Comptroller Peter Franchot has steadily expanded his enemies list from Senate President Mike Miller to Governor Martin O’Malley to the General Assembly as a whole to the state Democratic Party. Not even his controversial predecessor, William Donald Schaefer, went this far. He is virtually begging for a primary challenge. But who could take him out?
The most-commonly mentioned possible candidate is Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith. Smith’s political career goes back to 1978, when he first became a Baltimore County Council Member, and paused for 16 years while he was a Circuit Court judge. In 2001, Smith resigned his judgeship to run for County Executive, beating a Republican with 56% of the vote while Bob Ehrlich carried the county in his successful campaign for Governor. Smith was then re-elected with 77% of the vote in the primary and 66% in the general election. He has attracted support from business, labor and many other players in his county and reported a campaign balance of $495,348.07 last January despite being term-limited.
Smith is a particularly attractive Comptroller challenger for the Governor for several reasons. First, Smith’s Chief of Staff is none other than Peter O’Malley, the Governor’s brother. Second, Smith’s age (68 in 2010) will likely prevent him from having ambitions for higher office, which will not earn the resistance of the current Governor’s hopeful successors. Third, Smith can be counted on to not rock the boat of the O’Malley-Miller-Busch-State Democratic team. Finally, Smith’s long record of success in Baltimore County, historically a swing jurisdiction, leads some to believe that he will be a strong centrist candidate statewide.
But there are two problems with Smith as a challenger. First, he underwent triple-bypass open heart surgery in August. Does he have the stamina to barnstorm across Maryland for more than a year? Second, Smith seems temperamentally ill-suited to a contentious matchup with the hypercompetitive Franchot. Check out this 2004 account from Baltimore Magazine posted on Smith’s own website: Jim Smith is a terrible politician. “He's not a gifted, natural politician -- nobody would deny that,” says Sun reporter Andy Green, who covered Smith for almost two years. “Which is not to say he's a bad county executive…”
These may be admirable traits on the part of Jim Smith, but is a person who is a “terrible politician” truly ready for a doomsday showdown with ultra-political Peter Franchot?
Smith admits he hates the political side of the job. “So much of politics is gamesmanship for the sake of the game, not for the responsibility of governing,” says the 62-year-old Democrat.
If Smith decides to run, the Governor and Big Daddy will clear the field for him and make sure he has the resources to compete. But what if Smith stays out? Then another challenger will have to be found. And the Post has identified such a potential candidate: District 15 Delegate Brian Feldman. More in Part Three.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Long Knives for Franchot, Part Two
Monday, December 15, 2008
Chevy Chase Town Council Meeting
The following is a brief summary of last Wednesday's Town Council meeting:
The Town Council approved a variance allowing Jim Roy to build a covered porch on the front of his property at 4511 Elm Street.
After a public hearing, the Council unanimously voted to adopt the Chevy Chase Challenge Climate Action Plan with a few small changes. The Council expressed its gratitude to the Environment Committee, particularly its Chair Judy McGuire, for all of their hard work. I believe that Judy was also the only one to speak at the public hearing and that the Council received no written comments.
The Council discussed the Community Services Survey, focusing primarily on the issue of public safety. The Council reiterated its desire to work on improving public lighting and support for the Public Services Committee's review of the issue. The Council also noted high levels of satisfaction with many areas, including staff performance.
Town Manager Todd Hoffman outlined his proposal the Council consider establishing a Capital Fund. A key purpose of the fund would be to make sure that the Town sets aside enough money to pay for expected capital costs, such as sidewalk maintenance and replacement, as well as future capital projects, such as potential land acquisitions for new parks or playgrounds.
Public Services Committee Liaison Al Lang presented a proposal to widen Oakridge Avenue. All members of the Council noted that the reaction of the residents in the area was unanimously negative to the proposal and a lack of a need for additional parking at this time. Many comments expressed satisfaction with the new sidewalks and a desire to leave well enough alone.
Who Wants to be on the Board of Elections?
From Alan Banov, Vice-Chairman, MCDCC.
Sam Statland, President of the Montgomery County Board of Elections, has resigned, and the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee requests applications to be nominated as a substitute Board member at its January 2009 meeting.
The County Board of Elections consists of five regular members (3 Democrats and 2 Republicans) and two substitute members (1 Democrat and 1 Republican). The other Democrats on the Board are Members John Sullivan and Jerry Garson and Substitute Member Rosalyn Pelles. By virtue of Mr. Statland’s resignation, Ms. Pelles has become a regular member.
At its regular meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2008, MCDCC will vote to nominate a candidate to be the new Democratic member. The Members of the Board of Elections serve for a four-year term and oversee the operations of the Board. Their work requires attendance at regular monthly meetings and considerable work, day and night, in the periods before, during, and after primaries and general elections. Board members receive a small stipend.
MCDCC is soliciting applications from registered Democrats who wish to serve as substitute Election Board member for the remainder of the current term, which ends in 2010. Experience with elections or the Elections Board is highly desirable.
To Apply: Please send a letter of interest and a resume or biographical sketch to the MCDCC at 3720 Farragut Avenue, Suite 303, Kensington, MD 20895-2195, or e-mail or fax them to MontgomeryDems@msn.com or 301-946-1002. The deadline to apply is 12:00 noon, Friday, January 9, 2009. Applicants will be interviewed by a committee of the MCDCC, starting at 7:30 p.m., January 12, in the order in which applications are received. Applicants will be notified on the afternoon of January 9 about the times of the interviews. Minorities, as well as women, are encouraged to apply.
Alan Banov (Legalrun@aol.com) and Karen Czapanskiy (KarenSyma@yahoo.com), are the chair and co-chair, respectively, of MCDCC Board of Elections Review Committee. Also serving on the committee are MCDCC Secretary Elliot Chabot and MCDCC Member Milt Minneman. The committee will make its recommendations at the January 13 MCDCC meeting. Applicants will be invited to appear at that meeting, but will not be expected to say anything more than to introduce themselves. The MCDCC will recommend that Governor Martin O’Malley appoint its selected candidate to the vacancy.
Long Knives for Franchot, Part One
In the aftermath of the slots campaign, Comptroller Peter Franchot is unquestionably the most hated man in Annapolis. As I write this, the preponderance of insider speculation is that it will be difficult for Governor Martin O’Malley and Senate President Mike Miller to resist the temptation to run someone against him. But if they try to get rid of Franchot, can they succeed?
It was not always this way. In 2006, Franchot’s predecessor, former Governor William Donald Schaefer, had become an embarrassment to the state Democrats. Schaefer’s comment that AIDS patients “brought it on themselves,” his tirade against McDonald’s workers who did not speak English and his blatant ogling of an aide to Governor Ehrlich fueled a barn-burning three-way election. Then-Delegate Peter Franchot, the surprise winner, had a reputation for going his own way in Annapolis but few expected him to behave as badly as Schaefer.
As soon as he took office, Franchot made clear he wanted to be a player in ways that exceeded the historical role of the Comptroller. He quickly proclaimed himself the state’s “Chief Fiscal Officer,” started showing up at news conferences everywhere and described himself as “an independent, fiscal watchdog who's a progressive.” That drew a quick rebuke from Big Daddy, who said he was elected to serve as a “tax collector, not as a policymaker.”
As long as Franchot’s battles were primarily against Miller, he benefitted. Big Daddy is the most feared man in Annapolis but he is not particularly well-liked, especially in the House of Delegates. Many legislators secretly enjoyed Franchot’s tweaks of Miller, something that few others dare to do. Some were willing to overlook Franchot’s behavior as the actions of a long-time gadfly. About a year ago, one Baltimore-area lawmaker told me, “That’s just Peter being Peter.”
But then Franchot started to go after Governor O’Malley, criticizing the 2007 special session, taunting the Governor over Montgomery County school construction money and demanding that the Governor “call off the attack dogs” during his anti-slots campaign. That made Annapolis legislators nervous. The office of Maryland Governor is unusually powerful by U.S. standards, especially over budgetary matters. Few legislators are interested in direct confrontation with the Governor and many became wary of getting too close to Franchot.
