Maryland Democrats had better hope the state Republican Party does not get rid of embattled Chairman James Pelura III. From a financial perspective, Pelura is the best Republican Chairman the Democrats could ever hope to have.
Pelura and some Republican elected officials may disagree on the state party’s role in setting policy. But few people would disagree on the central role of any political party apparatus: helping its candidates win elections. That means training activists, registering voters, communicating with the press, criticizing the other party’s candidates, getting out the vote and channeling activity towards critical, and winnable, races. All of the above takes money.
Much of the discontent with Pelura is directed to his inability to raise money and clear the state party’s debt. Let’s put those party finances in perspective. Both the Democrats and the Republicans maintain county party organizations, each of which has its own treasury, along with the state organizations. Furthermore, both parties have federal funds which must be used to promote federal candidates. The sum totality of all these party funds augments the individual candidates’ funds to wage battle at election time.
Here are the most recent financial statistics for all Democratic state funds in Maryland:
And here are the most recent financial statistics for all Republican state funds in Maryland:
Among the county organizations, the Republicans do not trail the Democrats by much. GOP county funds had a collective total cash balance of $148,562.65 in January 2009, fairly close to the Democratic county total of $171,733.69. Only one county organization, the Queen Anne’s County RCC, had any debt, and that was just $500. Three Republican county parties – Montgomery, Harford and Anne Arundel – raised and spent more than $20,000 each. Only one Democratic county party – Prince George’s – did so. None of this makes up for overwhelming Democratic registration advantages throughout the state. But at least some of the Republican county parties are trying to stay in the game.
The same cannot be said at the state level. In terms of state funds, the Democratic state party had $161,898.48 in January 2009 with no debt. The Republican state party had $57.96 with $57,272.24 in debt. Of the debt amount, $40,672.24 is in “outstanding bills due.” Who is owed and how soon will they come to collect?
But there is more. Consider the condition of the two parties’ federal funds.
The Democratic state party and the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee together raised $805,140 and spent $929,077 in the first five months of this year. (MCDCC raised more money than 15 state Democratic parties.) They recorded a final cash balance of $98,001. The Republican state party raised $128,099, spent $128,187 and finished with just $1,547.
Let’s restate this in pure and simple terms.
Republican state party, state cash balance, January 2009: $57.96
Republican state party, federal cash balance, May 2009: $1,547
Republican state party, debt, January 2009: $57,272.24
Under James Pelura III, the Maryland Republican Party is flat on its back. It cannot help protect GOP incumbents. It cannot devote any resources to helping defeat First District Democratic Congressman Frank Kratovil. And the staff turmoil under Pelura guarantees that donors will stay away as long as he continues to serve as Chairman.
And so keeping Pelura in place should be a top priority for Maryland Democrats. Once his Executive Committee starts to push him out, Pelura will need legal advice to remain in place. We should start a defense fund for him right now. Let’s call it “Democrats for Pelura.” Do we have any takers?
Update: According to the Sun, the state GOP’s problems are now $77,500 worse.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Democrats For Pelura (Updated)
Will Maryland Follow DC?
WTOP reports that Gov. O'Malley thinks we should recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states:"I think that it's very difficult to deny equal rights to people when it comes to rights that are disbursed by a government rather than a faith or a church," O'Malley said Monday on WTOP's Ask the Governor Program. "If the person has these rights under another state, I think we're sort of pressed to deny those rights. So, yes, we probably should respect those rights."
The District recently moved to take this step so Maryland's action would be nothing new in the region. One can understand why the District chose this route rather than legalizing same-sex marriages as getting this legislation past Congress quite difficult. Maryland's choice results from politics of a different sort. The General Assembly won't pass it. Gov. O'Malley seems willing to have gay marriages in the State but doesn't want the credit from Blue Maryland/blame from Red Maryland. Ironic though as we used to be the place people came to get married more easily and with less fuss. No renewing of the fine tradition of eloping to Elkton. Instead, we'll be forcing couples--and their wedding business--to go elsewhere.
O'Malley has been cold to the idea of legalizing same-sex marriages in Maryland, but has promoted the idea of civil unions.
"I believe that if we were to have civil unions, there would be no question about whether or not we would recognize unions in other states. And that's the way to move forward."
Before making any changes to state laws, O'Malley is waiting for an opinion from Maryland's attorney general.
"If the law allows that, then that's what we will do."
O'Malley's remarks come as a new law in the D.C. recognizing same sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions is set to take effect on Tuesday.
Winners and Losers in the Maryland Blogosphere
From our dataset on 38 statistics-releasing Maryland blogs, here are three that are on the way up as well as a category of them that is stalled.
Headed Up
Inside Charm City 
Inside Charm City is the leading news aggregator in the Baltimore area. Its traffic swings wildly with current events, getting enormous spikes from posts about Michael Phelps and Miss California, Steve McNair and local fireworks schedules. The blog has caught on as a central location for Baltimore MSM links, leading the state in visits in five of the last six months. Its great weakness is that it has virtually no original content. Still, Inside Charm City’s success demonstrates that Baltimore is hungry for blogs, and if an independent, original political blog ever set up shop there, its site traffic would explode.
Rockville Central 
Brad Rourke and Cindy Cotte Griffiths have created a true online gathering place for the City of Rockville. Their site carries a mix of news, editorials, announcements and pictures that many residents have adopted as an indispensable resource. Local politicians are particularly watchful as many have submitted guest posts and city elections are approaching. Rockville Central has been the second-most visited local blog in the state after Inside Charm City over the last two months.
Annapolis Capital Punishment
Not so long ago, Paul Foer was known as “PMF” on the liberal blog Free State Politics, where he was a frequent target of Red Maryland’s conservatives. Well, Foer is getting the last laugh. His Annapolis Capital Punishment blog, which follows Annapolis city politics in minute detail, beat the statewide Red Maryland in site visits for the first time in May. Foer’s numbers should stay strong as he has a mayor’s race to cover.
