Maryland Politics Watch

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

They'll Vote for Slots . . . If the Price is Right!

The Baltimore Sun reports:

The hunt for votes has intensified in Annapolis as the House of Delegates weighs a measure that would put slot machine gambling before the voters in November 2008, possibly ending years of gridlock in the state capital over the issue. Supporters were scrambling yesterday to line up the final votes to ensure the "super-majority" needed for the referendum to clear the House, where opposition to slots has been strong.

Not only are legislators lobbying one another, but the Democratic governor is talking to legislators to garner support for the historic referendum. House leaders have taken preliminary whip counts, and Del. Kumar P. Barve, the majority leader, said yesterday that they are probably close to lining up the needed 85 votes.

The article doesn't quite do justice to the bidding war which must be going on behind the scenes. The real untold story is what promises legislators are extracting in return for their support.

One legislator who says he changed his mind for other reasons is first-term Democrat Craig Rice (D-15):

When Gov. Martin O'Malley proposed a voter referendum on legalizing slot machine gambling, freshman Del. Craig L. Rice opposed it because he thought the General Assembly should decide major policy decisions and not send them to the ballot box.

But Rice changed his mind when fellow legislators who represent the proposed sites for slots parlors asked him to vote for the referendum.

"Slots are not proposed for my district, so I deferred to them," said Rice, a Democrat who represents Montgomery County.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Pleas for Mercy in Bromwell Case

Supporters of former Sen. Thomas Bromwell are pleading for a lenient sentencing:

Bromwell, 58, admitted in July that he accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in payoffs from a Baltimore construction company executive in return for securing publicly funded contracts.

Recommended sentencing guidelines call for a federal prison term for Bromwell of at least 6 1/2 years. But his defense attorney is now asking U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz to depart from those guidelines, based in large part on the persuasive power of the letters.

You can read the letters (in .pdf format) here and here as well as the memo on sentencing from Bromwell's lawyer. Bromwell's son, Eric Bromwell (D-8), currently represents part of Baltimore County in the House of Delegates.

House of Delegates Cuts Budget

The House of Delegates has cut about $498 million from the State budget according to the Washington Post (see also the article in the Baltimore Sun):

The Maryland House of Delegates overwhelmingly voted this afternoon to direct Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) to cut about $498 million from the next fiscal year's budget by slowing planned spending growth on several state education, health-care and environmental initiatives.
In a 103 to 36 vote along party lines in the Democratic-controlled chamber, delegates voted to save about $150 million by scaling back the formula used to fund public schools, as well as to eliminate 750 vacant state jobs. The spending cuts are a key component of O'Malley's plan to eliminate a projected budget deficit of at least $1.5 billion during a special legislative session.
Del. Norman H. Conway (D-Wicomico), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, said trimming the budget will return "fiscal prudence and social responsibility" to Maryland's government. . . .
The House bill is similar to legislation passed by the Senate last week calling for $515 million in spending cuts. But several differences will need to be reconciled by conference committees. The House spelled out detailed program cuts to recommend to O'Malley, whereas the Senate bill was far less specific.
Delegates also trimmed spending on stem cell research grants, from $23 million to $20 million this year, and recommended that O'Malley maintain the reduced level of funding next year.
In a move projected to save about $31 million next year, the committee decided to eliminate a property tax exemption for machinery and equipment that is used by utility companies to generate electricity.
"Do people like the cuts?" asked Del. Melony G. Griffith (D-Prince George's). "No, they don't. . . . Every program that's served by state dollars believes they are the most critical program in this state."

However, the House still hasn't approved slots, a key aspect of the Senate budget plan. There are also differences in the income tax. The two houses will also need to agree on a single list of spending cuts as there are difference between the House bill and the Senate bill.

Transgender Protections Approved

According to the Washington Post, the Council approved new transgender protections despite the bathroom fracas:

The Montgomery County Council unanimously approved protections today for transgender individuals in housing and employment, despite vigorous protests from a coalition of conservative groups that said the measure would lead to indecent exposure in locker rooms and restrooms.
Without discussion, the council voted 8-0 to join 13 states and the District in outlawing discrimination based on a person's gender identity. County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) is expected to sign the measure, according to his spokesman.
Council member Roger Berliner (D-Bethesda-Potomac) called the measure a "step forward on civil rights."
Outside the council building in Rockville this afternoon, about 20 protesters urged the council to reject the measure and carried signs that read "Protect Our Kids" and "Fight Indecent Exposure." Opponents seized on a component of the bill that would prohibit discrimination in public accommodations.

Council Approves Changes to Growth Policy

According to the Washington Post, the Montgomery County Council approved several new development-related tax increases:

The tax increases on new construction, of more than $15,000 per single-family house, will take effect Dec. 1. Officials predicted a rush at the county's permitting department in the next two weeks for builders looking to beat the deadline.
The 7 to 1 vote in favor of the growth policy, with Nancy Floreen (D-At Large) the only dissenter, came after nearly 11 months of debate. The details as well as many broader themes encouraging denser development in the county's more urban areas were developed by the county's planning board, then sent to the council for final approval.
The council unanimously approved related tax increases that would more than double most taxes paid by builders when they apply for their building permits. Members voted 7 to 1, with Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) dissenting, to increase the recordation tax collected at real estate closings, but delayed it until March 1. . . .

Under the council's plan, the tax on a new single-family house increases from $6,264 to $10,649 for transportation and from $9,111 to $20,456 for schools. The taxes had not been increased for several years.

Regardless of the change, residents near metro stops should not expect the pace of development to slow. When I spoke with Josh Sloan, a M-NCPPC staffer, on Woodmont East, he made clear that virtually any development would pass the traffic test in Bethesda under either the old or new test.

Bethesda Development Activity

Below are pictures of three files provided to me by the Planning Board. The first is a map of development activity in the Bethesda Central Business District. The second is a list of pending projects, as in projects which have been proposed but are not yet formally approved by the Planning Board. The third is a list of approved projects which have not yet been built (on the top part of the page) or have already been constructed (on the bottom part of the page). The figures are hard to see as posted but just click on them to get the full-size image.

Listen to Woodmont East Testimony

You can download and listen to testimony from the Planning Board meeting on Woodmont East using Windows Media Player. The developer finished up their testimony around 1:35PM with intensive questioning on the County's rights to the property around that time. Ben Ross of ACT was the first to testify (in favor of the project) followed by Town of Chevy Chase Councilman Mier Wolf's strong critique of the process as well as the plan itself and then by Wayne Phyillaier and Pat Baptiste of the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail. (Former Planning Board Member Pat Baptiste's testimony starts just before 2PM.)

It's Time for the Special Session Roundup

Check out the cartoons on the special session in the Annapolis Capital.

The House of Delegates is still in the middle of slots-a-palooza according to the Washington Post. Frederick County is now being floated as a potential slots site despite the opposition of many politicians from that county. Since virtually all are Republicans who vote against just about everything anyway, I'm not sure that anyone cares about their opposition to the idea. The current thinking, to use the term loosely, is that Frederick is on the way to Charles Town Races and Slots from Montgomery and would grab that business without having to put a slots parlor in Poolesville. Of course, it's also on the way to Allegany County so why put one there too? The editorial board of the Washington Post continues to oppose slots:

[P]ro-gambling interests have already spent almost $4 million in the last few years in a so-far-fruitless effort to have the legislature authorize thousands of slot machines at racetracks and gambling parlors. That spending comprised $1.25 million funneled directly to candidates and political parties since 2003 -- including donations to the former and current governor -- plus an additional $2.6 million in lobbying expenditures in the last two years alone. It's a good bet that those outlays would look like a modest down payment compared to the sums the gambling lobby is prepared to dump in a referendum. It's an equally good bet that many voters would look askance at such an obviously self-interested crusade for self-enrichment.

A referendum is not yet a done deal. Because it involves a constitutional amendment, it will need 85 votes to clear the 141-seat House. We hope the votes aren't there. Still, slots have tied the General Assembly in knots in recent years, and Mr. Miller has given every indication that he is willing to paralyze the current effort to close a budget deficit of at least $1.5 billion if he does not get at least a referendum. Battle-weary lawmakers may simply throw up their hands. If they do, it should be to fight another day and defeat at the polls a slots proposal that will foster corruption and gambling addiction while primarily hurting the poor.

