Showing posts with label Cary Lamari. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cary Lamari. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Cary Lamari on the Passing of Stuart Rochester
By Cary Lamari.
My condolences go out to the family and friends of Stuart Rochester.
Stuart Rochester died Wednesday, July 29. The funeral service will be tomorrow, Friday, July 31 at 11 am at Tikvat Israel Congregation, 2200 Baltimore Road, in Rockville. Interment at Judean Memorial Gardens in Olney.
Stuart Rochester was a colleague and a fierce and extremely intelligent advocate for the people of Montgomery County but even more so for the residents of Burtonsville and the East County.
I have known Stuart for many years. My first interaction with Stuart was dealing with the ICC. It’s no big secret Stuart vehemently opposed the Northern Alignment for the ICC. Stuart felt the huge trucks that traverse 198 each day destroyed the community of Burtonsville and Spencerville and Stuart wasn’t going to let that simply pass. Stuart also argued that there was inequity between the eastern part of Montgomery County and the Western side (Potomac). He felt we were shortchanged with respect to money for education and infrastructure. He felt we received the challenges but did not get the resources to address those challenges. As only one example the schools on the Western Side were always in top shape while we had to wait for any improvements with numerous portables. Paint Branch High school was a prime example.
We have lost so many valuable community leaders recently that Montgomery County will most certainly suffer. These people are the core to the making of good government. Stuart was the most articulate civic activist I know. During my term as President of the Civic Federation, Stuart was kind enough to be our representative for the Print Media. I remember Stuart enjoyed writing op-editorials for the Gazette and really loved taking on the Gazette Editor Chuck Lyons. I remember feeling they were two sides to the same coin but Stuart was always the one more capable and equipped with his sharp wit.
I worked with Stuart on many issues facing Montgomery County and he supported my campaign this past special election. I will miss Stuart’s support and passive guidance. Stuart never was one to be in front of the camera, he always felt easier behind the scenes making sure the “i” was dotted and the “t’s” were crossed. On the last Montgomery County Civic Federation meeting he reported on the Zoning rewriting committee and most especially the new commercial mixed-use zone. He cautioned us that this zone could, if not monitored, be deleterious to Montgomery County. He was on the exemption committee and reminded all of us that the devil is in the detail. Stuart’s guidance was never misplaced with me.
Stuart will be missed and my prayers are with his wife Shelly, his kids and his grandkids. I hope they know how much we in Montgomery County respected and appreciated Stuart.
Cary Lamari
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Cary Lamari on Blair Ewing
By Cary Lamari.
I was sorry to hear of the loss of my friend Blair Ewing. The last email I received from Blair was on May 18th, he regretted my loss in the election and he followed up with me on the State Board of educations denial on the county waiver request.
I have known Blair personally for about 20 years although I knew of him for over 30 as an active county resident. I first met Blair during one of Ida Mae Garrotts weekly strategy meetings for her political action committee the New Democrats. Blair and Ida Mae were good friends and it was Ida Mae Garrott that convinced Blair he should run for the County Council. I worked with Blair on numerous initiatives but the one that was most memorable was the initiative to promote Mental Health awareness. Blair was critical on the Civic Federations first Mental Health community forum that led to the Blue Ribbon committee the County’s most comprehensive document addressing Mental Health.
Blair wasn’t afraid to tackle the hard issues even if they drew criticism, he once told me it was his job to bring topics to the forefront, put them on the table and see how they shake out. Blair was a leader in protecting the environment and always was available to discuss a concern of any resident of this County.
Blair was a true Civic Activist; he cared for this County and took some serious lumps trying to protect our quality of life from eroding. Blair and I spoke in depth about the End Gridlock team and the dismantling of our Annual Growth Policy in 2003, he was one of very few who truly understood the meaning of Smart Growth, not what is being promoted today by Chairman Hanson and Rollin Stanley and he also understood the need for a measurable growth policy, he recognized the need to promote community with all necessary infrastructure which also requires a sustainable budget that protects our county employees so they would not have to be burdened with always being the people that get stuck with balancing the budget because we allow developers to get away without paying their fair share.
He was truly a hero of not only the residents but the employees of this County. I am proud to call Blair Ewing a friend and a mentor. He was not only a gentleman but also a Statesman. Blair represented the caliper of public servant that most dream of becoming. Blair stands in the same category as Neil Potter, Ida Mae Garrott, Betty Ann Kranke, and Marilyn Praisner. I do not know a politician in this County today that has his integrity, dignity, honor and sense of community. My thoughts and prayers are with his family.
Cary Lamari
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Whispers of the At-Large Race, Part Four
Here are four more actual, potential, or improbable at-large candidates.
Guled Kassim, Silver Spring
Kassim is a Somali immigrant who grew up in Kemp Mill, served in the Marines and became a real estate settlement officer. He is young, good-looking, polite and shows up at a lot of events. In 2006, he ran for Delegate in District 19. Despite being on a slate with incumbent Hank Heller and successful candidate Ben Kramer, Kassim finished eighth of eight candidates in the Democratic primary. Unlike many candidates who lost last time, he has stayed active in politics. His active support of Kramer in the 2009 special election will not play well among progressives. Given his last-place finish in a Delegate race, it is hard to imagine him being a top-tier contender at-large. He has a campaign website up but it does not mention the office he is seeking.
Spy: A U.S. Marine Corps veteran and Continental African, Guled could energize the rainbow coalition that helped Nancy Navarro win in District 4. He would need to overcome anti-Muslim prejudice, which he is easily likeable enough to do if he campaigns hard, especially in the Jewish community.
Spy: Guled Kassim had a dismal performance as a D19 delegate. I can say with complete confidence that he has no chance as an at-large candidate, unless he were to mysteriously come across $300,000. Guled's only hope at public office would have been had he been appointed to replace Ben Kramer in Annapolis. Some had speculated such a deal had been made, but with Kramer’s loss, that door has shut.
Spy: Nice kid, better suited for District 19 than at-large Council.
