Following is a policy piece released by council at-large candidate Hans Riemer's campaign on helping small businesses and pursuing economic growth.
#####
Hans Riemer will work to reposition Montgomery County as an economic leader in our region and in the global economy. For decades, Montgomery County government has taken economic progress for granted, thanks to the investment that comes in to the county as a result of the Federal presence we have here. Complacency will not work any longer.
Consider regional economic forecasts. According to economists, the jobs that companies create in other parts of the region will be higher paying, better jobs than are created here; while the jobs that companies create here will be more in the service sector, with lower pay. As a result, people who work here will have to drive from long distances because they can not afford the housing... while people who live here will have to commute long distances to earn enough pay to live here. The result is worsening traffic and a degrading quality of life for everyone.
Improving our competitiveness and long term economic outlook will require us to bring new companies here and keep our home-grown success stories from leaving. These are largely smaller businesses.
While tax giveaways get much of the attention around economic competitiveness, the reality is more mundane. To improve our business climate we need the following conditions for businesses:
1. Affordable retail space
2. Competitive tax and regulatory policy
3. Transportation solutions
4. Affordable housing for workers
5. Workers who are trained in their sectors
6. Good schools and quality of life for the workforce
7. And a county government that won’t forget small businesses when big businesses compete for attention.
Of these, the hardest to create is good schools. We have that already. The remaining factors are directly under the control of the County government, and we can do better.
As part of Hans’ plan to recharge the local economy in a way that is consistent with our progressive values, Hans will also help small businesses continue to take advantage of the growing green business practices and green procurement requirements.
It’s time for Montgomery County to have an economic plan. We are at a competitive disadvantage in the region and the long term outlook is not good. We must take action in the next Council to turn it around.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Hans Riemer: Working to Support Small Businesses and Economic Recovery
Friday, April 30, 2010
Silverman Explains Northrop Loss
Montgomery County Director of Economic Development Steve Silverman sent the following letter to members of the business community explaining Maryland's failure to land Northrop Grumman.
April 29, 2010
Dear [Name]:
I am sure that there will be many articles written about Northrop Grumman’s decision to locate in Virginia, and I also assume that the facts and speculations surrounding the deal will be rehashed and debated. Given my day-to-day involvement in the County’s efforts to secure Northrop Grumman, I wanted to provide you with my personal perspective on this effort.
Rest assured that Montgomery County and the State of Maryland put forth an extremely competitive offer to Northrop Grumman. During this five month process, Maryland and the County worked collaboratively to attract this high profile prospect, and did so by involving high ranking leaders in our business and public sectors.
There are two important factors I would like you to know about this particular recruitment. One is that all of the elected decision-makers, who were required to sign off on our offer, starting with County Executive Ike Leggett and the Governor, did so with a thorough acknowledgement that we needed to be extremely aggressive, and aggressive in an unprecedented fashion. The second point I would like to convey is that Maryland and the County were complimented by many involved in the selection process on our attractive offer and welcoming nature. It appears that we surprised the site selection community with our proactive competitiveness, and in the process, hopefully changed the perception that Maryland and Montgomery County are not always willing to be real players in such high-stake recruiting activities – because we were and will continue to be.
At the end of the day, Northrop Grumman made a business decision involving real estate and unfortunately this time, that decision did not go our way. As we have previously noted, the glut of office space in Northern Virginia will remain a challenge for us, no matter what type of aggressive incentives we propose. While we are clearly disappointed, the County, the State and our respective economic development agencies are proud of our efforts.
I would like to thank you and your colleagues for your support of our corporate recruitment activities and ask that you continue your efforts to make Montgomery County a great place to live, work, learn, and play.
Sincerely,
Steven A. Silverman
Monday, April 26, 2010
Leggett Reacts to Northrop Grumman Decision
Following is a statement by County Executive Ike Leggett on Northrop Grumman's decision to locate its headquarters in Virginia instead of in Maryland.
Statement by County Executive Isiah Leggett on Northrop Grumman Decision
April 26, 2010
I am disappointed that Northrop Grumman, one of the world's leading technology and security companies, did not choose to relocate its headquarters to Montgomery County.
Montgomery County, led by our Department of Economic Development, worked closely with Governor O'Malley's office, the Maryland Department of Business and Economic Development, and our commercial real estate sector to attract Northrop Grumman and help them realize that a Montgomery County location was indeed the best East Coast location for them to grow and prosper.
Unfortunately, we were not successful, but Montgomery County remains the economic engine of Maryland and a leading contributor to the region's economic vitality. We remain steadfast in our resolve to support and grow our nearly 3,000 IT/telecom companies and nearly 300 biotech companies and will continue to market and position Montgomery County as a location of choice for new and expanding companies. Recent initiatives like the County's decision to move ahead with The Great Seneca Science Corridor Plan and recent passage of a local biotech investment tax credit are just some of the innovative, progressive steps the County is pursuing to remain a regional economic driver now and into the future.
# # #
Is the Energy Tax a Job Killer?
On March 15, the County Executive proposed increasing the energy tax by 39.6%. On March 25, he proposed increasing it by 63.7% because of threatened downgrades to the county’s bonds by credit rating agencies. On April 22, he proposed doubling it to compensate for a $168 million revenue writedown. The tax is politically convenient since the vast majority of it falls on business consumers. But is this any way to encourage the creation of badly needed jobs?
The energy tax is structured to fall disproportionately on businesses. Currently, residential customers pay $0.005224 per kilowatt of electricity and $0.044986 per therm of heating fuel per year. Business customers pay $0.013843 per kilowatt of electricity and $0.119214 per therm of heating fuel per year. So businesses pay 2.65 times the rates of residential customers and account for 72.8% of all revenues the tax takes in.
The Executive’s March 25 proposal would have hiked rates 63.7%, pushing up the average residential bill by $62 per year and the average non-residential bill by $1,539. The total revenue raised by the tax would have increased from $132 million in FY 2010 to $217 million in FY 2011. (The tax raised just $26.1 million in FY 2003, so it would be increasing by more than eight times in eight years.)
In a hearing about that tax hike last Tuesday, Pepco representative Charles Washington presented data on what that would mean. Washington testified:As demonstrated below using actual randomly selected commercial accounts, this increase will have a real impact on County businesses. One restaurant in Silver Spring will see an increase of over $3,000 a year. A hotel in Bethesda will see a tax increase of approximately $41,000 a year. The County’s successful Biotech companies will see increases of hundreds of thousands of dollars of year, with at least one projected to see an increase of over half a million dollars.