The House of Delegates is also proposing to cut $498 million from the state budget (see also the AP story replicated in the Delmarva Daily Times). Education appears to be the primary victim with $150 million of the cuts coming from limits in inflation increases to the Thornton plan. The Baltimore Sun also reports that the both the House and the Senate budget plans will force "working families" to pay more in taxes, contrary to Gov. O'Malley's promises and the budget he submitted to the General Assembly. Jean Marbella of the Sun chalks up the placing of slots in Ocean Downs as another broken promise.

The Examiner's Maryland Politics page is just tired at this point. A commentary by Tom Schaller titled "It's Time for Maryland's Comptroller Schaefer to retire" still appears on the page.

Dancing in the Dark

Gov. Martin O'Malley took a night off from the joys of the special session to go to the Bruce Springsteen concert with his wife at whatever they're calling the Verizon Center this week. The best part for him was probably that the Washington Post called him a "youngster." I prefer The Police myself.

Monday, November 12, 2007

Slots and the Art of Compromise

During the Ehrlich administration, I vigorously opposed slots. It seemed to me that Gov. Ehrlich and his allies were trying to avoid asking our state’s residents - especially the wealthiest ones - to responsibly pay for our societal needs.

Had any of my District 18 representatives voted for slots, it could have cost them my vote in the next election. But none did.

Now that the governor who’s pushing slots is a Democrat, has my opinion of the idea changed? No, I still think it’s a terrible way to finance a government. And all other things being equal, I’d still react quite negatively to a pro-slots vote by someone from the District 18 delegation.

But all other things are not equal. They’re not even close.

This time around, slots are being offered as part of a large, complex, and long-overdue package designed to address our state’s budget problems for the long term - a package that includes substantial tax increases of the type that previous administrations recklessly avoided. This time, slots aren’t simply a dodge or a gimmick.

And when all of the individual bills comprising this large budget package have to be agreed upon by a majority of 141 delegates and 47 senators, that means compromise is called for. You have to take the bad with the good. There are those who are now supporting the types of necessary tax increases that they avoided talking about before. I can see where slots opponents would have to give some in order to negotiate a workable agreement.

That's the art of compromise. And it's part of responsible governing.

Delegate Roll Call

Complete listing for DC area delegates available from the Washington Post.

Del. Ben Kramer (D-Montgomery) followed this lead of his sister, Sen. Rona Kramer, is voting against the bill increasing the sales tax, the vehicle titling tax, and the tobacco tax which passed 80-56. Del. Luiz Simmons (D-Montgomery) also voted no. Dels. Wood (D-St. Mary's) and Sophocleus (D-Anne Arundel) also voted no. No other Democrats from Montgomery, Prince George's, Charles, Calvert, Howard, or St. Mary's voted no (assuming that the Post included all delegates from these counties in the DC area and not just some of them). No Republicans voted in favor.

The income tax bill passed the House on a vote of 82-55. The same delegates who voted no on the first bill also voted no on this one. They were joined by Dels. Beidle (D-Anne Arundel), Dumais (D-Montgomery), Feldman (D-Montgomery), Levy (D-Charles), and Walker (D-Prince George's). Once again, no Republicans voted yes. Dels. Jameson (D-Charles) and Montgomery (D-Montgomery) did not vote on either bill.

Sen. Madaleno Special Session Update

From the desk of Sen. Rich Madaleno (D-18):

While it may be a holiday for some, the General Assembly remains busy with the work of the special session. Later today, the House of Delegates will be voting on the governor's health care proposal as well as their Chesapeake Bay initiative. Summaries of these bills and the House tax package is available on-line at: www.mlis.state.md.us under the tab "Budget Documents."

Also today, the House Ways & Means and Appropriations Committees are scheduled to begin voting on the Budget Reconciliation Act and the slots package. My tentative understanding of the House tax package is that it is $200 million below the Senate package. Thus, this difference will have to made up in additional budget cuts. Appropriations' subcommittees have been meeting this morning reviewing various reduction options. In addition, rumors persist that there are not the sufficient votes in the House (85 needed) to pass the slots referendum legislation. Should the House vote down the slots measure, I am fearful the entire special session would collapse.

Because the House has yet to vote on several key parts of the revenue plan, our next Senate session has been postponed from Tuesday to Thursday morning. This delay will give Senate leadership the chance to develop a strategy in response to any unexpected House action.

Like me, Rich shares this touching naivety that people actually will look up documents. Indeed, I suspect one reason Rich is so effective in the legislature is that he is one of the few people who (1) actually reads the budget, and (2) understands it.

Budget Woes in Montgomery Too

The Gazette arguably buried its lead by giving a brief mention of Montgomery's sizable budget deficit towards the end of an article on the proposed bill to ban discrimination against transgender people:

Added to that, Leggett (D) said, is the county’s projected deficit — $308 million for the fiscal year that begins July 1. The executive said he has been amazed at how many people who do not understand Montgomery’s budget problems.

Looks like the pain is just getting started.

Lobbying for Slots

The Baltimore Sun reports that lobbyists spent millions pushing slots during the past several years. Perhaps the most unseemly aspect of the cash bonanza involves attempts to influence the selection of sites:

At least $800,000 flowed into candidate campaign coffers from track operators since 2003, The Sun's analysis found. And nearly half of that came from interests controlled by Rickman, a Montgomery County developer who owns Ocean Downs racetrack, one of the five sites singled out in the Senate-approved slots referendum bill.

"In my view, there is an undeniable connection between the history of political donations and the allocation of sites, and the potential allocation of sites," said Del. Luiz R.S. Simmons, a Montgomery County Democrat who has proposed outlawing contributions from gambling interests.

Officials with the Maryland Jockey Club and affiliated entities gave $267,000, records show. About $30,000 of that amount came from former Jockey Club CEO Joseph A. De Francis and family members; he stands to benefit should slots go to Laurel Park. Horse farmers, breeders and leaders of associations that represent them donated $252,000.

Rickman, his family and his companies provided by far the largest sum, giving $382,000 - more than four times as much in the period as any other pro-slots or pro-gambling interest.

State campaign finance law allows single donors or corporations to give only $4,000 during an election cycle to individual candidates. But Rickman reached this goal, now as in the past, using a variety of limited liability corporations that operate out of his Rockville offices in a practice that watchdog group Common Cause has said gives donors too much influence.

It's hardly a surprise as the right to operate slots is like a license to print money. The Sun also printed a nice graphic showing lobbying fees paid and campaign contributions made to produce slots--a truly bipartisan source of cash.

One slots advocate didn't have to be paid off. The Washington Post reports on how Secretary of Labor Tom Perez has become one of the most passionate advocates for slots in the State.

"I certainly hear from many friends in the progressive community who say, 'Tom, how can you support slots?' " Perez said in a recent interview. "I give them a simple answer.

"I'm motivated in large part because I want to address the problems of the uninsured. I want to address the undereducated, and I want to address the challenges confronting people who are living in the shadows of our communities. The reality is we need a funding source to address these challenges."

The Post explained how Perez had a "road to Charleston Races" conversion and Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18) defended Perez's actions:

Prior to studying the issue for O'Malley, Perez said he had never been to a gambling parlor. "This is not how I'd choose to spend my entertainment dollars," he said.
But after visiting slots venues in West Virginia and Delaware, Perez said he found that using a portion of slots proceeds to subsidize racing purses has revitalized the horse-racing and breeding industries in those states. He said he is convinced that Maryland can mitigate the potential social costs associated with gambling by being selective on locations.

Del. Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-Montgomery), who worked with Perez in the Clinton administration, said she doesn't consider her friend's support of slots to be a "philosophical transformation."

"I think Tom is being a good soldier," Gutierrez said. "He's joined the administration, and the administration has put out this proposal, and it's the role of the Cabinet to support this proposal."