Ben Kramer, Derwood
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19) came within 63 votes of becoming the new District 4 County Council Member. No one knows for sure whether he will run for re-election as a Delegate, challenge Nancy Navarro, run at-large or not run at all. He never conceded to Navarro and never endorsed her against Robin Ficker, facts that have not escaped the notice of other politicians and activists around the county. Kramer’s capacity for more self-funding is a mystery given that he has loaned his campaigns a total of $220,450 – money that has not been paid back.
Spy: He would certainly have the money (although, I can’t imagine it’s easy for him to spend all of his own money and never fundraise), but I just don’t think he’s that likeable. He is aloof and comes across as if he thinks he’s better than everyone (I think he does, and that he’s smarter than everyone). Not to mention that he talks about himself in the 3rd person! As your research has pointed out, the General Election electorate is not his base and he’d have a tough time with such a crowded field.
Spy: How much is he willing to invest this time?
Spy: Could he self-finance an at large council campaign? Would he have broad appeal - would he work hard for it? Where is his support group? Does he think he is safe in Annapolis? Guess I have more questions than answers here.
Spy: This just doesn’t make any sense. He was the favorite in an open race special election and lost in many of the places where the Kramer brand should be at its strongest. So he’s going to run against incumbents across the whole county?
Spy: May want another go... but I think he would rather take on Navarro again in District 4.
Spy: Will he run on the Trachtenberg slate? Politics makes strange bedfellows. Easy to imagine him winning the Gazette and Post endorsements as a candidate who wants to “run government like a business” but then losing the Democratic primary.
Spy: The only person that comes close to former Delegate Robin Ficker’s record of unsuccessful bids for public office is Ben Kramer. His track record as a candidate has been awful. In this most recent run, Kramer faced his ideal voting population: older, whiter, more affluent, more Jewish. If he can’t win a council seat under those circumstances, he never will. But this raises a more obvious point. Why so many people (including Ben Kramer himself) thought he would easily win the D4 special election is beyond me, but I hope this last campaign puts the fabled Kramer mystique to rest for good. Perhaps a pleasant side-effect from this could be that Rona Kramer faces a strong challenge in 2010.
Spy: Ben Kramer is damaged goods and shouldn’t even try it.
Cary Lamari, Silver Spring
Lamari is a former President of the Montgomery County Civic Federation and is one of the most prominent and knowledgeable civic activists in the county. He finished eleventh of thirteen at-large candidates in 2006 and ran third in the 2009 District 4 special election Democratic primary. Lamari’s biggest problem is money. In the 2009 District 4 special primary, he was outspent 9-1 by both Nancy Navarro and Ben Kramer. That election, which was limited to an area containing Lamari’s best friends and supporters (including many long-time allies in Leisure World) was probably his best chance to win office.
Spy: Cary Lamari has zero chance of winning an at-large seat. The Civic Federation/civic activist population makes up no more than 5-10% of the Democratic Primary population, and that is on a good day. Lamari may think he can pull off a Marc Elrich-like victory built on multiple runs for the Council, but Elrich has something that Lamari does not. Elrich has traditionally been considered a progressive activist IN ADDITION to being a civic activist. In the 2006 primary that carried Elrich to office, there was a clear progressive wave in the primary that was aided by high-profile, head-to-head primary battles up-ticket. With no such action in 2010 AND the fact that Lamari is not very progressive, he stands no chance. Elrich himself might be in danger of losing his seat and would be foolish to slate up with Lamari.
Spy: Nice guy, but please. The voters have spoken. Replace the battery on your hearing aid and listen to what the voters are saying.
Spy: If Lamari runs for Council At-Large, he will likely take votes away from Elrich (who gets backing from the civics, as well). This would not be good for Marc because he’s going to see some names missing in his supporter list in 2010 that were with him in 2006. Lamari does not have the fundraising capability to raise the money necessary for an at-large bid; he barely had enough for the district race.
Spy: Gaining maturity and stature. If he energizes civic activists to get out and work hard for him, he could pull off an Elrich-like surprise - perhaps at Elrich’s expense.
Spy: Three times a charm? More likely three times and he’s out. Lamari tends to know more than anyone about the county issues during debates, but something about him puts people off and it shows in his election results.
Spy: Cary’s strength is with his neighborhood and with the civics - it did not carry him that far in 2006 when he ran at large. I do not think he can finance an at large race - his campaign was underfunded this time and he came in a poor third on his turf. He may well run as he has inferred that - but I would guess he might again try the District 4 race. He also has thrown his hat in for the last two times for the planning board and that went nowhere. He may well win the Stassen label.
Spy: Will run again. This time at-large. He will lose really big time.
Chris Paladino, Silver Spring
Former Red Cross executive Chris Paladino withdrew from the District 4 race before it started due to family health issues. Paladino really believed he could win and our informants tell us he was ready to sink lots of his own money into the race. But we never got a chance to see him in action as a candidate. His fundraising, issue knowledge, people skills, work ethic and campaign savvy were never tested in the heat of battle. He may challenge Navarro in District 4, run at-large or not run at all.
Spy: Same problem as he would have had in the Special – people don’t know who he is and he’s going to get lost in the crowd. He may be able to fundraise, but he’s not a politician and he didn’t have any campaign plan (or intention of hiring staff) for the Special. He’d really need to hire someone qualified, but still, it’s a longshot.
Spy: For five minutes during the special election, Paladino was on everyone’s mind. But he has no political experience and a countywide race requires it. Either that, or a much bigger bank account.
Spy: Yeah right. Paladino is rumored to have $75,000 in self-financing available, but that is a drop in the bucket for a no-name, unestablished candidate in an at-large race. He’ll need many times more than that. Plus, with some of the other names floating around, he stands no chance. The most important question is will any of the incumbents slate up with him. The answer will undoubtedly be no.
Spy: A Knapp wanna-be without any union support. He sees himself as an entrepreneur and thinks everyone else can do it. Not compassionate despite his Red Cross background; had hoped to get the Praisner endorsement and have that propel him into office. Not aligned with any major interest group unless it might be the Chamber - (which was said to have been poised to support him last time - aligned somehow I’ve heard with Cheryl Kagan - more to learn there). Not curious nor charismatic. Does not understand the multi-layered strata of county politics. Can self finance to over $100,000, so he may be in if he senses an opening. At large - doubt it because he has not ventured out across the county yet. Son is in private school which may hurt him.
