if Leggett is vulnerable, others will run against him (like Mike Knapp).
Update 2: Another one of our omni-present spies reports the following:Larry is an interesting animal who does not fit the mold for the normal paths into partisan county office. He is a bit mavericky.
Update 3: Here are two more tidbits. First, we hear that Giammo changed his registration from Republican to unaffiliated in March 2000. Everyone I talk to believes that Giammo must register as a Democrat to be competitive for any county or state office. Second, Giammo has only made one political contribution: a $500 donation to future County Council Member Valerie Ervin on 7/25/06. Ms. Ervin is a long-time labor movement veteran and a close ally of the county's unions. Why would a sitting Rockville Mayor contribute to a District Council Member candidate from Silver Spring?
As a municipal official, Larry was very active on state legislative issues, so I would not be surprised if his true aim were a seat in the statehouse. Notice that he mentioned Phil's proposal was against STATE law. Jennie Forehand's seat?
One of Larry's challenges is that he is not affiliated with a political party. His mom is a Republican and he flirted with Ehrlich at one point (before flirting with O'Malley). His voting record shows that he voted in primaries up through 2002, so it would be interesting to find out whether he was a registered Republican before then.
Maybe he will skip the 2010 primary and run as an Independent in the general election?
Update 4: This exchange with Rockville Mayor Susan Hoffmann is only furthering the speculation.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Saqib-Mania Continues on the Kojo Nnamdi Show
The unstoppable cultural phenomenon goes on, this time on the Kojo Nnamdi show!
Last Friday, Delegate Saqib Ali appeared on Kojo Nnamdi's Politics Hour. His interview, starting at the 4:45 mark, mostly covered speed cameras (yawn). But at 17:30, Kojo got to the point with this exchange:Kojo Nnamdi: Saqib Ali, you hold a number of distinctions. My favorite one is your reputation as the best Facebook Delegate in Annapolis so we took the opportunity to go to your Facebook page. Here are a few of the gems that can be found there.
We are of course delighted that Delegate Ali's Facebook adventures are gaining wide attention. But why did the Delegate not remind Kojo's listeners of who it was that launched his career into online fame? These big stars always forget where they came from!
“Saqib has trained his two-year-old to do his menial chores. Parenthood is totally worth it!”
Saqib, Saqib, Saqib…
Saqib Ali: Well, you know, um… I consider myself a critic of popular culture and I like to make fun of myself and I think my constituents enjoy ribbing me a little bit too, so it’s all in good fun.
Tom Sherwood: How do we tell when you’re serious?
Saqib Ali: Well, if you want to know what I seriously think, Facebook is not the place to go. Go to my blog or go to my website or come talk to me.
Kojo Nnamdi: So you have not started an underground fight club in the Maryland General Assembly as your Facebook page says?
Saqib Ali: No, I haven’t. In fact, we have some other members of the Assembly who are actually trained martial artists and I’m sure they’d make short work of me.
Uncle Ike Thumps Big Daddy (Updated)
Looking Senate President Mike Miller directly in the eye, County Executive Ike Leggett issued a challenge to him and the county’s statehouse delegation this morning: do not cut county aid or risk “severe” consequences.
The County Executive made his remarks at the annual legislative breakfast held by the Committee for Montgomery (CFM), perhaps the county’s broadest advocacy organization. Movers and shakers from business, labor, civic associations and non-profits regularly convene at CFM events, and especially at its December breakfast. This year’s speakers included U.S. Senator Ben Cardin, U.S. Representatives Chris Van Hollen and Donna Edwards and new County Council President Phil Andrews. But the big news was made by Uncle Ike and Big Daddy.
Now Ike Leggett is a perfect gentleman. He does not rant. He does not pound the podium. And he is not prone to hyperbole. (Thank heaven that he has not tried blogging.) But his message to Annapolis was clear. After Council President Andrews and the other speakers extended warm greetings to the Senate President, the County Executive began, “Senator Miller, all those nice things we said about you are well-deserved... now just give us the money!”
Ike Leggett speaking directly to Mike Miller.
Mr. Leggett then jumped into the county’s looming budget crisis, declaring, “We are not a giant ATM machine for the rest of the state. Now the ATM is depleted.” He noted that the employees’ cost-of-living reductions and furloughs would not generate enough savings to close the county’s $448.9 million deficit. Many more cuts would be required. “We cannot make those choices at the same time we lose revenue from the state.” And that is what Mr. Leggett is asking from the state delegation: do not bring aid cuts back from Annapolis. “We leave here with a mission – we will protect what we have. We have to protect the teachers pensions. If we take any further steps back, the challenges will be severe. We have to stand firm. Otherwise, we will have a different county in years to come.”
Now one of Mike Miller’s greatest talents is his story-telling. The next time you see Big Daddy, ask him about the time he wanted to bring then-Presidential candidate Bill Clinton to the Mary Surratt Museum (which is dedicated to a co-conspirator in President Lincoln’s assassination). Or ask him about the four diaper buckets he kept on his apartment balcony as a young man. Or perhaps you should inquire exactly what he meant when using the term “working man’s opera” in describing the process of creating a necessity for those buckets. Miller is such an entertaining tale-spinner that one is tempted to forget the great matters currently under discussion. That of course is the point.
Don't believe what you see here... Mike Miller is making no promises.
While Big Daddy did not directly address Uncle Ike’s challenge, he did mention four things of note. First, the Senate President said that state employees would get no merit pay and no cost-of-living adjustments and would be subject to furloughs. The legislature would be subject to the same unpleasantries. Second, he said, “We might have to back off the GCEI formula.” GCEI refers to the Geographic Cost of Education component of state aid for schools. The largest recipients of GCEI aid in this fiscal year are Prince George’s County ($23.6 million), Montgomery County ($18.4 million) and Baltimore City ($13.0 million). Third, he said that teacher pensions “are a problem,” but declined to say exactly what he would do about them. And fourth, he said that he had tried to win a gas tax increase for transportation two years ago but could only find 18 votes among the state’s 47 Senators. Miller declared that he would give a gas tax hike one more shot before his legendary career reached its end.