Franchot broadened his attacks during the slots campaign, when he told Prince George’s County church leaders, “We see what comes out of Annapolis... we know we can't trust them.” The anti-slots ad slamming “Annapolis Politicians” made matters worse. But the breaking point came when the state Democrats refused to let Franchot speak at their 2008 gala, prompting him to rant that the party “has become indebted to the national gambling industry.”
Franchot’s continued escalation of hostilities has earned him legions of enemies. One of my better-placed sources tells me:Beyond the slots issue where Peter at least arguably took a principled position (regardless of his contrary position on the same issue a decade earlier) and beyond his daily shots at the Democratic Governor which serve no clear cut purpose other than to get Peter’s name in the paper, many including myself are perplexed by the self-serving shots he’s now begun taking at the Democratic State Legislature. If this continues during the difficult upcoming Session, I think the chances of a serious primary challenge go way up. If he tones it down, the chances of such a challenge go down.
Peter Franchot is capable of many things, but “toning it down” does not appear to be one of them. That means he may very well attract a primary challenge. More on that in Part Two.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Porcari: System Preservation Should Come First
MDOT Secretary John Porcari is making clear that Maryland's share of the federal infrastructure stimulus package will be headed in large part to system preservation. Following is his comment on the issue to the National Journal's Transportation Blog:For an economic recovery plan to be effecitive, it must move quickly to first preserve the jobs that remain, and hopefully create more jobs. This argues for two approaches: 1) Utilize existing federal programs and formulas, and; 2) focus on system preservation projects.
The Secretary's thinking is in line with other transportation experts across the country. Rebuilding bridges, resurfacing highways and purchasing new rail cars and buses are non-controversial activities that are both necessary and can be started immediately. This is good news for my building trades brothers in the Laborers and Operating Engineers unions as well as businesses and commuters.
The existing federal programs and formulas are well known and understood (though not necessarily fair to those of us that are "donor" states). Getting projects out the door is the highest priority, and this is the fastest way to do it. And focusing on system preservation-- "fix it first"-- is the right priority, and avoids a state versus local (or regional) fight.
In Maryland, the project planning process begins with local priority lists. We have a collabrative process in determining project priorities. In the case of system preservation projects, these priorities are straightforward. They are then approved through the Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), so they have already had extensive public input.
The reality is that most, if not all, of the states have more system preservation projects today than are likely to be funded. These investments in bridges, rail transit, highway rebuildng and bus replacement will preserve and create jobs not just in our states, but in regions where the materials, vehicles and supplies are produced.
The Sun is reporting that MDOT has sent a project list to the state's Congressional delegation. We have asked for a copy of that list and will post it when we receive it.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Thursday Night Smackdown!
Last night, business and labor squared off on the CARR bill in one of the more entertaining bouts of the state hearing season. But there is a lot more to this story than the controversy over just one bill. Tensions are on the rise between two of the county’s most influential groups as Budget Armageddon builds steadily to its bloody climax.
Delegates Susan Lee (D-16), Brian Feldman (D-15), Anne Kaiser (D-14), Roger Manno (D-19) and Bill Bronrott (D-16)
But first, supporters and opponents of the CARR bill made their case at the House Delegation’s hearing on local bills. Five supporters testified, including three from labor: Bonnie Cullison, President of MCEA; Bob Stewart, Executive Director of MCGEO and Sean Dobson, Executive Director of Progressive Maryland. Their main points were:
1. The bill authorizes commercial property tax hikes by the County Council but does not mandate them.
2. The residential share of the county’s assessable property base has been climbing steadily for many years.
3. Splitting the residential from the commercial property tax rates would make it easier for the County Council to raise taxes without incurring a homeowner property tax revolt.
Sean Dobson, Delegate Al Carr (D-18), Bob Stewart and Bonnie Cullison
Nine opponents testified, including representatives from four Chambers of Commerce, one trade association and four businesses. Their main points were:
1. Residential property owners benefit from the homeowners property tax credit and the 10% annual cap in principal residence tax bill increases, neither of which are available to business.
2. The cumulative impacts of the special session tax hikes and county commercial property tax increase under the CARR bill would put the county at a crippling disadvantage.
3. Businesses are reeling under the terrible economy and further cost increases will put some of them over the edge.
The arguments on both sides have some merit and mirror my blog posts on the issue. But politicians are creatures of the moment. They want to know why something must be passed now. While the supporters talk about correcting what they see as historical inequities, opponents talk about the devastating consequences of tax hikes in the current environment. Alexandra Whitaker’s Get Real Consulting was named the Emerging Business of the Year when it was in the Rockville incubator. Shortly after leaving, Ms. Whitaker claims that her business is in a “delicate state of growth” and would lose customers if they must pass on the cost of a lease increase. David Fraser Hidalgo of Sandglass Systems in Kensington said, “Any increase in property taxes would have a devastating impact on our margins and our employees.” These arguments are particularly strong in a bad economic climate and are reinforced by an anti-tax disposition among the state’s politicians. The supporters find it difficult to counter them and as a result, none of our sources believe the bill will pass next year.
Alexandra Whitaker from Get Real Consulting, Kathleen Kittrick from Verizon, MoCo Chamber VP Lisa Fadden, Joshua Bokee from Comcast
But the CARR bill debate has illuminated a number of changes in Montgomery’s body politic. Three of them are:
1. The Re-Emergence of Business
Labor is a long-time power center in the county. Of the eighteen most-influential non-elected citizens in our recent poll, six are active in the labor movement. The leaders of MCEA, MCGEO and SEIU are especially visible. But last night spotlighted an increasingly important hidden hand in the county’s policy debates: Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce Vice-President Lisa Fadden. Brainy, relentless and occasionally combustible, Ms. Fadden attracts many comments from our spies.
“Smart and talented,” says one. “I think she's an intelligent advocate for the business community,” says another. One old hand comments, “She’s more effective than most lobbyists many years her senior.” And one particularly effusive spy gushed:Lisa Fadden is young, smart (really smart), brash, cute and knows what she thinks. She has no fear. She is not cut out of the old mold, in fact she represents what the future for leaders in this county look like. They are not waiting for anybody to give them permission to do or say what they think. Look out – the future has arrived.
Your author would not go that far, though we certainly enjoy covering brash characters on this blog. But Ms. Fadden is part of a youth movement that is slowly infiltrating many parts of the county’s political life. Business is one example. The Chamber of Commerce was once personified by its brilliant and imperious former CEO Rich Parsons and was thought to be primarily interested in development and the ICC. But the Chamber has diversified its interests over the last two years and is starting to mobilize its membership in ways reminiscent of civic associations. (See their revolt against Nancy Floreen’s parking space tax.) The economy is damaging the business community, but it is as politically relevant as ever.
2. Distrust is Building Between Business and Labor
The business and labor communities have a common interest in pursuing a revitalized economy. Labor in both the public and private sectors benefits from job creation, and job creation only happens when businesses are profitable. But the CARR bill dispute has interfered with their ability to work together.
Last spring, labor’s top priority was defending its cost-of-living adjustments. Many individuals inside the business world grumbled about those raises, but the business associations stayed out of the COLA debate. And none of the county’s major business associations opposed the recently-passed prevailing wage law. That silence benefited labor and isolated its opponents. But in advocating for the CARR bill, labor is pushing a measure that business considers “discriminatory” and “punitive.” Business feels the same outrage that labor would have felt had business opposed their COLAs.
School Board President Nancy Navarro offered substantial appeal to both business and labor during the County District 4 Special Election. Her campaign combined dozens of union member volunteer canvassers with influential business fundraisers. In the current atmosphere, that level of cooperation would be unlikely to occur if such an election were held today. Both business and labor may pay the price if an opening is created for candidates hostile to both of them.
