The second and last pre-primary reports due on April 10 are now mostly online. Nancy Navarro’s filing is not online but we obtained it directly from her campaign. Following are the cumulative receipts and spending totals for the candidates for both reports, as well as items of interest.
Ben Kramer
Beginning Balance: $316.44
Contributions: $2,875
Loans: $50,000
Expenditures: $50,118.54
End Balance: $3,072.90
Kramer has consistently led all candidates in receipts by loaning himself 95% of his campaign’s funding. His spending total is close to Nancy Navarro’s, but lags because she started with more than $40,000 left over from last year.
Kramer had five individual contributors since March 24 who gave him a combined $675, three of whom are newsworthy. Hilde Alter of Rockville gave him $100. Alter is the Chief Accounting Officer of Medical Office Properties Inc., a real estate manager based in Chevy Chase that once owned a portfolio of medical office buildings. Board of Education Member Laura Berthiaume defeated incumbent Steve Abrams in large part because of help from MCEA. That did not stop her from giving $100 to Kramer, who is running against MCEA-endorsed Nancy Navarro. And Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman, who endorsed Navarro in 2008, gave $200 to Kramer. That’s an interesting decision because the Town of Kensington is dependent on the District 5 County Council Member for constituent services. Unfortunately for Kensington residents, that Council Member is Valerie Ervin – Navarro’s strongest ally.
Kramer paid staffer Tom Smith (who used to work for Martin O’Malley and Marylanders United to Stop Slots) $4,000 this period. That makes Smith’s total take $8,000, more than what Kramer has paid former Praisner campaign manager Eric Hensal ($6,000). Kramer spent $21,030.52 this period on mailings and postage and $1,568.80 on printing and campaign materials. His biggest ad buy was a $675 purchase in Washington Jewish Week.
Cary Lamari
Beginning Balance: $0
Contributions: $4,432.24
Loans: $10,000
Expenditures: $4,260.54
End Balance: $10,171.70
Lamari led all candidates in contributions with $3,592.24 last time but only collected $840 in this period. Three contributors stand out. DiSalvatore Realty gave him $100. John DiSalvatore owns the shopping center property on the northwest corner of Georgia and Norbeck, right next to one of Ben Kramer’s properties. Dale Tibbitts, Council Member Marc Elrich’s Chief of Staff, gave him $100. And George Leventhal, one of four County Council Members who endorsed Navarro, contributed $100 to Lamari. When I asked Leventhal about that, he wrote me, “Cary Lamari asked me for a contribution and I was happy to respond. He is a dedicated and sincere advocate for Montgomery County neighborhoods.”
Lamari spent $2,361.46 on postage and $166.21 on printing and campaign materials in the most recent period. Lamari is known by many in Leisure World because of his activism on Georgia at Norbeck and on the ICC, but his total spending is likely not enough to build his name recognition in other parts of the district.
Nancy Navarro
Beginning Balance: $43,220.69
Contributions: $28,645
Loans: $0
Expenditures: $66,573.63
End Balance: $5,576.95
Navarro has received more in contributions (not including loans) than the rest of the candidates combined. Nineteen individuals and entities have given her $500 or more during this election so far. Collectively, they account for 76% of her receipts. They are:
SEIU MD/DC State Council: $3,000
BUILD-PAC of Maryland: $3,000
Mid-Atlantic Laborers Political Education Fund: $2,500
Friends of George Leventhal: $2,000
Democratic Women’s PAC of Maryland: $2,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union: $1,000
Sheet Metal Workers Local 100: $1,000
MCGEO Local 1994: $1,000
James Soltesz, Potomac, MD: $1,000
Artery Development LLC: $750
Amalgamated Transit Union COPE Account: $500
Milagros McGuire, Bethesda, MD: $500
Hispanic Democratic Club: $500
Jeffrey Zane Slavin, Chevy Chase, MD: $500
David Weiss, Chevy Chase, MD: $500
Bethesda Center LLC, Washington, DC: $500
David D. Flanagan, McLean, VA: $500
R. William Hard, Potomac, MD: $500
Shirley Brandman, Bethesda, MD: $500
Soltesz is the CEO of Loiederman Soltesz Associates, a land development firm. Milagros McGuire and her husband, Dennis McGuire, are retirees who frequently contribute to Democratic candidates. Slavin is the President of C.J. O'Shaughnessy, Inc., a real estate firm, and is the Mayor of the Town of Somerset. Weiss is a member of the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce. His company, Monty LLC, is a Montgomery County developer. Bethesda Center LLC’s address (3299 K St. NW Ste. 700) matches The Bernstein Companies, a major metropolitan development firm. Flanagan is President of Elm Street Development, a residential developer that built Clarksburg Village. Hard is the Executive Vice-President of LCOR, a development firm. Brandman is the current President of the Board of Education.