Spy: Non-entity with little $ and less familiarity. He is totally unprepared and has even less knowledge. No experience in civic matters. A complete unknown and totally unprepared. They'll make mincemeat of him in a forum or debate.
Spy: Unknown to voters and opinion-makers. Will have trouble raising sufficient money.
We will finish tomorrow.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Reflections and Advice for 2010
Eric Luedtke’s analysis of the impact of the District 4 campaign on future Montgomery races was truly excellent. So naturally, I’d like to spoil it with my own two cents.
First, many politicians I talk to seem to have learned the wrong lesson from this race. They assume Nancy Navarro won in part because of the negative mail and anticipate more of that in 2010. They may be right that negative campaigning will increase, but it is fundamentally unknowable whether the anti-Kramer mailers put Navarro over the top. Ben Kramer was able to use those mailers to depict Navarro as a nasty opponent and himself as a victim, and that may very well have helped him to increase turnout among his base in Leisure World. Politicians emphasize this tactic in part because of its mass visibility. In contrast, the micro-targeting that Navarro’s campaign used was never matched by Kramer and had no downside. Since it was largely invisible, it does not receive sufficient credit for helping Navarro win the primary.
Eric also said this:I think we saw a profound difference between the way the Navarro campaign treated bloggers – as real media targets in the same way they pursue reporters – versus how the Kramer campaign treated bloggers – as, well, bloggers.
And how! I have two pieces of advice for politicians on how to deal with bloggers in 2010.
1. Send us every bit of positive information about your own campaign.
The Navarro and Lamari campaigns fed us a steady diet of positive news about themselves. Navarro’s staff sent us lots of endorsements, pictures, videos, mailers and everything else short of a new sauna. Lamari did the same thing and even contributed an op-ed column. (We encourage all politicians to steal Cary Lamari’s community land trust idea as long as they give him credit!) But the Kramer campaign sent us very little positive info about him. We had to go out and obtain his endorsements from those organizations themselves. We also had to ask Duchy Trachtenberg’s staff for her endorsement of Kramer. We only received two unsolicited pro-Kramer statements – one from Kevin Gillogly and another from Alison Klumpp – and neither of them were paid Kramer staffers. If we did not affirmatively seek out positive information on Kramer, very little of it would have appeared here because his campaign did not volunteer it.
Kramer’s people did respond to requests for information. One item they sent me – a set of notes from the State Highway Administration about the Georgia-Norbeck intersection – directly contradicted a statement made by Lamari in a debate. Why didn’t they offer this to me right after the debate and not wait for me to ask for it? If I had not gone out of my way to pursue this information, Kramer’s side of the Georgia-Norbeck issue would not have been told.
2. Don’t lie.
At the very beginning of the campaign, I asked Ben Kramer this question:Delegate, the last time you ran for County Council, you finished seventh out of eight candidates in the 1998 at-large race. If you finished that badly last time, why do you think you will win this time?
Kramer replied the reason he ran poorly in 1998 was that he dropped out of the race but missed the withdrawal deadline. He told me that his name was still on the ballot, but since he did not campaign, he attracted few votes.
I quickly discovered this was untrue. Kramer earned County Executive Doug Duncan’s endorsement prior to June 1998. He participated in a candidate debate in August. The Gazette mentioned Kramer’s candidacy on August 26 and discussed his mailers on September 2. Also on September 2, the Gazette reported that 40% of Kramer’s contributions came from developers. The Gazette reported the results from a poll on the at-large race, including Kramer, on September 9. And on election night, Kramer went to a vote count at Richard Montgomery High School before learning of his loss. The Gazette carried this quote:“I don’t have an answer [about what happened],” said a key Kramer supporter, Gino Renne, president of the Municipal and County Government Employees Organization.
I did not report this at the time because I was hoping that Kramer had made a mistake. What candidate would deliberately make such a claim when it could be so easily checked? But the more I thought about it, the more my skepticism of his campaign’s statements grew. One problem was Kramer’s position on ICC traffic mitigation. His sister, Senator Rona Kramer (D-14), defended a plan by SHA to build a bypass around Georgia Avenue and Norbeck Road at a community meeting attended by Ben Kramer. But shortly afterwards, both Kramers slammed it in writing as “convoluted.” The honesty issue boiled over when Kramer told Leisure World that he was not accepting contributions from developers while looking me in the eye, a statement that I had previously found to be untrue and exposed again the day before the election. Thousands of visitors saw that post. The Kramer campaign never responded and I caught them taking a developer contribution again after the primary. The issue of truthfulness will now dog Ben Kramer throughout the rest of his political career.
We are not naïve. We understand that some issues can be interpreted in multiple ways. We know the differences between honest disagreements, spin, parsing words, using context and outright falsehood. Remember that this blog is based in part on research. If you lie, we will find out. So just tell the truth. It’s easier that way for you and for us.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Politics, Money and Lies
The latest batch of District 4 campaign finance data is in and there’s something for everybody: a little bit of politics, a whole lot of money and a big fat lie! Following are cumulative totals for the 2009 election and details on contributors.
Nancy Navarro
Beginning Balance: $43,220.69
Contributions: $46,653.06
Loans: $5,000
Expenditures: $92,002.27
End Balance: $3,156.37
Navarro has received almost three times the contributions (excluding loans) as Ben Kramer and Cary Lamari combined. In our last post, we reported a list of everyone who had contributed at least $500 to her campaign. Since then, additional contributors who have exceeded that level include SEIU Local 500 PAC ($4,000), UFCW Local 400 ($4,000), County Council Member Valerie Ervin ($2,000), IBEW Local 26 ($1,000), Metro Washington Food & Allied Service Trades ($1,000), CWA COPE of Virginia ($500) and Silver Spring lawyer and developer Robert Hillerson ($500). Labor pulled out all the stops to help Navarro get elected, providing invaluable volunteer support and at least 44% of her contributions.
A few of Navarro’s other contributors in this filing include IMPACT Silver Spring Executive Director Frankie Blackburn ($100), fellow School Board Member Patricia O’Neill ($62.50), MCDCC Member Oscar Ramirez ($50), former County Council candidate Hans Riemer ($50) and, most interestingly, District 20 Delegate Sheila Hixson ($250). Hixson joins Delegates Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18) and Heather Mizeur (D-20) as the only state legislators to back Navarro in the primary.