Washington also said this:The County’s Fuel/Energy increases since 2003 have always disproportionally impacted commercial customers. However, this proposed increase crosses a notable threshold. Pepco, a distribution company, collects approximately $88.6 million in distribution revenues from commercial customers in Montgomery County. As illustrated below, if the County Executive's proposal is approved, the County would collect over $130 million from those same customers. In essence, the County will be collecting more from the energy tax than Pepco collects as a power delivery company to maintain and operate our electric system.
That’s right, business customers will be paying more to the government for their electricity than to Pepco!
At the same hearing, a representative from Suburban Hospital testified that her facility would pay more than $200,000 in extra taxes from the proposal. The Washington Adventist system and Holy Cross Hospital, each of which are bigger than Suburban, would presumably pay hundreds of thousands each. The plight of the hospitals is quite dire since the rates they charge to patients are set by the state and they cannot simply pass on the increases. The hospitals are likely to take the extra costs out of charitable care services provided to the poor. These same poor people will be suffering from huge county budget cuts.
Since the hearing, the County Executive has revised his proposal to double the energy tax. So all of the above data on tax increases must be increased by half to be current. That means the biotech company cited by Pepco would be paying over $750,000 in extra taxes every year.
The proposed tax hikes are occurring in the context of significant economic decline in the county. Employment has fallen from a peak of 472,567 in December 2006 to 443,022 in September 2009 (the most recent month available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics), a drop of 6.3%. The county’s unemployment rate was 5.9% in February 2010, up from 2.5% in April 2008. Income tax revenue is down by 13% in FY 2010 and net taxable income has declined by massive amounts at the bottom and top ends of the income distribution.
Furthermore, the tax hike threatens to exacerbate the county’s increasing competitiveness gap with Fairfax. If the county doubles its energy tax, its consumers will be paying over $260 million per year in FY 2011. Fairfax, which is a slightly larger county, plans to collect $50 million in energy taxes in FY 2011. So Montgomery’s businesses could be paying five times more in energy taxes than their competitors in Fairfax.
Given the county’s nearly billion dollar deficit and the colossal cuts planned for public services, it makes sense that the county would consider some tax component in its deficit reduction package. In any other year, the council would probably break the property tax charter limit, thereby enacting a small tax increase spread across a large number of payers. But this is an election year and the county leaders do not want a powerful symbolic issue like a charter limit break to be a major story close to election time. So the resulting energy tax hike is both large and narrowly targeted: at the people who create jobs.
In his last State of the County address, the County Executive said, “There may be nothing more important to the well-being of our community than protecting, creating, and attracting jobs…” His planned $4 million subsidy for Costco is allegedly intended to further job creation. He is supporting an initiative by Council President Nancy Floreen to create a Montgomery Business Development Corporation, again to encourage job creation. But none of this means anything if the county’s marquee employers face hundreds of thousands of dollars in fresh tax increases while small businesses suffer yet another threat to their eroding bottom lines.
It is always important to evaluate a politician’s words against a politician’s deeds. Remember this the next time an elected official claims to favor this tax hike while also discussing the need for more jobs.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
Population, Jobs and Commutes in the Washington Region, Part Six
In the first five parts of this series, we examined differing rates of growth in population, employment and real wages across the Washington region and explored historic shifts of commuting patterns among its Big Four jurisdictions: D.C., Fairfax, MoCo and Prince George’s. Today we will look at what those patterns mean for people traveling to work.
Below are the percentages of people traveling less than or more than thirty minutes to work, as well as mean travel times, for every jurisdiction in the region from the U.S. Census Bureau. 
It comes as little surprise that the jurisdictions with the longest travel times are all outer suburbs: Charles and Calvert Counties in Maryland and Stafford, Spotsylvania, Warren and Prince William Counties in Virginia. Small cities (like Fairfax and Fredericksburg Cities) and inner jurisdictions like D.C., Alexandria and Arlington have the shortest commutes. But Prince George’s County is an outlier. It has a higher percentage of its people traveling 30 minutes or more (61.3%) than many outer counties including Stafford, Spotsylvania, Calvert and Warren. It also has a longer average commute (35.9 minutes) than does Frederick (33.8 minutes). The failure of Prince George’s County to create high-wage jobs for its residents is exacting a stunning cost on them in their daily commutes.
There is also a notable difference between the Maryland and Virginia suburbs. In the five Maryland counties, 57.7% of commuters traveled thirty minutes or more. In Virginia, that percentage was 52.8%. Maryland commuters had a mean travel time of 34.8 minutes while Virginia commuters had a mean travel time of 33.3 minutes. Let’s remember that our dataset includes very distant outer suburbs in Virginia (like Stafford, Warren and Spotsylvania) while it excludes distant Maryland suburbs like Washington and St. Mary’s Counties.
Here are the average commute times for the Big Four in 2006-08:
District of Columbia: 29.5 minutes
Fairfax: 30.8 minutes
Montgomery: 32.9 minutes
Prince George’s: 35.9 minutes
And here are the percentages of commuters traveling at least 30 minutes to work:
District of Columbia: 48.9%
Fairfax: 51.8%
Montgomery: 56.0%
Prince George’s: 61.3%
For the three suburban jurisdictions, the rank order of travel times - Fairfax first, Montgomery second and Prince George’s third – is an exact match for the rank order in population growth, employment growth and real wage growth. This is not a coincidence. Creating abundant high-wage jobs near where residents live, which has been a specialty of Fairfax for the last few decades, pays off in lower commuting times.
We’ll wrap up our findings tomorrow.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Population, Jobs and Commutes in the Washington Region, Part Five
In Part Two, we saw that Fairfax County was adding population and employment, and seeing increases in real wages, at much higher rates than MoCo or Prince George’s County. And in Parts Three and Four, we saw how the commuting patterns to jobs inside each of the Big Four had changed since 1970. Here’s a summary of those changes.
D.C. was a larger jobs magnet in 2000 than it was in 1970, drawing in 271,803 net commuters – a 52% increase – from Fairfax, MoCo and Prince George’s. While it is true that there has been a slight rise in the number of reverse commuters, or D.C. residents working in the suburbs, that has been utterly swamped by suburban growth. The biggest source of commuters for the Big Four is Prince George’s County, which now has about as many cross-border commuters to the rest of the Big Four as Fairfax and MoCo combined. Following are two maps that show net flows among the Big Four in both 1970 and 2000.
Finally, consider the percentage of employed residents in each jurisdiction who worked inside that jurisdiction in both years.
Percentage of D.C. employed residents who work in D.C., 1970: 67%
Percentage of D.C. employed residents who work in D.C., 2000: 73%
Percentage of Fairfax employed residents who work in Fairfax, 1970: 40%
Percentage of Fairfax employed residents who work in Fairfax, 2000: 58%
Percentage of MoCo employed residents who work in MoCo, 1970: 51%
Percentage of MoCo employed residents who work in MoCo, 2000: 59%
Percentage of P.G. employed residents who work in P.G., 1970: 40%
Percentage of P.G. employed residents who work in P.G., 2000: 39%
Prince George’s County’s role in this system is obvious. Because it has not had robust employment or real wage growth, its residents are forced to work elsewhere. That fact combined with the jobs explosion in Northern Virginia is impacting our transportation network, creating a system of congested, one-way flows.