Your Taxes Are Going Up--Just How Much Remains in Doubt

Over the weekend, the House of Delegates got busy and passed its own version of the tax plans. Perhaps the most useful article published on the topic is simply a summary of the differences between the House and Senate plans published by the Washington Post:

Personal income tax
SENATE: Adds brackets of 5 percent for single filers with taxable income above $150,000 and joint filers above $200,000; and 5.5 percent for all filers above $500,000. Increases personal exemption and exemption for dependents from $2,400 to $2,600.
HOUSE: Modifies brackets to include 5.25 percent for single filers with taxable income above $125,000 and joint filers above $175,000; 5.5 percent for single filers above $150,000 and joint filers above $200,000; and 5.75 percent for single filers above $200,000 and joint filers above $250,000. Alters $2,400 personal exemption and exemption for dependents to $600 to $3,200, depending upon income.
Corporate income tax
SENATE: Increases rate from 7 to 8 percent.
HOUSE: Increases rate from 7 to 8.75 percent.
Sales tax
SENATE: Increases rate from 5 to 6 percent; applies the tax to computer services and video arcades.
HOUSE: Increases rate from 5 to 6 percent; no expansion of the tax to additional services.
Hotel tax
SENATE: No change to the 5 percent rate.
HOUSE: Raises the rate from 5 to 7.5 percent.
Tobacco tax
SENATE: Raises tax on a pack of cigarettes from $1 to $2.
HOUSE: Same as Senate.
Vehicle titling tax
SENATE: Raises rate from 5 to 6 percent.
HOUSE: Same as Senate.

Another Washington Post article focused on the difficulty in reconciling the differences between the House and the Senate. To my unpracticed eye, the bills don't look that far apart. On the other hand, the Senate bill did only pass by one vote. Moreover, the House has yet to pass a bill on a slots referendum. (And some areas are squawking at the idea of becoming slots locations, including White Marsh reports the Examiner and Ocean Downs reports the Delmarva Daily Times.

As in the Senate, Montgomery legislators played a critical role in reducing the top income tax rates, though many members of the delegation were apparently pressured into voting for the version that passed through threats to reduce spending on items near and dear to Montgomery's:

A "whip count" taken Friday night by House leaders showed that a majority of Montgomery's 24 delegates opposed the bill and that support in the chamber fell short of the 71 votes needed for its passage.

Nineteen members of Montgomery's all-Democratic delegation wound up voting for the bill, however. Only four, including Del. Brian J. Feldman, the chairman of Montgomery's House delegation, voted against the legislation. One delegation member was absent.

Some Montgomery lawmakers suggested that the shift was driven by an alternate proposal to balance the budget that was floated Saturday afternoon by House leaders. That plan withdrew $460 million in new transportation spending, a major priority for the Washington area.

The alternative also would have capped the income tax rate that county governments could impose on residents, a move that would have hit Montgomery particularly hard. Also absent from the plan was funding for the so-called geographic cost of education index, a formula designed to send additional dollars to counties, including Montgomery, where the cost of education is more expensive.

The Baltimore Sun also printed an article suggesting similarly that Montgomery House legislators were outfoxed on the income tax question.

Sunday, November 11, 2007

Transgender Bill: The "Religious Liberty" Feint

According to the Sunday Washington Post, opponents of the Montgomery County transgender anti-discrimination bill would like to see exemptions for hiring by religious institutions, including religious schools. The same argument is being used by right-wing Christian groups across the country as an excuse to oppose ENDA: that the law will force people to violate their religious beliefs by hiring gay people.

We’re supposed to believe that the opponents have a principled position based on religious freedom, rather than an unprincipled one based on animus towards gay, lesbian, and transgender people.

However, despite the lofty commitment to religious freedom they claim to have, the Christian Right does not demand that laws banning discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability, etc. have exemptions for religious institutions or belief.

Why not? Under the principles they cite when trying to scuttle protections for LGBT individuals, someone should have the right to keep blacks out of his business establishment if his religious beliefs are that God created the races to remain separate. And if a woman believes that physical infirmities are God’s way of cursing sinners and marking them as evil, then the law should protect her right not to hire someone with a disability. If a man believes that women should stay at home and be submissive to their husbands, why should the government coerce him into violating his religious tenets by hiring married women in management positions?

Yet right-wing anti-LGBT Christians do not argue that exemptions are necessary for these types of discrimination. They demand these exemptions only when lesbians, gays, and transgender people will be hurt.

That’s not a principle. That’s animus.

And labeling it “religious” doesn’t make it any less wrong.

As for demanding a statutory exemption solely for their own particular religious belief - Can there be a better example of demanding "special rights?"

Franchot Silent on Corporate Tax Loopholes

C. Fraser Smith of the Baltimore Sun reports that Comptroller Peter Franchot's progressive act is only for public consumption:

The Democratic Party's Senate caucus was full of grumbling last week about Comptroller Peter Franchot, who called Gov. Martin O'Malley's tax reform package a "pounding" for the poor.

At the same time, Mr. Franchot was stepping away from the governor's proposal to require taxes of some mega-corporations that currently pay no taxes in Maryland. Mr. Franchot had absented himself from the Budget and Tax Committee's effort to craft an acceptable loophole-closing bill.

Democrats were baffled by Mr. Franchot's absence from the corporate tax debate, because he has styled himself a staunch liberal. His office, moreover, is responsible for collecting taxes. A recent study showed that nearly half of Maryland's largest for-profit companies did not pay corporate income taxes in 2005.

One widespread speculation explaining his silence on the issue: The officers of these corporations often make substantial campaign contributions. Maybe the comptroller was looking ahead to his next campaign.

Several senators thought Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler should investigate Mr. Franchot for failing to do his job. Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. - chuckling - said he was sure Mr. Gansler would be happy to oblige: Even now, Mr. Franchot and Mr. Gansler are viewed as rivals for their party's gubernatorial nomination in some future election.

Not only did Franchot himself not participate in the Budget and Tax Committee's debates on the budget, he also did not send his staff in contrast to former Comptrollers Louis Goldstein and William Donald Schaefer. Many of these long-time staffers have a lot of knowledge which would have been especially useful this year since many of the budget experts in the Department of Legislative Services are relatively new to the job. Perhaps not the best move on Franchot's part after getting in a very public wrangle with the governor over his decision to greatly expand the size of the Office of the Comptroller's payroll.

Bathrooms, Always Bathrooms

The right-wingers are out to torpedo the expected approval by the Montgomery County Council of a bill to outlaw discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on the basis of gender identity.

I recently received a copy of an alert from Don Wildmon’s American Family Association, categorizing this as a bill that would legalize indecent exposure. The latest right-wing talking point seems to be that girls in restrooms and locker rooms will be forced to see male genitalia from a man dressed as a woman.

Their e-mail states:

"’Any place of public accommodation...must not...make any distinction based on gender identity.’ Gender identity is defined as ‘an individual's actual or perceived gender...’ The bill puts girls and women at risk by opening women's restrooms and locker rooms to men who dress as women. The bill virtually eliminates gender distinctions by allowing Montgomery County residents to choose if they are male or female even when the choice conflicts with their biological sex.

“The bill, slated for a vote on Tuesday, Nov. 13, would add 'gender identity' as a protected class for 'transgenders.' It would guarantee the right to use public facilities consistent with the person's gender identity ‘publicly and exclusively expressed or asserted.’ No sex change is necessary.”

Of course, this is just a red herring. You don't hear the bill's opponents demanding fairness to transgender people, saying that they would happily support a tough anti-discrimination bill as long as the bathroom issue were somehow "taken care of."

But, just for the sake of argument, let’s take them at their word: Let’s categorize everything by genitalia, ignoring all other factors.

Take an anatomically male person who identifies as a woman and who presents herself as a woman in every way (clothing, make-up, etc.). Let’s call her Dale. What do you think would happen to Dale upon entering and using a men’s bathroom? I suspect she’d be beaten up. At a minimum, she’d have to live with the terror of physical assault every time she used a public restroom, locker room, etc.

The Christian right says they don’t want Dale using women’s facilities. But would they be comfortable with someone appearing to be a woman using men’s facilities? Somehow, I doubt it. So what do they want people like Dale to do?

What members of the religious right really seem to want is a world where transgender people don’t exist.

But transgender people do exist. And it is long past time for our society to welcome them as part of us.

I hope none of the County Council members buckle under to the hate mail and calls they are receiving from the right-wingers.

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Too Close for Mike Miller's Comfort?

Keep an eye on that list of nay votes on the Senate tax bill - the one that barely scraped by with no votes to spare.

Senate president Mike Miller cannot possibly be happy with how close he came to losing this bill - or with the Democrats who voted against it.