Lastly, Navarro accepted a $5,000 loan. The state’s database is crawling with bugs at the moment but her campaign tells us the loan came from Navarro’s husband. Even with abundant financial support from both business and labor, the nearly six-digit primary cost compelled Navarro to sink family money into the election.
Cary Lamari
Beginning Balance: $0
Contributions: $5,512.24
Loans: $10,000
Expenditures: $10,182.18
End Balance: $5,330.06
Lamari received just $1,080 in new contributions in the last days of the race. His new contributors included County Council Member Valerie Ervin ($200), a strong Navarro supporter, and former District 4 candidate Pat Ryan ($200).
Lamari earned just 730 votes, or 8.4% of Democratic primary voters. Despite being a decades-long civic activist and a former President of the Montgomery County Civic Federation, Lamari could not keep up with Navarro and Kramer because both of them outspent him by about nine to one. Aspiring County Council candidates should heed this lesson: for a non-incumbent, even a district race now costs nearly $100,000 to compete.
Cary Lamari’s message of restraining overdevelopment and his emphasis on constituent service was closer to Marilyn Praisner’s philosophy than any other 2009 candidate. (Just ask Council Member Marc Elrich.) Yet, none of the politicians who endorsed Don Praisner supported Lamari and two of them (County Executive Ike Leggett and County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg) sided with developer Ben Kramer. Lamari’s supporters have just cause to wonder whether these politicians truly believe in the growth-restraining message on which they campaigned three years ago.
Ben Kramer
Beginning Balance: $316.44
Contributions: $11,761
Loans: $90,000
Expenditures: $93,262.71
End Balance: $8,814.73
Kramer’s contributors in the last days of the primary included philanthropist Carol Trawick ($500), land use attorney William Kominers ($100), lobbyist Ashlie Bagwell ($100), real estate lawyer Lawrence Shulman ($50) and Senator Brian Frosh’s (D-16) law firm, Karp, Frosh, Lapidus, Wigodsky & Norwind PA ($250). Kramer also received a loan for $40,000, which given his past history, probably came from him. (The state database is not being cooperative today!) But the following contribution is particularly troublesome.
Alison Klumpp famously told Maryland Moment that Kramer had “no intention of taking developer money” on March 9. Kramer himself went further, declaring at Leisure World, “I have not taken and agreed that I would not take money from developers in this campaign.” We then exposed Kramer’s acceptance of a $1,000 contribution from developer Josh Rales as well as the independent mailings on his behalf by the Maryland Realtors PAC. The Kramer campaign has ignored our research for over a month. Now we have caught him breaking his pledge again.
Below is a partial contributor list to Kramer from his latest report. Note the $500 contribution from Bethesda Center LLC, an entity based at 3299 K Street, NW, Suite #700, Washington, DC, 20007.
Here is Bethesda Center LLC’s Maryland corporate registration. Note its intention to “develop certain property in Montgomery County, Maryland” and the signature of Marc N. Duber, Executive Vice President.
Bethesda Center LLC’s address matches the Bernstein Companies.
The Bernstein Companies describes itself as “one of Washington D.C.’s oldest real estate development, investment, and management organizations.”
Here is their management team. Note the presence of Marc N. Duber, who signed Bethesda Center LLC’s registration.
Here is more on their development activities. 
If that is not enough for you, Kramer also accepted a $6,000 contribution from the Maryland Realtors PAC on 4/29/09, a check that was reported eight days after the primary.
Some believe developer contributions matter and others do not. Nancy Navarro and Cary Lamari both accepted them but neither pledged not to do it. Whether developer contributions are inherently corrupting is a matter for the voters to decide but we are more concerned with basic honesty. And it’s time we called Kramer’s pledge not to take developer money exactly what it is:
A lie.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
A Tribute to Wayne Goldstein
By Cary Lamari.
When I turned on my computer yesterday I was in shock. Wayne Goldstein, my dear friend and colleague, had passed away, suddenly and with no warning. He died en route to another round of testimony before the County’s Hearing Examiner. He was going to battle for the Huntington Terrace community, backing them in their fight to keep an important local road open to the public rather than allowing Suburban Hospital to have its way and swallow up both the road and more homes in an expansion move.
Jim Humphrey, Marc Elrich and Wayne Goldstein.
I first came to know Wayne during my time on the Mid-County Citizens Advisory Board. We remember him for his production during the 1990’s of an acerbic, superbly crafted, Michael Moore-ish video challenging the necessity of building the new jail in Clarksburg. Historic preservation became his passion and he fought against the potential loss of mature trees and open space adjacent to Montgomery College and the break up of the historic Falkland Apartments, both in Silver Spring. He proactively organized a charette to try to devise the best possible reuse of the Comsat Building designed by the famed architect, Cesar Pelli in the I-270 corridor.
Wayne recognized early on that County residents are almost always at a disadvantage when challenging well-financed development interests and their law firms in rezoning, special exception and land use cases. Years ago, he developed his own expertise at researching land use issues. His testimony in support of local communities was invariably complete, detailed, articulate and compelling. Last year there was a site plan being considered for the redevelopment of Bethesda Metro Center. The land use attorneys representing several different business interests spent some time squabbling and shouting at the Planning Board and behaving childishly. Wayne, in his own inimitable style, testified quietly giving the perspective of the Civic Federation’s Land Use Committee. The Planning Board paid him their highest tribute saying that at least Wayne and the Civic Federation always presented their testimony with dignity unlike the lawyers who had been embarrassing themselves and the legal profession all day. I spoke to Wayne later that day, and he had that wonderful, silly smile he always wore when recounting his experiences. Wayne was always good for a smile.
Wayne and I worked together on many initiatives including “Pay and Go” and the Montgomery County Civic Federation’s petition drive to put Question C on the ballot for which Wayne gathered thousands of signatures, always with a smile and a willingness to talk to people about the nature of the problem and the need for a solution.