And so we have the Montgomery County Executive drawing a line in the sand over county aid and the Senate President making no promises. That puts Montgomery’s statehouse delegation squarely in the middle. Will they be able to stick together? Will they be able to withstand the heat from the Lords of Annapolis, who themselves have no easy choices to make? How difficult will it be for them to navigate between Montgomery County’s economic interests and the pressures coming from the rest of the state?
We’ll start getting answers to those questions in a matter of weeks.
Update: Dagnabit, the great Ann Marimow beat me to the punch by more than an hour and a half. But at least I printed the "working man's opera" reference!
Update 2: This blog's site traffic was at about half its normal level during the CFM meeting this morning. That should give everybody a good idea as to who is reading.
Is Now the Time for the CARR Bill?
Last February, I wrote in favor of a property tax bill proposed by Delegate Al Carr (D-18), commonly known as the Commercial Assessment Rate Review (CARR) bill. The CARR bill would allow county governments to establish different property tax rates for residential and commercial property, as is the case in both the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia. The bill died in the Ways and Means Committee in the last general session, but Delegate Carr has now reintroduced it as a local bill applying only to Montgomery County. Is this still a good idea?
In supporting the bill, I noted how the residential share of assessed property value in Montgomery County had climbed from 69.6% in 1991 to 76.8% in 2007. The commercial share of assessed value fell from 30.4% to 23.2% over the same period. I also noted how the District of Columbia charged more than double the tax rate for commercial over residential property but still had a relatively low vacancy rate in its office market. Those facts remain true. And overall, the notion that property used for profit generation should be taxed at a different rate than property used to raise children and create nest eggs has as much merit now as it did then.
But a lot has happened over the last ten months. Consider the following:
1. The Economy Has Collapsed
Montgomery County’s residential construction industry has crashed. The region’s commercial office market is following suit. Credit for development projects of all kinds is drying up. Maryland’s hotel industry is suffering, including companies like Bethesda-headquartered J.W. Marriott and Silver Spring-based Choice Hotels International. Seventy percent of Maryland retailers expect their sales to fall this month and next from last year. Business bankruptcies in Maryland increased by 11 percent during the first half of this year over the same period in 2007. All of this is taking place during a national recession that is a year old and in the wake of the worst jobs report in 34 years.
The pain has spread down into Wheaton’s Central Business District, the largest commercial area in District 18. Many restaurants there are on the verge of closing. Even successful restaurants like the Royal Mile Pub are suffering from “killing” increases in beer, food and wine costs. Economic changes of this magnitude MUST be considered in adopting tax policy.
2. The State’s Business Reputation Has Taken a Hit
The Tax Foundation ranks Maryland’s business climate as falling from 24th to 45th among U.S. states over the last year. No other state fell more than 3 places. The Tax Foundation states:Maryland managed a remarkable drop – from 24th in last year’s index to 45th in this year’s – by raising its individual income tax, corporate income tax, sales tax and cigarette tax all in the same year. Maryland added four new tax brackets to the individual income tax, increasing the top rate by 1.5%, adding new complexity and introducing a big new marriage penalty. In fact, we now rate Maryland’s as by far the worst individual income tax in America, displacing California for that dubious distinction.
Delegate Carr opposed the passage of the state’s three-year millionaire surcharge (which I supported) on the grounds that it would be injurious to business owners. By that reasoning, another tax hike on business in bad times would be even more injurious.
Whatever you think of the Tax Foundation’s report or the millionaire tax, their effects on the state’s business reputation must be weighed.
3. The CARR bill is Now a Local Bill
The previous bill would have given tax-raising authority to every county in the state. The new local bill would give it only to Montgomery County. If county government had the authority to raise commercial property taxes and actually used it, the biggest beneficiaries would be Prince George’s and Frederick Counties. Each would have a new advantage in attracting new and existing businesses over Montgomery.
4. The County Government Does Not Support the Bill
At the County Council's work session on local bills, the County Executive recommended no position on this bill. Of the six County Council Members in attendance, two expressed support (Phil Andrews and Marc Elrich), two opposed it (Nancy Floreen and Don Praisner) and two expressed no position (Mike Knapp and Valerie Ervin), resulting in no position taken by the Council. The fact that the very entity intended to exercise the tax-raising authority envisioned by the bill chose not to support it means a lot. If the county officials are not requesting this authority, why give it to them?
Regular readers may be surprised by my use of these arguments. After all, I have spent my entire career in the labor movement, criticized the special session's tax package as regressive, supported the millionaire tax, supported the progressive nature of County Executive Ike Leggett’s property tax proposal and opposed the Ficker Amendment.
Over and over again, I have argued for progressive taxation. And the basic principle of progressive taxation is to tax people who can afford to pay more. Business will always argue against the CARR bill regardless of its intrinsic merit. But the truth is that in this crumbling economy, many businesses legitimately cannot afford a property tax increase. That is especially true of the small and fragile businesses in Wheaton. In a moment of economic depression, it is very hard to make the case that raising taxes that are targeted exclusively at people who create jobs provides a path to recovery.
The bill has considerable support from the county's public employee unions. That is understandable given the fact that three of them have given up their cost-of-living adjustments and the others are likely to follow. But the unions need to think long and hard about two things:
1. The long-run well-being of public employees depends on the economic health of the private sector. A robust, growing private jobs base is necessary to generate the tax revenues needed to fairly compensate public workers. And as I wrote back in April, Montgomery's public employees are NOT overpaid. Discouraging private job creation will prolong the time needed for economic recovery and perhaps even delay the point at which adequate COLAs can be resumed.
2. Now that the Ficker Amendment is in effect, all nine County Council votes are required to break the charter limit on property taxes. Those nine votes are not there, either for a broad increase or for a targeted increase on business as provided for in the CARR bill. So if the CARR bill is passed now, its most likely use would not be for a big tax hike on business, but for a lowering of the residential property rate combined with an increase on the rate for business property. That would be enjoyed by some homeowners and also by some politicians seeking re-election. But it would not only discourage job creation, it would result in no new additional revenue for the county government. That would produce the worst of all worlds for public employee unions: a stagnant economy with NO NEW TAX REVENUE to show for it.
Timing is everything. And while the CARR bill should someday become law, now is not the right time for it.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Free State Conservatives Battle it Out (Updated)
Maryland conservative bloggers are engaged in frenzied combat even as I write this. Are they battling over why the GOP lost the recent elections? No. Are they differing over how to revitalize the party? No. They are at war over whether the Anne Arundel Young Republicans should name their winter gathering a "Holiday Party" or a "Christmas Party." Check out the first shot, the return fire, the renewed assault and this incredibly petty exchange.