3. Distraction from Armageddon
Even if passed, the CARR bill would not offer a total solution for the county’s budget problems. Judging from Senate President Mike Miller’s comments at the Committee for Montgomery breakfast on Monday, those problems are about to get a lot worse. Ann Marimow scooped the room in obtaining this post-speech quote from Big Daddy, which warrants repeating here:“There are going to have to be some adjustments,” Miller said after his formal remarks. “The county that gives big salaries and big benefits is going to have to make some adjustments.”
This is an existential and naked threat to labor, and not just in Montgomery County. Baltimore City and Prince George’s County also benefit from the Geographic Cost of Education Index (GCEI), which directs education aid to jurisdictions with higher schooling costs. All counties benefit from the state’s assumption of teacher pension liabilities. Both of these items are now at risk. If they are cut by the state, the public employee unions will be hit with layoffs and permanent budget difficulties in addition to the loss of their COLAs.
Labor’s political capital is limited. The more that is spent on the CARR bill, the less will be available for more important items. Refocusing on the priorities that really matter may be the only way to fend off Budget Armageddon.
Maryland and Obama’s Stimulus Package
By Sharon Dooley.
The message posted by Adam from the Obama Saturday message could hold great promise for Montgomery County’s transportation dilemma.
The recent series about Council member Marc Elrich’s bus rapid transit (BRT) proposals and options for the Purple Line transit mentions the costs and problems in trying to pull all of this together. But a drive through the down county shows the discussion is passionate and divisive as signs are popping up like winter cabbages throughout the area. Along Jones Bridge Road one sees signs stating “No BRT on Jones Bridge”, while further east one sees signs about no routing along Wayne Avenue. Additionally “Save the trail” and “Purple line now” signs continue to proliferate and add to the visual pollution of opinions. Routes have been proposed for light rail along the Capital Crescent Trail and bus rapid transit along Jones Bridge or even along the beltway, among others.
In this down-county route, options have been discussed about underground, above ground, and almost every thing except a monorail. Alternatives are proposed for the east and west terminal stations. There are great commercial gambles in attempting to guess which route will prevail and just who will be the final owners of which critical – and potentially quite profitable - properties along the chosen routes. Business concerns are said to be funding some of the activists on each side. Preservationists and environmentalists are finding some areas of concert and others of confusion. No one person is seemingly positioned to be the “decider” here, and maybe that is a good thing. There appears to be enough that is both positive and negative about many of these suggestions that dilution of the ultimate decision-making by a committee of some sort may well provide excellent political cover when and if a route is chosen.
However, in the middle of this debate about one section of the county is the fact that we have an entire county that is approaching gridlock in multiple areas as has been discussed in the previous series. (This is not the place to address the problem potentials of BRAC.) Companies who complain about delayed deliveries, or have to change routes due to construction or congestion frequently describe the cost to businesses. But the one question that is too important to be overlooked is how we, as an increasingly urban county, can provide adequate transportation to the approximately one million people who live here NOW? It appears abundantly clear that we must construct transit of some type to provide an east-west conduit for those who work within the county. It is also obvious that the orientation of the Metro, planned as it was in the 1950’s when we had bedroom communities sending all of their workers downtown to the city is no longer the operational model. The long-planned, much maligned (and properly so, in my opinion) Inter-County Connector will not serve this function for the working commuter and gobbles up most of our state transportation efforts in dollars and sense.
The Cross-county BRT routes that were presented by Marc Elrich in the previous week hold much promise, in my opinion. In my 2006 campaign I encouraged commuter express buses be established from Park and Rides at the county lines whether at the Prince George border or along our borders with Howard and Frederick Counties and encouraged major employers to supply van pool pick-ups from those same lots. This could have reduced the enormous parking lots at some of our new bio-techs, especially in the upcounty, where workers find 270 to be such a huge bottle neck.
Park and Planning needs to again look at the traffic planning areas and try to find more experts from outside the area who have done things differently. And, as Adam discussed, the traffic mitigation solutions utilized here at times ask for suspension of one's belief system! Portland, Oregon is expanding light rail to its various suburbs and as Delegate Al Carr recently noted, Cleveland is looking at varied expansions for its transit. Toronto is known for creative and non-automobile related solutions. While these are major cities and Montgomery County is not a city, it shares many of the same urban concerns seen in big cities.
Now – back to the title of this piece – Obama – stimulus and Montgomery County.
As was mentioned, President-elect Obama wants infrastructure stimulus projects that are set and ready to go, but are waiting for funding. This means that municipal or state areas have had the routes decided, the environmental impact studies are completed and there is agreement on the process by the community. To me that states clearly – let’s get on with the Corridor Cities Transit way (CCT) – it certainly meets each of these criteria. The CCT is primed and ready to go – the BRT pilot project can start here. Even though I think light rail might be the ultimate solution, were the line to be completed all the way to Frederick County as originally planned, Bus Rapid Transit could be ready to go in fairly short order; the route would provide good jobs and a necessary stimulus to the tax base here in the county. It is a cost-effective solution, and, although by no means inexpensive, this could jump-start this long delayed project. I think the council under the direction of new council President Phil Andrews – known for his environmental views – should have a plan ready for County Executive Ike Leggett to endorse before January 20th and get it ready to present to our new President on January 21st. (Now I know they go on vacation shortly and this might be a stretch – but a near approximation might well accomplish the same goal. California is already jumping forward with its wish list; Maryland should not lag far behind.)
Once we can implement this, and residents see the efficacy of the initiative, then we should be easily able to step in and gradually add those other BRT transit corridor routes proposed by Councilmember Elrich across the county. Also, by that time maybe those claims and counter claims in the down-county about purple-line routes and means will have been decided by a commission established by Governor O’Malley and the SHA. The SHA in its most recent MARC transportation decision has decided to decrease the numbers of routes and trains serving in Montgomery County, even though ridership is up along the Montgomery County MARC routes. In some convoluted thinking the gas tax – which comes from cars on the road – helps fund MARC, which takes drivers out of their cars, so when drivers drive less there is less money for trains. Reports of a recent hearing will be shared in a future article.
Next problem: convincing commuters to leave their cars – also more on that later.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
The Economy Must Be Really Bad If We Are Talking About Alcohol
By Marc Korman.
In some of the darkest days of the Great Depression, our legislators were not passing jobs programs or crafting fiscal stimulus packages, but were busy repealing the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, prohibition. This time, instead of increasing access to alcohol to get us through our economic malaise, plans are afoot to make it harder to buy a drink. The Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative has unveiled a new plan to help insure all Marylanders, partly paid for by an increase in alcohol taxes.
The proposal is described this way:Alcohol Tax: We propose to increase the state excise tax on alcohol in FY 2010. The state taxes on beer and wine have not increased since 1972, and the state tax on spirits has not increased since 1955. Maryland currently has the eighth-lowest tax in the nation for beer, the thirteenth-lowest tax for wine, and the third-lowest tax for spirits. We therefore propose a “Dime a Drink” increase in the state excise tax to $1.16 per gallon for beer, $2.96 per gallon for wine, and $10.03 per gallon for spirits. In addition to the revenue raised, an increase in the alcohol tax has public health benefits from the reduction of binge drinking, particularly among youths. We estimate total state revenue from the increase in the alcohol tax will be $1,015.0 million over the five-year budget window, with revenue of $197.0 in 2010. This revenue estimate incorporates the likely reduction in alcohol consumption caused by the higher net prices.
Maryland’s current tax rates on alcohol are $.09 per gallon for beer, $.40 per gallon for wine, and $1.50 per gallon of spirits, so the initiative is proposing some pretty hefty hikes. There are also federal taxes on alcohol, so it is not just the state taking a sip out of your beer.
Using so called sin taxes to pay for healthcare is not a new concept. In Maryland, an increase in the tobacco tax by $1.00 a pack (for a total of $2.00 a pack) during the 2007 Special Session helped pay for an expansion of the state Medicaid program to cover 100,000 of the state’s 800,000 uninsured.