Many might not appreciate this fact, but people like Wayne actually provided a sorely needed balance to County Government. During my time as President of the Montgomery County Civic Federation, Wayne asked me to host a forum on “Citi-stat”, the program developed and used by then-Mayor O’Malley to streamline the city government of Baltimore. The Civic Federation held the forum, and O’Malley made his presentation. We were sufficiently impressed that we pressed Ike Leggett to consider using the same approach to improve the County’s government if elected to serve as County Executive. Now that Ike Leggett is in charge, “County-stat” has been initiated and is said to have saved approximately 5 million dollars just in the last year. I hope Ike implements the remaining components of County-stat as a tribute to Wayne Goldstein.
One thing Wayne could not tolerate – hypocrisy. And he was good at uncovering hypocrisy! He proved over and over again that there is significant room for improvement in our County government. Wayne never sought election to public office, and most residents are probably unaware of how much he contributed to their quality of life. I will personally miss my friend Wayne, his infectious smile and quiet dignity, and his relentless quest for better government. Montgomery County has lost yet another major champion of the people when they lost Wayne Goldstein.
Thank You,
Cary Lamari
Sunday, April 19, 2009
District 4 Campaign Finance Reports, Part Two (Updated)
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.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Lamari Responds to Washington Post
From Cary Lamari's website:
“Mr. Lamari would be a compelling candidate if he were not so opposed to growth.” – The Washington Post
That quote says it all. I am not the “Developer’s Candidate”, nor am I the “Union Candidate”, which is why I’m not being endorsed by The Washington Post.
I wish to set the record straight. It isn’t about being opposed to growth, and growth is not something that I am opposed to. However, I *am* supportive of measurable growth policies that make developers pay their fair share, rather than leaving that burden to the taxpayer.
We are in the grip of a major fiscal crisis. Yes, it was brought upon us by a national downturn of the economy. However, we would have been in a better situation had we not allowed Montgomery County to grow beyond its ability to sustain that growth. We allowed this to go on throughout the Duncan years without receiving the necessary funds from developers to pay for the needed infrastructure, county employees, and other county services.
Let’s analyze the situation: Looking at Rockville Pike, there has been unprecedented new development all along the corridor. Rockville has built a lovely town-center and tens of thousands of units were built going down to King Farms. Also, the Shady Grove transit station has another 6,000 residential units proposed. Mr. Royce Hanson, Chairman of the Park and Planning Commission, is propos ing that the White Flint Mater Plan increase development several times over, going from 2,200 existing residential units to well over 17,400. His plan also involves increasing commercial development from 2 million square feet to well over 5 million. I feel that this is course of action is excessive for an area which is already experiencing severe congestion.
Mr. Hanson doesn’t stop there, either. He believes that White Flint should be the model of future growth in Montgomery County, and has proposed bringing Germantown’s density up to 15,000 residential development units. Additionally, the Gaithersburg West Master Plan that he proposes would increase residential units an additional 5,000 and add 9 million square feet of commercial area, bringing that master plan to 20 million square feet of commercial space. Mr. Hanson also proposes the White Flint Model for White Oak, which would increase density many times over.
I want to reiterate that my position isn’t a matter of opposing growth, but a matter of scale. It’s a matter of paying the bill for this new growth, and catching up with the existing demands on infrastructure and demands, which includes our workforce. As I have repeatedly said throughout this election, every new unit built has a cost of over $36,000 for associated infrastructure and services, and we collect less than $8,000 of this at our transit centers. This is why we have a shortage of teachers, policeman, firefighters and apparatus, D.O.T. workers, and the infrastructure to support all of our existing growth.
We also lack a stable funding source for our county employees, as we cannot rely on property taxes alone to pay for basic services. We currently rely on nuisance taxes, as well. These include measures like increasing transfer taxes and recordation fees, capitol gain revenues, and other taxes on businesses, which for the most part have dried up. This has led to the loss of over 400 county employees and the reduction of much-needed county services.
We can’t get out of the crisis that we find ourselves in by digging a deeper hole. It will take courage not to yield to special interests while we catch up on our infrastructural demands. We can only grow responsibly by requiring developers to pay their fair share. The problem is that this isn’t a popular idea in the business community. Perhaps this is why the Chamber of Commerce did not endorse me?
I believe that District 4 has some incredible natural resources, and a valuable quality of life that we should strive to protect. If elected, I will protect the suburban and semi-rural lifestyle that we currently enjoy, increase jobs in order to provide options to the residential community, and to complete the work of Marilyn Praisner by building a low-density Town Center in the heart of Burtonsville. I believe that the Voters, and not the Special Interest Groups, should have the final
say in how we live life in Montgomery County. It’s time for change, but let’s not allow Special Interests to change Montgomery County into something that we’re not.
Cary Lamari
Friday, April 17, 2009
Special Interest Contributions in the District 4 Election
By Drew Powell.
It always good to know where candidates stand on the issues and what may drive their decision making processes regarding their future voting records, should they be elected. Concerned voters may cast their ballots based on a candidate’s existing voting record (if any), what that candidate says about the issues (debates, mailers, other media, etc.), completed questionnaires, who endorses them, with whom they are politically allied, their sources of funds for running their campaigns (also an indication of allegiances) and the candidate’s charisma.
I believe that many would agree that most of the above are highly subjective and left up to one’s own political leanings and conscience. One of the items on the above list is a bit less subjective, “sources of funds” (i.e. campaign finance).
Campaign finance, the basics
For the most part, the Maryland legislature feels strongly about transparency in campaign finance (with exceptions like the “LLC Loophole…” maybe a future post). For many decades they have supported and funded (with your tax dollars) the State Board of Elections (BOE) in its efforts to report on candidate, slate, PAC and other campaign committee donations and expenditures. Since January 1998, these reports have been made available online. Any citizen, who wants to see this information for themselves, can sit in the comfort of their home and view candidates’ financial reports. At first this may this may seem rather boring, however, these contributions can sometimes tell their own, very interesting story. I urge everyone I speak with about this issue NOT to take it from me or anyone else… but to go online and see for themselves. If more voters did this, the outcome of many elections, and subsequent life-impacting legislation that those elected officials enact, might be very different. Visit the Maryland State Board of Elections and see for yourself.