We’ll see what that means for commuting times in Part Six.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Population, Jobs and Commutes in the Washington Region, Part Four
Yesterday, we examined commuting patterns to jobs inside the District of Columbia and Prince George’s County. Today, we’ll look at who holds jobs inside MoCo and Fairfax.
Montgomery County
In 1970, MoCo had 164,948 jobs. Of those jobs, 110,587 (67%) were held by MoCo residents. Prince George’s residents held 19,454 (12%) of MoCo-based jobs and D.C. residents held 16,201 (10%). No other jurisdiction’s residents accounted for more than 3% of jobs in MoCo.
In 2000, MoCo had 419,168 jobs, an increase of 154% over 1970. Of those jobs, 267,130 (64%) were held by MoCo residents, 40,245 (10%) were held by Prince George’s residents and 22,860 (6%) were held by Frederick County residents. The percentage of MoCo jobs held by MoCo residents has not changed very much since 1970, perhaps because MoCo has seen similar levels of population and employment growth over that period. The percentage of MoCo jobs accounted for by D.C. residents has fallen from 10% to 5% because of D.C.’s absolute decline in population.
Fairfax County
In 1970, Fairfax had 115,137 jobs. Of those jobs, 78,126 (68%) were held by Fairfax residents. Prince William County residents held 7,835 (7%) of Fairfax-based jobs, Arlington residents held 6,758 (6%) and Alexandria residents held 6,400 (6%). No other jurisdiction’s residents accounted for more than 3% of jobs in Fairfax.
In 2000, Fairfax had 543,213 jobs, a staggering increase of 372% over 1970. Of those jobs, 155,675 (53%) were held by Fairfax residents and 56,124 (10%) were held by Prince William residents. MoCo, Alexandria and Arlington residents all accounted for around 4% of jobs based in Fairfax. The percentage of Fairfax jobs held by Fairfax residents has slipped since 1970 because Fairfax’s job growth has been so rapid that it cannot be met domestically. And in Part Two, we saw that Fairfax’s real wage growth was 68% between 1970 and 2008 – significantly higher than many nearby jurisdictions. That attracts residents of nearby counties to commute into Fairfax.
Tomorrow, we’ll put all of the Big Four’s commuting patterns together to show how their differing rates of population, employment and real wage growth are affecting regional commutes.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Population, Jobs and Commutes in the Washington Region, Part Three
In Part Two, we demonstrated significant differences between jurisdictions in the Washington region in population growth, employment growth and real wage growth since 1970. Those differences have impacted the region’s commuting patterns in very large ways since then.
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) offers many data series at the national, state and county levels. One series it offers is a matrix of commuting patterns by county. For each county, BEA estimates both the residence of job holders inside the county as well as the job locations of county residents. We gathered the former measure – residence of county job holders – for each of the Washington area’s Big Four jurisdictions in 1970 and 2000. Here is the story for each of the Big Four in both of those years.
District of Columbia
In 1970, D.C. had 504,611 jobs. Of those jobs, 220,277 (44%) were held by D.C. residents. Prince George’s residents held 96,482 (19%) of D.C.-based jobs, MoCo residents held 66,967 (13%) and Fairfax residents held 47,802 (10%).
In 2000, D.C. had 668,739 jobs, an increase of 33% over 1970. Of those jobs, 190,560 (29%) were held by D.C. residents, 126,135 (19%) were held by Prince George’s residents, 99,675 (15%) were held by MoCo residents and 92,238 (14%) were held by Fairfax residents. The drop in D.C. residents’ job-holding percentage of D.C. jobs is due to the absolute drop in D.C.’s population over that period of time. The percentage of D.C. jobs held by residents of the outer suburbs (defined as excluding MoCo, Prince George’s, Fairfax, Arlington and Alexandria) increased from 4% in 1970 to 14% in 2000.
Prince George’s County
In 1970, Prince George’s had 153,808 jobs. Of those jobs, 111,239 (72%) were held by Prince George’s residents. D.C. residents held 12,553 (8%) of Prince George’s-based jobs and MoCo residents held 11,027 (7%). No other jurisdiction’s residents accounted for more than 4% of Prince George’s jobs.
In 2000, Prince George’s had 293,883 jobs, an increase of 91% over 1970. Of those jobs, 155,675 (53%) were held by Prince George’s residents, 26,825 (9%) were held by MoCo residents and 26,264 (9%) were held by Anne Arundel County residents. The combined percentage of Prince George’s jobs accounted for by residents of Howard, Anne Arundel, Charles and Calvert Counties rose from 7% in 1970 to 21% in 2000.
The percentage of Prince George’s jobs held by Prince George’s residents has declined substantially since 1970, as it has in D.C., but for a different reason. D.C. has seen falling population since 1970, but Prince George’s has grown. In the case of Prince George’s County, since its real wage growth from 1970 through 2008 was a minuscule 29.4% - or less than one percent per year – its residents are commuting outside of the county for work in much larger numbers. As other jurisdictions create high-wage jobs, they are increasingly drawing Prince George’s County residents to fill them. And at the same time, residents of other Maryland counties are taking Prince George’s jobs in rapidly growing numbers. The implications for the region’s transportation network are significant.
We’ll examine MoCo and Fairfax tomorrow.
Friday, April 02, 2010
Population, Jobs and Commutes in the Washington Region, Part Two
Everyone knows that both population and employment have grown by significant amounts in the Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) since 1970. But the jurisdictions in the area have grown at very different rates.
From the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), here are the populations for every jurisdiction in the Washington MSA in 1970 and 2007.
The “Big Four” Jurisdictions – Fairfax County in Virginia, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland and the District of Columbia – accounted for 77% of the MSA’s population in 1970 and 64% of the MSA’s population in 2007. Consider their rates of population growth over those 37 years.
Fairfax: 111.9%
Montgomery: 79.5%
Prince George’s: 23.9%
District of Columbia: -22.1%
Again from BEA, here are the employments for every jurisdiction in the Washington MSA in 1970 and 2007.
The Big Four accounted for 77% of the MSA’s employment in 1970 and 71% of the MSA’s employment in 2007. Consider their rates of employment growth over those 37 years.
Fairfax: 475.1%
Montgomery: 178.1%
Prince George’s: 120.3%
District of Columbia: 20.8%
Here are the shares of the Big Four and the other counties of the region’s population and employment in 1970 and 2007.