Still, these proposed alcohol tax hikes are a bit extreme and unrealistic. These rates would make Maryland the highest taxer in the nation on beer and wine, and the eighth highest for spirits. Problematic for Montgomery County, where prices can already be a little higher due to direct control of alcohol sales, the District of Columbia would have significantly lower rates. I already know many people who travel out of Maryland for alcohol, and this could increase the trend. According to the Tax Foundation’s compilation of state taxes, the surrounding states alcohol tax rates are:
Beer/gallon Wine/gallon Spirits/gallon
DC $.09 $.30 $1.50 DE $.16 $.97 $3.75 MD $.09 $.40 $1.50
VA $.256 $1.51 $14.54
The proposal is also significantly more than even legislative leaders on this issue have been willing to promote. Here are the 2008 legislation session alcohol tax proposals:
Beer/gallon Wine/gallon Spirits/gallon
Gutierrez $.25 $1.00 $3.50
Bronrott/ $.27 $1.20 $4.50
Madeleno
Forehand $.54 $1.20 $4.50
I have been a proponent of the County trying to get increased revenue from alcohol sales. The County Executive should also rethink his opposition to opening County liquor stores on Sundays. One commenter on MPW even offered the suggestion that stores be open on Sunday instead of a weekday to keep operating costs roughly the same. Reforms like these, coupled with a modest increase in the alcohol tax, would make good policy both fiscally and socially.
Of course, given the perceived tax revolt, it is unlikely the General Assembly will raise taxes before the 2010 election. If they do, the funding will not go to new programs but will help balance the budget.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Environmental Defense Fund Withdraws Support from PL Now
EDF sent the following letter to Purple Line Now:
Dear Colleagues:
It was recently called to my attention that the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) remains listed on your website, http://www.purplelinenow.com/published/how_you_can_help/supporter_list.html, as a supporter of the Inner Purple Line Light Rail Transit (LRT) proposal. Please remove us from your list of supporters.
EDF continues to support the proposal for a circumferential dedicated transitway within the Purple Line corridor, as we have for many years.
However, additional information has surfaced since 2002 on the likely impacts and design of the Inner Purple Line LRT, as proposed by Maryland Department of Transportation (DOT). Recent analysis by Sam Schwartz for the Town of Chevy Chase has convinced EDF that the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Purple Line has not fairly considered Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) alternatives. Impacts to the viability of the Capital Crescent Trail and urban design problems posed at the western terminus of the LRT in downtown Bethesda need to be more fully considered. The large job growth that BRAC will bring to the National Institutes for Health and the Naval Medical Center area also make the Jones Bridge BRT option a viable one that deserves greater consideration. With the large budget deficits that Maryland faces, it is not prudent to dismiss the highly cost-effective BRT options for the Purple Line corridor. It appears BRT would also be more effective at reducing greenhouse gases and cutting use of motor vehicles in the corridor and the region. EDF is concerned that the Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the Purple Line is seriously flawed, as was the EIS for the Intercounty Connector.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Replogle
Transportation Director
Environmental Defense Fund
Maryland GOP is its Own Worst Enemy
Normally, one of the few advantages to being a minority party is greater unity. Party leaders in those circumstances can sometimes put aside their differences to rally behind the common goal of seizing power. But that is far from the case with Maryland’s Republican Party.
In September, the House GOP released a fiscal plan calling for tax cuts, a spending freeze and a slots license auction that they claim would raise more money than would the slots referendum. Democrats criticized them for not being specific about their spending cuts. However, in a March 2008 budget proposal, House Republicans did offer a few specific cuts which we reproduce below:
A few notes on the acronyms. OPEB refers to “other post-employment benefits,” which are primarily comprised of health benefits for retirees. The Government Accounting Standards Board recently required state and local governments to report the value of their unfunded liabilities, prompting many governments to establish contribution schedules to minimize them. The Republican proposal would delay the state’s plan to fund its OPEB liabilities. (One wonders if that would impact the state’s credit rating.) GCEI refers to the “geographic cost of education index,” a component of the Thornton state education plan that channels money to jurisdictions with higher education costs. The primary beneficiaries of GCEI, which was partially funded for the first time by the O’Malley administration, are Baltimore City, Prince George’s County and Montgomery County. Because none of those jurisdictions are represented by Republicans, it makes a sort of self-serving sense for them to target those areas for cuts.
And so, here are some real spending cuts suggested by Republicans. The problem is that they are opposed... by other Republicans. When we pointed out in a prior post that new Senate GOP Leader Allan Kittleman denounced spending cuts proposed by the Governor, Senator Kittleman commented in part:Governor O’Malley’s proposal to now cut one-quarter billion dollars from a budget only three months old will wreak havoc to state employees and those who depend upon state services for their livelihood. We are distressed at the prospect of drastic cuts that could have been avoided if the Administration had opted for restraint in new spending over the last two years...
In addition, the silence of the Senate GOP to the House GOP’s plan is deafening.
Maryland’s employees are facing job losses or furloughs in addition to cuts to other resources that will hamper their abilities to perform their jobs. This did not have to happen if wise budget decisions had been made earlier in the formation of the budget.
State employees are dedicated, hard-working public servants who do not deserve this personal crisis in their lives due solely to misguided budget policy of the current Administration.
Maryland’s Republicans have two inter-related problems. First, their House and Senate delegations cannot work together. That is exacerbated by disagreements within each caucus. Speaker Mike Busch and Big Daddy are licking their chops over this because these coordination problems make it that much easier to roll over the GOP.
But secondly, and much more seriously, the Republican Party cannot figure out what it stands for. Is it a Democrat-lite party as represented by Senator Kittleman’s comments? Is it a conservative party in line with Senator Alex Mooney and Delegate Don Dwyer? Or is it just a rag-tag bunch of dead-enders united only by the “R” next to their names and a common resentment of Governor O’Malley? The party is avoiding these questions and is instead bogged down in tactical and personal debates, such as whether to get rid of its current state chairman, making accusations of "arrogance" against Congressional candidate Andy Harris and gleefully indulging in scratching, hissing cat fights.
My advice to the GOP is to be true to itself and follow the path of Red Maryland. In line with the state’s conservative bloggers, the party should advocate for 1. drastic spending cuts, 2. paying state workers the minimum wage, 3. privatizing transportation projects, 4. spying on groups with a “shady past,” 5. the notion that man-made global warming is “sheer utopian nonsense,” and 6. wishing for a Bradley Effect to stop Democrats. They might not get a lot of votes with these positions, but at least they’d stand for something!
On Political Pulse
Fomer U.S. Senator Joseph Tydings (D. Maryland) will on the Political Pulse TV Show on:
Thursday, December 11th at 9 p.m. and
Tuesday, December 16th at 9:30 p.m.
Senator Tydings served in the Maryland House of Delegates, was the United States Attorney for Maryland in his early thirties and was elected as a United States Senator in his mid-30's and served in the Senate from 1965-1971.
He was also good friends with President John Kennedy and Senator Robert Kennedy.
In the interview, Senator Tydings will talk about his political career and his friendship with President Kennedy and Senator Kennedy.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Is Larry Giammo Going to Run Against Phil Andrews? (Updated)
Recent events indicate that former Rockville Mayor Larry Giammo is considering a run for County Council against District 3 Council Member Phil Andrews. Giammo is denying it, but there are reasons to believe the rumors have some credibility.
Larry Giammo served three terms as Mayor of Rockville from 2001 through 2007. His tenure is best known for the creation of the new Rockville Town Center and the adoption of a tough Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance intended to slow growth. Giammo, along with Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman, was one of the few politicians in Montgomery County to endorse Baltimore Mayor Martin O’Malley over County Executive Doug Duncan in the 2006 Gubernatorial Primary.
One of my sources describes Giammo’s last term (2005-2007) in this way:His third and final term was marred by interpersonal problems. He decided to run for re-election because Town Square was not yet complete, but it seemed his heart was not in the job. He was absent from council meetings, and did not restrain his temper with certain council members – this was remarked upon and it got in the way of his effectiveness.