What can you expect when you go to the State Board of Elections’ web site? Once you navigate to the “Search for Contributions” area, you will be asked to input some data to search on, such as a candidate’s name. Once this is done, assuming that the candidate has taken any contributions from 1998 forward, you will see a list, with column headings as follows: Candidates Account, Contributor Name (Address), Amount, Date Received and Contribution Type. Yes, if you donate to any state or county campaign committee (not federal or municipal), your name and FULL address appears in this public domain, online database. You might see contributions from people and/or businesses you know (Verizon, PEPCO, etc.). Even if you don’t know them, sometimes it can be obvious as to what business they’re in (XYZ Construction Company, ABC Auto Repair, etc.) However, there are usually many more that you don’t know who they are or what special interest they might represent. Many of these individuals and companies have given thousands of dollars.
That’s where “campaign finance research” comes in. There are many national and regional organizations that devote huge resources to this issue. Some of the more famous include: Opensecrets.org, Campaignmoney.org and Fundrace.org. From 2003 through 2008, Neighbors for a Better Montgomery (NeighborsPAC) served that function in Montgomery County’s 2002 and 2006 elections. I was honored for a time to be the executive director of NeighborsPAC.
Of the many services NeighborsPAC provided, one was campaign finance research, which we made available online, very much in the same way some of the above-listed national organizations do. It can be very tedious evaluating tens of thousands of contributions, which is why NeighborsPAC decided to prioritize by what was then (and still is) the largest amount contributed to local politicians by a special interest group, the development industry.
Why pick on the development industry?
Let’s start by setting the record straight. Many developers and development related individuals (and businesses) are, in many cases, Montgomery County citizens, who have just as much a right to vote and give money to the candidates of their choice as any other citizen. Developers serve a much needed purpose in our county, as they build the homes we live in and the stores and offices we frequent. But keep in mind that development is a FOR-profit business and as such, like any good business much is done to try to maximize profits. If they don’t do this, they go out of business. The question then becomes, in the area of our legislative system and the possible influence the development industry may have; just what is legal or not, ethical or not, in or out of balance or simply is transparent or opaque?
According to NeighborsPAC research, in the 2002 Montgomery County Election, more than $2.5M was donated by the development industry (about 70% of all monies given during that election cycle). In 2006, development related contributions totaled more than $4M (again, about 70%). According to NeighborsPAC research, one 2006 candidate received more than 71% (more than $1M) from development related interests. I’ll make a prediction now, that for the 2010 County Election, about $6M (again, about 2 out of every 3 dollars) will come from the development industry.
Why would developers care about elections?
If the County Council (with its mandate to make law and establish county code) and the County Executive (with his/her mandate to set the county’s agenda) voted on pharmaceutical drug regulation, believe me, the pharmaceutical drug industry would be a big player in county politics, making big contributions. As far as an industry is concerned, the one that is impacted the most by our County Council and Executive is the development industry. This comes in the form of county legislation regarding: zoning, master plans, impact taxes, transportation infrastructure (and who pays for it), schools (and again, who pays for it), etc. Arguably, it’s the biggest role the Council and Executive play. Keep in mind; we’re talking about BIG bucks. The development industry in Montgomery County alone is worth many tens of billions of dollars. What the County Council does can be a great benefit or hindrance to the development industry and its bottom line.
So what’s a developer to do? If you’ve been a developer for long, you know how the game is played. Even so, you hire $500 Land use/zoning attorneys and turn to the services of companies such as Rodgers Consulting. These “investments” will, for a lot of money, help you increase your chances of getting that zoning change or ZTA (zoning text amendment) or better yet, help you and your industry “Control Elections and Influence Legislation [and] Regulation.” Those aren’t my words, but guidance from Rodgers Consulting Inc. in a 2004 International Builders Show presentation, “Where's the Land?”
So, just what is a development related interest? A 'development-related interest' is defined as an individual, company or organization that benefits financially (directly or indirectly) from business activities related to land development in Montgomery County. Examples of those who may benefit directly are: developers, builders, construction companies, realtors, etc. Examples of those who may benefit indirectly are: Land use/zoning attorneys, developer consultants, development supply companies, development related unions/PACs/advocacy groups, etc.
Using neutral methodologies (applying the same rules to all), in an unflinching manor (i.e. report whenever and whoever meets the above definition for every candidate), NeighborsPAC identified thousands of development related campaign contributions made to county council and executive candidates. This was done by using other online databases and search engines. The same methods were employed in identifying development related contributions and funding sources in the 2009 District 4 special election.
District 4 summary
Here’s a summary of the District 4 Special Election campaign finance picture so far:
Lou August: $0 in reported contributions as of the 4/10/2009 filing (filed affidavit stating that his campaign received less than $1000)
Michael Bigler: One contribution from himself in the amount of $500.00 on 03/13/2009
Robin Ficker: $0 in reported contributions as of 4/10/2009 filing (filed affidavit stating that his campaign received less than $1000)
George Gluck: Four contributions totaling $230.00 as of 4/10/2009 filing
Rob Goldman: $0 in reported contributions as of 4/10/2009 filing (filed affidavit stating that his campaign received less than $1000)
Thomas Hardman: Four contributions totaling $226.07 as of 4/10/2009 filing
Ben Kramer: 15 contributions totaling $2,875.00 total as of 4/10/2009 filing, however as much as $50,000.00 was received in loans from himself (see below and spread sheet)
Cary Lamari: 43 contributions totaling $4,432.00 and $10,000.00 loan to self as of 4/10/2009 filing (see spread sheet)
Nancy Navarro: In violation of Maryland State law, has not filed with the State Board of Elections as of 4/16/09 and has accrued $80.00 of fines thus far (candidates pay fines of $20/day for the first six business days late, $10/business day thereafter). Navarro has filed through March 24, 2009 and also has completed all filing for the 2008 special election. (see spread sheets)
District 4 specifics
It costs money to run a campaign. It’s hard for me to see how a serious candidate can get out their message with little or no funds. Based on the State Board of Elections database, it appears that there are only three candidates on which to perform campaign finance analysis. Those are (in alphabetical order) Kramer, Lamari and Navarro. From the standpoint of campaign funding, each candidate falls into very different categories.