Heading Down/Stalled
Red Maryland and Conservative Blogs
Free State Politics, a multi-author liberal blog, was the leading political blog in Maryland starting around 2006. Red Maryland, a multi-author conservative blog, was founded in July 2007 and passed Free State Politics in site visits in October 2007. That started a 13-month reign atop the state’s political blogosphere that was ended by MPW in November 2008. But Red Maryland’s slide has been much longer than that. The blog peaked in January 2008 with 14,614 site visits. Its June 2009 level was 7,859 visits, or 54% of its high point.
Red Maryland’s decline is echoed by a broader stagnation of the state’s conservative blogosphere.
The 15 conservative blogs that release their site visit statistics have together combined for around 30,000-40,000 monthly visits since October 2007. Their peak month, January 2008, occurred in the immediate aftermath of the special session’s tax package. The conservatives’ stall is noteworthy considering that the state’s entire blogosphere has been growing rapidly.
The state’s right wing has been plagued by infighting between the state Republican Party Chairman and its elected officials, staff disruption at party headquarters, pointless bickering over how to deal with the anti-Obama comments from Anne Arundel County and collapsing voter registration and electoral performance. Those facts may be combining with a general lack of morale to stall conservative blogdom in Maryland.
We’ll have a closer look at MPW’s readership next week.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Cheryl Kagan's Kickoff Speech
From her June 15 fundraiser. More videos of former Delegate Paul Carlson and former District 17 Senator Mary Boergers appear here.
How Re-Regulation Will Cost You Money
Yesterday, we revealed how Pepco customers can save up to 13.7% off their power bills by switching to a new power supplier. BGE customers can save up to 9.8% off their bills by doing the same thing. But “re-regulation” will block your ability to save yourself money. Why?
In the old days, utilities were vertically integrated companies. They generated power, transmitted it to substations and distributed it to customers. But they had to answer to government regulators, who set their prices. Those prices had to allow the utilities to recover their costs of servicing customers. Otherwise, they would be unable to remain in business. The prices also had to generate a reasonable return on investment. After all, if stockholders could not get steady dividends and occasional capital gains by buying utility stocks, no one would buy them and none of those of power plants or utility lines would have been built. Because of these characteristics, the old system did nothing to protect consumers from the gigantic price spikes that occurred in 1972-1975 and 1978-1982.
Deregulation changed all that. In Maryland, Pepco and BGE were forced to sell off their power plants so they could purchase electricity from competing suppliers. (BGE wound up selling its plants to another member of its corporate family.) Competition was supposed to keep prices low. But the plan did not work immediately for two reasons. First, the alternative suppliers were slow to show up. Second, retail prices were capped from the time the deregulation law passed in 1999 through 2006. Deregulation’s architects thought enough power suppliers would enter the market by 2006 that rates could be allowed to float and competition would keep prices down. Instead, BGE asked for a 72% rate hike to make up for seven years with no price increase. Political hysteria ensued.
Fast forward to the winter of 2008-2009. Competition has arrived. As we stated yesterday, Pepco customers can pick from five electricity suppliers and BGE customers can pick from ten. But few people took advantage of those opportunities and rising utility bills put the issue of “re-regulation” back on the table. The Senate passed a bill that would have given the state’s Public Service Commission the right to order utilities to build new power plants and regulate the rates they charge. Never mind the fact that it would take decades to build all of these new plants and no one knows exactly how many billions of dollars they would cost. And never mind the fact that business customers, who spend massive amounts on electricity, opposed the bill and were organizing employee cooperatives to take advantage of competition. Some in the General Assembly were determined to save us from the deregulation regime that the General Assembly, of course, created. But the House of Delegates’ Economic Matters Committee stopped the measure on a 21-2 vote. As Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15) said, “There's a risk, if we screw this up, of unintended consequences.”
Here is the unintended consequence. The “re-regulation bill,” as amended, contained this language:The commission shall develop and implement a plan for residential and small commercial customers to transition from a program of customer choice of electricity supply and electricity supply services established under subtitle 5 of this title.
So remember how you can switch suppliers and save double digits off your power bill? “Re-regulation” will put the brakes on that. Why?
Remember how the old regulated system works. Even though regulators set electricity rates, utilities are allowed to recover their costs from customers and realize a return on investment. So if the “re-regulation” bill passes and the Public Service Commission orders Pepco or BGE to build a new plant, they will be entitled to pass on the cost of building, operating and maintaining that plant to you. Plus, they will be allowed to earn a profit. Under today’s system, if Pepco or BGE raised the price of their Standard Offer Service, which is their default price for electricity, you could switch to another power supplier to save money. If the state forced either of them to build a new power plant and their customers deserted them to avoid paying the construction charges, the utilities would be unable to pay their costs and earn a profit on the plant. So to keep the companies whole, the state would have to limit competition and force you to pay for all of this. The problem would be compounded if the plant owner bets wrong, builds a plant that runs on a fuel that later soars in price and seeks to pass on those costs to now-captive customers like you. Is that a risk you want to bear?
Think about it this way. Today, you have the ability to shop around and save money on your power bill right now. Pepco customers can save up to 13.7% by purchasing their power from Washington Gas Energy Services. Ask any politician who supports “re-regulation” if any law they can pass will save you 13.7% right now. And then ask them exactly when any law they can pass will save you 13.7%. See how they answer you. And then think about whether “re-regulation” is truly in your interest.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
What Is The Strategy?
By Marc Korman.
I usually do not write about national politics unless there is a Maryland tie in, but since Adam posted Sarah Palin’s resignation speech and I am so confused by her strategy, I could not resist.