The story of the last 37 years in terms of population and employment is simple. All of Virginia, including Fairfax, is on the rise. D.C. has hollowed out. Prince George’s County has slipped, especially in relative population. Montgomery County has held its own and the outer Maryland counties (Calvert, Charles and Frederick) have gained.
Finally, here is the average wage per job in 2008 dollars from BEA in 1970 and 2008.
Arlington and the District were the two highest wage jurisdictions in both 1970 and 2008. Let’s put aside both of them for a moment as their unique proximity to the Capitol and the Pentagon give them both labor market advantages that no other jurisdiction in the country enjoys. Here are the real wage growths for the remainder of the Big Four over the 38-year period.
Fairfax: 67.9%
Montgomery: 43.8%
Prince George’s: 29.4%
Whether we measure population growth, employment growth or real wage growth, the story remains the same: Fairfax first, Montgomery second and Prince George’s last, with the District varying. These realities impact the region’s transportation network in ways that we will begin examining in Part Three.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Population, Jobs and Commutes in the Washington Region, Part One
The story of growth is an old one. Cities create jobs and attract residents, who eventually empty out into the suburbs. Those residents then drive back into the cities for work, loading roads with in-out traffic flows. As inner suburbs mature, produce their own jobs and become more dense, growth spills to the outer suburbs to create sprawl. Soon the entire regional transportation network becomes jammed, necessitating expensive new road and transit projects, endless congestion or both. Such is the inevitable result of decades of population and employment growth.
This is the conventional wisdom. For the Washington area, this paradigm holds but only up to a point. Why? Because it’s incomplete.
In a major new research project, MPW looks back on the history of population and employment growth, wage increases and transportation commutes in the Washington region from 1970 on. We examine these phenomena in every jurisdiction in the Washington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which includes the District of Columbia; Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland; Arlington, Clarke, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudoun, Prince William, Spotsylvania, Stafford and Warren Counties and Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Fredericksburg, Manassas and Manassas Park Cities in Virginia and Jefferson County in West Virginia.
The Washington MSA from Wikipedia.
We find that the patterns of growth have defined employment opportunities and commutes across the region, creating winners and losers. Some jurisdictions have seen significant growth driven primarily by jobs. Others have become teeming bedroom communities. Some have seen strong wage growth while others have not. Some have emerged as major players in the D.C. area while others are struggling to keep up. And the unevenness of growth, both in type and magnitude, has impacted the region’s transportation flows perhaps even more than the sheer volume of new residents and jobs.
All of the above illuminates very different challenges in coming years for each of the area’s major jurisdictions. There may even be grounds for a potential common agenda across the region to balance growth, reduce its impact on our transportation network and spread the benefits of expansion more evenly around the area. With their fragmented structure, this is a difficult challenge for the state and local governments in our region. But if they cannot take it on and the imbalances of the past forty years carry forth into the future, no amount of transportation spending will be enough to remedy the unimaginable congestion that will follow.
We’ll start looking at population and employment counts in Part Two.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
How the Counties Spend Your Money, Part Four
Today, we examine total and per capita county spending in three categories: libraries, economic development and debt service.
Here is total and per capita spending on libraries by county.
Well-educated and liberal Montgomery County is not a leader on library spending. Its per capita library spending of $42.50 is little more than the state average of $40.48. The leaders are Harford County ($69.35) - which is run primarily by Republicans – and Howard County ($62.13).
Here is total and per capita spending on economic development by county.
Baltimore City is the runaway leader here, spending more than three times the state average in per capita terms. But this could very well be wasted money. The city’s real property tax rates are more than double any other Maryland jurisdiction’s, and as we will see, the city’s local contribution to its schools is the lowest in the state in per capita terms. Sky-high property taxes and under-financed schools are enormous hurdles to economic growth that cannot be offset by government spending on economic development programs. Montgomery County, the state’s economic engine, actually spends less than the state average on economic development per capita.
Here is total and per capita spending on debt service by county.
Unlike the federal government, county governments cannot rely on debt to finance their operating budgets. The counties issue general obligation bonds to pay for capital improvements and finance the interest payments out of their operating budgets. The size of debt service payments depend on the size of the counties’ capital programs and the percentage of capital spending paid by current revenues rather than borrowing. Montgomery County has been reducing the amounts of current revenues dedicated to capital spending, guaranteeing that debt service payments will rise in the future.
We’ll look at public schools and examine Montgomery County more closely tomorrow.
Monday, January 25, 2010
What does Massachusetts Mean for Maryland?
The Republicans’ win in the Massachusetts special U.S. Senate election has upended the nation’s capital. But what does it mean for Maryland? We convened a virtual roundtable of our savviest political spies, all of whom are knowledgeable Democrats, and their answers were brutally honest. In some cases, they were just plain brutal.
Party Activist:
Ehrlich is running. Kratovil is dead and Bartlett is sailing to reelection. Also, the long term repercussions for Van Hollen are very bad. He got into this cycle thinking it would be a small loss and now they may lose the House. If that happens, his leadership ambitions could be crippled.
Strategist:
People are angry - across the country and in Maryland. They are worried about their jobs, providing for their families and living the quality of life that they’ve become accustomed too. I don’t think it means much for O’Malley, frankly. He is a good, hard campaigner and can raise the money to win. The problem is for our down ticket races, where the public has bought into the national hype of bloated government that overspends and has forgotten that their schools, community centers, roads and parks are funded by government. State government is the redheaded stepchild because people don’t know what State government does for them. People forget that the State provides significant funding for schools and roads and hospitals - the services that support their everyday lives and their communities.
In the end, the Tea Party candidates are a referendum on the Republican Party. The Republicans aren’t providing the Tea Partiers with what they want and need in a political party, so they have become a spin-off. No Tea Party member is a liberal that would vote for a Democrat. Yet, the Republican Party is attempting to co-opt their anger in order to advance their own political agenda and, by inference, continue the two-party system - essentially the opposite of the roots of the Tea Party movement. (A side note - the head of Maryland AFP is a former Ehrlich campaign guy.)
So, many Senators, Delegates, County Commissioners and Council Members will have more difficult races because (1) people assign the hype of federal big government and national overspending to all Democrats by inference, regardless of how conservative or liberal they may be and (2) Democrats don’t boil their positions down to soundbites - a great talent of the Republicans - because government is more complicated than soundbites and (3) people have forgotten that government does actually do good things for their families and communities.
But that doesn’t work well in elections.
Elected Official:
Nobody owns their seat.
Elected Official:
It increases the likelihood of Ehrlich jumping into the Governor’s race which, in turn, increases the likelihood of down-ticket, on-the-fence, serious, Republican state legislative candidates jumping into various key races around the state.
