Dear readers: those of you who read this blog know that nothing ticks us off more than double-talk. We can deal with differences in policy or ideology. Indeed, we have had a few such debates here over the years. But dodging, ducking and dissembling can really get our juices flowing. And we already have seen the reek of some of it in this year’s District 4 special election.
As usual, the issue is developer contributions. It’s an ancient issue in Montgomery County politics; witness its use back in 1998. In last year’s special election, Don Praisner vowed not to accept developer money and his supporters demanded that Nancy Navarro adhere to the same standard. But there were two problems. First, 42% of Marilyn Praisner’s contributions from 2001 through 2008 came from business interests, including developers like Bryant Foulger and Aris Mardirossian. Second, Don Praisner himself accepted a contribution from a co-owner of the Privacy World complex, which is seeking redevelopment to higher density. And so Nancy Navarro was required to hold to an anti-developer-contribution pledge that Marilyn Praisner never made and Don Praisner made but did not keep.
But it does not end there. Now the Praisners’ daughter, Alison Klumpp, is supporting Ben Kramer – a commercial property owner and manager by trade. She informed Maryland Moment that part of her reason for backing Kramer was that he told her he had “no intention of taking developer money.” When I pointed out that Kramer had already taken money from two real estate PACs, Mrs. Klumpp replied, “Let's keep in mind that the reports Adam are quoting are from 2006 and 2007.” So now the prohibition on accepting developer contributions has a statute of limitations attached.
There are many legitimate reasons to support Ben Kramer. He is a very intelligent man, has served in three general sessions and one special session in the state legislature and has been active in county politics for a long time. He could easily assume the demands of county office immediately after winning an election. Labor people should respect the fact that he was supported by both MCEA and MCGEO in his prior council races. As a businessman, he brings a perspective that is not shared by many of his potential colleagues on the County Council. And pro-growth voters should be delighted with Kramer’s support of Pay and Go and his 2006 endorsements by the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Washington Board of Trade. My problem is not with Ben Kramer himself, a serious candidate and a plausible office holder.
But to support Kramer because of his sudden apparent willingness to turn away developer contributions is a bizarre mutation of logic. Mrs. Klumpp herself describes him as a “commercial developer” and says that he “builds and owns shopping centers.” So a candidate who accepts developer contributions (as our County Executive and many County Council Members do) is bad, but a self-financing candidate who happens to BE a “commercial developer” is just fine. Let’s remember that if Kramer is indeed a developer, every penny he contributes to his own campaign is a developer contribution.
Given the brain-bending mental gymnastics around this issue, people who care about this are now facing an unappetizing choice: either accept a definition of “developer contributions” that is so elastic that it vaporizes on contact or abandon the issue altogether. This is a sorry moment for the county’s slow-growth movement.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
A Sorry Moment for the Slow Growth Movement
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
But Adam: I haven't taken a cent of developer money. I wasn't expecting to take any developer money, either.
I'm certainly not a sad day for the Slow Growth movement, indeed, outside of infrastructure improvements to play catch-up for better traffic flow in and around outlying communities and their connections to the urban-core destinations, I support no development whatsoever other than in mixed-use high-density re-development in areas presently very well-served by public mass-transit and with sufficient water/sewer infrastructure capacity. I also support upgrading water/sewer infrastructure capacity, of course.
Adam
When I ran in 2006 I was a candidate who, along with others including Marilyn Praisner, Phil Andrews, Marc Elrich, Cary Lamari and Ike Leggett, was endorsed by Neighbors PAC. Each of us pledged to accept no more than one-third of our contributions from the development interests. (Marc took none). To the best of my knowledge, each of the endorsed candidates kept that pledge.
Developers such as Madiriossian give to many candidates; but if memory serves, the pro-growth candidates got much much more in total contributions from him and his many family members.
Are you faulting Don Praisner for a single contribution from an apt co-owner?
Growth and development are serious issues in this county.
Both candidates and voters should take them seriously and insist on transparency in this process.
Sharon Dooley
I will fault any candidate who says that he or she will accept exactly zero dollars from any contributor or category of contributors and accepts an amount greater than zero. That candidate is breaking his or her own pledge.
Adam, I have two points to make:
1. You didn't recognize the fact that I pointed out in a comment here on MPW that according to the Maryland Campaign Finance database, Ben Kramer self-funds his own campaigns. He is a developer. Thus, all of his money is from "development interests."
I don't want to be dragged into the debate as to whether accepting money from development interests is good or bad. The point is made by what the database records show. Mr. Kramer doesn't have to accept "developer money" because he doesn't need it to fund his campaign. And he also doesn't need to accept money from the Business PAC, either. He's a rich man, unlike the other candidates in the D-4 race who have to depend on donors from different sources because they don't have the wealth that Mr. Kramer has.
2. In my opinion, it isn't a slow-growth "movement" as much as it is a dialogue about planned growth and planned infrastructure. The funding stream to build the required infrastructure to support the development as it is built is part of that dialogue. Different candidates have different points of view as to how this all should play out, and those viewpoints are important to be known by well-informed voters.
Post a Comment