Giammo entered the private sector after he left office. But in the last two months, he has resumed his political visibility. Our sources report that he began attending public meetings again, including those related to the controversial Bealls Grant II affordable housing project. On October 14, Giammo updated his personal website which now reads much like a campaign site. On December 2, Giammo authored a guest blog on Bealls Grant II, his first ever on Rockville Central, which drew an immediate response from current Mayor Susan Hoffmann.
It seemed clear during that last term that he did not enjoy being an elected official very much. The open question is whether that was a blip, or whether that was the true colors emerging.
But none of this compares to Giammo’s stinging letter to the Gazette opposing County Council Member Phil Andrews’ plan to replace Ike Leggett’s proposed ambulance fee with speed camera revenues. In the letter, Giammo says, “Andrews’ proposal does not appear to conform to state law. It's time for Andrews and his colleagues to get serious about focusing on finding truly meaningful ways to address the county's pending budget crisis.” This letter produced immediate emails flying around the county’s political class.
There is now considerable speculation that Giammo would like to return to public life, although not to the Rockville City government. One informant reports that Giammo briefly considered running for County Executive in 2006, but was deterred by the presence of both Steve Silverman and Ike Leggett in the race. Another source says, “Giammo doesn’t like Phil. That’s not news.” Does all of this information point to a run against Andrews for County Council?
There is no question that the county’s public employee unions detest Phil Andrews. Indeed, some of their comments about him are literally unprintable. He has gone from being the champion of the county’s living wage law in 2002 to the loudest critic of the public unions’ contracts, which he repeatedly labels as “unsustainable.” “He used to be with us, but something changed,” says one source close to the labor movement. “I don’t know what happened, but now he’s against us on everything.” Andrews’ most recent opposition to labor’s priorities includes his advocacy for a two-point cost of living reduction in public union contracts last spring and his vote against the county’s new prevailing wage law. There is no question that if labor found a credible opponent, they would do everything in their power to remove Phil Andrews.
Could Giammo be such an opponent? One of our informants says, “He has strong name ID and support in the city, but it’s unclear how far that goes beyond. He is not a natural politician, so some of the networking and collaboration does not seem to come second-nature. So it is not clear what lasting alliances he has made on the county level.” Another spy says, “We'll have to keep an eye out. But he should be warned: nobody is a more aggressive door-knocker than Phil.”
The business community will also be a factor. Andrews, a longtime ICC opponent, claimed in 2006 that he was “the number one target of development interests in this year’s election.” Andrews refuses all developer and PAC contributions, making him one of the more underfunded County Council candidates. But some in the business community appreciate Andrews’ fiscal conservatism and may not see the growth-restricting Giammo as any better on development.
Andrews holds three advantages over Giammo: a three-term incumbency, the visibility coming from his upcoming term as County Council President and the fact that the City of Rockville only accounts for part of District 3. For his part, Giammo told me, “I have no plans to run for anything.” My spies label this a non-denial denial and point out that two years is a long time in politics. One thing is sure: if Larry Giammo does run against Phil Andrews, it will be one hell of a race.
Update: A couple of my sources say that Giammo is more likely to run for County Executive than County Council. That scenario will probably materialize only if Ike Leggett appears vulnerable in 2010. And if Leggett is vulnerable, others will run against him (like Mike Knapp).
Update 2: Another one of our omni-present spies reports the following:Larry is an interesting animal who does not fit the mold for the normal paths into partisan county office. He is a bit mavericky.
Update 3: Here are two more tidbits. First, we hear that Giammo changed his registration from Republican to unaffiliated in March 2000. Everyone I talk to believes that Giammo must register as a Democrat to be competitive for any county or state office. Second, Giammo has only made one political contribution: a $500 donation to future County Council Member Valerie Ervin on 7/25/06. Ms. Ervin is a long-time labor movement veteran and a close ally of the county's unions. Why would a sitting Rockville Mayor contribute to a District Council Member candidate from Silver Spring?
As a municipal official, Larry was very active on state legislative issues, so I would not be surprised if his true aim were a seat in the statehouse. Notice that he mentioned Phil's proposal was against STATE law. Jennie Forehand's seat?
One of Larry's challenges is that he is not affiliated with a political party. His mom is a Republican and he flirted with Ehrlich at one point (before flirting with O'Malley). His voting record shows that he voted in primaries up through 2002, so it would be interesting to find out whether he was a registered Republican before then.
Maybe he will skip the 2010 primary and run as an Independent in the general election?
Update 4: This exchange with Rockville Mayor Susan Hoffmann is only furthering the speculation.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Saqib-Mania Continues on the Kojo Nnamdi Show
The unstoppable cultural phenomenon goes on, this time on the Kojo Nnamdi show!
Last Friday, Delegate Saqib Ali appeared on Kojo Nnamdi's Politics Hour. His interview, starting at the 4:45 mark, mostly covered speed cameras (yawn). But at 17:30, Kojo got to the point with this exchange:Kojo Nnamdi: Saqib Ali, you hold a number of distinctions. My favorite one is your reputation as the best Facebook Delegate in Annapolis so we took the opportunity to go to your Facebook page. Here are a few of the gems that can be found there.
We are of course delighted that Delegate Ali's Facebook adventures are gaining wide attention. But why did the Delegate not remind Kojo's listeners of who it was that launched his career into online fame? These big stars always forget where they came from!
“Saqib has trained his two-year-old to do his menial chores. Parenthood is totally worth it!”
Saqib, Saqib, Saqib…
Saqib Ali: Well, you know, um… I consider myself a critic of popular culture and I like to make fun of myself and I think my constituents enjoy ribbing me a little bit too, so it’s all in good fun.
Tom Sherwood: How do we tell when you’re serious?
Saqib Ali: Well, if you want to know what I seriously think, Facebook is not the place to go. Go to my blog or go to my website or come talk to me.
Kojo Nnamdi: So you have not started an underground fight club in the Maryland General Assembly as your Facebook page says?
Saqib Ali: No, I haven’t. In fact, we have some other members of the Assembly who are actually trained martial artists and I’m sure they’d make short work of me.
Uncle Ike Thumps Big Daddy (Updated)
Looking Senate President Mike Miller directly in the eye, County Executive Ike Leggett issued a challenge to him and the county’s statehouse delegation this morning: do not cut county aid or risk “severe” consequences.
The County Executive made his remarks at the annual legislative breakfast held by the Committee for Montgomery (CFM), perhaps the county’s broadest advocacy organization. Movers and shakers from business, labor, civic associations and non-profits regularly convene at CFM events, and especially at its December breakfast. This year’s speakers included U.S. Senator Ben Cardin, U.S. Representatives Chris Van Hollen and Donna Edwards and new County Council President Phil Andrews. But the big news was made by Uncle Ike and Big Daddy.
Now Ike Leggett is a perfect gentleman. He does not rant. He does not pound the podium. And he is not prone to hyperbole. (Thank heaven that he has not tried blogging.) But his message to Annapolis was clear. After Council President Andrews and the other speakers extended warm greetings to the Senate President, the County Executive began, “Senator Miller, all those nice things we said about you are well-deserved... now just give us the money!”
Ike Leggett speaking directly to Mike Miller.
Mr. Leggett then jumped into the county’s looming budget crisis, declaring, “We are not a giant ATM machine for the rest of the state. Now the ATM is depleted.” He noted that the employees’ cost-of-living reductions and furloughs would not generate enough savings to close the county’s $448.9 million deficit. Many more cuts would be required. “We cannot make those choices at the same time we lose revenue from the state.” And that is what Mr. Leggett is asking from the state delegation: do not bring aid cuts back from Annapolis. “We leave here with a mission – we will protect what we have. We have to protect the teachers pensions. If we take any further steps back, the challenges will be severe. We have to stand firm. Otherwise, we will have a different county in years to come.”