If the plan is to run for president in 2012, declining to run for reelection certainly has precedence. Mitt Romney chose to stand down in 2006 despite having only served one term as governor of Massachusetts partly because he knew a reelection campaign would require him to take positions far to the left of the 2008 Republican primary electorate and could easily end in defeat (think Bob Ehrlich).
Even resigning from a position to run is not new. Bob Dole left his Majority Leadership position and the Senate in the summer of 1996 to focus on his bid for the presidency. Of course, by that point he was already guaranteed the Republican nomination.
But resigning before her first gubernatorial term is complete to focus on an election three years away is an interesting strategy. The best explanation I have heard is she wants to make some money in the private sector, which she can do through book deals, speeches, and slots on corporate boards much easier outside of the governor’s office. She can combine that and campaigning between now and the midterms in November 2010 and then switch over to a full campaign effort leading up to the 2012 election.
Perhaps Palin has also looked at some of her potential competitors and found that being in office is not so important. Mitt Romney will have been out of office for over five years by the time the 2012 Republican primary season heats up. Newt Gingrich resigned from the House of Representatives shortly after he won reelection in 1998, giving up his role as Speaker in the process. Perhaps Palin plans to use him as a shield.
But political strategy aside, Palin’s decision and her comments are just plain strange. One particular section jumped out at me:And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn't run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks... travel around the state, to the Lower 48 (maybe), overseas on international trade - as so many politicians do. And then I thought - that's what's wrong - many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and "milk it". I'm not putting Alaska through that - I promised efficiencies and effectiveness! ? [sic] That's not how I am wired. I am not wired to operate under the same old "politics as usual." I promised that four years ago - and I meant it.
As best as I can tell, Palin is essentially saying that governing is about elections. If she is not going to run, she cannot govern. I suppose the good news is if she were to win two White House terms, she would step aside in January of 2017 since as a lame duck she would have no purpose.
Maybe more to the story will come out. There could be a scandal. Perhaps she is planning to challenge Lisa Murkowski for the US Senate or Michael Steele for the RNC Chairmanship. Maybe she has plans for a think tank. But whatever her plan, resigning before her term is complete strikes me as strange. There may be no single action that disqualifies someone from the presidency, but turning your back on those you represent is probably pretty close.
Big-Time Interest in Electricity Savings (Updated)
Our post on saving money on electric power is drawing a lot of attention. At the moment, 48% of all of our traffic consists of direct visits to that post. Some of the visitors are coming from the Facebook pages of Delegates Saqib Ali (D-39) and Kirill Reznik (D-39), both of whom are alerting their constituents to this opportunity. Thank you, Delegates!
Update: Gaithersburg City Council Member Ryan Spiegel has also linked to this post from Facebook and is quoted in an article on consumer choice in today's Town Courier.
How to Save Money on Your Electric Bill Right Now
Over ninety percent of Marylanders can save money on their electric bills right now. You don’t need to write the Governor. You don’t need new legislation. You don’t need any help from politicians. You can do it NOW.
First, let’s understand how Maryland’s electricity market works. Under deregulation, utilities like Pepco and BGE do not generate their own electricity. They buy it from other suppliers. Sometimes those suppliers are subsidiaries of the same parent company (as is the case with BGE’s parent, Constellation Energy) and sometimes they are not. But you as a consumer have the right to choose your generating company and your utility will then distribute the power to your home or business. If you do not choose a generator, the utility will sell power to you from its suppliers under a Standard Order of Service (SOS) price. Ninety-seven percent of state residents do not exercise their right of choice and instead purchase SOS, but you don’t have to be one of them. The SOS price is not always the best price. Sometimes, you can find a better one.
The state’s Public Service Commission website allows you to find the power generators who sell in your area. In Pepco’s service territory, there are currently five suppliers you can choose: BTU Energy LLC, Clean Currents LLC, Horizon Power & Light LLC, Pepco Energy Services and Washington Gas Energy Services. BGE’s service territory has ten suppliers. All of the suppliers’ websites are listed and you can find out their offers.
How do you shop? First, find out your utility’s SOS price to compare, which is the average cost per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity generation and transmission. Utilities report this figure on their websites. Pepco’s SOS price to compare for residential customers is currently 12.51 cents per kWh. If you are receiving SOS – Pepco’s default supplier – this is the average price you are currently paying.
If you are a residential customer receiving BGE’s SOS, you are currently paying an annual average of 11.97 cents per kWh.
Now let’s check two of the alternative suppliers in Pepco’s service area. Let’s start with Clean Currents, a company based in Rockville which specializes in supplying wind power. Clean Currents is now offering both Pepco and BGE customers a rate of 11.2 cents per kWh for power that is 50% derived from wind energy and a rate of 11.7 cents per kWh for 100% wind power. That means Pepco customers can save 10.5% off their power bill and BGE customers can save 6.4% and simultaneously increase their use of wind power by switching to Clean Currents.
It gets better. You can save even more money with Washington Gas Energy Services (WGES). In Pepco’s service area, WGES offers electricity at a base rate of 10.8 cents per kWh. The rate goes up if you want higher percentages of wind power. That same base rate of 10.8 cents is available in the Baltimore area. That means Pepco customers can save 13.7% off their power bill and BGE customers can save 9.8% by switching to WGES.
These rates will not be in effect forever. But by looking for the best deal every year or two, you can save a bundle of money. Deregulation, which was intended to lower prices through competition, did not work when competitors were not present. But now they are in both the Washington and Baltimore areas. And now you know how to make this market work for you.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that some politicians in Annapolis are trying to take away your ability to save money. We’ll reveal how tomorrow.
Monday, July 06, 2009
DC Madam Lives Again
This belongs in the category of "Can't make this stuff up." We have had a handful of readers access our "Washington Post Readers Erupt Over Dinnergate" post by searching for the term "DC Madam." Indeed, a Google blogsearch on "DC Madam" currently ranks our post fifth on the search results page.