Other contributors of interest include Board of Education Member Chris Barclay ($175), District 20 Delegate Heather Mizeur ($150), former District 5 County Council candidate Hans Riemer ($150), Verizon Communications ($125) and Board of Education Member Judith Docca ($100).
During the 2009 special election, we estimate that labor unions supplied 31% of Navarro’s funding. In the first pre-primary report, SEIU Local 500 reported a $2,500 in-kind contribution for the services of Jackie Lichter, their political director who is now working as Navarro’s deputy campaign manager. No in-kind contribution appeared on the second report. We do not know of any union contributions to any other candidate besides Navarro.
Navarro spent $23,430 on media this period, an amount that far exceeded Kramer ($965.44) and every other candidate. Almost all of it went to TruPolitics LLC, a consulting firm based in Ellicott City. She paid salaries to three staffers: campaign manager David Moon ($3,500), Ken Silverman ($1,015) and Alexis Reed ($1,000). She has advertised on both CBS Radio ($900) and Radio America ($450). She is the only candidate to rent a campaign office.
Incidentally, while the State Board of Elections (SBE) does not have Navarro’s report, it was compiled one day before the April 10 deadline. That fits with her campaign’s claims that a transmission error prevented it from getting to SBE. As a campaign treasurer myself, I can attest to the problems with its atrocious ELECTrack software. See the date report on her submission below.
During the latest period, Republican Andrew Padula received $475, Green Party candidate George Gluck collected $230 and Democrat Thomas Hardman received $80. The other candidates do not have reports listed on the State Board of Elections website. These totals are simply not enough to mount a competitive campaign. In last year’s special election, Steve Kanstoroom loaned himself $47,573.96 and finished third in the Democratic primary with 10.76% of the vote. A candidate with no money and no name recognition has no chance.
Disclosure: I am the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. Our Mid-Atlantic Regional Council gave Navarro $6,000 last year, the maximum amount allowed by the state. I have not donated any money to any District 4 candidate and am not volunteering for any of them.
Update: An informant points out that Elm Street and LCOR, two of Navarro’s contributors, specialize in projects near Metro stations. That fits with Navarro’s views on transit-oriented development.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
District 4 Campaign Finance Reports, Part Two (Updated)
Friday, April 17, 2009
District 4 Candidates Respond to Help Save Maryland
Four candidates have responded to the questionnaire issued by nativist/extremist group Help Save Maryland: Democrat Thomas Hardman, Republicans Robin Ficker, Lou August and Andrew Padula and Green Party member George Gluck. Here are the candidates' statements from their completed forms.
Thomas Hardman, Democrat
I’m sick of special interest groups promoting the invasion of our sovereign nation and subversion of the rule of law. I’m sick of pandering politicians that will cave at the slightest whisper from the lawyers and Unregistered Agents of Foreign Powers that work endlessly to undermine the legacy of our Founding Fathers. I welcome and will assist every decent person who waits patiently for their turn to legally and reasonably come to the USA to become American. But for lawbreakers, I give NOTHING but endless opposition and my most vituperative expressions of OUTRAGE.
Lou August, Republican
Many of our schools have large populations of children from families of illegal immigrants. My wife is a substitute teacher in MCPS and she frequently recounts the significant behavioral issues of children she works with, many from children she suspects are illegal immigrants. Almost by definition, many of these families come from turbulent distressed backgrounds, which often has a negative impact on their children’s behavior. The result of this is a damaged learning environment for all students, even those here legally whose parents’ tax dollars support the entire system – all during a time when education is more important than ever. If we address illegal immigration issues earlier, these very significant consequential impacts will be reduced or eliminated.