Yeah, I can just see Big Daddy shaking in his boots!
Update: Mike Netherland won't let this lie. I am greatly amused that he says this has "brought together" myself and Red Maryland leader Brian Griffiths. All I have to say is that when conservatives fight conservatives, liberals usually win!
Purple Line Now Takes on Al Carr
Just when you thought it was hot enough, the politics of the Purple Line are boiling over. What will everyone argue about once it is built?
One of the biggest disputes about the Purple Line is whether it should use the county-owned right-of-way along the Capital Crescent Trail (which was originally purchased for both trail and transit use) or be a Bus Rapid Transit line on Jones Bridge Road routed through the National Medical Center. Delegate Al Carr (D-18) has sided with the Jones Bridge BRT option, both in his testimony on the Purple Line and in his piece praising BRT in Cleveland (posted on both the District 18 Blog and Just Up the Pike).
Delegate Carr's viewpoint has provoked a strongly-worded counter-attack from Purple Line Now. Following is an open letter from Purple Line Now Chairman and Woodside Civic Association President Webb Smedley. We have asked Delegate Carr for his response and will post it once we receive it.
*****
Delegate Al Carr, District 18
Maryland House of Delegates
Dear Delegate Carr (Al):
I have been doing some digging since your Bethesda-Chevy Chase testimony against rail on the Master Plan alignment for the Purple Line. Your recent blog post prompts me to send you some feedback.
While I still do not understand your point that light rail divides communities (contrary to all my direct experience in Europe and the U.S.), I do take exception to the suggestion that BRT might be better for the Purple Line OR for the Capital Crescent Trail. Additionally, as far as the Purple Line goes, it is clear that it joins communities by crossing the great regional divided, the topic of a recent Washington Post article, as I am sure you noted.
For some detailed insight into the Cleveland situation, I have attached some input from Edson Tennyson, P.E, a Transportation planner and former official of the Pennsylvania State DOT, familiar with the various transit projects in Cleveland.
While I am obviously partisan as Chair of Purple Line NOW!, I am also President of the Woodside Civic Association which has a long-standing position in support of Light Rail. I am copying other Presidents of civic associations in District 18 that are supportive of the joint-use project that will include a light rail line on grass tracks adjacent to the completed Capital Crescent Trail.
First, I want to point out that your concern for saving the trail extends to only about 40% of the extent of the trail between Silver Spring and Bethesda - that between the Air Rights Building and Jones Bridge Rd. Only 6.8% of the trail is along the 60 ft right of way segment between the air rights building and East West Highway in the Town of Chevy Chase which has been doing a tremendous job of holding the Purple line hostage.
Much of the 60% of the trail in the Silver Spring part of the alignment will be running alongside the transitway or alongside the CSX main line and residents have made clear their preference for the trail running alongside quiet, modern light rail trains in grass tracks as opposed to buses on pavement.
The lion's share of the completed Capital Crescent Trail - 26% of the overall length of the trail (6,100 of 23,500 Linear Feet +/-) will be along the edge of Lyttonsville which, in addition to getting a transit stop will have the trail and transitway forming a recreational/transit edge between the residential neighborhood and the Brookville industrial district - a significant improvement for residents of this neighborhood which supports rail over bus rapid transit.
North Woodside and Woodside will account for about 19% of the trail or almost 3 times that of the Town of Chevy Chase segment. We also view this to be a major improvement by allowing easier and safer access to downtown Silver Spring, Rock Creek Park and downtown Bethesda.
As you know from joining our trail walk last Spring, completion of the trail will include removal and replacement of many trees for the entire alignment. This, we believe, is worth it in order to complete this major piece of the regional trail network. In this, it is clear: we take the regional view, the misguided government of the Town of Chevy Chase takes the most myopic and selfish localized view. Fortunately, dissent is growing, even in the town, as is shown by today's letter to the Post from Ruth Forte and Ted Rowse, residents of the town.
The $500k town expense to fight the Purple Line and the untold amounts added to that by the Country Club is stimulating an outrage in Prince George's County and I suggest you touch base with your colleagues in District 21, 22 and 47 before promoting the view that the Corridor Cities Transitway should go forward before the Purple Line because there is "no opposition to it" OR that the Purple Line should be a busway. I should note that we in Silver Spring suffered through the same type of debate when the downtown was in decline and demographically and in terms of Progressive politics there is much in common between Silver Spring and the communities of Northwestern Prince George's County that will benefit from the Purple Line.
Attached is the edited message from Mr. Tennyson regarding the Cleveland (and some other) busways. I hope you will consider spending some time with the pro-Purple Line leadership of the eastern end of your district and reconsider your position as this important project moves towards preliminary engineering.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Edson Tennyson
edited for length
BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN CLEVELAND
That report was largely fictional, or imaginary. The Red Rapid Transit Line that the author condemned as out-of-the-way and poorly located did carry 60,000 weekday riders before incompetent Cleveland management messed it up. I used to be Transit Commissioner in Youngstown Ohio, 65 miles from Cleveland and watched them build the Red Rapid Rail line.
Bus Rapid Transit is NOT less costly than Light Rail Transit, no way. The records are clear. If you use existing street pavement, that saves investment but it forever condemns the service to slow and costly to operate, with low ridership.
We have lots of official data on Bus Rapid Transit. I funded the state share of the first Pittsburgh BusWay. It was not cheap. They promised me 32,000 weekday passengers, up from 18,750 with no added buses, just improved efficiency. Well, in 1981, we had the Second Energy Crisis, and the South BusWay peaked at 20,750 weekday passengers. No efficiencies. It has been all down hill from there, down to 10,000 weekday passengers now.
Pittsburgh has suffered economically like Cleveland but not as bad. Nevertheless, the Light Rail Lines parallel to the South BusWay gained 50% in ridership when it was converted to include a short subway downtown. When one branch of the Light Rail line was shut down in 1993 to avoids bridge repair, the 8,000 displaced riders showed up with only 1.600 on the replacement BusWay bus. After 11 years, they put the Light Rail Line back and ridership on the Light Rail system gained 10%.