Jim Smith is Not Running for Comptroller (Updated)
Courtesy of WBAL, following is a statement by Baltimore County Executive Jim Smith announcing his decision not to run for Comptroller. That's an interesting decision given his recent appearance at a Committee for Montgomery meeting and this fundraising speech strongly hinting at a run. So what is going to happen to his nearly million-dollar war chest? Will Smith's Chief of Staff, gubernatorial brother Peter O'Malley, have a say?
Update: Jim Smith probably won't be running for Senate because he lives in District 11, currently represented by Democrat Bobby Zirkin. We would not be surprised if Smith wound up in Governor O'Malley's cabinet. There are currently openings in Transportation and Labor.
Update 2: The Baltimore Sun is now speculating on the fate of Smith's war chest.
#####
After much deliberation, I have decided not to run for Comptroller in the 2010 election. Although this has not been an easy decision, I am confident that I am making the right choice. Having spent many months thinking about the duties of Comptroller in the State of Maryland, I have concluded that it is not a position to which I aspire. I have never pursued any elected office because it was expedient. I always sought the opportunity to serve because I thought I could make a real difference-as a councilman, a judge, and currently as County Executive. I did not feel that passion when considering a run for Comptroller.
To those of you who have supported me as County Executive, and encouraged me to consider a statewide run in 2010, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Your enthusiasm is amazing, and I am truly grateful for your counsel and support. Rest assured that I remain committed to public service, and I look forward to finding new ways to serve in the future.
Working together with the people of Baltimore County, we've created a renaissance that is visible from one end of the County to the other. I am excited about what we've accomplished, and I am energized by the work we have left to do. There are eighteen months left in my term as County Executive, and I am focused on completing what we started.
Washington Post Readers Erupt Over Dinnergate
The Washington Post’s readers are roaring with fury at the newspaper’s Dinnergate scandal. As of this writing, nearly 700 comments have poured into Howard Kurtz’s article on the debacle, more than 200 have been posted to the Ombudsman’s story and almost 600 have descended on the publisher’s apology. Here’s a sample of what the readers are saying. Mark our words: after this, the Post’s endorsement is going to matter a whole lot less next year than it did in 2002 and 2006.
Post reader comments:
I have never seen a news organization self-destruct more quickly than I have the Washington Post today. You just flat-out offered flattering stories in exchange for $250,000 bribes. Unbelievable.
This is shameful, just shameful. The Washington Post has lost whatever journalistic integrity it had left. No wonder newspapers are dying.
This hurts. Up until now, I considered the Washington Post to be one of the few outstanding news sources in the world. Now, I will have much less trust in its reporting. This is not the fault of marketing. This is the fault of the publisher, who obviously knew all about this money grab. I can’t help but believe those in charge of the newsroom knew about it, too. Remember, credibility is very fragile. This episode put a huge crack in the credibility of the Washington Post. What a shame.
Would someone please explain to someone far outside the Beltway why a newspaper thinks it should broker interactions between government officials and those seeking favorable treatment from the government?
What’s black and white and red all over? Answer: a blushing Washington Post. And well you should be embarrassed with the disclosure of a newspaper running a salon for-profit special interest escort service. Your bankrupt journalistic ethics are now exposed for all to see.
The Washington Post only found this story fit to run in the Style section today. I'll bet if it happened at the Washington Times during the Bush years they would have run it on the top of the front page.
The Post does a lot of excellent reporting of difficult and complex issues. There’s a lot of great journalism there, and a lot of honest people. But this! This is shameful! It calls into question everything the Post reports. Now every time I read a Post article (if I continue to read the Post at all...), I'll have to wonder, “Did any special interest groups pay tens of thousands of dollars for off-the-record access to the article's author or to its editor, and if so, did it influence what I'm reading?” The answer to both questions may very well be, “No.” But once I have to ask those questions, the answers doesn't really matter; the damage is done by the need to ask. If decision makers at the Post can't understand how completely wrong this was, they have no business running such an important newspaper.
Obviously, Pelton is taking the fall for what is an - appalling - idea of Weymouth’s. These “salons” are a disgraceful idea, and they are a symptom of how the Post is a) desperate for revenue, and b) no longer the swashbuckling institution that it was in the Watergate era. The Washington Post was a national treasure back in those days. In the past 20 years, however, it has become everything bad about everything bad.
Ridiculous? Last week I would have said so, but after today... ehhhh, not so much. After all, if the Post would sell space in its publisher’s own living room to raise money, then it’s certainly capable of selling space on its Op-Ed page, isn’t it?
Now we know why WaPo editorial board member Ruth Marcus just came out opposing a health plan which would allow a government entity to compete with insurance companies. Clearly you can’t sell tickets to big insurance companies if they think that you support a plan which would compete with them. It is incredible how sleazy the Post’s relationship with those in power has become.
Let me get this straight...the Washington Post charges special interests ten to twenty thousand dollars to attend “parties” with Post newsroom reporters. Do the special interests have to pay more to actually write the articles that appear in print? How much would it cost me to write a Krauthammer editorial?
It seems to me that the Post’s staff’s objections amount to arguing about the pattern on the skirt worn by a sh***y pig. This tale suggests that privileged access (and its consequences) is endemic at the Post and in Washington’s political culture. We need to realize that the reporting on health care is probably no more honest than that of the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Would that we had half the courage of the Iranians.
So you’ll be taking big bucks from insurance industry executives and lobbyists so that they can dictate the talking points to your stenographers - I mean columnists - so that they can catapult the propaganda - I mean opine - on what a very bad, terrible, horrible, socialist, fascist and communist thing it would be for 47 million Americans citizens to have a public option for their healthcare. Got it.