The later in the “consequence chain” we address illegal immigration, the greater the humanitarian impact on the immigrant and community when enforcement is finally enacted. Our first steps need to be reducing the attractiveness of Montgomery County to illegal immigrants through methods such as enforcing E-Verify, requiring proof of legal residency to get a drivers license, and a timeline for ratcheted-down customs enforcement by county police.
Robin Ficker, Republican
We need to enforce the single-family zoning laws to protect homeowners.
Andrew Padula, Republican
There are hundreds of millions of people living in abject poverty in this hemisphere. Unfortunately we cannot offer refuge to all or even a significant part of this population without risking the very fabric of our nation. We are robbing developing nations of the core of their workforce this leaving in their void nations populated by women, children, the elderly, and infirm, who are ill equipped to fend for themselves.
There is a direct inverse proportional relationship to the rise in Mexican and Central American cartel violence and our acceptance of an ever increasing population of illegal immigrants. In itself, our misplaced intentions of kindness are in fact supporting the tragedy of human rights abuses on a mass scale. When the concept of slavery is re-introduced into our free nation through indentured servitude and sex slavery, there is a big problem afoot.
The acceptance of “illegal immigrants” also sets up a two-tiered societal structure that opposes the even handed rule of law. More importantly however is the fact that the utilization of this underground workforce inhibits the natural flow of economic development by unduly influencing the marketplace for both wages and the prices of goods. I believe that it would be a far better course of action to encourage these individuals to return to their home countries and to rebuild them from within rather than to risk a societal upheaval in the United States that may very well preclude us from ever being able to genuinely assist any more developing nations in the future.
George Gluck, Green Party
I believe that we do not so much have an “illegal immigrant” problem as much as we do an “illegal employer” problem. Enforcing existing laws which hold employers culpable for hiring illegal immigrants will result in a much lower demand for illegal workers. From a recent NPR broadcast about the present dearth of day labor openings: The other day I told my wife on the phone, “If I can just get a plane ticket – however I can find the money for that – I’m coming back to El Salvador.”
Friday, April 10, 2009
District 4 Debate Shorts: The Candidates
Yesterday, we explored the candidates’ positions on the issues. Today we’ll assess each candidate individually.
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19)
Kramer was impressive in both debates he attended (ACT/Sierra Club and Young Democrats). He is intelligent, displays a solid command of issues and, most of all, he projects an air of leadership. Even though Nancy Navarro has more experience in public office, Kramer comes across as more of an incumbent.
Kramer regularly mentions his bills in Annapolis, especially those that crack down on crime and protect seniors. On issues, he emphasizes job creation, economic growth and funding for transportation. Kramer is the only candidate who regularly mentions the need to redevelop the Wheaton Central Business District, a major plus for this author. He tries to position himself as a statesman and emphasizes his endorsement by County Executive Ike Leggett. Consider these two statements:I want to reach out to the County Council Members to formulate a plan for Montgomery County and we should not personalize those issues.
Kramer’s weakness is that he is almost humorless in public. Audience members respected him but did not warm up to him. In the Young Democrats debate, Kramer grumbled twice under his breath about being asked a question last. Kramer’s best moment came when he recounted his shock at the sight of his foreclosed former family home. That was good for him because it showed the audience that a wealthy man born to many advantages could still relate to the circumstances of most county residents.
As a state Delegate, I have proven I am thoughtful and independent. One of the things I’ve learned in Annapolis is that you get a lot further from cooperation than confrontation. You don’t take issues personally and you move on.
Former Montgomery County Civic Federation President Cary Lamari
Lamari is an unreconstructed civic activist with a capital “A” and brings all the pluses and minuses of that pedigree. Like many dedicated activists, Lamari has a lot of experience and can speak with great detail about county functions, especially on growth policy. But he lacks the polish of a professional politician.
Lamari’s stump speech goes something like this:Montgomery County is reaching a crossroads. We can head in one of two directions. One direction is more growth, decreased quality of life and more taxes, all getting out of control. The other direction is a strategic plan for growth and taxes.