Pittsburgh then built an East BusWay.. I refused to fund it, so my new boss, the Secretary of Tranaportation funded it over my objection. This one planned for 90,000 weekday passengers but they thought better of it and cut the estimate to 80,000. It peaked at 30,000 and is at 28,000 now but bus ridership in Pittsburgh declined 26% at the same time. The East BusWay disrupted existing routes and split up travel with fewer buses on each line with longer waits.
Finally, Pittsburgh built the West BusWay using an abandoned railroad bed like the Georgetown branch except it had a short tunnel. It was to be eight miles long and was to cost $325 million in 1998. It was to carry 50,000 peop[e. The bids hit $ 525 million. Crooked Congressmen got an earmark to disregard the Full Funding Agreement that required the County to pay the cost overrun. They cut it back to only 5 miles to stay within the $ 325 million, but lost access to downtown, other than by the old way on the congested streets. Only 18 % of the 50,000 passengers have shown up so far. It coat more to build than Light Rail but attracts far fewer passengers.
Los Angeles built the Harbor Freeway BusWay about a decade ago. It cost half a billion dollars for ten miles. I have ridden on it. They looked at the Blue Light Rail Line to Long Beach parallel about five miles to the east which had 55,000 weekday passengers and predicted 63,000 for the BusWay as it would not require as many people to transfer as buses could get off the BusWay and use suburban streets as well as city streets. Well, it peaked at 3,300 weekday passengers as the Light Rail Lies grew to 80,000, NOT 33,000 by BusWay, but only 3,300.
Because of Chevy Chase-type dishonest politics, when they tried to build the Orange Light Rail line in San Fernando Valley, a crooked elected official got law passed forbidding Light Rail in San Fernando Valley and a subway extension. The Orange Line was built as a Busway but opponents did not want that either, They wanted no transit improvements that might bring "strangers" to "their" neighborhood. They estimated 7,500 weekday pasengers for the Orange LA BusWay but that did not match the population or the investment that required $350 million. It was obviously a dishonest estimate to avoid the embarassment they had on the Harbor Freeway Busway. It opened with 18,000 and grew to 23,000 as people found out it was faster BUT it is much slower than Light Rail, 21 miles per hour by busway, 27 miles per hour by LRT on that line. Also, it takes about 40 bus drivers in the peak where LightRail would need only nine operators.
Los Angeles has three Light Rail Lines and several BRT projects but Light Rail is the low cost operation. 48 cents per passenger-mile vs. 55 cents by bus BUT the accounting is distorted. They assign General Administration cost by passenger, so empty buses get no such cost, but busy Light Rail lines carry the bus overhead costs. Politicians do things like that. The ex-Treasurer that set up the accounting, Tom Rubin, travels all over the country damning rail transit and promoting bus but no one trusts him.
Ottawa has the most extensive BusWay system but lost ridership every year as it expanded. Ridership started to grow again when they added a rail line.
As for The Health Line in Cleveland, with a 5-minute headway, that is 1,000 peak hour passengers one way suggesting about 12,000 all day total. The "misplaced" rail line parallel carries almost, not quite twice that. A problem not mentioned is that Light Rail costs include Proof-of-Payment fare collection because that is how it is done, except in Pittsburgh. Bus costs do not include that, but it does cost. Add 15% to bus cost. Articulated buses also fishtail in snow and on ice or wet pavement. Several cities have to restrict them in bad weather. Boston drivers refused to operate them in snow two years ago. Pittsburgh has killed at least seven people in vehicles on their Busways that I know of. Six were killed for lack of signals to "save" money and one was killed in a head on collision in snow.
The 25 minutes from Public Square to University Circle in Cleveland is only 15 miles per hour. It will take 38 minutes to Windermere but Red Rail makes it in 20 minutes. Few, indeed, will take a 38 minute trip in preference to a 20-minute trip. I repeat, investment is not a cost, It is an asset. Operations are what costs and depreciation added to operating cost recovers the investment over time. BRT is not low cost, no way, but Light Rail is.
Ed Tennyson
Anthony Brown is Staying Put (Updated)
President-elect Barack Obama is picking Eric Shinseki, the Iraq War prophet, as his Secretary of Veterans Affairs. That means Maryland Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown is not going anywhere and none of the fun things we speculated about are going to occur. That's OK because we have plenty of speculation on other things starting next week!
Update: Brown spokesman Mike Raia now says that the Lieutenant Governor "was never a candidate for the job and was not vetted by the President-elect's transition team for any permanent position."
Hmmm... assuming that this is correct, we should express some admiration for Mr. Raia's press skills for doing nothing to tamp down speculation by the media (and certain bloggers). We thank Mr. Raia, who is himself a former blogger, for giving us something fun to write about!
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Friday, December 05, 2008
The Elrich Plan, Part Five (Updated)
County Council Member Marc Elrich’s ambitious Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Where on Earth can we get that kind of money?
First of all, no new money is coming from the state. State money was difficult enough to get for Montgomery transportation projects even prior to the O’Malley Administration’s $1.1 billion cut, a decision forced by declining revenues. Second, Montgomery County’s revenue problems will probably prevent the county from spending more than its current $900 million on local transportation projects. The county’s spending also does not apply to state roads, although it has made an exception to this rule recently. The county could apply development impact taxes to transportation, but those amounts are currently less than $10 million per year. And the ongoing tax revolt will likely prevent any increase in the gas tax until at least the next term. The Obama Administration may spend more money on public works, but it remains to be seen how much (or whether) any of that money would be available for Elrich’s BRT plan.
In short, sufficient new resources will probably not be there, certainly not in the short term. Given that fact, perhaps the only way to finance Elrich’s BRT network is to reallocate some existing transportation spending from road projects to transit. That is going to meet resistance. Far more people currently drive than use transit. And transit projects have traditionally benefitted Downcounty residents while Upcounty residents have needed road improvements. But two factors make at least some reallocation potentially beneficial for both groups.
1. Elrich’s BRT routes would service Upcounty and East County destinations that would otherwise lack transit such as Burtonsville, Colesville, Norbeck and Olney.
2. The traditional method of relieving road congestion is to build more lanes and/or widen intersections – an approach which some believe is ineffective. Another approach is to build parallel transit options, as the Elrich proposal would do. If the real objective is to reduce congestion, isn’t taking cars off the road at least as legitimate as adding auto capacity?