Living in Montgomery County, I’m particularly interested in the only no-vote from my county: Rona Kramer’s. She’s the new chair of the Montgomery County Senate delegation.

Montgomery County successfully got the bill amended to have a smaller income tax increase. So when Kramer voted against the bill, I suspect she did not endear herself to the president. I’ll be interested to see if this affects her ability to get things done in Mike Miller’s Senate. (And make no mistake. It is Mike Miller’s Senate).

This Weekend on MPW

The Washington Post pillories the Senate tax plan, singling out the Montgomery delegation for lacking liberal spine. Find out who voted for and against the tax package and slots.

Primary View: an overview of congressional primaries in Maryland's 1st, 4th, and 8th Districts. Also don't miss Kevin Gillogly's post on the Fourth District debate and invite to post your campaign videos here.

What does it take to be an Uberlobbyist?

Metro plans to ruin your New Year's party with a hefty fare increase.

I'm still celebrating our victory for a park at Woodmont East. Read about testimony at the hearing and the outcome; more testimony and who testified; and Councilman Berliner's post-hearing letter.

Primary View

I know that at least three Maryland congressional races feature primaries this year:

Eighth District
Chris Van Hollen is the most popular politician in Montgomery County but that doesn't dissuade Deborah Vollmer who ran against him in the Democratic primary in 2006 and received just 8.7 percent of the vote. Once again, Deborah is running because she believes that Rep. Van Hollen is too supportive of the Iraq War.

Fourth District:
Don't miss Kevin Gillogly's coverage of the Wynn-Edwards debate and request for videos which we'd be happy to post here. It has been a good week for Donna Edwards, who nearly beat incumbent Rep. Al Wynn last time and is back for a rematch. Edwards has been endorsed by EMILY's list which should help her raise significant funds. The League of Conservation Voters has also endorsed Edwards though my colleague Prof. Ron Walters at the University of Maryland discounts the importance of the latter endorsement:

Ronald W. Walters, a professor in government and politics at the University of Maryland, College Park, said endorsements generally are not that important unless they come with money or volunteers.

Karpinski said his organization would be ‘‘helpful” to the Edwards campaign. ‘‘We have several different ways we may engage in this race,” he said.

Walters said Wynn is going to have to pay attention to polls and to what people are saying about him.

‘‘He seems to know where he is, in another potentially tight race,” Walters said. ‘‘I think he’s making an effort. It’s a question whether people perceive that’s sufficient.”

Wynn’s campaign manager, Lori Sherwood, said the league endorsed Edwards in her last campaign.

Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi is solidly behind Wynn. Posts on the topic on freestatepolitics.org and dailykos.org favor Edwards (see posts by Kos himsefl here, here, here, and here).

First District:
According to the Gazette, moderate Republican Wayne Gilchrest faces one of his toughest primary challenges ever in his Eastern Shore-based district. Gilchrest certainly feels it is one of the nastiest:

Gilchrest, seeking his 10th term representing Maryland’s 1st District, compared political campaigns to having irritable bowel syndrome, with some ‘‘flare-ups” more severe than others.
‘‘Some flare-ups are mild and some flare-ups are just like crushing glass in your bowel. This is less mild,” he said. ‘‘With [IBS] you do what you need to do to take care of your bowel. In a political campaign you do what you can to take care of your integrity and your soul.”

Gilchrest faces several challengers. As discussed in an earlier post, State Sen. Andrew Harris has been endorsed by Robert Ehrlich. Besides Andy Harris, Gilchrest is also begin challenged by Dr. Joe Arminio, Attorney John Lee Walter, and Joseph Banks. Harris appears the most formidable as he has raised over $500,000. You can jump down the rabbit hole and find out what the Republicans think about this race at Brian Griffiths, monoblogue, and Red Maryland, which clearly seems behind Andy Harris since he is listed as a "friend" on the blogroll while the incumbent is an unperson.

Uberlobbyist 2007

According to this week's Gazette:

Uberlobbyist Bruce Bereano testified before the House Ways and Means on Saturday that a proposed sales tax on tattoos and body piercings would be "a tax on culture."

If he was able to say that with a straight face, he earned his fee.

Unhappy New Year from Metro

The Washington Post reports that Metro fares are going up on January 1:

The biggest increases would affect rush-hour subway riders, who make up the largest portion of daily users. The proposal would increase rush-hour boarding charges by 30 cents to $1.65 and increase the maximum fare per trip by 80 cents to $4.70.
A $1.15 increase in parking fees would be added at Metro lots, where spots cost as much as $4. The cost to take a bus would rise a dime for cash-paying passengers, though it would remain $1.25 for riders who pay with electronic SmarTrip cards.
The increases are aimed at raising $109 million to help close a projected shortfall in next year's budget.

I'm glad I'm not going to be sitting on the dais at the hearings on this one.

Testimony on Woodmont East II

The testimony from the community on the preliminary plan for the proposed development at Woodmont East II played a critical role in convincing the Planning Board to go against both the developers and even their own staff in their discussion of the plan. Nelson Rosenbaum, the author of two well-known texts on land use and urban planning, was especially devastating in his assessment of the Staff Report:

I have read the staff report on the proposed development in depth and I am frankly appalled at the shallow and capricious nature of the planning analysis underlying the recommendation for approval. Many of the staff findings sound as if they were written by the developer rather than by disinterested planning analysts. In particular, the staff findings on the proposed plaza that serves as the project’s core open space component rest upon nothing but conjecture. Despite use of loaded terms like "attractive gathering place”, “interesting water features and art features” and “experientially integrated outdoor space” , the staff acknowledges that “most of the details need to be worked out as the final easements, building footprints and circulation patterns are established”. In other words, trust us to provide you, the citizens, with whatever the developer comes up with. This is not an acceptable standard for planning process in Montgomery County, MD. At an emergency meeting called by County Councilman Roger Berliner, the project’s landscape architect could show nothing more than vague sketches of what the plaza might look like. What we were able to glean is that the so-called plaza would in reality be more like a “slot canyon”, with an 120 foot glass wall on one side and an overhanging bridge blocking out the sun. . . .

We need a center -- a town square in our community. This could be accomplished by the developer meeting with the community to understand its needs and then revising its plans appropriately. Or it could be accomplished by the county government acquiring the necessary property through the Legacy Open Space program. Or perhaps a combination of both. What we don’t want is a bum’s rush to development approval and dismissal of our concerns by the planning staff with a pat on the head. Again, the staff work on the application submitted by three Bethesda citizen’s organization for a Legacy Open Space initiative at this site is appalling. The staff dismisses the application without serious analysis, emphasizing the availability of other parks that are not even remotely comparable in significance or location to the proposed site. The Planning Board can surely do better in its staff work.

The head of the Legacy Open Space program met with the attorney for the developers but not with supporters of the application or members of the community in advance of the decision. While the Legacy Open Space Advisory Board was presented with a negative view on the application from planning staff, community members were not offered an opportunity to present a countervailing viewpoint.

According to accounts, the Planning Board repudiated central conclusions of the staff report which were vigorously defended by the staff when a small group, including myself, met with them the day before the hearing. The Planning Board rejected the following conclusions supported by staff and the developer:

The developer's rights to Reed Street. The attorney for the developer was forced to concede under questioning that the County does not accept this position. It is surprising that the planning staff maintained otherwise when I met with them.

The Master Plan mandates this development. The testimony of Pat Baptiste and Jim Humphrey was extremely effective in countering these claims. Both cited chapter and verse from the Master Plan to great effect.

Existing parks are adequate. The staff report argued that Elm Street Park and the park next to Bethesda Library are sufficiently close despite being across the major arteries of Wisconsin Ave. or Arlington Rd. Planning staff also mentioned that the proximity of the Discovery Trail--a truly undiscovered and unknown open space as Jon Weintraub explained. Planning staff suggested that more kiosks were needed to direct people to other open spaces, suggesting a lack of appreciation for the idea of organic development. In contrast, the Planning Board understood that the community desires an urban park and gathering place at Woodmont East, a quite different sort of park than these neighborhood parks. Members of the Board went to so far as to declare that the proximity of these other parks should be ignored in revisiting this issue.

Green space won't work. The staff report was emphatic that only a hardscape park in the manner of Bethesda Metro Center--not exactly a roaring success--could be constructed in the space. The Planning Board does not agree.