Lamari brings back many issues to growth policy. He often says that every new unit costs $36,000 in county services, but only $8,000-16,000 is collected from developers. In his view, the county’s budgetary health and its ability to provide all manner of services to protect residents’ quality of life goes back to the amount of growth it allows. “The more we grow, the deeper we dig the hole.”
Lamari has the opposite problem from Kramer. While he often projects warmth and good humor, he does not carry the statesmanlike demeanor of the Delegate from District 19. That said, there is an inherent honesty about Lamari in that what you see of him is what you are likely to get.
Board of Education Member Nancy Navarro
I attended three District 4 debates last year and two of them played out the same way: the other candidates, led by Don Praisner, piled onto Navarro over alleged “fiscal irresponsibility” and the school system’s “unsustainable” union contracts. Navarro fended off the pressure as best she could but it was a harsh political baptism. This year, she is a much better performer. She delivers her message with clarity and class and never responds to any bait dangled by other candidates.
Navarro emphasizes job creation, smart growth and the need to reach out to District 4’s residents. She is the only candidate who regularly mentions that District 4 is a majority-minority jurisdiction. Tipping her hat to President Obama, she never fails to mention her background as a “community organizer.” Navarro points to a need to “look at taxes on developments” and “coordinate infrastructure before we go ahead with redevelopment.” She even references the salary concessions given up by the school unions, saying, “Compromise is why we were able to get our unions to give up $89 million early on.”
One issue Navarro faces is that Kramer looks like the incumbent when in fact she has almost double his experience in public office (55 months vs. 28 months). She would benefit from being more assertive. For example, she has not mentioned that she is the only candidate who has had a leadership role on multi-billion dollar budgets. This is a common problem for female candidates who risk coming across as abrasive when they try to demonstrate leadership skills in the same way that men do. We asked one of the county’s savviest female politicians about this. She said, “It’s true there is a different standard for women… The best you can do is contrast yourself with the other candidates with a big smile on your face. Be charming about it.”
Rob Goldman
Goldman is a smart, personable young lawyer from Burtonsville who is making his first run for office. At times, he seems to be attempting to persuade the audience to hire him for legal representation rather than the County Council. Consider these statements:I intend to vigorously represent all District 4 residents.
Goldman regularly talks about the need for economic growth and more attention for Burtonsville. His handicap is that he has very little working knowledge of how the county operates. For example, when he called for allowing developers to have greater density in return for more affordable units in the ACT/Sierra Club debate, he seemed to have no idea that the county’s Moderately-Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) program already does that. As a result, Goldman tends to speak in generalities and seldom approaches the specifics of Kramer, Lamari, Navarro and Hardman.
The important thing is that you listen to your client’s or your constituent’s needs.
My goal is to diligently represent all the individuals in District 4.
But Goldman has brains, talent and speaking skills. He had one of the best lines of the Young Democrats debate when he said, “I’m an attorney and I have three-year-old twins. My days are full of conflict and my nights are full of chaos.” We certainly need fresh faces in this county and maybe Goldman can be one of them. Whatever happens in this race, Goldman should stay active in his community, pay his dues and meet more people to prepare for the future. He may be better suited for the House of Delegates than the County Council.
Michael Bigler
Left to right: Thomas Hardman, Rob Goldman, Michael Bigler.
Bigler is a nice older gentleman who reminisces about his experience in the Lions Club. He is given almost solely to generalities such as the following:I’ll be honest with you. I don’t want to see taxes raised at all.
Bigler’s only specific proposal is to impose ambulance fees. He did have one great line in the Young Democrats debate. When asked what his most contentious moment was, he replied it was “when I went home and told my wife I was running for office.”
If there’s no infrastructure, as far as I’m concerned, there can’t be any growth.
I don’t have all the answers. I’ll look to you for the answers.
Thomas Hardman
Hardman is an Aspen Hill resident who ran as a Republican for State Delegate in 2006 and in last year’s District 4 special election (when he received 97 votes in the Republican primary). Now he is running in the Democratic primary.
Hardman believes in limiting development, cracking down on code enforcement against illegal subletting and improving use of information technology on the schools. He is a voracious reader who knows much more about county programs than Goldman or Bigler.