Steady population and employment growth. Rising CO2 emissions. Limited transportation funding. Different locations of jobs and housing. Congested Central Business Districts. And expensive costs for rail. Marc Elrich’s plan is an honest attempt to deal with all of these problems at once. It’s expensive, ambitious and maybe even utopian. It would take a very long time to implement even with broad support.
But if there are any better ideas out there, I’d sure like to hear them.
Update: Delegate Al Carr (D-18) recently rode the BRT line in Cleveland and posted about his experience here.
Update 2: Miranda Spivack of the Post is now up with an article on the Elrich Plan. We hope Ms. Spivack appreciated our research, which is of course provided free of charge!
Thursday, December 04, 2008
The Elrich Plan, Part Four
In Parts Two and Three, we revealed Council Member Marc Elrich’s intention to build Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes across the county. But just because people have the option of using transit does not mean they actually will. After all, part of the county’s official development policy is to force developers to build parking spaces in new projects, thereby encouraging auto use.
Yes, you read that right. Division 59-E-3 of the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance requires developers to build minimum numbers of parking spaces for new buildings. The requirements vary depending on location, proximity to Metro stations and land use. Requirements for office buildings, for example, vary from 1.9 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet (GSF) of building space for a project in the county’s southern area that is within 800 feet of a Metro station to 3.0 spaces per 1,000 GSF for a project in the county’s northern area more than 1,600 feet from a Metro station. The requirement for retail buildings is 5 parking spaces per 1,000 GSF. Restaurants require 25 parking spaces per 1,000 GSF. There are many, many other categories. Developers are permitted to build fewer spaces if they enter into share-a-ride agreements, build near Metro stations, provide shuttle buses or carpooling incentives, or engage in other measures to reduce traffic.
These requirements not only encourage auto use in the age of global warming, they also guarantee that new developments will cause new traffic. And they impose tremendously expensive burdens on developers. Parking spaces cost a lot of money to construct, sometimes running close to $100,000 per space when built underground. And that space is not as profitable for building owners as actual leaseable space for office or retail uses. Minimum parking requirements might make sense for suburban areas in the 1960s, but their primary effect now is to increase auto congestion and greenhouse gas emissions and to increase the cost of project construction.
Elrich would augment these minimums with parking caps, especially in the county’s Central Business Districts (CBDs). If residential areas and CBDs are connected with BRT routes, why do we need large numbers of parking spaces? Elrich does not favor reducing parking spaces for visitors, customers or shoppers, but he would restrict spaces available for employees. Doing so would relieve CBDs of congestion and decrease building costs for developers. This would enable more construction in CBDs – a key goal of smart growth advocates.
But Elrich would not stop there. If new development is unchained from parking requirements, there is less need for the county’s burdensome traffic tests. We explored this issue in last summer’s Traffic Measurement series. Briefly, the Planning Department uses Critical Lane Volume, a measurement that it knows is terminally flawed, to measure congestion at county intersections. If a new development causes traffic to exceed congestion thresholds that are set for each area of the county, developers are required to install a variety of mitigation measures designed to compensate. But these mitigation measures – things like widening sidewalks, building bus shelters, setting up bike lockers, establishing “information kiosks” and the like – usually have nothing to do with reducing real live car traffic. Decades of such policies are responsible for our current traffic nightmare. And developers who pay for these tests and mitigation measures are required to spend millions of dollars in exercises that have little, if any, impact on traffic reduction.
So once BRT routes are in place and parking caps are established, Elrich would phase out these tests. No one would be happier to see them go than the developers!
Tomorrow, we’ll conclude with the most difficult issue facing this plan: financing.
On Political Pulse
Robin Ficker, who was behind Question B on the November 4th ballot (also referred to as "the Ficker Amendment"), which relates to property taxes in Montgomery County, will be on the Political Pulse political talk show on:
Thursday, December 4th at 9 p.m. and
Tuesday, December 9th at 9:30 p.m.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
School Unions Strike Tentative Deal (Updated)
MCEA, SEIU Local 500 and the Montgomery County Association of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel (MCAASP) have reached a tentative deal with the school system on contract savings. Here are the rough terms:
1. The 5.3 point Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) has been eliminated for the next fiscal year.
2. The step increases that apply for employees who gain seniority will remain. Those increases range from 1 to 2.5 points.
3. Health insurance benefits will remain at the same level for at least five years.
4. The school system and the unions will establish a task force to examine employee work loads.
Additionally, MCPS is planning central office cuts of approximately 10% and classroom-related cuts of 2%. No layoffs will occur as some employees will be eligible to move within the system and some positions will be phased out through attrition. No money will be left to finance new initiatives.
The total savings for next year's budget will be $139 million, $89 million of which will come from the COLA eliminations. That accounts for 31% of the county's projected $448.9 million budget deficit.
Two things remain to be seen.
1. Will the County Council demand more?
The school employees have given up the vast majority of their labor cost increases. The step increases only account for $19 million. Will the Council demand those as well? And will the Council demand givebacks on health insurance? Every additional cut to employee compensation will make it harder for the school system to retain its workforce - a workforce that requires significant expense to train.
2. Will more cuts be coming from the state?
A state handoff of teacher pensions to the counties as well as cuts in Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI) funding are on the Annapolis budget-cutting table. If either of those reductions makes it through the General Assembly, it may well be impossible for the school system to avoid increases in class size. Our state delegation bears a huge responsibility to protect us from these consequences.
Update: The Post has more here.
District 18 Team Kicks Out the Jams
Last night, the District 18 Democratic Team held its first slate fundraiser of this cycle. And what a night it was! Seventy-seven people signed up as co-hosts, nearly 100 people came to the event and total donations came close to $10,000.
The all-star cast of attendees included Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Senate President Mike Miller, House Environmental Matters Committee Chair Maggie McIntosh (D-43), Labor Secretary Tom Perez, Delegates Brian Feldman (D-15), Bill Frick (D-16), Tom Hucker (D-20) and Saqib Ali (D-39), County Council Members Valerie Ervin, George Leventhal and Marc Elrich, former Senator Sharon Grosfeld (D-18), former House Majority Leader John Hurson (D-18), Town of Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman, Town of Chevy Chase Mayor Kathy Strom, Town of Chevy Chase Council Members Linna Barnes and Rob Enelow and MCDCC Members Alan Banov, Vic Weissberg and Marc Korman. This was the ultimate see-and-be-seen event in the district!