REPORTERS COMPLAIN ABOUT STRESS OF JOURNALISTIC PROSTITUTION (WASHINGTON DC) Embittered Was Po reporters complained about the stress of Journalistic Prostitution. “You have to write 2 stories, say one praising Obama and one criticizing Obama.” “The articles have to be posted on a secure online website for bidders only before the NYSE opens at 9 eastern.” “Then if someone buys the Deletion rights or worse yet demands a fictitious source, you have to get the rewrites ready immediately or your future price as a reporter will track down,” complained a dispirited reporter. Reporters were pleased, however, with their pay under the new contingent fee arrangement for the revenue streams generated by Wash Po articles traded on the NYSE futures market. And since the scandal occurred before a holiday weekend, no one will remember by Monday.
I looked at the Politico story a second time....one of the most striking portions is this: “She made it clear however, that The Post, which lost $19.5 million in the first quarter, sees bringing together Washington figures as a future revenue source.” In other words: the Washington Post is perfectly happy in being the pimp between lobbyists and the White House.
So, if the National Rifle Association would “sponsor,” say, $250,000 worth of these “salons,” could we buy some fair coverage? I would think so. Is there any other way to read it?
What’s the big deal? This was just an attempt to formalize WaPo’s role as pimp arranging trysts between wh*res (gov’t) and their johns (lobbyists).
They got caught, plain and simple. It was not a mistake. It was not an oversight. They got caught.
Presstitutes.
This boondoggle is not conspiracy, as some suggest. It’s gross incompetence. The Washington Post is just a public high school but with a little more money. There are a few highly-overpaid and idolized superstars around which all business turns. Aside from that are the masses of hard workers who somehow still have their jobs, but will never get any recognition, a raise or a “thank you.”
If pimping out the Post is done in such plain sight, one shudders to think what journalistic malpractices publisher Weymouth executes behind closed doors.
Newsboy yells out: “I got your Post for sale, right here! Post for sale.” Bystander: “Tell me boy, what’s the headline.” Newsboy: “Mister, that is the headline.”
So who’s getting fired for this? You’ll let go talented journalists for downsizing, but your idiotic marketing clowns get to come in to work on Monday? Everyone involved in this should get the ax. Maybe the Weekly World News is hiring.
How much to spin George Will’s bowtie?
I’m a former editor of a (very) small local weekly. There is NO WAY that Katherine Weymouth DID NOT know about this. I refuse to believe that her marketing team would EVER put such an idea onto paper without her knowledge and consent, even if it was just a “trial balloon.” So, there are only two possible conclusions to be drawn - 1) either Weymouth is totally clueless about how the newspaper business is supposed to work, or 2) she is absolutely desperate to increase revenues. I opt for the latter. But if that’s true, and she’s willing to even entertain the idea of compromising the Post's integrity for cash, things must be very, very bad indeed.
Good lord! This is nuts. Now, anyone attempting to contact a Post reporter will have to wonder whether their calls would be returned more quickly - or at all - if only they had paid to sponsor a salon.
The Post’s credibility on local news was destroyed long ago by sloppy, inaccurate reporting. The editorial page has been biased and excessively influenced by certain Montgomery County politicians like Councilmembers Andrews and Trachtenberg. The Post is so bad that I cannot rely upon it for accuracy in any matter. Therefore, this is no surprise, but interesting to see the Post brass try to spin and worm out to avoid full responsibility for what this is: disreputable, shameful, unethical conduct.
I do really like the part about $250K for “non-confrontational access.” The simple translation of that deliciously accurate phrase is “We’ll kiss your ass for $250K; you just tell us how hard.”
Gee, and here I thought all the grammatical and spelling errors this newspaper has been making lately were serious problems. Thanks for putting it in perspective, Washington Post.
If Katherine Weymouth had any integrity she would now resign as publisher of the Post. Of course, if she had any integrity, she would not have been pimping the Post in the first place.
Unbelievable. It doesn’t matter what you call it, this is prostitution. It would be nice if news organizations actually felt their loyalty was to the readers, but I guess those days are long gone.
The DC Madam lives!
Now that Ms Weymouth has had to cancel the Salons, what’s she going to do with the 10,000 cocktail weenies and the 500 pounds of imitation crabmeat that are in her freezer?
People are going to remember today as the day the Washington Post died.
Big Daddy and the Millers
Republican Ron Miller, who was crushed by Senate President Mike "Big Daddy" Miller by 40 points in 2006, is running against him again. Ron Miller put out a press release today announcing his candidacy and slamming his opponent for advocating a gas tax increase. It figures that the Republicans are going after Big Daddy on the one issue on which he is indisputably right.
Now if we really wanted to have maximum name confusion, we could get soon-to-be-retiring WSSC Wild Child Juanita Miller to run. Big Daddy spanked her by 29 points in the 2002 primary. (Want to bet that Mike Miller's thundering WSSC letter was not driven in part by the actions of Commissioner Juanita?) But we will have no such luck as she is running for the Prince George's County Council.
So what happens if Juanita Miller wins? Big Daddy and the Wild Child will have to work together hand in hand for the people of Prince George's County. Yeah, we'd pay serious money to see that!
Why CCT Supporters Should Give BRT a Chance
Some backers of the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) may be disappointed by a recommendation from the Planning Department staff that the project be constructed as bus-rapid transit (BRT). But CCT supporters should give BRT a chance for one simple reason: it may be the only way to make the project competitive for federal funding.
In order to be built, the CCT must qualify for funding from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which shares the cost of transit projects with applicant states. FTA gives proposed transit projects overall ratings of high, medium-high, medium, medium-low and low, with only projects receiving a medium or better rating considered for funding. The overall rating is the average of two sub-ratings: project justification and financial commitment, with each being ranked using the above five scores. Project justification is in turn an average of five component ratings on mobility improvements, environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost effectiveness and land use. If a project scores low on any of these categories, it must make it up with higher scores in one or more of the others. Any project with an overall score of medium-low or low will not be financed.