But Hardman’s biggest problem is that he does not believe in the Democratic Party regardless of his current voter registration. When he dropped his Republican registration last October, he wrote this concerning a discussion he had about politics with his friends:I pointed out that having been twice rejected by the voters of my respective State and County districts, and having got passed over by them in favor of bozos and people making unkeepable promises, I wasn’t too sure I even wanted to legislate on behalf of those folks, and in fact might not think highly enough of them to do a good job, should by some incomprehensible fluke I might actually be elected…
If these really are Hardman’s views about the Democratic Party, then he should not be running in its primary.
As the most unpopular Republican in the Councilmanic District 4 Special Election primaries, I figured I might as well consider myself unacceptable to the Republicans and have since changed my voting registry to Unaffiliated. This means that if I want to get on the ballot for the next go-round, I have to collect about 2500 signatures, more or less. That would take lots of time…
I can’t register and run as a Democrat because in my opinion all of the things that most desperately need done or changed in MoCo simply cannot be done under the current Democratic Party here. It’s not that the ideas are bad or that the need is not there, it’s that the votes cannot be there, because the Democrat Party platform here cannot let the votes be there, or even have the issues considered. I can’t run as a maverick Democrat, not because nobody would vote for me -- look at the State District 19 near-total replacement of the incumbents and favorites in the last elections -- but because the Party would destroy me and anything associated with me, simply for having ideas of which the Central Committee didn’t approve.
The Republicans and George Gluck
Robin Ficker with his favorite statistics.
Robin Ficker is the most famous of the three Republicans but he is also the most one-dimensional. He is almost solely concerned with taxes. Ficker’s references to “our district” and “we” are appalling because he just moved into District 4. Add to that his unapologetic violations of election law and this statement made during the Burtonsville debate:Ike Leggett and I got 80% of the vote for County Executive. We will work together to lift this district.
Andrew Padula is an interesting person with a long career in jazz. Lou August is a businessman and non-profit founder who is unhappy with inefficiencies in county government. George Gluck is running as a progressive environmentalist. Each of them needs more resources to have a shot at winning. The fact that only 10 people attended the sole Republican debate bodes ill for the party.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
District 4 Campaign Finance Reports (Updated)
Most of the District 4 campaign finance reports due on March 24 are finally online. Here’s what they say.
Ben Kramer
Beginning Balance: $316.44
Contributions: $2,200
Loans: $23,000
Expenditures: $21,353.78
End Balance: $4,162.66
Kramer led all candidates in receipts, primarily by loaning himself $23,000 (93% of his take). That follows past practice; he loaned himself $130,450 during his 2006 Delegate race.
Kramer had 10 individual contributors, led by former U.S. Senate candidate Josh Rales ($1,000). While Kramer promised Alison Klumpp that he would not accept money from “developers” (even though Klumpp calls him one), three of Kramer’s contributors have links to the real estate industry. Lydia Funger McClain of Potomac ($250) is the daughter of Morton Funger, a principal of development firm Ralmor Corporation. McClain is also a former part-owner of Home Properties Inc., which is seeking to redevelop part of the Falkland Chase Apartments in Silver Spring. Steven Jacobson of Rockville ($250), a principal of law firm West & Feinberg, heads the firm’s commercial leasing practice. And Rales heads up RFI Associates, which his bio describes as "one of the leading investment companies in the area, specializing in acquiring, renovating, and overseeing real estate projects." That means that contrary to Kramer’s pledge to Mrs. Klumpp, his leading outside donor is a developer. Rales is also a former Republican who contributed money to George W. Bush.
Most of Kramer’s other donors are lawyers and businessmen, such as Paul Hastings attorney Behnam Dayanim ($200), Loomis Sayles Vice-President Aileen Rappaport ($100), Sandglass Systems co-founder David Fraser-Hidalgo ($100) and former M. Stein & Company owner Jerold Samet ($100).
Kramer has two paid staffers: campaign manager Eric Hensal ($6,000) and Tom Smith ($4,000). He has paid for banners, palm cards and lapel stickers, received a voter list from MCDCC and has sent out at least one mailing. Large Kramer billboards are appearing on properties owned by his family around the district.