Senate President Mike Miller, Senator Rich Madaleno, Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez, Congressman Chris Van Hollen, Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher and Delegate Al Carr.
Holy Cross Hospital’s Eileen Cahill (in lavender), former Forest Estates Community Association President Shawn Marie Jarosz (talking to Cahill), anti-Intersection of Death activist and lucky Jarosz husband Jon Tucker (next to Jarosz), Forest Glen Station President Catherine Bocskor (in brown with handbag) talking to Labor Secretary Tom Perez.
The gigantic crowd included Political Pulse host Charles Duffy, Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15), Delegate Bill Frick (D-16), Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20), MCAD hellraiser Beverly Sobel, MCGEO Executive Director Bob Stewart and at-large County Council Member Marc Elrich.
The Senate President meets the Slate Treasurer!
MCEA Political Director Jon Gerson and Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15), Montgomery’s House Delegation Chairman.
The formidable Carole Brand, Chair of the District 18 Democratic Team. Carole is on a first-name basis with almost everyone who walked in the front door.
Superstar Labor Secretary Tom Perez represented the Governor.
Senate President Mike Miller jumped off an airplane and raced to the event from BWI. We appreciated his presence enormously.
House Environmental Matters Committee Chair Maggie McIntosh (D-43) came all the way from Baltimore to praise her former staffer – Rich Madaleno – and the rest of the slate, as well as to remember the great Jane Lawton.
Before Chris Van Hollen saved America from the acolytes of George W. Bush, he was a Delegate and Senator from District 18. He is the role model for everyone holding or seeking office in the district. “District 18 citizens are the best!” declared the Congressman.
Senator Rich Madaleno with his most important constituent, Katie Madaleno-Hodge.
The state’s first openly gay legislator and the state’s first Latina legislator (Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez) have been a team since 2002.
Could they be talking about Saqib Ali’s Facebook page?
Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher, Barrie Carr and famous progressive activist Mike Hersh.
Yup, this is what a full house looks like folks!
We do not normally cover fundraisers on this blog, but we made an exception for this one for two reasons.
First, this is the only slate fundraiser in Montgomery County so far in this cycle. The District 18 team is sticking together and running as a group. We will see if any other delegations attempt to follow suit.
Second, Maryland’s legislative district design puts the emphasis on teamwork for delegation members to be effective. Every district has one Senator and three Delegates (with occasional sub-districts allocated for a Delegate or two). Every legislator is assigned to a different committee. Disagreements inside delegations often occur. But on issues that are important to district residents, these legislators must cooperate. By joining forces, raising money together and sharing resources, delegation members not only help themselves but also maximize their leverage in Annapolis for the benefit of their constituents. Rich Madaleno, Ana Sol Gutierrez, Jeff Waldstreicher and Al Carr are clearly committed to this model.
Disclosure: The writer is the Treasurer of the District 18 Democratic Team.
The Elrich Plan, Part Three
In Part Two, we discussed Council Member Marc Elrich’s choice of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as a transit mode for most of the county. Where would he locate the routes?
Elrich’s routes are intended to connect residential areas to commercial destinations. Their primary purpose is to facilitate work-related commutes. Here is his route list:
1. US-29/Columbia Pike
Connects Burtonsville to Downtown Silver Spring. Also has a loop through the developing centers around Cherry Hill and White Oak. Offers connection to Silver Spring Metro Station. Can be augmented by garages in Burtonsville for Howard County commuters, further reducing traffic on Columbia Pike.
2. New Hampshire Avenue
Connects Colesville to the Langley Transit Center, which will have a Purple Line stop. Also connects to the US-29 route and its Cherry Hill/White Oak loop.
3. ICC
Elrich has opposed the ICC since Moses crossed the Red Sea. If he had his way, it would be stopped yesterday. But if it is built, Elrich would use it to run BRT between Fairland and the Rockville and Shady Grove Metro stations.
4. Purple Line
The state is currently considering whether the Purple Line should be BRT or rail. Elrich is agnostic on the mode. Whatever the Purple Line is, it will connect Prince George’s County to Bethesda through Silver Spring. It will also serve as a connection for some of Elrich’s BRT routes.
5. University Boulevard
Connects the Langley Transit Center to Wheaton. The Wheaton connection provides access to a Metro station as well as other BRT routes. This route also provides Four Corners with a transit option, something that is badly needed considering the horrendous US-29/University Boulevard intersection.
6. Georgia Avenue
Connects Olney to the Glenmont Metro station. Offers a transit option to Aspen Hill. May provide relief to the awful Georgia Avenue/Randolph Road intersection, which is scheduled for an expensive grade separation project. This route is already a priority for the county in its project request list for the state.
7. Georgia and Connecticut Avenues
A spur off the Olney route, separating at the Georgia/Connecticut intersection. Connects Olney to Chevy Chase and the Purple Line.
8. Veirs Mill Road
Connects Wheaton to Rockville. This route is another county priority for state projects.
9. Route 28
Connects Norbeck to Rockville.
10. Route 355
Parallels the western branch of the Red Line from Shady Grove to Bethesda. Includes an option to run as far north as Clarksburg. Also has a spur to Montgomery Mall.
11. Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT)
This is a state project, although not one for which the state is scheduling a lot of money. If the CCT is a BRT line, it can have an express route from Clarksburg to Shady Grove as well as a local route through Montgomery College to the west.
Each of the BRT routes would rely on one dedicated bus lane, perhaps with occasional tunnels under particularly difficult intersections. Why only one lane? One of the consequences of Montgomery County’s sprawl is that weekday traffic is often unidirectional. In the morning, traffic heads south (or sometimes west) from residential communities to commercial centers. In the evening, traffic reverses. Auto progress is slow when in the direction of most of the traffic, so the dedicated lane would be used in that direction (such as south in the morning). Buses could make a return trip in the regular traffic lanes, which are relatively clear when going against the flow of traffic. The reversible lanes on parts of Georgia Avenue and US-29 operate on a similar premise.