Now one of Mike Miller’s greatest talents is his story-telling. The next time you see Big Daddy, ask him about the time he wanted to bring then-Presidential candidate Bill Clinton to the Mary Surratt Museum (which is dedicated to a co-conspirator in President Lincoln’s assassination). Or ask him about the four diaper buckets he kept on his apartment balcony as a young man. Or perhaps you should inquire exactly what he meant when using the term “working man’s opera” in describing the process of creating a necessity for those buckets. Miller is such an entertaining tale-spinner that one is tempted to forget the great matters currently under discussion. That of course is the point.
Don't believe what you see here... Mike Miller is making no promises.
While Big Daddy did not directly address Uncle Ike’s challenge, he did mention four things of note. First, the Senate President said that state employees would get no merit pay and no cost-of-living adjustments and would be subject to furloughs. The legislature would be subject to the same unpleasantries. Second, he said, “We might have to back off the GCEI formula.” GCEI refers to the Geographic Cost of Education component of state aid for schools. The largest recipients of GCEI aid in this fiscal year are Prince George’s County ($23.6 million), Montgomery County ($18.4 million) and Baltimore City ($13.0 million). Third, he said that teacher pensions “are a problem,” but declined to say exactly what he would do about them. And fourth, he said that he had tried to win a gas tax increase for transportation two years ago but could only find 18 votes among the state’s 47 Senators. Miller declared that he would give a gas tax hike one more shot before his legendary career reached its end.
And so we have the Montgomery County Executive drawing a line in the sand over county aid and the Senate President making no promises. That puts Montgomery’s statehouse delegation squarely in the middle. Will they be able to stick together? Will they be able to withstand the heat from the Lords of Annapolis, who themselves have no easy choices to make? How difficult will it be for them to navigate between Montgomery County’s economic interests and the pressures coming from the rest of the state?
We’ll start getting answers to those questions in a matter of weeks.
Update: Dagnabit, the great Ann Marimow beat me to the punch by more than an hour and a half. But at least I printed the "working man's opera" reference!
Update 2: This blog's site traffic was at about half its normal level during the CFM meeting this morning. That should give everybody a good idea as to who is reading.
Is Now the Time for the CARR Bill?
Last February, I wrote in favor of a property tax bill proposed by Delegate Al Carr (D-18), commonly known as the Commercial Assessment Rate Review (CARR) bill. The CARR bill would allow county governments to establish different property tax rates for residential and commercial property, as is the case in both the District of Columbia and Northern Virginia. The bill died in the Ways and Means Committee in the last general session, but Delegate Carr has now reintroduced it as a local bill applying only to Montgomery County. Is this still a good idea?
In supporting the bill, I noted how the residential share of assessed property value in Montgomery County had climbed from 69.6% in 1991 to 76.8% in 2007. The commercial share of assessed value fell from 30.4% to 23.2% over the same period. I also noted how the District of Columbia charged more than double the tax rate for commercial over residential property but still had a relatively low vacancy rate in its office market. Those facts remain true. And overall, the notion that property used for profit generation should be taxed at a different rate than property used to raise children and create nest eggs has as much merit now as it did then.
But a lot has happened over the last ten months. Consider the following:
1. The Economy Has Collapsed
Montgomery County’s residential construction industry has crashed. The region’s commercial office market is following suit. Credit for development projects of all kinds is drying up. Maryland’s hotel industry is suffering, including companies like Bethesda-headquartered J.W. Marriott and Silver Spring-based Choice Hotels International. Seventy percent of Maryland retailers expect their sales to fall this month and next from last year. Business bankruptcies in Maryland increased by 11 percent during the first half of this year over the same period in 2007. All of this is taking place during a national recession that is a year old and in the wake of the worst jobs report in 34 years.
The pain has spread down into Wheaton’s Central Business District, the largest commercial area in District 18. Many restaurants there are on the verge of closing. Even successful restaurants like the Royal Mile Pub are suffering from “killing” increases in beer, food and wine costs. Economic changes of this magnitude MUST be considered in adopting tax policy.
2. The State’s Business Reputation Has Taken a Hit
The Tax Foundation ranks Maryland’s business climate as falling from 24th to 45th among U.S. states over the last year. No other state fell more than 3 places. The Tax Foundation states:Maryland managed a remarkable drop – from 24th in last year’s index to 45th in this year’s – by raising its individual income tax, corporate income tax, sales tax and cigarette tax all in the same year. Maryland added four new tax brackets to the individual income tax, increasing the top rate by 1.5%, adding new complexity and introducing a big new marriage penalty. In fact, we now rate Maryland’s as by far the worst individual income tax in America, displacing California for that dubious distinction.
Delegate Carr opposed the passage of the state’s three-year millionaire surcharge (which I supported) on the grounds that it would be injurious to business owners. By that reasoning, another tax hike on business in bad times would be even more injurious.
Whatever you think of the Tax Foundation’s report or the millionaire tax, their effects on the state’s business reputation must be weighed.
3. The CARR bill is Now a Local Bill
The previous bill would have given tax-raising authority to every county in the state. The new local bill would give it only to Montgomery County. If county government had the authority to raise commercial property taxes and actually used it, the biggest beneficiaries would be Prince George’s and Frederick Counties. Each would have a new advantage in attracting new and existing businesses over Montgomery.
4. The County Government Does Not Support the Bill
At the County Council's work session on local bills, the County Executive recommended no position on this bill. Of the six County Council Members in attendance, two expressed support (Phil Andrews and Marc Elrich), two opposed it (Nancy Floreen and Don Praisner) and two expressed no position (Mike Knapp and Valerie Ervin), resulting in no position taken by the Council. The fact that the very entity intended to exercise the tax-raising authority envisioned by the bill chose not to support it means a lot. If the county officials are not requesting this authority, why give it to them?
Regular readers may be surprised by my use of these arguments. After all, I have spent my entire career in the labor movement, criticized the special session's tax package as regressive, supported the millionaire tax, supported the progressive nature of County Executive Ike Leggett’s property tax proposal and opposed the Ficker Amendment.
Over and over again, I have argued for progressive taxation. And the basic principle of progressive taxation is to tax people who can afford to pay more. Business will always argue against the CARR bill regardless of its intrinsic merit. But the truth is that in this crumbling economy, many businesses legitimately cannot afford a property tax increase. That is especially true of the small and fragile businesses in Wheaton. In a moment of economic depression, it is very hard to make the case that raising taxes that are targeted exclusively at people who create jobs provides a path to recovery.
The bill has considerable support from the county's public employee unions. That is understandable given the fact that three of them have given up their cost-of-living adjustments and the others are likely to follow. But the unions need to think long and hard about two things:
1. The long-run well-being of public employees depends on the economic health of the private sector. A robust, growing private jobs base is necessary to generate the tax revenues needed to fairly compensate public workers. And as I wrote back in April, Montgomery's public employees are NOT overpaid. Discouraging private job creation will prolong the time needed for economic recovery and perhaps even delay the point at which adequate COLAs can be resumed.
2. Now that the Ficker Amendment is in effect, all nine County Council votes are required to break the charter limit on property taxes. Those nine votes are not there, either for a broad increase or for a targeted increase on business as provided for in the CARR bill. So if the CARR bill is passed now, its most likely use would not be for a big tax hike on business, but for a lowering of the residential property rate combined with an increase on the rate for business property. That would be enjoyed by some homeowners and also by some politicians seeking re-election. But it would not only discourage job creation, it would result in no new additional revenue for the county government. That would produce the worst of all worlds for public employee unions: a stagnant economy with NO NEW TAX REVENUE to show for it.
Timing is everything. And while the CARR bill should someday become law, now is not the right time for it.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Free State Conservatives Battle it Out (Updated)
Maryland conservative bloggers are engaged in frenzied combat even as I write this. Are they battling over why the GOP lost the recent elections? No. Are they differing over how to revitalize the party? No. They are at war over whether the Anne Arundel Young Republicans should name their winter gathering a "Holiday Party" or a "Christmas Party." Check out the first shot, the return fire, the renewed assault and this incredibly petty exchange.
Yeah, I can just see Big Daddy shaking in his boots!