Cary Lamari
Beginning Balance: $0
Contributions: $3,592.24
Loans: $10,000
Expenditures: $1,726.87
End Balance: $11,865.37
Lamari led all candidates in individual contributions. His contributor list reads like a who’s-who roster of the civic movement, including prominent activists Margaret Dennis ($250), James Fary ($100), Rocky Lopes ($100), Dan Wilhelm ($100) and Stuart Rochester ($50). Other contributors include former County Council Member Blair Ewing ($100) and MCDCC Secretary Elliot Chabot ($100).
Lamari has ordered 400 signs and posted one advertisement in Leisure World News but had sent no mailings at the time of the finance report. He has no paid staff.
Nancy Navarro
Beginning Balance: $43,220.69
Contributions: $2,090
Loans: $0
Expenditures: $33,444.44
End Balance: $12,151.14
Navarro started off with a big balance left over from last year’s special election. Her biggest contributors last time were unions and businesses, including developers. This time, the majority of her contributions so far have come from fellow School Board Member Shirley Brandman ($500), MCPS staffer Nivea Berrios ($300), Identity Inc. Executive Director Candace Kattar ($250), Impact Silver Spring Executive Director Frankie Blackburn ($150) and MCDCC Member Oscar Ramirez ($100). We cannot find evidence of any business or developer contributions in this report. SEIU Local 500 reported a $2,500 in-kind contribution for the services of its Political Director, Jackie Lichter, who is Navarro’s Deputy Campaign Director. No other unions have contributed so far. (My own union, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, gave a maximum contribution to Navarro a year ago and cannot give her any more money. I have not contributed to Navarro or any other District 4 candidate.)
Navarro has spent far more money than the other candidates early on. She paid $9,775 to Campaign Director David Moon, $1,672.67 to field worker Ken Silverman and $10,825.95 to consulting firm TruBlu Politics. Navarro replenished her coffers with a fundraiser shortly after the March 24 reporting deadline.
Democrat Michael Bigler contributed $500 to his campaign. Republican Andrew Padula contributed $300 to his campaign. Green Party candidate George Gluck loaned his campaign $647.43. Democrat Thomas Hardman has received no contributions or loans and has a $25 balance. As of this writing, the State Board of Elections has not posted any filings for Democrats Rob Goldman and Chris Paladino or Republicans Robin Ficker and Lou August.
The strangest contribution was received by the Lamari campaign. Roger Asbury of 11501 Dewey Road in Silver Spring was Lamari’s biggest contributor, giving him $1,000 on 2/18/09.
A simple Google search on Asbury reveals that he is a registered child sex offender. 
When we raised this issue with Lamari, he sent us the following statement:As a result of your inquiry, I have spoken to Mr. Asbury and explained that I will be returning his contribution. I had accepted the contribution because he appreciated my help on a zoning matter dealing with his produce business. I politely explained I was returning his contribution so as to not have any connection with the perception that I endorse the crimes he has been convicted of. I adamantly oppose the abuse of children and believe crimes against women and children are among the most horrible crimes commited. He has explained to me that his crime was 13 years ago, that he was incarcerated for two years in jail and has had psychiatric treatment since his release. I wished him well and requested my campaign treasuer to refund his contribution.
Update: Rob Goldman sent me the following affidavits stating that he has has not received contributions or made expenditures exceeding $1,000 in either of the pre-primary reporting periods. I cannot explain why the State Board of Elections does not post this information to its website.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to provide a factual and detailed explanation of events.
Cary Lamari
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
District 4 Republicans Slam "Segregated" Debate
At last night's Action Committee for Transit/Sierra Club District 4 forum, Democratic and Republican candidates were told to debate in separate rooms before members of their respective parties. But since almost no Republicans showed up, the Republican candidates held no debate and milled around in the hallway outside the Democrats' room. Today, they are blasting ACT and the Sierra Club for "segregation."
This fellow, who is probably not a Democrat, has been showing up at the debates.
Ben Ross, President of Action Committee for Transit, explained:The debate was organized for the benefit of the voters, not the candidates. How does a debate between candidates who aren't running against each other help voters make up their minds?
We asked each of the three Republicans to comment. Here's what they said:
We learned the lesson of last year's presidential primary debates. Ten candidates on one stage is too many for effective exchange of views.