Another aspect of the BRT routes is their operation as a feeder network. Buses can go into residential neighborhoods and use their street networks. When entering the main roads (like US-29), they can enter the dedicated lanes and travel at higher speeds. Some routes can also operate as express routes. By cycling the buses through their routes faster, the same amount of bus stock can carry more passengers. That reduces per-passenger capital and labor costs.
By using existing rights-of-way, including in some cases medians, BRT can be a lot cheaper than rail. The Purple Line is estimated to cost $75-102 million per mile if built as rail, and that does not include the purchase of the Capital Crescent Trail decades ago. Cleveland is building a BRT line on Euclid Avenue for roughly $20 million per mile. Rail can still be justified in very dense areas like Bethesda and Silver Spring where high ridership is worth the cost. But BRT can be a more cost-effective option in lower-density areas.
Best of all, this system offers real transit options to parts of the county that have never had them before: Colesville, Olney, Burtonsville, Norbeck and other places far from Metro. These are places that are probably never going to get rail.
But the Elrich plan does not end here. We’ll continue in Part Four.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Adventist Announces New Hospital in Clarksburg
Following is a press release from Adventist announcing its plan to move forward with a new hospital in Clarksburg. The fact that Holy Cross has already announced its intention to open a new hospital in Germantown guarantees an interesting competition between the two giant health care providers. Will the state allow both proposed hospitals to be built?
For Immediate Release
December 2, 2008
Contact: Tom Grant
tgrant@AdventistHealthCare.com
301-315-3356
Adventist HealthCare Announces Plans to Move Forward with Comprehensive Clarksburg Medical Campus, New Hospital
Organization will invite partners interested in jointly developing hospital to improve access to care in rapidly growing part of region
Rockville, MD – With major land-use approvals nearly complete, Adventist HealthCare today is announcing it will move forward with its longstanding plans to build a comprehensive medical campus and hospital in Clarksburg and will invite other health-care providers to collaborate on the project.
Adventist HealthCare has already begun discussions with potential health-care partners interested in working on the project and may reach an agreement over the next few months. Hospital officials expect to file for state regulatory approval in 2009.
“We believe the hospital and medical campus in the Cabin Branch section of Clarksburg will improve access to health care in the fastest growing regions of our community and be an extraordinary resource for the communities we serve,” said William G. “Bill” Robertson, President and Chief Executive Officer of Adventist HealthCare. “Developing this project with other providers could expand the availability of health-care services. Collaboration is a way to enhance, rather than detract from, existing health-care resources.”
Adventist HealthCare has worked for six years (see attached timeline) with Montgomery County planners, adjoining landowners and the community to complete the various stages of the land-use process. Plans for the 60-acre site, located at Route 121 and Interstate 270, include a 100-bed hospital, medical office buildings for physicians and outpatient medical services, a nursing home and a day-care center.
Clarksburg, along with its neighboring community to the north, Urbana in Frederick County, is experiencing rapid population growth and will need expanded health-care services. The site is situated nearly halfway on the Interstate 270 corridor between two existing hospitals – Shady Grove Adventist to the south and Frederick Memorial Hospital to the north – which minimizes its impact on the region’s existing health-care resources.
“Adventist HealthCare has long met the health-care needs of residents in the Gaithersburg community,” said Sidney Katz, Mayor of Gaithersburg. “As an organization we have found them to be open and forward thinking. Their expansion into the Clarksburg area provides an opportunity for Adventist HealthCare to leverage existing health-care resources and to lay the groundwork for meeting the future needs of a growing region.”
The health-care campus is planned as part of a mixed use community – with active adult housing, retail and office space, restaurants, a hotel and nearly 2,000 dwelling units. It is located in an area where a hospital and all of its related facilities could be planned in advance with no adverse impact on surrounding businesses and residents.
“Adventist HealthCare’s careful, deliberate planning approach promises a plan for the health-care campus where pedestrian access and traffic flow are each priorities,” said Kathie Hulley, President of the Clarksburg Civic Association. “The campus relates thoroughly to the nearby residential community.”
In 2001, Adventist HealthCare recognized the emerging need for additional health-care services in the upper part of Montgomery County. Hospital officials embarked on a journey to expand its Shady Grove Adventists Hospital facility, which was completed in 2008; develop an emergency center in Germantown, which opened in 2006; and acquire property in Cabin Branch for the future campus.
“Adventist HealthCare has worked diligently to meet the health-care needs of the upcounty community, starting with the opening of Shady Grove Adventist Hospital in 1979 and continuing with its work in Germantown and now Clarksburg – always responding to our growing needs and meeting them,” said Randy Scritchfield, an upcounty business owner and community leader.
Adventist HealthCare submitted a preapplication plan in 2002, followed by a rezoning of the land to accommodate the hospital and other uses, along with a detailed Development Plan showing a hospital and various related medical buildings and facilities.
In 2004, the Planning Board approved the Preliminary Plan of Subdivision for Cabin Branch, including the hospital and related uses. Although delayed because of the planning process in general and Clarksburg in particular, the Infrastructure Site Plan for Cabin Branch was approved in 2007. Earlier this year, a detailed Site Plan for the first phase of development at Cabin Branch was approved and plans for subsequent phases are pending.
In addition, the location fits in with the goals of Montgomery County Park and Planning and the County Department of Health and Human Services to explore ways that land-use planning can be used as a tool to improve health outcomes.
“The Cabin Branch model, where health-care services and concepts are built into the community from the beginning, provides an ideal opportunity to examine the link between the health status and opportunities of a community and land-use planning,” Robertson said.
Update: The Post has more.
The Elrich Plan, Part Two
Steady population and employment growth. Rising CO2 emissions. Limited transportation funding. Different locations of jobs and housing. Congested Central Business Districts. And expensive costs for rail. How do you deal with all of these problems over the long-term?
First, let’s recognize the opposition of many Montgomery County residents to “overdevelopment,” a potent issue in the 2006 elections. Much of the opposition to development is really opposition to traffic. No one in the county believes that our transportation network is adequate to handle the current needs to move people. And the county is growing faster than its infrastructure. If there was a way to facilitate population or employment growth without additional traffic, a lot of the opposition to development would fade.