Update: Mike Netherland won't let this lie. I am greatly amused that he says this has "brought together" myself and Red Maryland leader Brian Griffiths. All I have to say is that when conservatives fight conservatives, liberals usually win!
Purple Line Now Takes on Al Carr
Just when you thought it was hot enough, the politics of the Purple Line are boiling over. What will everyone argue about once it is built?
One of the biggest disputes about the Purple Line is whether it should use the county-owned right-of-way along the Capital Crescent Trail (which was originally purchased for both trail and transit use) or be a Bus Rapid Transit line on Jones Bridge Road routed through the National Medical Center. Delegate Al Carr (D-18) has sided with the Jones Bridge BRT option, both in his testimony on the Purple Line and in his piece praising BRT in Cleveland (posted on both the District 18 Blog and Just Up the Pike).
Delegate Carr's viewpoint has provoked a strongly-worded counter-attack from Purple Line Now. Following is an open letter from Purple Line Now Chairman and Woodside Civic Association President Webb Smedley. We have asked Delegate Carr for his response and will post it once we receive it.
*****
Delegate Al Carr, District 18
Maryland House of Delegates
Dear Delegate Carr (Al):
I have been doing some digging since your Bethesda-Chevy Chase testimony against rail on the Master Plan alignment for the Purple Line. Your recent blog post prompts me to send you some feedback.
While I still do not understand your point that light rail divides communities (contrary to all my direct experience in Europe and the U.S.), I do take exception to the suggestion that BRT might be better for the Purple Line OR for the Capital Crescent Trail. Additionally, as far as the Purple Line goes, it is clear that it joins communities by crossing the great regional divided, the topic of a recent Washington Post article, as I am sure you noted.
For some detailed insight into the Cleveland situation, I have attached some input from Edson Tennyson, P.E, a Transportation planner and former official of the Pennsylvania State DOT, familiar with the various transit projects in Cleveland.
While I am obviously partisan as Chair of Purple Line NOW!, I am also President of the Woodside Civic Association which has a long-standing position in support of Light Rail. I am copying other Presidents of civic associations in District 18 that are supportive of the joint-use project that will include a light rail line on grass tracks adjacent to the completed Capital Crescent Trail.
First, I want to point out that your concern for saving the trail extends to only about 40% of the extent of the trail between Silver Spring and Bethesda - that between the Air Rights Building and Jones Bridge Rd. Only 6.8% of the trail is along the 60 ft right of way segment between the air rights building and East West Highway in the Town of Chevy Chase which has been doing a tremendous job of holding the Purple line hostage.
Much of the 60% of the trail in the Silver Spring part of the alignment will be running alongside the transitway or alongside the CSX main line and residents have made clear their preference for the trail running alongside quiet, modern light rail trains in grass tracks as opposed to buses on pavement.
The lion's share of the completed Capital Crescent Trail - 26% of the overall length of the trail (6,100 of 23,500 Linear Feet +/-) will be along the edge of Lyttonsville which, in addition to getting a transit stop will have the trail and transitway forming a recreational/transit edge between the residential neighborhood and the Brookville industrial district - a significant improvement for residents of this neighborhood which supports rail over bus rapid transit.
North Woodside and Woodside will account for about 19% of the trail or almost 3 times that of the Town of Chevy Chase segment. We also view this to be a major improvement by allowing easier and safer access to downtown Silver Spring, Rock Creek Park and downtown Bethesda.
As you know from joining our trail walk last Spring, completion of the trail will include removal and replacement of many trees for the entire alignment. This, we believe, is worth it in order to complete this major piece of the regional trail network. In this, it is clear: we take the regional view, the misguided government of the Town of Chevy Chase takes the most myopic and selfish localized view. Fortunately, dissent is growing, even in the town, as is shown by today's letter to the Post from Ruth Forte and Ted Rowse, residents of the town.
The $500k town expense to fight the Purple Line and the untold amounts added to that by the Country Club is stimulating an outrage in Prince George's County and I suggest you touch base with your colleagues in District 21, 22 and 47 before promoting the view that the Corridor Cities Transitway should go forward before the Purple Line because there is "no opposition to it" OR that the Purple Line should be a busway. I should note that we in Silver Spring suffered through the same type of debate when the downtown was in decline and demographically and in terms of Progressive politics there is much in common between Silver Spring and the communities of Northwestern Prince George's County that will benefit from the Purple Line.
Attached is the edited message from Mr. Tennyson regarding the Cleveland (and some other) busways. I hope you will consider spending some time with the pro-Purple Line leadership of the eastern end of your district and reconsider your position as this important project moves towards preliminary engineering.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Edson Tennyson
edited for length
BUS RAPID TRANSIT IN CLEVELAND
That report was largely fictional, or imaginary. The Red Rapid Transit Line that the author condemned as out-of-the-way and poorly located did carry 60,000 weekday riders before incompetent Cleveland management messed it up. I used to be Transit Commissioner in Youngstown Ohio, 65 miles from Cleveland and watched them build the Red Rapid Rail line.
Bus Rapid Transit is NOT less costly than Light Rail Transit, no way. The records are clear. If you use existing street pavement, that saves investment but it forever condemns the service to slow and costly to operate, with low ridership.
We have lots of official data on Bus Rapid Transit. I funded the state share of the first Pittsburgh BusWay. It was not cheap. They promised me 32,000 weekday passengers, up from 18,750 with no added buses, just improved efficiency. Well, in 1981, we had the Second Energy Crisis, and the South BusWay peaked at 20,750 weekday passengers. No efficiencies. It has been all down hill from there, down to 10,000 weekday passengers now.
Pittsburgh has suffered economically like Cleveland but not as bad. Nevertheless, the Light Rail Lines parallel to the South BusWay gained 50% in ridership when it was converted to include a short subway downtown. When one branch of the Light Rail line was shut down in 1993 to avoids bridge repair, the 8,000 displaced riders showed up with only 1.600 on the replacement BusWay bus. After 11 years, they put the Light Rail Line back and ridership on the Light Rail system gained 10%.
Pittsburgh then built an East BusWay.. I refused to fund it, so my new boss, the Secretary of Tranaportation funded it over my objection. This one planned for 90,000 weekday passengers but they thought better of it and cut the estimate to 80,000. It peaked at 30,000 and is at 28,000 now but bus ridership in Pittsburgh declined 26% at the same time. The East BusWay disrupted existing routes and split up travel with fewer buses on each line with longer waits.
Finally, Pittsburgh built the West BusWay using an abandoned railroad bed like the Georgetown branch except it had a short tunnel. It was to be eight miles long and was to cost $325 million in 1998. It was to carry 50,000 peop[e. The bids hit $ 525 million. Crooked Congressmen got an earmark to disregard the Full Funding Agreement that required the County to pay the cost overrun. They cut it back to only 5 miles to stay within the $ 325 million, but lost access to downtown, other than by the old way on the congested streets. Only 18 % of the 50,000 passengers have shown up so far. It coat more to build than Light Rail but attracts far fewer passengers.
Los Angeles built the Harbor Freeway BusWay about a decade ago. It cost half a billion dollars for ten miles. I have ridden on it. They looked at the Blue Light Rail Line to Long Beach parallel about five miles to the east which had 55,000 weekday passengers and predicted 63,000 for the BusWay as it would not require as many people to transfer as buses could get off the BusWay and use suburban streets as well as city streets. Well, it peaked at 3,300 weekday passengers as the Light Rail Lies grew to 80,000, NOT 33,000 by BusWay, but only 3,300.
Because of Chevy Chase-type dishonest politics, when they tried to build the Orange Light Rail line in San Fernando Valley, a crooked elected official got law passed forbidding Light Rail in San Fernando Valley and a subway extension. The Orange Line was built as a Busway but opponents did not want that either, They wanted no transit improvements that might bring "strangers" to "their" neighborhood. They estimated 7,500 weekday pasengers for the Orange LA BusWay but that did not match the population or the investment that required $350 million. It was obviously a dishonest estimate to avoid the embarassment they had on the Harbor Freeway Busway. It opened with 18,000 and grew to 23,000 as people found out it was faster BUT it is much slower than Light Rail, 21 miles per hour by busway, 27 miles per hour by LRT on that line. Also, it takes about 40 bus drivers in the peak where LightRail would need only nine operators.