The "floating bar" over the open space creates an "outdoor living room." As Linda Skalet aptly pointed out, "floating bar" is an Orwellian name for a 10-story building which blocks out the sunlight over much of the so-called "open space". This adoption of developer terminology like this was another strong indication of problems with the report. On many versions of the plan the "floating bar" only appeared as two barely visible dotted lines, masking how it covered the open space.

I was extremely pleased to hear the Planning Board voice these opinions as they reflect my own as expressed in my written testimony to the Planning Board.

I was perplexed to hear that the only two people who testified in favor of the plan represented the Action Committee for Transit (ACT) and the Coalition for Smarter Growth. While supporters of smart growth certainly favor higher density, they also view open space as vital in increasingly dense urban areas, as exemplified by Portland, Oregon--a paragon of smart growth. Open space is critical in order to avoid the aspects of high-density development which many feel undermine the success of development in Rosslyn or Crystal City. The inevitable rise in density which will accompany the many projects planned for downtown Bethesda is why we need a park at this location.

The opposition to this small urban park in a central location raises the question as to whether ACT and the Coalition really favor "smart growth" and "transit" or merely the development which can be justified in its name. Ben Ross of ACT was seen huddling in conference with the developers after the meeting. How did proponents of "smart growth" get so estranged from the community?

More Testimony on Woodmont East II

From Jon Weintraub of the Bethesda Civic Association:

We need to maintain the open epicenter of downtown Bethesda with the green space and its air, and light that we have opposite Gifford’s and the movie theater between Thyme Square and Mon Ami Gabi. We cannot support the cavernous linear park in this proposal. Let me be more specific:

The County is NOT getting enough by giving up Reed Street. This is a very bad deal for the County and its citizens in downtown Bethesda!

The staff report overestimates nearby green space and open space. Most of this reported space is NOT in the epicenter of our downtown where residents and visitors congregate. For example, no one knows what the “Discovery Trail” open space is or whether it meets a need. Let’s meet in front of Barnes and Noble and ask people if they know what the “Discovery Trail” is. If we bet an ice cream cone on this, I would reach a year’s worth before you would get a half a dozen. [emphasis mine]

The design of this building and its 132 foot bar greatly limits the exposure of sunlight to the remaining open space. There are alternatives that must be explored before the county approves this design and gives up Reed Street.

The citizens of downtown Bethesda do not need another “hardscape.” We have a big area of concrete in front of the metro. We do not need a 75 foot wide paved landscape. What we do need is to maximize this space for a “green public commons”, a true gathering space for our kids and grandchildren, as suggested by County Councilman Berliner.

From Stephen Seidel:

The staff report states that the “project provides a series of open spaces that are both functional and attractive” and that the proposal “will create a new public plaza in this important area of Bethesda that will serve as an attractive community gathering place…” In contrast, my concern and one shared by many in the community, is that added to several major development projects that have already been approved, this project will inevitably result in pervasive overcrowding while also eliminating the last piece of truly open space in this critical gathering place in downtown Bethesda.

Numerous other people testified on the project. The great range of area from which supporters of a park is a testament to the importance of preserving this open space. I'm grateful and thank them all, including:

Pat Baptiste & Wayne Phyillaier of the Coalition for the Capital Crescent Trail.
Richard Battaglia.
Pam Browning of the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition.
Pat Burda of the Town of Chevy Chase's Long-Range Planning Committee.
Ara Casey of the Ayrlawn Citizens Association.
Matt Chalfant.
James Crilley of The Hamlet.
Lee Eiden.
Ilaya Hopkins of the East Bethesda Citizens Association.
Jim Humphrey of the Montgomery County Civic Federation.
Zoie Jennings-Aguil.
Penina Maya.
Patrick Mazuzan of Oakmont.
Donald McCubbin of Take Back Bethesda.
Judith McGuire.
Maureen Jais-Mick of the Edgemoor Citizens Association.
Linda Miler.
Stephen Seidel.
Naomi Spinrad of the Chevy Chase West Citizens Association.
Deborah Vollmer.
Jon Weintraub & Linda Skalet of the Bethesda Civic Association.
Mier Wolf, Councilman and Former Mayor of the Town of Chevy Chase.

And, of course, Councilmen Roger Berliner and Marc Elrich who spoke out against the preliminary plan in advance of the Planning Board hearing.

Friday, November 09, 2007

Dueling Videos: Wynn-Edwards Round II

Walking into the auditorium of Blair HS last night to watch the Fourth Congressional District of Maryland debate sponsored by the Greater Silver Spring Democratic Club I took my seat and looked around the room where video cameras, camcorders, and digital cameras were everywhere. I could not help think back to the debate at PG CC on August 16, 2006 where Wynn staffers went after an Edwards supporter and it was caught on videotape. That one single incident changed the dynamics of the 2006 primary race more than any other event. And it was not even the candidates themselves. Since then it seems both sides are recording everything to protect themselves and record their opponent. Well why not let the campaigns get their message out here? Call it dueling videos.

A quick review of YouTube found several videos from both sides that outline their positions. Here is a link to a recent Donna Edwards video as well as one from a Wynn fundraiser with the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, supporting Al Wynn.

This blog space could be used to regularly post videos from the candidates outlining their positions. So I ask now do any of the candidates have copies of the debate that they want to share. Our viewership at Maryland Politics Watch (MPW) is around 230 hits a day and climbing. We are among the top blogs for Maryland Politics. This is the largest race we will have where the candidates are here to talk the issues. (The Presidential candidates come here to raise money.)

There are only 106 days to the election. Outline here via videos and comments why you should be the next Congressional Representative from Maryland Four. So here is your chance to educate the voters; ball is in your court.

Ground rules for Wynn-Edwards II: at the debate there were only a dozen of the 150 people who were undecided on this contest. Both sides have large pools of supporters that feel passionately about their candidate. Let's keep things civil. I will have little tolerance for people that post personal attacks and don't have the guts to sign their real name to it. This blog, unlike others, has contributors that sign their name. So do the same or risk having your remarks deleted.

And on to the House of Delegates

The Washington Post editorial board attacked witheringly the Senate budget plan as far too regressive, calling it "An Air Kiss to the Rich" and making especially pointed attacks on Montgomery senators. All MoCo senators supported the plan except Delegation Chair Rona Kramer who favored making the plan less progressive.

Meanwhile, the Baltimore Sun valuably explains the different paths being taken by the House and the Senate in their approach to the budget.

Senate Vote on Tax Package

Here is the final tally on the tax package adopted by the Senate along with selected breakdowns by party and region. The vote was 24-23.

Selected Breakdowns by Party and Region:
Republicans: 0 Yea, 14 Nay
Montgomery (all are Democrats): 7 Yea, 1 Nay
Prince George's (all are Democrats): 8 Yea, 0 Nay
Baltimore City (all are Democrats): 5 Yea, 1 Nay
Baltimore County Democrats: 2 Yea, 4 Nay

VOTING YEA (24):
Britt (D-Prince George's)
Conway (D-Baltimore City)
Currie (D-Prince George's)
Exum (D-Prince George's)
Forehand (D-Montgomery)
Frosh (D-Montgomery)
Garagiola (D-Montgomery)
Gladden (D-Baltimore City)
Jones (D-Baltimore City)
Kasemeyer (D-Baltimore County and Howard)
Kelley (D-Baltimore County)
King (D-Montgomery)
Lenett (D-Montgomery)
Madaleno (D-Montgomery)
McFadden (D-Baltimore City)
Middleton (D-Charles)
Miller (D-Prince George's and Calvert)
Muse (D-Prince George's)
Peters (D-Prince George's)
Pinsky (D-Prince George's)
Pugh (D-Baltimore City)
Raskin (D-Montgomery)
Robey (D-Howard)
Rosapepe (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's)

VOTING NAY (23):
Astle (D-Anne Arundel)
Brinkley (R-Frederick and Carroll)
Brochin (D-Baltimore County)
Colburn (R-Eastern Shore)
DeGrange (D-Anne Arundel)
Della (D-Baltimore City)
Dyson (D-Southern MD)
Edwards (R-Western MD)
Greenip (R-Anne Arundel)
Haines (R-Baltimore County and Carroll)
Harris (R-Baltimore County and Harford)
Hooper (R-Harford)
Jacobs (R-Cecil and Harford)
Kittleman (R-Carroll and Howard)
Klausmeier (D-Baltimore County)
Kramer (D-Montgomery)
Mooney (R-Frederick and Washington)
Munson (R-Washington)
Pipkin (R-Eastern Shore)
Simonaire (R-Anne Arundel)
Stoltzfus (R-Eastern Shore)
Stone (D-Baltimore County)
Zirkin (D-Baltimore County)

Interestingly, no Republicans broke from their party to oppose final passage of the tax package even though three voted for slots. Their votes were critical to passing the slots referendum and if they had voted against slots, it would've killed the package. On the other hand, four Democrats who voted against slots voted for the tax package: Frosh, Muse Pinsky, and Raskin; they could've killed slots by voting down the tax package but chose to support it. Della was the only Democratic senator to vote against slots and the tax package and is the only Democrat to claim to have opposed slots solidly.