FTA makes the ultimate decision on each of the above ratings. But one of these ratings is already known for the CCT as well as the Purple Line and Baltimore’s Red Line: cost effectiveness. FTA defines cost effectiveness this way:In its evaluation of the cost effectiveness of a proposed project, FTA considers the incremental cost per hour of transportation system user benefits in the forecast year. Transportation system user benefits reflect the improvements in regional mobility - as measured by the weighted in- and out-of-vehicle changes in travel-time to users of the regional transit system – caused by the implementation of the proposed New Starts project. The cost effectiveness measure is calculated by (a) estimating the incremental “base-year” annualized capital and operating costs of the project (over a lower cost “baseline” of transit service), and then (b) dividing these costs by the projected user benefits. The result of this calculation is a measure of project cost per hour of projected user (i.e. travel-time) benefits expected to be achieved if the project is added to the regional transit system. Proposed projects with a lower cost per hour of projected travel-time benefits are evaluated as more cost effective than those with a higher cost per hour of projected travel-time benefits.
Here is how different levels of cost effectiveness are associated with ratings:
The goal of any transit project should be to have a cost per hour of user benefit of $23.99 or lower, with the lower the better. Projects with higher costs per hour must get rankings of medium-high or high in one or more of the other categories to have a shot at an overall medium ranking, without which federal money will not be available.
The CCT will be competing with the Purple Line and Baltimore’s Red Line for funding. Few people believe that FTA will fund more than one of these projects at the same time. Few believe that Maryland can afford to pay its share of the cost for more than one of these projects at a time. (Some believe the state may not be able to afford any of them!) Each of these projects has several options for construction. Some options use BRT while others use rail. Some options use more tunneling than others. Some have different alignments than the others. But every option has a cost effectiveness estimate. Here’s how all of these options compare for the CCT, Purple Line and Red Line.
The only option to receive a medium-high cost effectiveness rating is surface BRT on the Purple Line using the Capital Crescent Trail. No one is particularly enthusiastic about that proposal. Of the eight medium cost effectiveness ratings, two are for BRT on the Purple Line, two are for rail on the Purple Line, one is for dedicated surface BRT on the Red Line, one is for dedicated surface rail on the Red Line and two are for BRT on the CCT. The two rail options for the CCT, as well as all the tunnel options for the Red Line, fall into the “low cost effectiveness” rating because they cost more than $30 per hour of user benefit. The Purple Line’s rail options generally do better than rail options for the other two projects because 1. population density on its route is greater than on the CCT, and 2. the cost of tunneling through Downtown Baltimore is very expensive. If the state chooses rail for the CCT or tunneling for the Red Line, those projects must be rated medium-high or high in one or more of the other categories to have a chance at federal funding.
Cost effectiveness is not everything. But it’s worth remembering that FTA initially rejected Virginia’s Dulles Metrorail extension in part because its cost effectiveness exceeded $31 per hour of user benefit - a low rating that is comparable to the cost of the CCT rail options. So if CCT supporters really want to see their project get built, BRT will give them their best chance of success.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Palin Resignation Video
What would Maryland conservatives say if Martin O'Malley quit during the middle of a recession?
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Friday, July 03, 2009
Post Dinnergate Flyer
Here is the flyer that triggered the Washington Post's massive Dinnergate scandal.
Is This Smart Growth? Part Five
The Planning Department staff’s new recommended growth policy encourages development away from transit and throws in the towel on congestion mitigation. Here are some ideas for doing this better.
1. Restructure the impact taxes to move development into the Downtowns.
Currently, there are three categories for transportation impact taxes: Metro Station Policy Areas (MSPAs), which has the lowest rates; Clarksburg, where rates are three times the MSPAs; and general (the rest of the county), which has double the rates of the MSPAs.
Developing near Metro stations is a better option than sprawl (or opening the Ag Reserve), but the best development opportunities apply to Metro stations that are combined centers of residential, office and retail uses. We have four of them: the Downtowns of Bethesda, Silver Spring, Rockville, and Wheaton. We should create a new impact tax category for these Downtowns that has lower rates than the MSPAs and at the same time raise the rates in Clarksburg and in non-MSPAs. That would channel development into the Downtowns, where it belongs. It would also make sprawl development more expensive and effectively subsidize downtown development. Moderately-priced dwelling units (MPDUs) and workforce housing units should continue to be eligible for impact tax waivers.
2. Get rid of gobbledy-gooky data measures.
Overly complicated statistical barometers have two problems. First, they may not measure what you think they measure. Second, they sometimes behave unpredictably. The classic example is critical lane volume (CLV), which the Planning Department uses to measure intersection congestion for local area transportation review. The department’s own transportation staff found in 1998 that CLVs have no relationship to actual delay and yet they continue to use them. We exposed this dismal planning failure a year ago and the Planning Department has never responded. Planners should be using simple, easily understood measures like actual speed and delay data, which are commercially available.
3. Junk PAMR.
Policy area mobility review (PAMR), the procedure invented by the staff in 2007 to assess traffic and transit congestion across sub-segments (policy areas) of the county, is based on a trade-off premise. If cars are moving slowly, a policy area could still be judged to have adequate transportation capacity if transit was relatively mobile. The problem is that transit mobility is defined as a percentage of highway speed. So imagine a policy area without Metro stations in which cars are crawling at rush hour. If the buses crawled along at an equally slow speed – say, 80% because of their frequent stops – the policy area would be judged to have a “B” level of transit service. Under PAMR’s current tradeoff, that would allow a “D” level of auto congestion, meaning that cars could still move at 40% of highway speed. So under PAMR, as long as all transportation modes are equally jammed, the transportation capacity is called “adequate.” Do you see the illogic here?
A better way to do this is to use real-world speed and delay data for both local area and policy area transportation review. How congested are the intersections and the major corridors? Higher levels of congestion could be allowed in major Downtowns with Metro service. Lower levels would be tolerated in Upcounty. Projects built in congested areas would require more mitigation, especially directed to financing transit.