Los Angeles has three Light Rail Lines and several BRT projects but Light Rail is the low cost operation. 48 cents per passenger-mile vs. 55 cents by bus BUT the accounting is distorted. They assign General Administration cost by passenger, so empty buses get no such cost, but busy Light Rail lines carry the bus overhead costs. Politicians do things like that. The ex-Treasurer that set up the accounting, Tom Rubin, travels all over the country damning rail transit and promoting bus but no one trusts him.
Ottawa has the most extensive BusWay system but lost ridership every year as it expanded. Ridership started to grow again when they added a rail line.
As for The Health Line in Cleveland, with a 5-minute headway, that is 1,000 peak hour passengers one way suggesting about 12,000 all day total. The "misplaced" rail line parallel carries almost, not quite twice that. A problem not mentioned is that Light Rail costs include Proof-of-Payment fare collection because that is how it is done, except in Pittsburgh. Bus costs do not include that, but it does cost. Add 15% to bus cost. Articulated buses also fishtail in snow and on ice or wet pavement. Several cities have to restrict them in bad weather. Boston drivers refused to operate them in snow two years ago. Pittsburgh has killed at least seven people in vehicles on their Busways that I know of. Six were killed for lack of signals to "save" money and one was killed in a head on collision in snow.
The 25 minutes from Public Square to University Circle in Cleveland is only 15 miles per hour. It will take 38 minutes to Windermere but Red Rail makes it in 20 minutes. Few, indeed, will take a 38 minute trip in preference to a 20-minute trip. I repeat, investment is not a cost, It is an asset. Operations are what costs and depreciation added to operating cost recovers the investment over time. BRT is not low cost, no way, but Light Rail is.
Ed Tennyson
Anthony Brown is Staying Put (Updated)
President-elect Barack Obama is picking Eric Shinseki, the Iraq War prophet, as his Secretary of Veterans Affairs. That means Maryland Lieutenant Governor Anthony Brown is not going anywhere and none of the fun things we speculated about are going to occur. That's OK because we have plenty of speculation on other things starting next week!
Update: Brown spokesman Mike Raia now says that the Lieutenant Governor "was never a candidate for the job and was not vetted by the President-elect's transition team for any permanent position."
Hmmm... assuming that this is correct, we should express some admiration for Mr. Raia's press skills for doing nothing to tamp down speculation by the media (and certain bloggers). We thank Mr. Raia, who is himself a former blogger, for giving us something fun to write about!
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Friday, December 05, 2008
The Elrich Plan, Part Five (Updated)
County Council Member Marc Elrich’s ambitious Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Where on Earth can we get that kind of money?
First of all, no new money is coming from the state. State money was difficult enough to get for Montgomery transportation projects even prior to the O’Malley Administration’s $1.1 billion cut, a decision forced by declining revenues. Second, Montgomery County’s revenue problems will probably prevent the county from spending more than its current $900 million on local transportation projects. The county’s spending also does not apply to state roads, although it has made an exception to this rule recently. The county could apply development impact taxes to transportation, but those amounts are currently less than $10 million per year. And the ongoing tax revolt will likely prevent any increase in the gas tax until at least the next term. The Obama Administration may spend more money on public works, but it remains to be seen how much (or whether) any of that money would be available for Elrich’s BRT plan.
In short, sufficient new resources will probably not be there, certainly not in the short term. Given that fact, perhaps the only way to finance Elrich’s BRT network is to reallocate some existing transportation spending from road projects to transit. That is going to meet resistance. Far more people currently drive than use transit. And transit projects have traditionally benefitted Downcounty residents while Upcounty residents have needed road improvements. But two factors make at least some reallocation potentially beneficial for both groups.
1. Elrich’s BRT routes would service Upcounty and East County destinations that would otherwise lack transit such as Burtonsville, Colesville, Norbeck and Olney.
2. The traditional method of relieving road congestion is to build more lanes and/or widen intersections – an approach which some believe is ineffective. Another approach is to build parallel transit options, as the Elrich proposal would do. If the real objective is to reduce congestion, isn’t taking cars off the road at least as legitimate as adding auto capacity?
Steady population and employment growth. Rising CO2 emissions. Limited transportation funding. Different locations of jobs and housing. Congested Central Business Districts. And expensive costs for rail. Marc Elrich’s plan is an honest attempt to deal with all of these problems at once. It’s expensive, ambitious and maybe even utopian. It would take a very long time to implement even with broad support.
But if there are any better ideas out there, I’d sure like to hear them.
Update: Delegate Al Carr (D-18) recently rode the BRT line in Cleveland and posted about his experience here.
Update 2: Miranda Spivack of the Post is now up with an article on the Elrich Plan. We hope Ms. Spivack appreciated our research, which is of course provided free of charge!
Thursday, December 04, 2008
The Elrich Plan, Part Four
In Parts Two and Three, we revealed Council Member Marc Elrich’s intention to build Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) routes across the county. But just because people have the option of using transit does not mean they actually will. After all, part of the county’s official development policy is to force developers to build parking spaces in new projects, thereby encouraging auto use.
Yes, you read that right. Division 59-E-3 of the Montgomery County Zoning Ordinance requires developers to build minimum numbers of parking spaces for new buildings. The requirements vary depending on location, proximity to Metro stations and land use. Requirements for office buildings, for example, vary from 1.9 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet (GSF) of building space for a project in the county’s southern area that is within 800 feet of a Metro station to 3.0 spaces per 1,000 GSF for a project in the county’s northern area more than 1,600 feet from a Metro station. The requirement for retail buildings is 5 parking spaces per 1,000 GSF. Restaurants require 25 parking spaces per 1,000 GSF. There are many, many other categories. Developers are permitted to build fewer spaces if they enter into share-a-ride agreements, build near Metro stations, provide shuttle buses or carpooling incentives, or engage in other measures to reduce traffic.
These requirements not only encourage auto use in the age of global warming, they also guarantee that new developments will cause new traffic. And they impose tremendously expensive burdens on developers. Parking spaces cost a lot of money to construct, sometimes running close to $100,000 per space when built underground. And that space is not as profitable for building owners as actual leaseable space for office or retail uses. Minimum parking requirements might make sense for suburban areas in the 1960s, but their primary effect now is to increase auto congestion and greenhouse gas emissions and to increase the cost of project construction.
Elrich would augment these minimums with parking caps, especially in the county’s Central Business Districts (CBDs). If residential areas and CBDs are connected with BRT routes, why do we need large numbers of parking spaces? Elrich does not favor reducing parking spaces for visitors, customers or shoppers, but he would restrict spaces available for employees. Doing so would relieve CBDs of congestion and decrease building costs for developers. This would enable more construction in CBDs – a key goal of smart growth advocates.
But Elrich would not stop there. If new development is unchained from parking requirements, there is less need for the county’s burdensome traffic tests. We explored this issue in last summer’s Traffic Measurement series. Briefly, the Planning Department uses Critical Lane Volume, a measurement that it knows is terminally flawed, to measure congestion at county intersections. If a new development causes traffic to exceed congestion thresholds that are set for each area of the county, developers are required to install a variety of mitigation measures designed to compensate. But these mitigation measures – things like widening sidewalks, building bus shelters, setting up bike lockers, establishing “information kiosks” and the like – usually have nothing to do with reducing real live car traffic. Decades of such policies are responsible for our current traffic nightmare. And developers who pay for these tests and mitigation measures are required to spend millions of dollars in exercises that have little, if any, impact on traffic reduction.
So once BRT routes are in place and parking caps are established, Elrich would phase out these tests. No one would be happier to see them go than the developers!
Tomorrow, we’ll conclude with the most difficult issue facing this plan: financing.