I'm sure that if John Edwards had been on the stage when John McCain was debating Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee, there would have been some entertaining moments. But how useful would it have been for Republican voters who disagree with Mr. Edwards' premises?
Andrew Padula:I posted my ACT questionnaire, wrote a column at www.allaboutrace.com, and I was linked this week all over the left's blogosphere. Policy relating to Green energy initiatives was my forte' as an adviser to a national campaign. I have a stronger record of human rights, civil rights, and environmental activism than most of the Dems... They probably didn't want a real debate with facts so they celebrated April fools a day early.
Robin Ficker:Separate but equal is inherently unequal. Segregation was practiced last night. What are the Democratic candidates afraid of? It is very difficult to believe that the Democratic candidates were not the moving force behind this exclusion. We received an email invitation a month ago to "a forum." There was no mention of any segregation. Then the afternoon before, I received a phone call saying that there would be segregation. This is very unfair to the voters of District 4 who want to make an informed choice. Act/Sierra, the Bird Society, nobody has scheduled any forum after the primary. All there was last year was a 1/2 hour on Channel 16 after the primary. There is ideological unanimity on the council now and the push is to have ideological unanimity in the campaign too. Robin Ficker, 301-919-9068. ACT/Sierra leaders are simply Democratic precinct chairmen and should be treated as such.
Lou August:As an invited Republican Candidate to this event, a couple of phrases come to mind:
We'll have full coverage of the first wave of debates next week.
Separate but Not Equal
Forced to Ride in the Back of the Bus
There needs to be an investigation into the circumstances that led up to tonight’s “Debate.” As a Republican candidate, I received no information from the organizers in advance that the Republican and Democratic candidates would have separate debates in separate rooms. That runs contrary to every debate I’ve attended as a candidate. The Republican attendees I spoke with received no information that the parties would be separated and they wanted to see all the candidates. This was the most highly publicized debate, and to my knowledge, there is no debate scheduled for the winners of the Primary election. Even the conveners of this debate admitted that they had no plans to hold another debate with the Republican and Democratic winners of the primary election. Thus in all likelihood, this would be the attendees’ only chance to see ALL the candidates, which was the expectation of every attendee I spoke to.
As we Republican candidates were arguing the issue with the organizers to no avail, the organizers urged me to go to the back room as the Republican attendees were waiting for us. In respect to these attendees, I complied. That’s when I met the Republican attendees... all four of them! That makes three Republican candidates with four people watching them. I estimated that there were 60 Democrats watching the Democratic debate already underway. Even with a county that is as highly Democratic as ours is, those ratios just don’t hold up: 60 to 4? Who was doing the inviting? Again, there really needs to be an investigation conducted here, as the potential manipulation of the democratic process by parties posing as objective conveners must not be tolerated.
Andrew, Robin and I could not honor the event by remaining in attendance. Robin Ficker and I left together, encouraging all the Republicans that came down (and would not see us debate) to attend the widely advertised Republican-only debate scheduled for this Thursday at the Bauer Center (Bauer near Norbeck) at 7:00pm. In respect for those attendees that could not make it on Thursday, and their significant inconvenience, I invited them all to Starbucks near Leisure World where we talked politics over coffee until the Starbucks closed for the night.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Andrew Padula's Action Committee for Transit Questionnaire
Andrew Padula is running as a Republican in the District 4 special election.
Action Committee for Transit Questionnaire for Candidates for County Council, District 4
1) How do we transform the auto-oriented suburbs of District 4 into livable and walkable communities?
This is not a simple question. This proposes a policy and blueprint of social engineering as a reaction to poor planning and development by the very body that created these now obsolete communities in the first place. The citizens that bought into these neighborhoods have a good deal both financially and emotionally invested in them. A compounding factor is that in many cases, this transformation requires people to restructure their communities wholesale well before they have turned a complete cycle that would warrant urban renewal. Regardless of the planning that goes into it, ultimately the livability of a community is up to it’s citizens. The best that planners can do is to set proper outlines for development and transportation. First, high density pure residential development, especially that buttresses arterial roads must be halted. Nonretail business or industry that can anchor communities must be established and then developed around. Patchwork, mixed method, mass transit must be replaced with a uniform and comprehensive system. Most importantly, citizens must approve of any self sustaining community projects because this proposes a radical change to everyones lifestyle.