4. Give neighbors a voice in devising mitigation techniques.
Right now, a developer who builds near a highly congested (or “failing”) intersection can mitigate vehicle trips through building sidewalks, bike paths, pedestrian refuges, bus shelters, information kiosks, bike lockers or transit signs. Few of these measures do anything to mitigate traffic. The residents who live near that intersection should have a formal role in devising and approving real mitigation measures that actually impact traffic. If citizens are allowed to vote on speed bumps, they should be allowed a real voice on traffic mitigation.
5. Build more transit!
This is outside the bounds of the growth policy recommendations, but transit availability is vital to the future of the county. It has been more than six months since we reported on Council Member Marc Elrich’s bus-rapid transit plan, which is the only proposal now on the table for a comprehensive transit system across the county. Since that time, we have seen little if any progress on its implementation. Montgomery County desperately needs a geographically diverse network of fast transit service, especially on its east-west corridors. The Purple Line by itself cannot solve all of the county’s mobility issues. A county-wide transit system is required for that. Dedicated impact taxes, tax districts around prospective BRT stations and private equity partnerships should all be considered as ways to pay for this proposal.
The above five measures would steer development into Downtowns, provide sound data for evaluating transportation capacity and begin the process of building more transit options. So let’s forget about channeling development to Upcounty and strip malls and give some different ideas a chance.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Marc Elrich on Blair Ewing
By Marc Elrich.
It was hard news to take on Tuesday, and the fact that it wasn't unexpected didn't make it any less so. Blair was a good friend, and someone I could talk to about almost anything. He was one of the most informed and thoughtful people that I've known, and he was a man of great integrity. His positions were never mysterious or vague. He didn't take a position without thoroughly thinking it through. He was simply motivated by doing what was right for the people he represented, whether he was on the school board or the County Council.
I met Blair around 1980 during the school board election. He championed the cause of equity for all children and understood that a complex web of factors contribute to a child's success in school. Before it was fashionable to talk about "changing demographics", "red zones", "achievement gaps", and "wrap around services", Blair understood those things and advocated for taking a broad approach to overcoming disparities. It took awhile before the County caught up with Blair and the broader group he was a part of, who were insisting on not only on educational reform but on a holistic approach that took into account the whole child.
Blair was the antithesis of shallowness. He was constantly learning, eager to talk to people and always interested in understanding an issue thoroughly. He would engage in substantive discussions and was never so busy that he couldn't meet at the Parkway Deli to talk about teaching, curriculum, pedagogy and the nexus of theory and practice. I was early on impressed that he would sit and talk about such things on a Saturday morning, not because of pending board action, but because he was genuinely interested in the intersection of policy decisions and the classroom.
For a lot of us, Blair was a true champion. What he would say in a private conversation, he would carry into a public forum. He would fight for his beliefs and didn't shy away from disagreements. He would not go along to get along, he wouldn't avoid a contentious debate even when he knew the outcome was already determined and it wasn't going to be favorable. And because of that, he won a strong and loyal following in the community. If you invested your vote in Blair, he gave you your money's worth and more.
He always had other interests that went beyond the school board. He was a strong environmentalist. He was committed to bringing more resources into the area of mental health, an area that to this day is sadly neglected by all levels of government. He counted beans - how the government spent money mattered, the effectiveness of programming mattered. These interests eventually led him to his successful run for the County Council where he was able to continue his advocacy for children and expand his role in shaping policies that impact on children beyond the classroom.
Blair was a leader in the effort to reshape growth policies so that they were tied to availability of infrastructure. It was not a "no-growth" position then, any more than asserting that growth and infrastructure should be linked is a "no growth" posture today. But he was painted that way, as well as being branded as the sole factor that blocked the construction of the ICC. Blair only wished he could have been that powerful. Nonetheless, his insistence on providing infrastructure as a condition of development and his unwavering opposition to the ICC led to the ugly campaign that was waged against him in 2002 to prevent his reelection. The developers amassed a war-chest of over $2 million dollars to defeat him and elect the "End Gridlock Slate." They succeeded.
Blair continued to stay politically engaged and with O'Malley's election, he was appointed to the State Board of Education. It was a fitting way to end a career that began as a visionary leader in the fight for educational equality. No matter what his political role, Blair never wavered from his commitment to children.
A lot of great human beings have passed in the last year. Too many. This County has witnessed the loss of real giants and Blair belongs in that group. As a board member or council member, his constituency was always the residents of the County and their children. He didn't bend to special interests and he would not be silent when there was cause that he believed in that needed his support. He didn't weigh the odds before deciding whether he should stand up and be counted, he weighed the merits of the issue. You could defeat Blair, but you couldn't silence him. I learned a lot from him and I will always be grateful for his willingness to share his knowledge and his interests. Like many others in the County, I looked to him for leadership and was never disappointed. We will all miss him. I trust that Marty, his wife, will take comfort in knowing that her loss is shared by all of us and that he was loved and respected by so many people in our community.
Editor's Note: Marc Elrich has been an at-large Montgomery County Council Member since 2006.
Washington Post Sells Access for $25k+ (Updated)
The Politico's Mike Allen is reporting that the Washington Post is distributing fliers to lobbyists asking them to pay $25,000-250,000 to attend a July 21 dinner at the home of Post CEO Katharine Weymouth. The Post promised attendance by senior Obama officials, members of Congress and even the paper's own reporters and editors. The newsroom later backed out but the editorial staff did not. Read the amazing story here.
All of this comes in the wake of the Boy King scandal. Does this organization have no shame?
Update: The dinner has been canceled and the Post's ombudsman calls the affair a "public relations disaster." No word on how much longer the Post's other PR disaster - the Boy King - will continue.
Update 2: Here is White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs's comment on the scandal.
Blair Ewing: A Tribute
By Sharon Dooley.