Elected Official:
I predict Maryland Democrats will hear the wake-up call from Massachusetts, invest in good polling, and respond to voters more wisely than Coakley did. The big message is, don’t take the voters for granted. Get out there, work hard, let them see you, let them know you want to earn their support. Scott Brown was right when he said the Senate seat was “the people's seat.”
Elected Official:
I’ll be honest, I really don’t know what it means for Maryland other than it gives the Republican Party serious hope. We Democrats have explained away New Jersey, we explained away Virginia, and we will explain away Massachusetts. At some point, we are going to have to address how the national scene has changed politically after just 14 months and realize Maryland isn’t immune from voter backlash about the economy. I believe people really expected the recession to be in our rear view mirror by now and the economy would be on its way back. Instead, foreclosures are still on the rise, jobs are still being eliminated, etc. Other than the stock market, there is no tangible indication that we are on track to be out of this anytime soon. Somebody has to pay a political price for this and the tab may not have been settled yet.
Party Activist:
Voters are very angry and don’t like incumbents, and they will vote for a good-looking challenger who works hard and asks sincerely for their vote, and such a challenger will have a chance if the Democrat is too nonchalant and does not ask the voters for their vote and show she/he deserves it.
I don’t see any such challenger from the Republicans either in the County or the state. Nor do I see any incumbent Democrats who are in danger of losing to Republicans. This is due not only from the Democratic primacy in the registrations, but also from the fact that the state, while suffering considerable unemployment, is not as bad as Mass. on the loss of jobs.
There may be a few Dems in the County who could lose to Democratic challengers if they don’t campaign well and hard, but that had nothing to do with the Massachusetts election.
Elected Official:
1. Voters are pissed, and are looking to punish their government for its failure to turn things around. This may be the "throw the bums out" cycle that actually throws the bums out. I don't view it as partisan necessarily. But it doesn't help that Dems are in control.
2. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend would have lost in Massachusetts too.
3. A little frontal nudity in your past doesn't hurt.
Elected Official:
The Massaschusetts election impact on Maryland is going to be smaller than its impact on the nation. The bottom line is that all elections are referenda on the unemployment rate. This upcoming election could be very much like the 1982 election. If Obama passes health reform (i.e. if the House is smart enough to pass the Senate bill and fix the parts they don’t like with subsequent legislation) then the president will go into his first mid-term with high unemployment. Of course like Ronald Reagan, he will have also accomplished his greatest political objective. Like Reagan, he will lose seats but not his majorities. In Maryland, which has an unemployment rate 3% lower than the nation, it means Martin will win big and we’ll reelect everyone.
On the other hand, if the House refuses to pass the Senate Health bill then NO HEALTH LEGISLATION WILL PASS DURING OUR LIFETIMES! With high unemployment and nothing to show for ourselves the election could be just like 1994. In that case a competent Governor like O’Malley would still win (Parris squeaked out a victory in ‘94 and he was not an incumbent) but we would lose seats in the legislature (although fewer than in 1994).
Strategist:
Maryland Democrats should feel uneasy. The electorate is angry – whether it’s jobs, overreaching by Congressional Dems, taxes, or just a carryover from the Bush years. We may very well see a “throw the bums out” mentality come the primary and general elections.
In addition to the “national” issues, Marylanders will be angry at what they see as government’s inability to solve basic problems: bursting water pipes and congested roads are just two examples.
Moreover, Brown’s win in Massachusetts gives hope to the Maryland GOP.
This doesn’t necessarily spell disaster. There’s plenty of time between now and the elections, and lots can change. Only time will tell.
Elected Official:
It’s the economy stupid! Voters are mad as hell and they are not going to take it any more. The message is that people are really hurting. They are tired of reading in the paper that the economy is improving. Household budgets have been hit hard and things are not improving. I was at an event for Congresswoman Donna Edwards over the weekend and a woman came in off the street not intending on participating in the discussion. She came over to tell the congresswoman that she has been unemployed for two years. She has a master's degree in psychology. When her unemployment ran out she found a part-time job at a local retail store. She makes just enough to put her over the poverty line which means she does not qualify for Medicaid benefits. She just became homeless. This is one story out of many thousands that gets repeated day after day. If the Governor, state lawmakers and local elected officials do not listen carefully to the pain that people are feeling I think that Maryland is one election away from repeating the Massachusetts debacle. When the coalition that Democrats have always depended on to win - union members, people of color, women and young voters - stay at home on Election Day, the message to state and local Democrats is that the people have no patience for more pain.
Karen Britto, Chairwoman, Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee:
The Massachusetts election does not mean anything significant for Maryland. In general, a special election (which has a short-life in terms of campaigning) does not afford an opportunity to run a long-term get-out-the-vote operation that includes extensive canvassing, phoning and idenfication of Democatic voters. This type of GOTV is something where Maryland Democrats possess a great deal of expertise.
Maryland has already begun the campaign process and will be able to run an effective get-out-the-vote operation -- while simultaneously dispelling any myths that arise (similar to the myths about health care and climate change that were touted by the Republicans in Massachusetts).
Maryland Democrats have anticipated any challenges that could surface in November 2010 and are prepared to meet those issues and prevail over them.
David Lublin, MPW Founder and Professor, Department of Government, American University:
The Democrats had a glorious year in 2006 when anger at the Republicans and Bush was running high. Now health care reform appears on the verge of failure and unemployment is unlikely to come down enough to save the Democrats in 2010. Republicans will feel emboldened and motivated while Democrats will be demoralized and demotivated to vote by their inability to capitalize sufficiently on their thumping congressional majorities. In Maryland, Rep. Kratovil will be in deep trouble as he has not been in office long enough to insulate himself against a Republican tide showing any real strength.
The Democrats may suffer losses in the Assembly though that depends on four things: (1) the thin Republican ability to find decent state legislative candidates, (2) a good candidate for governor, (3) a gubernatorial candidate who knows how to mobilize state issues as even a pro-Republican mood is probably not enough Democratic-tilting Maryland, and (4) money to back Republican candidates. Past and future taxes will be a Republican issue. Any losses in the Maryland Senate undermine Sen. President Mike Miller since it is conservative, rather than liberal, Democrats who will go down and it diminishes his image as a protector of Senate Democrats.
In Montgomery, the yearning for new taxes has ceased as signaled by the narrow passage of the Ficker Amendment as well as the increases in a variety of county and state fees within memory. The need to raise the county property tax to counter the decline in valuations will accentuate this mood. Even in Democratic primaries, it will be difficult to attack incumbent candidates for being insufficiently progressive for not spending/taxing enough, especially if core priorities remain somewhat protected compared to elsewhere in the Union. At this point, it seems too early to tell whether pro-business/Chamber Democrats will benefit from the desire for more money in the till even if many still hold the business community responsible for promoting policies that landed us in this mess.