2) Do you support building the light rail Inner Purple Line from Bethesda to New
Carrolton, as recommended by County Executive Leggett and the County Council?
I strongly support E/W mass transit projects as long as they are not piece meal.
I have seen various proposals and if you are referring to the one where it is nice light rail trains in the western districts and big nasty busses on the east side... no thanks! We would like some nice stuff too please!
3) All bridges over US 29 have been designed so that light rail could run in the
median of the highway. There are several possible routes for a connection from
White Oak to the Red Line or Purple Line. Would you support detailed study of
running a light rail line that connects White Oak to the Metro system and then
runs in the median of US 29 to Burnsville, as a future project after the Purple Line
and Corridor Cities Transit-way?
Bridges over rt.29 or running along rt. 29? No I would not support a study after the
Purple lines or Corridor Cities Transitway... I WANT IT NOW! There is a major problem
with the easements that I believe you are describing. They do not continue past Burnt
Mills. Four Corners is a transportation nightmare and that is an area that needs to be a priority.
4) What should the county do to increase transit rider-ship?
Put transit where the people are! It makes no sense that Metro stops train service in
Glenmont when there are thousands living in garden apartments and town-homes in
Aspen Hill and Olney- or in Silver Spring when White Oak and Burtonsville are
exploding. I don’t understand why all of the proposed light rail service projects are
located in western districts. Isn’t our tax money in District 4 deserving of equal services? We could also make getting onto transit a less trying ordeal. I was told by a community leader that they discontinued the buses from Four Corners to Forest Glen (a Metro stop designed primarily for buses) because of low rider-ship. There was low rider-ship because there WAS NO COVERED BUS STOP ON RT 29! I regularly see people standing out in the elements on Bel Pre rd. and Georgia Ave. because the bus shelters are too small. We could also try giving the rider a different experience than just sitting in the same traffic except with a crowd. Schedules could also be modified so that people who take transit to go somewhere will not have to take a cab from the nearest hub to get home.
5) County master plans have stated a policy of focusing development around mass
transit stations. Much development has occurred that has poor transit access, yet the
county’s planning also deserves much of the credit for the emergence of Bethesda and
the revival of Silver Spring as centers of activity.
A) What smart growth projects near Metro stations do you support even though they
have had opposition?
I wholly disagree with the premise of the question. Bethesda has been in the process of rebuilding for 25 years since the traffic re-alignments of the E/W highway. It has had the benefit of it’s zip-code, proximity to the district, proximity to mass transit (both inherent) as well as the economic engines of N.I.H. Uniformed Services hospital, and, Geico. Also, the Council has conveniently avoided zoning in MPDU housing therefor the area is not subject to the growing pains that usually come with economic integration. Silver Spring is heavily subsidized and is not truly self sustaining. Much of this is due to poor planning with having the anchor businesses and merchants bisected with major automobile arteries. Access is not as inviting as it should be. Having said that, if the Shady Grove tract can truly be developed in a economically and environmentally friendly way, it seems like a viable project. I see no other Metro accessible proposals that are currently being proffered.
B) Do you support a requirement that development described as “transit-oriented,” such as the proposed Germantown and Gaithersburg West master plans, may only be
constructed after rail transit access is built?
Not necessarily, They could be build concurrently but transit funds must be guaranteed.
5) Do you believe that the decision by Governors Ehrlich and O’Malley to build the
Inter-county Connector was wise or unwise?
The timing, alignment, awarding of service contracts, expense, etc. all point to a budget busting blunder of biblical proportion. If the true purpose of this road was to connect the I270 corridor with BWI, Annapolis, and Laurel, then someone needs a lesson in how to read a map. If this was intended as an asphalt string of political payoffs... good job guys! The simple upgrading of E/W arteries already in use, combined with better community planning and permitting, would have sufficed.
Name of Candidate ANDREW L. PADULA
Signature Date
3/23/09
Please return by March 24, 2009, to Action Committee for Transit, P. O. Box 7074, Silver Spring, MD 20907.