KRAMER: Kramer has raised very little from contributors. Counting from before the 2008 special election, the BOE shows him receiving a total of $5,440.00 in the form of 27 contributions, however we will only consider contributions commensurate with the 2009 special election. For the 2009 special election, that figure is $2,875.00 from 15 contributors. Kramer loaned himself $9,000 ($1K in 12/08 and $8K in 2/09). So how has Kramer spent $50,118.54 in his campaign thus far? I must admit, I’ve been researching campaign contributions and expenditures for seven years and I don’t get it. According to the State Board of Elections, Kramer has a current outstanding debt of exacting $180,450.00, most of it, appears to be moneys loaned to himself during the past three years. His debt or “Total Outstanding Obligations” increased from $130,450.00 in Kramer’s January 21, 2009 Annual Report to $180,450.00 in Kramer’s April 10, 2009 “Montgomery Special 2009 Pre-Primary 2 Report, a difference of exactly $50,000.00. HOWEVER, the BOE shows Kramer receiving only $8,000.00 in loans from himself during that same period. It’s difficult to know whether this is Kramer’s error, the BOE’s error or just plain pilot error on my part. In any case, I plan to have a long discussion with the BOE tomorrow. Back to the candidate: It’s well known that Ben Kramer hails from a family with strong ties to local politics as well as the development industry. A quick land records search shows that Kramer has interests in significant commercial landholdings near and along the ICC. So, is the money that Mr. Kramer has loaned himself “development related?” I believe it is. This puts Kramer’s development related take at 97%. Further, I’m not saying that this will happen, but it always remains possible that Kramer could accept tens of thousands in development related contributions after the April 10th filing. Those contributions would not be in public view until after the primary. Or he could simply wait until after the general election and report receiving development related contributions in the post general election report. Whatever the case, before the primary, Kramer needs to publicly avow that he will not repay any of his personal loans with yet-unseen developer contributions. Further, before the primary, Mr. Kramer must publicly state that, if elected, he will recuse himself on votes in all matters relating to his landholdings or the landholdings of his family, which fall inside Montgomery County. I end this section with a question; Why would someone spend $50,000 of their own money (and probably much more by the time Kramer files his post general election report) to win a seat that pays $94,040.00 a year? I guess it’s nice to be rich.
LAMARI: As of the April 10th filing, Lamari’s campaign has been funded by 43 contributions totaling $4,432.00. Most contributions are in small dollar amounts and are generally from individuals. Lamari has received $100 (2%) in development related contributions. Lamari has also loaned himself $10,000. Like any candidate loaning themselves money, Mr. Lamari should state publicly that he will not use developer contributions to repay campaign loans.
NAVARRO: In the 2009 special election, Navarro’s campaign has received $16,000.00 in the form of 42 contributions. However, Navarro has NOT filed her April 10th Campaign Finance Report as of midnight April 15th and is now four days late in filing. As confirmed at 3:00 PM 4/16/09 by the State Board of Elections, Navarro’s campaign committee has accrued $80.00 of fines thus far. Hopefully, Ms. Navarro will file the overdue report in time for Tuesday’s Primary. But, wait… we are fortunate in that this is Navarro’s second run for this seat in as many years. We have a full accounting of Navarro’s 2008 campaign financials and they do tell an interesting story. In the 2008 special election Navarro took $111,761.00 in the form of 185 contributions. Of that, $75,000.00 (67%) came from development related sources… that’s 2 out of every 3rd dollar. This level of development related campaign funding is very similar to what we saw with “End Gridlock” candidates in the 2002 county election. Of the $75,000.00 in development related contributions received, $31,950.00 (42.6%) came from just 7 development interests. Of that, $12,000.00 came from one developer, IDI. The $75K in development contributions is further compounded by Navarro’s apparent “sandbagging” of most of these funds. $63,750.00 (85%) was recorded after the 2008 Pre-primary Report filing, making the receipt of those developer dollars invisible to primary voters. From Navarro’s first 2009 filing (second late filing not available, yet), it’s hard to say whether she will repeat her 2008 sandbagging scheme. Perhaps she could make a public statement that she will limit her development related contributions in future filings.
As a postscript, it needs to be mentioned that Mr. Ficker is a realtor and thereby qualifies as a development related interest. However, the BOE shows no money received into the “Homeowners for Robin Ficker Committee,” in the form of loans or contributions. Also, Rob Goldman is a partner of the Bethesda-based law firm, Finkelstein & Horvitz, P.C., which, amongst other disciplines, practices real estate law, thus qualifying Goldman as a development related interest. However, the BOE shows no contributions or loans received by Goldman’s campaign committee.
Conclusion
So what does all this mean? Is it significant that a candidate takes more than half of their contributions from the development industry? Does it matter that a candidate is part of the development industry? Do developers get a good return on their investment? Will developer-candidates represent you, a citizen of District 4 or development interests? Do developer funded candidates do the developers’ bidding?
Based on NeighborsPAC analysis of developer funded campaigns in the 2002 election and subsequent county councilmember voting records, it certainly appeared that developer funded elected officials marched to the developers’ drumbeat. Will this happen in District 4? That’s for you to decide. ■
☼ As part of full disclosure, it needs to be mentioned that Neighbors for a Better Montgomery, of which I was the executive director, endorsed ten candidates in the 2006 county election (executive and nine council candidates). Those endorsements included: Valerie Ervin (current Montgomery County Councilmember and Nancy Navarro endorser), Cary Lamari (a District 4 candidate), Ike Leggett (current Montgomery County Executive and Ben Kramer endorser) and Duchy Trachtenberg (current Montgomery County Councilmember and Ben Kramer endorser).
* Last minute note: After reading the campaign finance analysis spread sheets, an informed individual stated that the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters PAC is not development related, but rather a union funded PAC, interested only in good working conditions and fair pay for their constituents. Even so, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters’ constituents benefit from development in Montgomery County, which is why their $6,000.00 contribution was counted as development related. If this contribution were to be withheld from Navarro’s 2008 take, her developer total would have been $69,000.00 (62%).
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Pat Ryan Endorses Cary Lamari
Former District 4 candidate Pat Ryan has endorsed Cary Lamari. Following is his statement from Lamari's website.