All senators from Baltimore City, Montgomery, and Prince George's voted for the bill except Sen. Rona Kramer (D-Montgomery). In contrast, most senators from Baltimore County voted against the bill.

Middle Class Tax Relief Package Passes House

From Rep. Chris Van Hollen's office:

Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) today hailed the House passage of H.R. 3996, the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007. The legislation, which passed on a vote of 216 to 193, protects 23 million middle-class families from being hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax and includes a series of other provisions that provide tax relief to working families.

“Whatever its original intent, the AMT is today a poster child of tax policy gone awry,” said Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD). “As we work towards comprehensive tax reform — including full repeal of the AMT — it is imperative that we act promptly to keep this tax tsunami from crashing down on 23 million unsuspecting American taxpayers. Moreover, with the national debt now exceeding $9 trillion, I am pleased that we are moving forward with this AMT patch in a fiscally responsible manner so that future generations will not have to spend their lives paying for the choices we make today.” The bill:

Provides 30 million homeowners with property tax relief
Helps 12 million children by expanding the child tax credit
Benefits 11 million families through the State and local sales tax deduction
Helps 4.5 million families better afford college with the tuition deduction
Saves 3.4 million teachers money with a deduction for classroom expenses
Provides thousands of American troops in combat with tax relief under the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The Temporary Tax Relief Act included two bipartisan amendments introduced by Congressman Van Hollen. The first Van Hollen Amendment – patterned after the AMT Credit Fairness and Relief Act (HR 3861) - would eliminate the injustice imposed upon hardworking Americans caused by the unintended and unanticipated effects of the AMT as it relates to Incentive Stock Options. As a result of this unfair provision many Americans are currently forced to pay taxes on phantom income – income they never received. The second Van Hollen amendment would repeal the IRS’s authority to enter into contracts with private companies to collect federal income taxes.

Senate Vote on Slots

Here is the final tally on the slots bill adopted by the Senate along with selected breakdowns by party and region. The vote was 31-15 with one abstention. The measure needed 29 votes to pass.

Selected Breakdowns by Party and Region:
Republicans: 3 Yea, 10 Nay, 1 Absent
Montgomery (all are Democrats): 6 Yea, 2 Nay
Prince George's (all are Democrats): 6 Yea, 2 Nay
Baltimore City (all are Democrats): 5 Yea, 1 Nay
Baltimore County Democrats: 6 Yea, 0 Nay

VOTING YEA (31):
Astle (D-Anne Arundel)
Britt (D-Prince George's)
Brochin (D-Baltimore County)
Colburn (R-Eastern Shore)
Conway (D-Baltimore City)
Currie (D-Prince George's)
DeGrange (D-Anne Arundel)
Dyson (D-Southern MD)
Edwards (R-Western MD)
Exum (D-Prince George's)
Forehand (D-Montgomery)
Garagiola (D-Montgomery)
Gladden (D-Baltimore City)
Jones (D-Baltimore City)
Kasemeyer (D-Baltimore County and Howard)
Kelley (D-Baltimore County)
King (D-Montgomery)
Klausmeier (D-Baltimore County)
Kramer (D-Montgomery)
Lenett (D-Montgomery)
Madaleno (D-Montgomery)
McFadden (D-Baltimore City)
Middleton (D-Charles)
Miller (D-Prince George's and Calvert)
Munson (R-Washington)
Peters (D-Prince George's)
Pugh (D-Baltimore City)
Robey (D-Howard)
Rosapepe (D-Anne Arundel and Prince George's)
Stone (D-Baltimore County)
Zirkin (D-Baltimore County)

VOTING NAY (15):
Brinkley (R-Frederick and Carroll)
Della (D-Baltimore City)
Frosh (D-Montgomery)
Greenip (R-Anne Arundel)
Haines (R-Baltimore County and Carroll)
Harris (R-Baltimore County and Harford)
Jacobs (R-Cecil and Harford)
Kittleman (R-Carroll and Howard)
Mooney (R-Frederick and Washington)
Muse (D-Prince George's)
Pinsky (D-Prince George's)
Pipkin (R-Eastern Shore)
Raskin (D-Montgomery)
Simonaire (R-Anne Arundel)
Stoltzfus (R-Eastern Shore)

ABSENT (1):
Hooper (R-Harford)

Three Republicans broke from their party's opposition to slots in the special session to vote for the bill. Democratic votes against did not come from any particular region of the State. Lopsided majorities of Democrats from Baltimore, Baltimore City, Montgomery, and Prince George's voted for the bill. Brian Frosh (D-16) was the only senator who is seen as a potential successor to Miller who voted no.

Councilman Berliner on Woodmont East Decision

Councilman Roger Berliner issued the following statement after the Planning Board meeting on Woodmont East II yesterday:

Congratulations to everyone who worked so hard to preserve open space in the heart of Bethesda. After 3 ½ hours of effective testimony from the community and increasingly skeptical questions from the Board, the developers withdrew the application. As Chairman Hanson was reported to have said, this project needs to be totally reoriented – it should first focus on the public space and then build in a manner that enhances that space. It is my hope that the developers will choose to work with the community in a formal, collaborative process to produce a result that we can all be proud of.Publish Post

I know that many people appreciate Councilman Berliner's strong leadership on this question in convening public meetings on the project, speaking out before the Planning Board meeting, and developing an alternative vision for this space. Thanks also to Councilman Marc Elrich who joined in these efforts to protect valuable open space.

Friday on MPW

Special Session Roundup

ENDA Passes the House. However, Equality Maryland Not Celebrating

Federal Realty/JBG Loses on Woodmont East at the Planning Board

Court Rules Against ICC Opponents; Last Barrier to ICC Toppled

Special Session Roundup

Both the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post report that the Maryland Senate approved a referendum on slots. The referendum was approved on a 31-15 vote. Here is where the money goes:

If approved by voters next November, the slots bill would generate about $650 million a year for the state, nearly $400 million a year for the parlor operators and more than $75 million a year for enhanced payouts in horse races -- a practice that is in place in several neighboring states.

An amendment sponsored by Bethesda Sen. Brian Frosh (D-16) should be of interest to snowbirds who winter in Florida and claim residency there but return to the Old Line State in Winter. The amendment alters the definition of residency in Maryland to anyone who spends three months of year in Maryland. In other words, you can go to Florida but Maryland still wants your tax revenue. The amendment passed on a 24-23 vote. According to the Washington Post, the amendment would yield another $58 million in tax revenue.

Unfortunately, the General Assembly website does not show how individual senators voted on measures until several days later which is a pity because I'd enjoy reporting how individual senators voted.

ENDA Passes the House but Equality MD Not Celebrating

Equality Maryland issued the following statement via email after the passage of the Employment and Non-Discrimination Act by the U.S. House of Representatives (no link because I cannot find it on the EM website):

Yesterday, the United States House of Representatives voted 235-184 to pass H.R. 3685, a non-inclusive version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) which protects workers from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation alone, and not gender identity. This is the first time the United States House of Representatives has passed an employment nondiscrimination act that, if enacted, would ban discrimination against most lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people in the workplace. The bill has an uphill battle in the Senate and would almost certainly be vetoed by President Bush.