Our Take:
The Republicans still have an uphill battle towards a statewide victory because they cannot compete in Baltimore City or Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties, which are three of the four biggest jurisdictions in Maryland. Neither the Tea Parties nor the Massachusetts special election changes that fact. But the Democrats’ voter registration edge will have a diminished effect on voting if some Democrats stay home and a quarter or more of those who vote go for the GOP.
Resource deployment decisions will change. In a more friendly environment, the Democrats could stretch their goals and try for wins in GOP territory, with Frank Kratovil’s 2008 victory being the ultimate example. But now they will have to play defense to protect vulnerable Senate and House seats in swing districts. This phenomenon will even filter down into safe Democratic districts as the party leaders will not have the luxury of protecting their incumbents from primary challenges. That means that Senators Jennie Forehand, Nancy King and Mike Lenett will likely be on their own against potential or actual opponents.
Friday, January 15, 2010
County Considers $4 Million Subsidy to Bring Costco to Wheaton
The Leggett administration is secretly considering a $4 million subsidy to lure Costco to Westfield Wheaton. When – or if – it plans to make the subsidy available for public review and comment is unclear.
Details on the plan are murky at best. The administration briefed the County Council about it in closed session on Tuesday. Westfield has indicated its intent to the county to attract Costco to its mall site adjacent to the Wheaton Central Business District, but it has a problem: the cost of preparing the site for Costco’s occupancy is high enough that the return on investment falls short of other development opportunities Westfield has elsewhere. But Westfield has told the county that a four million dollar subsidy would boost the return on investment to the point where the project would be worthwhile. The Executive Branch is now considering disbursing the subsidy to Westfield in Fiscal Year 2012. While the administration is keeping the proposal officially secret, its representatives are reaching out to selected individuals in an effort to build support for the project. It is unclear whether the proposal will ever be available for public input prior to any signed commitment with Westfield.
The subsidy would raise a number of issues if its details were ever to become public. Here are just a few of them.
1. What does this mean for the county’s vision of Wheaton?
The county has convened numerous groups of stakeholders and devoted significant staff time to redeveloping the Central Business District (CBD) for nearly twenty years. The Planning Department is currently developing a sector plan amendment for the CBD. The preliminary staff report contains this statement describing “Wheaton Tomorrow.”Wheaton is envisioned as a compact, mixed-use residential and retail community with an ethnic flavor and significant retail, entertainment and services. The greatest activity occurs in a dense, transit-oriented environment in the immediate environs of the [Metro] station (within a ¼ mile and to a lesser extent, within ½ mile) so that walking eventually becomes the predominant access mode for Metrorail. Increasing the commercial and residential density around the station and improving pedestrian connectivity and facilities are central to achieving this goal. The Core (bounded by Georgia Avenue, University Boulevard and Veirs Mill Road) is envisioned as a compact, high-density area with a variety of building heights, meeting and performance space, art galleries and artist studios, restaurants, retail and entertainment venues. The civic focus of the community will be a major public space on Parking Lot #13.
A Costco complex is totally antithetical to this vision of Wheaton. Costco customers drive in, sometimes from areas many miles away, to buy in bulk and leave. They do not travel by Metro or bus. They require a giant parking lot. They do not walk from the Costco site to engage in nearby pedestrian activities. The Costco on Route 1 in Beltsville is a perfect example of the company’s business model: a giant big-box on an auto-dominated strip. While one part of the county government is planning to make Wheaton a mixed-use, transit-oriented community, another part of the government is offering a subsidy for car-oriented sprawl. Does this make sense?
2. What does this mean for the existing businesses?
Wheaton’s CBD is home to a large number of small businesses, many of them owned by immigrants and/or minorities. Wheaton is known for its restaurants, but it also contains bakeries, grocery stores and specialty retail stores – all product lines in which Costco is active. Many of these small businesses are struggling to survive and some have closed. The administration’s Costco plan would divert a portion of their property taxes to subsidize a competitor that would undercut them and drive many of them out of business. Why should these existing small businesses be expected to pay for their own destruction?
3. What does this say about the county’s economic development strategy?
Costco offers starting wages of $10.00-10.50 per hour, and the administration estimates that its average wage in Wheaton would be $18.00. No employee earning those rates could afford to live in Montgomery County free of poverty, yet the county is considering attracting those jobs with a $4 million subsidy. In contrast, the county only offered $150,000 to attract the Hilton International headquarters, which offered over 300 executive-level, high-paying jobs. Of course, those jobs went to Virginia instead.
Montgomery County is known for its excellent public schools and well-educated workforce. Its population expects good jobs. Has proud MoCo now been reduced to offering million-dollar subsidies for the sort of low-wage retail jobs that nearby jurisdictions like Prince George’s County acquire for free? And if MoCo empties its meager vault for Costco, can it afford to compete for Northrop Grumman? What does it say about us if we pay dearly for cashier jobs but abandon prestigious headquarters jobs to Virginia? And what will the other malls in the county begin demanding if Westfield gets a special deal?
4. What will the unions think?
Five of the county’s six public employee unions are negotiating new contracts with the school system and the Executive Branch. They will clearly not be as generous as the old contracts and may in fact contain no cost-of-living adjustments this year at all. Furthermore, the County Executive announced that he is laying off 44 people through mid-year cuts, most of whom are unionized bus drivers. Yet this same administration plans to use $4 million to create low-wage private-sector jobs which will very likely be non-union. (Only 13,500 of Costco’s 142,000 employees are union members.) Why should the unions make concessions when they will be used to finance low-wage non-union employment?
These are the questions the Executive Branch must answer prior to giving any subsidy to Costco and Westfield. Now that the secret is out, let the answers begin.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Has the MoCo Economy Hit Bottom?
Every business cycle has an inflection point, a moment when up turns down or down turns up. Economists have great trouble identifying them contemporaneously, often finding them after many months have passed. One of the reasons is that the data around an inflection point is contradictory, with some measures showing improvement and others showing continued problems.
Montgomery County may just be in such a moment.
A recent analysis prepared by Montgomery County’s Department of Finance shows a mix of improvement and deterioration, a departure from the universally gloomy forecasts of the last year or two.
The Bad News
New residential construction is still in the tank.
New non-residential construction also continues to do badly.
The office vacancy rate has not stopped rising. That will have a discouraging effect on new commercial projects.
The Good News
Home sales are up in 2009 over 2008.
The inventory to sales ratio of existing homes has fallen down to the levels of the white-hot 2006 market. Together with rising sales, this should eventually revive the new housing market.
Mixed Bag
The county is still losing jobs, but at a slower rate than it was in the spring and early summer.