Smart-growth proponents agree and are pushing for new development to be located near Metro stations. But there are limits to this strategy. First, the Metro system is primarily a north-south network designed in the 1970s to channel commuter traffic bound for the District. Locating developments on top of Metro stations leaves open a substantial possibility for increasing east-west traffic, as well as Virginia-bound traffic. Second, redesign proposals such as the ideas under consideration for Rockville Pike address traffic management for new communities. Even if no additional developments are constructed, the traffic conditions for existing communities are intolerable. And third, Montgomery County – home to nearly a million people and over a half-million jobs – is too big for a comprehensive redesign. Traffic relief must be designed for how the county currently functions. Traffic relief gained through redesigning stretches of the county over the next fifty years is unlikely to be valued by citizens who desire improvements in their lifetimes.
Increased transit availability is the only way to allow more development without creating excessive traffic and more carbon dioxide emissions. In densely urbanized areas, rail is a worthwhile option despite its expense. But Montgomery County is not universally dense. In many parts of the county, projected riderships would not justify expenses of $75-102 million per mile (as with rail on the Purple Line). The county has a bus network but that has proven inadequate to deal with its transportation issues by itself. That is why County Council Member Marc Elrich would rely on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT).
Conventional wisdom holds that people prefer to ride trains over buses. Why?
1. Trains run faster than buses.
2. Trains are serviced by stations while bus riders must wait at inadequate stops.
3. Trains appear more frequently than buses.
4. As a result of irregular frequency, buses are often crowded.
BRT attempts to address the shortcomings of buses by simulating the positive attributes of trains. BRT routes often feature dedicated lanes for buses and even tunnels or bridges. They sometimes prioritize buses at traffic lights, allowing a light to remain green when a bus approaches when it would otherwise turn red. BRT buses can operate out of small stations that are a decided improvement over the small, pitiful shelters (or even simple poles) that accompany regular bus stops. Unlike rail, BRT buses can enter residential neighborhoods and use local street networks before entering dedicated lanes on main roads. By operating partially on existing traffic lanes, BRT routes demand much less right-of-way acquisition than rail routes. And because BRT is cheaper than rail, it can be more cost-effective in lower-density communities such as the ones found in Montgomery away from the Beltway. By combining the lower costs and greater flexibility of buses with higher performance approaching (but perhaps not equaling) the levels of rail, BRT is a realistic alternative for expanding the county’s transportation network far from its existing Metro stations.
Where would Elrich locate his BRT routes? We’ll find out in Part Three.
Monday, December 01, 2008
The Elrich Plan, Part One
At-large County Council Member Marc Elrich has introduced a sweeping new transportation proposal. It is ambitious. It is comprehensive. It violates several taboos. But will it work?
In assessing the effectiveness of any long-term transportation plan, we must consider the real-world constraints faced by the county. And there are many problems to overcome. Here are a few relevant facts that any transportation plan must face:
1. Growing Population and Employment
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) projects that Montgomery’s population will grow from 938,000 in 2005 to 1,145,000 in 2030, an increase of 22%. Over the same period, the county’s employment will grow from 500,000 in 2005 to 670,000 in 2030, an increase of 34%. The Washington region as a whole will see population growth of 32% and employment growth of 38% over the same time period.
2. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Are Increasing
Population and job growth will push up CO2 emissions, thereby fueling global warming. COG estimates that CO2 emissions will increase in the Washington region by 33% between 2005 and 2030, and 43% between 2005 and 2050. Roughly one-third of those emissions are caused by vehicles. COG has told Elrich that an 8.3% reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is necessary to reduce emissions to 2002 levels in Montgomery County. A reduction of 15-20% in VMT is necessary to reduce emissions to 1990 levels. COG estimates that Montgomery County will be at “high risk” for drought and thunderstorms and at “medium-high risk” for flash flooding and snow or ice-storms because of climate change.
3. Funding is Limited
Regular readers remember the state’s $1.1 billion transportation cut. Part of the reason for that cut is the General Assembly’s failure to heed the Governor’s proposal to index the gas tax for inflation during the Special Session. While the state still plans on spending $9.4 billion on transportation projects over the next six years (for now), the vast majority of Montgomery’s portion of that spending is accounted for by the $2.4 billion InterCounty Connector. Montgomery County plans on spending roughly $900 million on transportation over the next six years. But very large portions of both state and county spending go to system maintenance, not new projects. At existing rates of spending, it is very doubtful that either the state or the county can adequately prepare their transportation infrastructures to handle the demands of a 20-30% population growth occurring through 2030.
4. Residences Are Not Located Near Jobs
Prior to World War II, Montgomery County was primarily a bedroom community for the District. From the 1950s on, it has evolved into an employment center. But jobs and residences are concentrated in different places. The county’s employment centers are located in the I-270 corridor, especially from Bethesda to Gaithersburg, as well as in Silver Spring. Many people commute to the District and Virginia. Residences are more evenly distributed throughout the county. Many areas, like East County, northern Silver Spring, Potomac, Olney and the rural areas are dominated by residential uses. The fact that most jobs are not located near most residences stresses the transportation network.
5. Central Business Districts (CBDs) are Highly Congested
Smart growth advocates favor concentrating both employment and new residential development near Metro stations, especially in the county’s downtowns. One challenge to this approach is that the roads in these CBDs tend to be very congested. Longtime readers will recall our lengthy criticism of the county’s reliance on Critical Lane Volume to measure traffic. When using average speeds to measure corridor performance, the slowest stretches of road in the county include Rockville Pike in Rockville, Wisconsin Avenue in Bethesda, Georgia Avenue north of Wheaton, and Georgia Avenue and Colesville Road in Downtown Silver Spring. If new development in these CBDs is accompanied by new traffic, those roads will be overloaded. And the geographic constraints of all these CBDs will prevent the roads from being widened.
6. Rail Limitations
Rail is expensive. According to the Purple Line’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, rail on that route will cost in a range of $75-102 million per mile. That may be justified by the high density in the Montgomery and Prince George’s inner suburbs. But it is harder to make that case in lower-density areas. Furthermore, much of the right-of-way for the Purple Line is already publicly owned (such as the Capital Crescent Trail). Assembling the right-of-way for a new rail line further north in the county would require huge amounts of money and perhaps significant destruction of housing. This decreases the likelihood that rail by itself is a feasible solution for the county’s transportation challenges.
How does Elrich intend to deal with these problems? We’ll find out in Part Two.