For some, the passage of a non-inclusive ENDA feels like an important symbolic victory, even though it will not be signed into law to tangibly help lesbian, gay or bisexual Americans in the immediacy. Equality Maryland acknowledges three decades of work by our allies in Congress and by national LGBT organizations who have been passionate and determined to bring this civil rights legislation before Congress. Certainly, passing ENDA may serve an educational value for society as a whole as to the discrimination faced by some in our community. Still, Equality Maryland remains concerned that passage of a non-inclusive bill damages efforts to pass truly inclusive legislation both in Maryland and at a time when such legislation will have the support of the President of the United States.

Equality Maryland is part of the United ENDA coalition which issued the following negative statement (reproduced by Equality Maryland):

While the passage in the House of Representatives today of this stripped down ENDA is deeply disappointing, we have seen a tremendous shift in the commitment of a growing number of legislators to only support an inclusive ENDA in the future when passage in the Senate and the signature of a new President make the enactment of comprehensive employment protections a possibility. We remain frustrated and disappointed that an inferior bill was brought to the floor. The stripping away of gender identity not only abandons transgender people - the most vulnerable within the LGBT community - it ignores the reality that gender identity and expression are at the root of much anti-gay discrimination.

Meanwhile, the Human Rights Campaign issued the following upbeat statement:

"Today, we witnessed the making of civil rights history in the U.S. House of Representatives by the passing of ENDA," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. "This vote by Congress is an important step at ensuring that millions of gay and lesbian Americans will never again have to go to work in fear of losing their jobs because of who they are."

In 31 states, it is currently legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation. In 39 states, it is legal to fire a person for being transgender.

The Human Rights Campaign helped introduce ENDA 13 years ago to prevent workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. This year, for the first time, HRC and allies on the Hill included gender identity in the bill to also protect transgender workers. One month ago, House leadership made it clear that Congress did not have the votes to pass HR 2015, which prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This week, House Rules Committee reported out Congressman Frank’s HR 3685, a bill that protects only sexual orientation, to the floor.

While HRC was disappointed that HR 3685 did not include protections for transgender Americans, it believes the successful passage of Congressman Frank’s bill is a step forward for all Americans, and that it paves the way for additional progress to outlaw workplace discrimination based on gender identity.

"Our fight for equality will not be won overnight," said Solmonese. "It will be won one step at a time, and we will not give up until we reach the finish line. This is a critical piece of legislation and a major step toward the finish line for all Americans."

Throughout history, Congress has often taken an incremental approach toward equality for other civil rights and business regulatory legislation. For example, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was introduced in five consecutive congresses for eight years and was vetoed twice by former President Bush before it was finally signed into law on February 5, 1993, by President Clinton. Each time the FMLA was introduced, Members built upon the protection from the previous year’s legislative action.

Additionally, each piece of civil rights legislation passed by Congress -- in 1957, 1960, 1963, 1965, 1967, 1968, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1990 -- continued the legislative path of the expansion of essential civil rights protections in law.

On Tuesday, the Human Rights Campaign joined the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR); the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), among other organizations in the civil rights community, in support of the bill that would make it illegal for employers to discriminate on sexual orientation. The letter was signed by 10 national civil rights and worker protection organizations representing millions of Americans.

The Advocate reports that 70% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people supported HRC's position that an ENDA without protections for transgender people is better than no ENDA at all.

I expressed my thoughts immediately after the passage of ENDA here. Below is an except from the transcript of the YouTube which I posted yesterday of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) fighting with his usual passion and skill for the passage of the bill on the floor of the House. I found it far more eloquent and moving than any official statements or polls:

Mr. Speaker, we say here that we don't take things personally, and usually that is true. Members, Mr. Speaker, will have to forgive me. I take it a little personally.

Thirty-five years ago, I filed a bill to try to get rid of discrimination based on sexual orientation. As we sit here today, there are millions of Americans in States where this is not the law. By the way, 19 States have such a law. In no case has it led to that decision [i.e. same-sex marriage]. The Massachusetts law passed in 1989, that did not lead to the decision in 2004. Unrelated.

But here is the deal. I used to be someone subject to this prejudice, and, through luck, circumstance, I got to be a big shot. I am now above that prejudice. But I feel an obligation to 15-year-olds dreading to go to school because of the torments, to people afraid that they will lose their job in a gas station if someone finds out who they love. I feel an obligation to use the status I have been lucky enough to get to help them.

I want to ask my colleagues here, Mr. Speaker, on a personal basis, please, don't fall for this sham. Don't send me out of here having failed to help those people.

Thanks Barney.

Thursday, November 08, 2007

Post Hightlights Ali-King Discord in District 39

The Washington Post highlighted clashes between Del. Saqib Ali (D) and Sen. Nancy King (D) in District 39. Readers will recall that Sen. P.J. Hogan recently stepped down and both Ali and King vied for the appointment to the open senate seat. The Central Committee selected King. The Post blogger, and King, imply that Ali's disagreement are sour grapes without actually using the words, though there is also substance at issue:

Their latest dispute involves part of Gov. Martin O'Malley's revenue plan that includes a movement toward "combined reporting," a method of collecting corporate income taxes that seeks to capture revenue lost by businesses that shelter income in out-of-state subsidiaries. And Ali said he took umbrage that King not only supported the budget committee's decision to delete O'Malley's provision from the revenue bill, but that she introduced a bill of her own that would essentially do the same thing.

"One way to kill something is to say we're going to study it," Ali said of King's legislation to study combined reporting. "I'm not sure why this is where she decided to take her stand."

King said there is not enough information on combined reporting, and that's why she thinks a study is warranted. "I'm not against combined reporting, I just think we need more information before we start it," she said.

As for Ali's questioning her every move: King said, "It all follows along. I'll probably be doing this for three years."

Federal Realty/JBG Loses on Woodmont East at the Planning Board

The Planning Board pleasantly stunned the community and did not endorse the preliminary plan for Woodmont East II despite the strong push from the developers and a very positive report from the Planning Board's staff. Regrettably, I could not attend the meeting and testify (that having to earn a living thing getting in the way again), though I submitted a memo to the Planning Board outlining my objections to the Staff Report. According to my many sources, an amazing job was done by the many park proponents. More to come.

ICC Opponents Lose Lawsuit

A federal judge ruled in favor of the government and ruled that construction of the ICC can go ahead:

He wrote that government agencies abided by federal law outlining how highway projects' environmental impacts must be analyzed before they are approved. The judge noted the "extensive record and the agencies' level of technical expertise and experience."

"Although [the government agencies'] actions in some instances may not have been a paragon of perfection, the court, nonetheless, cannot find anything that rises to the level of a meaningful violation" of federal requirements, Williams wrote in a 106-page opinion issued this afternoon. "For all of these reasons, the court concludes that there is no legal or equitable basis to prevent the Inter-County Connector from moving forward."

The lawsuit was the last realistic hope of ICC opponents. Even the lawsuit was a long shot as the government usually wins these cases. Gov. Martin O'Malley has expressed strong support for the ICC so I think we can expect the State to move quickly to construct it.

Thursday on Maryland Politics Watch

Kevin Gillogly gives an insider's perspective on the Rockville election.

The Washington Post does not have a single article on Maryland's special session but we have a roundup here of the Budget Wars (Episode II: The Progressives Strike Back).

The Chevy Chase Town Council met last night; read my account see photos of this somewhat contentious meeting.

Development issues just won't go away; the hearing on Woodmont East is today. Political Pulse has development expert Jim Humphrey on the show.

Finally, I outline current divisions within the gay-rights movement and discuss yesterday's passage of the Employment and Non-Discrimination Act by the U.S. House.

ENDA Passes the House

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has led the fight to pass the Employment and Non-Discrimination Act for over three decades. Thanks to his untiring efforts, it passed the House yesterday. The New York Times reports that the bill is likely to pass the Senate early in the new year. What a difference Democratic control of Congress makes.

The Republicans tried to kill the bill not by honestly admitting that they favor continued discrimination but through endless specious attempts to claim that the bill somehow legalizes gay marriage. The following YouTube makes plain their parliamentary maneuvers but also, more importantly, shows at least one reason I'm proud to be a Democrat.

I suspect the bill will do more as a symbol than in terms of actual prevention of discrimination. This bill is a public statement by the body representing the people of this country that gays and lesbians are a part of the fabric of the American family. That truth may eventually lead to gay marriage and is reflected in the rapid evolution of public opinion on this issue. It may also lead to the end of the ability of Republicans to divide us and gain power based on such questions. I'm not sure which the formerly-Grand Old Party fears more.