The unemployment rate has been above 5% since May, a high level by Montgomery County’s standards, but it may have stopped rising.
So does all of this add up to a turning point? Maybe. When the construction market looks down, the existing home sales market looks up and the labor market appears to be stagnant, that does not look like the free fall to which we have been accustomed for the last year. We may very well be near or at the bottom.
Even if we are, it will take awhile for any improvement (or in the short term, any lesser amount of deterioration) to affect the county’s budget. And unfortunately for the politicians, any upturn will be obvious to the voters likely only after election day.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
Bob Jepson Becomes Gaithersburg-Germantown Chamber Chair
Washington Adventist Hospital super-lobbyist Bob Jepson has become the new Chair of the Gaithersburg-Germantown Chamber of Commerce. Following are his remarks on his appointment, which include a detailed analysis of the economic challenges facing Montgomery County.
GAITHESRBURG/GERMANTOWN CHAMBER REMARKS
12/3/09
Opening Comments
It is great to be with you this evening. I thoroughly enjoy interacting with the board, staff and members of the Gaithersburg-Germantown Chamber of Commerce, a pragmatic organization that through the years has been, and is, honorably and consistently supportive of the basic principle that business and jobs are necessary for creating a healthy, vibrant and sustainable community.
I join you in honoring the service of Allen DeLeon, a business owner who has done much for the chamber and the community over the years. He is a widely recognized expert within our community and at the state level for his expertise and advocacy for his profession, accounting. If any of you have questions about combined reporting, he’s the expert on that issue. Thank you Allen, for serving the chamber all these years and your careful stewardship of the Chamber’s resources.
I also wish to highlight the work of our great chamber staff, Laura Rowles, who is fun to work with and the incomparable Marilyn Balcombe, the face, heart and soul of the chamber. Few people get as much done in a day as Marilyn and she makes it very easy to serve the chamber. We are very fortunate for her commitment, honesty, tact & advocacy.
Challenge and Opportunity
Tonight, we face a challenge and an opportunity.
The problem is a stubbornly persistent weak economy that has stifled economic development, reversed job growth and made it difficult for many businesses to simply tread water much less expand and thrive. Compounding this challenge is an environment in the County and State that has not always been friendly to business and economic development. The link between vibrant businesses and the general well-being of our larger community, the link between an expanding jobs base and the ability to provide services residents need and want, has not always been appreciated.
Defining Reality
In defining the reality of the challenges we face, here are a few statistics worth noting.
In comparison to six of our local regional competitors – Prince Georges County, Fairfax County, Arlington County, Alexandria City, the District of Columbia, and Loudon County -- we are falling behind.
Data for 2001 to 2008 per the US Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and various County/City websites shows the following:
• Population – Montgomery County, with 950,000, is 2nd only in population to Fairfax with 1,015,000; since 2001 we have added nearly 56,000 residents to our community while Fairfax County has added about 31,000 residents.
• Job Creation – Montgomery County is next to last in the region in job growth, adding only 7,800 jobs. By contrast, Fairfax County added nearly 43,000 jobs. This is a noteworthy disparity in job growth and population growth.
• Totals Wages Growth and average annual pay –Montgomery County has only the 3rd largest total wages in the region with Fairfax leading Montgomery County by $13 Billion and our growth in wages and average household ranks 4th out of 7 in the region.
We can change this trend, but first we have to define reality, and the reality is that this trend line is unacceptable if we want a vibrant future for our children, our community and ourselves. Jobs lead to economic growth, economic growth stimulates revenue, revenue enhances public resources, public resources enhance quality of life which attracts people and business to our community in an ideal, continuous cycle.
But, as the current economic reality has so clearly shown, the growth and economic success we experienced in the past created the resources that allowed us to have the vibrant community we have come to expect, and when this growth and economic success stalled, the resources we depended on to fund government activities disappeared. The County’s and State’s current budget crisis is a testament to this fact.
Maybe -- when our community was content with low unemployment, housing prices going up, tax dollars rolling in, business growth without effort -- we had the luxury of acting as though thriving commerce and business success were, at best, a necessary evil.
What we did not realize was that our County’s and State’s economic success was in spite of the burdens we placed on commerce and business. We can no longer afford the luxury of old attitudes, approaches, regulations and taxes.
We must become the competitors that our competitors already are and we must not waste this moment in time.
The Opportunity
This is a challenge, but one we should eagerly embrace. In fact, we should take this burden upon ourselves, not cast the blame at any individual or group. We are on the eve of a new year, 2010, which also happens to be an election year. As policies and ideas are discussed in the public realm, this is a terrific window of opportunity to advocate for policies that promote a favorable business climate, one that promotes job growth and is friendly to business expansion.
Let’s make our voice heard in a clear, effective manner. This coming year, the Chamber will provide opportunities and forums where our message of job growth and economic development will be heard by elected officials and the community at large. I hope you will take advantage of these opportunities to make your voice heard. Let’s turn our advocacy up a notch, but do so with a clean-timbred tone and the cleared-eyed voice of respect, which resonates far louder than blame, threats or accusation.
Honoring Small Businesses
The Gaithersburg/Germantown Chamber has about 400 members, 60% of which have 10 or fewer employees. I work for a large organization, Adventist HealthCare, which employs some 7,200 people in this region and has worked and is working to expand access to health care in the upcounty community.
But while I work for a large employer, I believe that it is small businesses that employ most people in our community and small business forms the backbone of our economy, locally and nationally.
My hat goes off to the courageous entrepreneurs’ who, despite challenges, assume risk, balance your books, meet payroll, produce goods and services and serve the community.
Ben Franklin, whose thoughts and ideas served as the founding for much that is considered cultural Americana, was a small business owner himself and envisioned our republic as a thriving community of business owners, where work and thrift and ingenuity and entrepreneurship are highly valued.
He is an ideal model linking business success with public good. He was a small business owner who helped found the University of Pennsylvania, created the lending library and created one of the first volunteer fire departments.
219 years after his death, we have an opportunity for our voice to ring with the message of business success and public good here in the upcounty and throughout Montgomery County and the State. Let’s not be shy about proclaiming the value to one and all of a thriving business climate and the necessity of creating jobs.
In closing, I wish to thank someone who is not here, my wife of 21 years, Idelys Jepson, who is at home helping our kids with their homework. She is my best friend and moral compass.
Thank you for being here tonight, have a great evening and let’s go out and create some new jobs!
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Silverman Comments on Leggett, Knapp Biotech Editorials
Steve Silverman, the County's recently hired Director of Economic Development, submitted a comment on our post "Leggett, Knapp Issue Dueling Plans for Biotech." We reprint the comment below for the benefit of our readers.