To my fellow residents of Council District IV
I am writing to remind you to vote in the upcoming April 21 County Council primary election. Many of you have expressed disappointment that I wasn’t running again and asked me who I am voting for. After examining the qualifications of many of the candidates, I plan to vote for Cary Lamari and hope that you will consider doing the same.
Cary is a life-long county resident who will bring honesty, a vision for the future, independence, and a true citizen’s perspective to the County Council. Cary understands the need to provide for the housing needs of future citizens, the importance of a careful approach to future growth, and the need to preserve the vital natural resources with which Montgomery County has been endowed. Cary also understands the need for fiscal responsibility, and will make choices based on what is best for the citizens of Montgomery County. He is strong enough to stand up to unions, developers, or others who would put their interests ahead of his fellow citizens.
The council seat formerly held by Don Praisner is of vital interest to the future of Montgomery County. Please be sure to vote on April 21. If you supported me or Don last year, please cast your vote for Cary Lamari this year.
Sincerely,
Pat Ryan
Monday, April 13, 2009
Now O'Malley Endorses Lamari
Errr... maybe not. But look at this mailer:
Now we know many politicians publish flyers with muckety-mucks who do not endorse them but it still annoys us. Next thing you know, Nancy Navarro will put out a flyer with Barack Obama, Robin Ficker will put one out with George W. Bush and Thomas Hardman will appear with Tom Tancredo.
Old Enemies Square Off on Georgia at Norbeck (Updated)
At the District 4 Debate in Wheaton sponsored by Action Committee for Transit, Ben Kramer and Cary Lamari had a testy exchange about one of the key transportation issues in the area: the fate of the Georgia Avenue-Norbeck Road intersection. We investigated their allegations and offer this report to our readers.
Georgia at Norbeck is by all accounts a failed intersection. On 9/11/03, it recorded critical lane volumes (CLVs) of 1896 in the morning and 1774 in the evening. On 6/1/06, it recorded CLVs of 1703 in the morning and 1567 in the evening. The allowable threshold in its policy area (Aspen Hill) was 1500 in 2003 and 1475 in 2006, meaning that the intersection’s traffic flow has ranged from 6% to 26% over its capacity. Longtime readers will remember our skepticism of critical lane volumes. Perhaps more relevant is the fact that Georgia-Norbeck is located between two of the county’s slowest corridors: Georgia between Arcola and Randolph and Georgia between Prince Phillip and Olney-Sandy Spring. The Georgia-Norbeck intersection’s very location between Olney and Silver Spring and Rockville and East County dooms it to some of Montgomery’s worst congestion.
For a long time, ICC opponents had proposed a series of intersection improvements along Norbeck Road and Spencerville Road as an alternative to the ICC. In 1999, former Governor Parris Glendening announced the “death” of the ICC, prodding the state to seriously consider alternative improvements. One of the intersections targeted for improvement was Georgia-Norbeck. By 2002, the State Highway Administration (SHA) had developed several options for Georgia-Norbeck, including a grade separation.
Ben Kramer owns part of a small shopping center near the northwest corner of the intersection and opposed the grade separation. Access to that shopping center would have been hindered by the state’s separation plan.
According to a Gazette article from January 2003: Ben Kramer, owner of the western section of the Norbeck Shopping Center on the northwest corner of the intersection, said he opposes the divided grade plan.
During the District 4 Wheaton debate, Cary Lamari raised the issue of the intersection redesign, claiming, “The only people who opposed it were the owners of the shopping center.” The two owners were Kramer and John DiSalvatore, who owned the eastern side of the center. Kramer said the allegation was untrue and traded charges with Lamari until the crowd demanded that they move on. So who’s right?
“Los Angeles-looking freeway intersections are excessive, grandiose and certainly inappropriate as the ‘gateway’ to the Olney community,” he said.
Now that a newly elected County Council has joined the county executive's drive to build an Intercounty Connector, Kramer said it is time to wait and re-evaluate if the changes are still necessary.
He said it would not be “financially prudent” to make the changes with the state's current budget deficit.
The Gazette article says this:Dan Hardy, transportation supervisor for Montgomery County Park and Planning, said 18 people spoke at the public meeting. Although there was no formal consensus, about half favored the idea of building Norbeck Road (Route 28) under Georgia Avenue (Route 97), he said.
Notes taken by SHA at the hearing reveal that more people opposed the grade separation than supported it. According to SHA, of the individuals who submitted oral or written comment, 11 supported Alternative 7 (the separation), 13 opposed the project and 11 had no improvement preference or raised other issues.
Noting this material, Kramer told me, “Cary Lamari will not allow the facts to get in his way.” Kramer admitted opposing the interchange because of access issues but said it would hurt the “small minority businesses” who were his tenants. Kramer said he supported a cheaper at-grade improvement plan that would have cost half ($40-50 million) of the separation option ($80-100 million).
Current Montgomery County Civic Federation President (and Lamari supporter) Arnold Gordon put the dispute in slightly different terms from Lamari. He wrote to me:There is no question in our (most civic leaders here in southwest Olney) minds that Kramer was the key impediment in getting a grade separated interchange built at this “F” graded intersection. He knew or should have known that traffic off of the ICC at Georgia Avenue (especially after Stage A of the ICC was opened) would only make that intersection worse. He has had a definite conflict of interest in this matter for a long time since the grade separation would have traffic bypass the entry to his Shopping Center which is most heavily dependent on the heavy flow westbound on 28 in rush hours and other hours as well.
So what will happen to the intersection? SHA has budgeted $2.8 million in planning and engineering for the interchange project. But SHA admits that it needs an additional $1.3 million for engineering and has not scheduled any construction money. And now that the ICC is underway, the state may very well put Georgia-Norbeck on the backburner.
Ben Kramer certainly opposes this project. But Lamari’s statements that Kramer and the other shopping center owner were the only opponents are not supported by the record. The voters will have to decide how the candidates’ positions on the intersection match their own, and how the relative veracity of Ben Kramer and Cary Lamari will factor into their voting decision.
Update: As he states in the comment section, Cary Lamari did send us renderings of six different proposals for the intersection. Below is Alternative 7, the grade-separated design that Lamari supports and Kramer opposes. Kramer’s property is the small plaza just below the “MD 28” caption. Part of Leisure World can be seen in the upper left corner.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