Woodmont East Park Hearing Today

The Gazette and the Washington Post both published articles highlighting Councilman Roger Berliner's proposal for a park at Woodmont East. Today, the Planning Board will hold a hearing on Woodmont East at approximately 2:30PM at 8787 Georgia Ave. If you can, go and be vocal in your support for a park.

Even though the hearing was scheduled for the middle of a workday and the Planning Board ignored requests to move it to a different time, many people want to testify on this project. One day in advance of the hearing, the Planning Board decided to limit public comment to three hours. I've explained my views on the official staff report on the project here. In addition to Councilman Berliner, Councilman Marc Elrich has expressed his support for a park.

Meanwhile, the developer is refusing to talk to the press, having not returned calls or declined interviews with both the Gazette and the Washington Post.

Thursday Special Session Roundup

According to the Baltimore Sun, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a Washington based non-partisan, non-profit research group, released a study today showing that Gov. Martin O'Malley's tax plan was much kinder to low-income Marylanders than the version being considered by the state Senate. The Department of Legislative Services agrees:

The governor has tried to sell his plan to the public by saying that for most families, his proposals to reduce the state property tax and make the state income tax more fair would more than make up for his plan to increase the sales tax from 5 percent to 6 percent. But figures from the Department of Legislative Services show that the Senate's amendments erased any benefits middle-income Marylanders might have received.

The department estimated that a family with an income of $75,000 a year would pay $166 more, and a family with an annual income of $150,000 would pay an extra $332.

Gov. O'Malley says he wants to revive the property and income tax cuts eliminated by the Senate which he says would make the plan more fair. Eric Luedtke reports that four senators from Montgomery are mounting an effort to amend the Senate bill to make it more progressive though the post doesn't give details on the proposal or which MoCo senators are supporting it.

Comptroller Peter Franchot continued to redefine his role as tribune for the people rather than bean counter and did not miss an opportunity to blast the Senate. He even took to the Web with an attack on the Senate plan. Comptroller Franchot labeled the Senate plan "a regressive pounding of working families and the working poor." Now that he has gone after the Governor and the Senate, I guess the House of Delegates is up next.

Another Sun article reports that the O'Malley lobbying effort relies more on the philosophy of you catch more politicians with honey than with vinegar. Meanwhile, Republican senators didn't show up the Senate session and then felt hurt when the Democrats made light jokes about their absence. I'm sure we all feel their pain.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

A Winner Has Many Parents and A Loser is an Orphan: What Happened In The Rockville Mayoral Race

Dear Readers, I have been involved in the recently completed Rockville Municipal election and my candidate, Drew Powell, lost. We came in 3rd in a three horse race to be the next Mayor of Rockville. So how do you write a summary of an election where you lose? Carefully, because any criticism of the winning team could be construed as sour grapes when your side lost. Winners get to write the ending, not losers.

The title of this posting is true because elections are a birth. If your side wins you stay up most of the night, lights on, upbeat music playing, passing along good cheer, maybe a cigar, while scores of new found friends are hugging and high fiving each other. It is almost impossible to wipe the smile off of your face. True believers, family and close friends are mixed in with the causal acquaintances where no one cares about distinctions. It is a time to celebrate everything that is good about the American political system. If you lose your party is over in about 10 minutes and those that remain are the one or two true believers sitting in a dimly lit room with the shades drawn looking at each other and saying "what happened?" The hardest part is the self-examination. It is even harder to do when you have been running on raw emotion for the past four days. You are tired but not sleepy, angry but not postal, lonely but not alone, and hungry but not eating. So it is best to give yourself some time to collect your thoughts -- and move away from the ledge.

For first timers (both candidates and the hard core supporters) losing is terrible. Losing sides may think that their world has collapsed but they are wrong. Losing an election is neither war nor death. Emotionally it is akin to breaking up with your first girlfriend (or boyfriend) as a teenager. It is not the end of the world but sure feels like it. Just as teenage love occurs when you do not having the emotional skills to cope with a personal rejection, losing an election tests your core beliefs. It is painful. It is something to be experienced and not posted in a blog. Rejection at the polls requires you to develop your emotional skills. Just like talking to a parent about your first breakup, it helps to have someone who you can talk to about this most public of rejections. That is why campaigns are like adolescence romance it is huge to the teenager but as an adult you know that the youngster's world has not collapsed. There are bigger things ahead. We just don't know what it is. Still losing an election that you are emotionally invested in hurts like heck.

I feel sorry for political activists that have never experienced defeat because they have probably never pushed themselves nor never tested the limits of what government can be: a vehicle for positive change, a place to bring new thinking to old ideas, a chance to leave this place a bit better than before. Isn't that the reason for getting into politics in the first place? But the risk of losing steers many political activists to be safe. And so we get the politics of least resistance. And that leads to middling policy and not true change.

A victory is twice as sweet if it has as its core a previous loss. You appreciate the winning moment more. At the same time, if you never experience a win in politics then you never get the chance to make a difference and you might as well join a gardening club or risk being compared to perennial candidate Harold Stassen.

The Danger In Victory
The danger of an electoral victory is you think you have a mandate to change things that the voters may not have given you. But no one knows the current answer to that future question. After a win you are at your zenith. Plato described in "The Republic" that the ultimate authority should be a citizen king who act as a benevolent dictator. On the morning after an election all winners are benevolent dictators. Unfortunately with each passing day that ultimate authority erodes until the next winning campaign. Still the winners have a mandate to change things as they see fit. And wasn't that the reason for the sacrifice in the first place?

If you lose an election then you find yourself curled away in your own cubby hole reluctant to venture out except to bark at someone. That's not a good thing to do. Remember the sun will come up tomorrow.

It takes guts to run for public office. Regardless of the candidate you should thank them for at least trying. I have never run and don't know if I ever will. But I like to help candidates that can make a community a better place. Unfortunately, last night in Rockville the voters did not want what my side offered.

So what happened in Rockville?
The short answer is obvious -- we did not get enough votes. The medium answer is: The contest did not center on our issues. We could not frame the key issues facing Rockville properly to the electorate; and we did not build the right coalition of supporters. The real answer is equally simple: it was not our time.

With each subsequent election, I learn more about myself. I learned that I am a product of all that I have met and all that I have touched. I was touched by many people. Most importantly by the candidate, Drew Powell (on the left). He is a good man with a desire to make Rockville a better place and I failed him in reaching this goal. I hope he finds a way to remain involved in his town and our county. He is an asset to our community. Drew, please find a way to continue to make our world better.

Why get involved in Rockville?
I think what Rockville does inside its city limits has a huge impact on the rest of the county, regardless of where you live. Rockville is our county seat. It is the geographic center of the county. Rockville Pike/ Rt. 355/ Hungerford Drive is the spine of the county. Having a correct spine keeps everything else in place. It is why I tried to make a difference in Rockville. We had a good candidate and good message, but we failed to get our message out and we lost.

What didn't happen in Rockville
I have been reading the blogs and the papers about how this race was divisive. Not really. I have seen a lot worse and even the stuff worse that I have seen in other elections has been quite tame. I think it is easy to jump to calling things "negative politics" if you don't want to respond. I think it is easy for reporters to discount things that disagrees with their hypothesis and never gave a fair hearing to what we were saying. I also think -- to be fair to the main reporter -- covering the 14 campaigns of Rockville is next to impossible considering the space limitations of newsprint. The debates were virtually unworkable due to the sheer size of the candidates. I also think news articles love to highlight conflict and horse race features of any campaign. They have a chance to instruct when I keep forgetting their goal is to get us to read the ads of the paper first and the articles second and to inform third. As for the debates, I have no better idea of how to organize a debate with so many people running.

But as I said at the beginning any criticism from me will sound like sour grapes. Why did we lose? Not enough votes and we failed to get our message out. It was that simple. Did the "right" people win? Sure. They always do. If you want to know the details then ask the winners, they earned the right to complete the story.

But it was a fun ride with a disappointing ending -- for me at least. For the winners, it was pure joy. So I tip my hat to the new Mayor and to the new members of the city council. Good luck to all. For me, I will remember the call from my girlfriend eager to know the results of the election. After I gave her the news she did her best to cheer me up. Just like a parent would do after one's first teenage romance gone astray. I appreciated that.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)