Adam,
I saw your blog entry regarding the “Dueling Plans for Biotech”. You stated that County Executive Leggett’s October 9th guest editorial for the Washington Business Journal was a “tit-for-tat” to Mr. Knapp’s 10-point Life Sciences Strategy proposal. That assumption is not reality.
First of all, County Executive Leggett welcomes and encourages Mr. Knapp’s contributions to our efforts and views Mr. Knapp’s proposal as complementary to the ongoing efforts we are making in this area. Secondly, County Executive Leggett recognized the importance of the biotech industry in Montgomery County early on in his long career on the County Council, helping to grow and nurture this industry during its early development in the County. He has continued that commitment to this vital industry as County Executive.
Since assuming office, County Executive Leggett has initiated three distinct efforts to strategically plan for our community’s economic future: 1) the development of the County’s Strategic Plan for Economic Development; 2) the establishment of a Biosciences Task Force, a group chaired by David Mott (former CEO of our own home grown MedImmune), which is developing a vision and roadmap to a successful life sciences industry; and 3) a Green Economy Task Force, whose end product will be a plan to develop the green industry, and jobs, in our community. Mr. Knapp’s proposals dovetail with these ongoing efforts.
The County Executive has been successful in leading the charge to have both the Maryland BioScience Center and the Maryland Clean Energy Center establish their operations in the County. He has funded and opened the fifth business incubator in the County’s Business Innovation Center on the Germantown campus of Montgomery College, a facility which builds on the College’s biotechnology and science programs.
And under his leadership, the County has successfully advocated for an expansion of the State’s much-in-demand biotechnology tax credit program.
Just to clarify, the guest editorial to the WBJ was drafted and sent to the WBJ on September 25 – more than least two weeks before it was published and five days before Mr. Knapp’s press release. (The “mainstream media” is not as nimble as you bloggers in printing posts). So, it should not be viewed as a “tit-for-tat”. For our efforts in growing and nurturing Montgomery County’s bioscience industry to succeed we must all work together. The County Executive knows this and I’m sure Mr. Knapp does as well.
Given your interest in this, I’ve attached the County Executive’s editorial on this issue.
Steve Silverman
Director
Montgomery County Office of Economic Development
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Leggett, Knapp Issue Dueling Plans for Biotech (Updated)
Something is in the air, folks. If you pause for a moment and listen, you might hear it – a little voice that whispers, “Jobs, jobs, jobs.” Council Member Mike Knapp heard it and now the County Executive does too. And that voice is getting louder, ever louder as the elections approach.
On September 30, Knapp released a ten-point “Life Sciences and Technology Economic Development Strategy” that he said was “necessary if the County is to remain at the national forefront of biotech and high-tech research and development.” Leggett followed with an October 9 guest editorial in the Washington Business Journal entitled, “A Master Plan to Boost Bioscience in Montgomery County.” Since the editorial is only available via subscription – a fact that the County Executive’s press staff should have known would limit its readership – we reproduce it below.
Knapp’s plan is holistic and countywide while Leggett’s plan focuses on Gaithersburg West, but that is beside the point. The real story here is two-fold. First, the County Executive and a potential rival are both talking about job creation, suggesting that 2010 will have a different issue mix than 2006. And second, the County Executive is determined to not allow his critics to pre-empt him on an important issue, even if that means tit-for-tat press statements.
Following is Leggett’s guest editorial on bioscience.
Update: The Washington Business Journal asked us to delete Leggett’s essay from this blog entry and we complied. We asked them to make the link above active to non-subscribers. In the future, perhaps the County Executive’s staff will consider making his opinion pieces available on free sites.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Unemployment Explodes in Maryland’s Big Seven
Last week, we offered our readers a snapshot of current unemployment in each of Maryland’s twenty-four jurisdictions, as well as some of its biggest cities. Today, we burrow deeper into historical unemployment data for the state’s Big Seven: Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Frederick, Howard, Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. The results should send a shudder down the spine of every politician in those areas and beyond.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) tracks the monthly unemployment rate in every U.S. county as far back as January 1990. We obtained that information for each of the Big Seven, as well as the state as a whole. We then averaged the unemployment rates in each of the last three recessions as defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Nationally, the U.S. has had recessions from July 1990 to March 1991, March 2001 to November 2001 and December 2007 on. Below are the average unemployment rates in each of the Big Seven for the entire period, the 1990-1991 recession, the 2001 recession, the first 13 months of the current recession and the first six months of 2009.
As measured by the unemployment rate, the 1990-91 recession was significantly worse than the 2001 or 2007-2008 recessions in Baltimore City and Anne Arundel, Baltimore and Frederick Counties. As a matter of fact, for all of the Big Seven except Montgomery, the 2001 and 2007-2008 unemployment rates did not exceed their twenty-year averages. But the unemployment rates in the first six months of 2009 jumped dramatically for every one of them, as well as the state as a whole. This year will go down as the one of the worst ever in Maryland.
The sudden skyrocketing of unemployment has not had a substantial impact on the last state poll. But the ugly economy has no doubt been a factor in the Tea Parties, the health care town halls and reaction to scandals like Delegate Jon Cardin’s ill-fated marriage proposal. The Republican Party is probably too weak to pick up more than a handful of seats in each chamber. But the economic cataclysm may have increased the danger to more than a few incumbents in volatile districts, including ones facing primary challenges.
Below are unemployment rate charts for each of the Big Seven from January 1990 through June 2009, as well as unemployment in the state as a whole.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Civic Fed Chair Accuses Johns Hopkins of Racism
The Gaithersburg West Master Plan continues to make its way through the County Council and we have allowed supporters and opponents to make their case on this blog. We have also published the concerns of the state government. But now an official representing the Montgomery County Civic Federation has raised a new argument that is bound to stir the pot: namely, that Johns Hopkins’ development plan is allegedly racist.
In the Sentinel’s October 1 Federation Corner column (which is unfortunately not online), the Montgomery County Civic Federation’s immediate Past President and current Transportation Committee Chair Arnold Gordon included this paragraph in his essay opposing the Master Plan:Now let’s talk about the need for all of this. Do we need more employment here? The figures show our unemployment rate is very low given the economic downturn. Nothing in this “Science City” Plan requires that development be for businesses oriented toward the biosciences, technology or the like, except for the Johns Hopkins portion. What would be created is a gigantic office park in an era when commercial space is already adequate for years to come. Put this where it belongs – Baltimore, where there is a genuine need for employment. One wonders why Johns Hopkins has become so enamored of this County at the expense of its native city. Could race be a factor at play here?
So creating jobs in MoCo is a racist act? Let’s think about this for a moment. The argument fails on its merits because we are the most demographically diverse jurisdiction in the state. And furthermore, if we accuse people who want to create jobs here of racism, how many jobs do you think we are going to get?