The last time I saw Blair was in May at the annual Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee Spring Ball. He looked quite fragile as he walked unsteadily to his table, but said he was “fine” when I greeted him. This was the same response I had received at the NAACP Dinner in March and the Democratic Holiday Party in December. But many knew all was not well, he was far too gaunt and frail to be “fine”. So when I heard he died of carcinoid this week I was saddened, but not surprised. In reflection that May evening, I thought it is too bad Blair is not being honored tonight – we are not going to have a chance to do so in his presence much longer. But seeing him at these big gatherings month after month speaks to his character and to his courage. As an intelligent man, he knew he was ill and still kept to his routine. He asked no sympathy and carried his dignity forward with each uncertain step.
I’m not claiming great camaraderie with this man – he was not the boisterous political type who is always ‘meeting and greeting’ and has thousands of acquaintances, but few friends. No, Blair was a serious intellectual person, evidenced by his status as Phi Beta Kappa and previous collegiate rank as a professor. I first met him when he was a member of the Montgomery County Board of Education and found him to be caring and passionate about the education of students in this county. He has always been kind and friendly toward me and I considered him a respected friend and elder. He was an active advocate equally both for the services of gifted students as well as for those students whose educational needs were not being met by the system. He was outspoken concerning civil rights and equal opportunities in public education and first won election opposing conservatives. When I worked with a statewide advocacy group for gifted children’s education, Blair was a source of suggestions, advice and experience; he was always approachable and down to earth.
He really liked being on the County Council and did an excellent job of it. When the council at the time cut county clinic services for the mentally ill, I remember his crusade to try to restore these services for county residents. He kept his emphasis on education but added environmental issues to his plate and was an early opponent of the ICC. He was the real at large representative for and of the populace on the council around 2000. When he ran for re-election for his at large seat, those on the End Gridlock slate targeted him. County Executive Duncan additionally claimed he was an obstructionist to plans for growth; however few really expected his defeat in 2002. Across the county many spoke of “Blair” that year – he had been an elected official for 22 years on the school board and 4 on the council. That demonstrates a legacy that few could match before or probably will not afterwards.
Blair Ewing also did not forget and started working for Martin O’Malley as soon as he announced his candidacy for governor. He marshaled many in the county to this quest and was publicly jubilant at the O’Malley victory. Named to the State Board of Education by the governor, his advocacy for Montgomery County continued. In fact, one of his final acts as a State Board member was to support he county’s request for a waiver on the maintenance of effort – just a few short weeks ago in May. To the end he served this county and stood up for his beliefs and principles. He wore his passions as a vest – they were a part of his uniform. One always knew where he stood and where you stood with him. Blair was an old-fashioned guy in some ways – he couldn’t be called a progressive – he was a true liberal and remained one even after many tried to smear that label - he wore it proudly. He didn’t test the wind before he chose his side in a battle; he went stolidly into the fray with the might of right on his side. When I ran in 2006 I was honored to receive the endorsement of both Blair and Neal Potter; neither were given lightly, both were proudly received. Recently in the District Council 4 race Blair Ewing endorsed Cary Lamari, still keeping to his principles and standing his ground, still involved in the politics of the county.
Today Рhis quiet person to person campaigns, his principled stands, his passions for people oriented services, seem almost pass̩ in the loud frenetic media driven world of politics we see daily. I hope that many will now pause, reflect and be thankful for his service and leadership in our county and will use his example to inspire future leaders. I know that I will. Many in Montgomery County will really miss Blair Ewing and I am certain join with me in sending condolences to his widow and family.
Is This Smart Growth? Part Four
In Part Two of this series, we detailed how the Planning Department staff recommendation for a new growth policy relaxed standards on mitigating traffic congestion. In Part Three, we explained how the staff proposal would cut impact tax rates on projects in areas that were far from transit, including Clarksburg, Damascus and Olney. But all of that pales beside what you are about to read.
Under Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR), developers of projects in local areas with both road congestion and slow transit are required to install trip mitigation measures, all of which cost money. The new staff recommendation would allow developers to use an “Alternative Review Procedure” to offset all or part of their mitigation cost requirements. This procedure could be used for projects that have a minimum 50% residential use, achieve at least 75% of the maximum density allowed by the zoning, meet certain energy efficiency standards and provide additional below-market housing above county requirements. The procedure would only be available in two types of areas:
1. Projects within a half-mile of an existing or planned transit station or “high-quality transit corridor.” The latter term is defined as “a corridor with fixed route bus service where service intervals are no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.” These projects would be eligible for a 100% mitigation offset.
This category is more inclusive than it may first appear. Montgomery County has two bus services: WMATA and Ride On. Between the two of them, they have a rather high frequency of service on some major roads during rush hour. Consider the stretch of Georgia Avenue between Randolph Road and Norbeck Road. It is covered by four WMATA routes (Y5, Y7, Y8, Y9) and one Ride On route (51). Between 6 AM and 9 AM on weekdays, southbound WMATA buses come down Georgia Road every 11-17 minutes. The Ride On bus comes through every 20-30 minutes. The two of them together meet the standard of “high-quality transit corridor.” That means developers along this stretch of road would have no mitigation requirement even though there is no Metro station other than Glenmont, which is near the southern point of the route. Other major corridors without Metro stations but with at least four WMATA bus routes include US-29 from Four Corners through Burtonsville, Randolph Road from Rockville to US-29, New Hampshire Avenue from Takoma Park to US-29 and Veirs Mill Road from University Boulevard to Randolph Road. Projects in all of these corridors may just escape any PAMR traffic mitigation requirements under the staff proposal.
2. Projects within a half-mile of ten “basic services.” These services “include but are not limited to: bank, place of worship, convenience grocery, day care, cleaners, fire station, beauty, hardware, laundry, library, medical/dental, senior care facility, park, pharmacy, post office, restaurant, school, supermarket, theater, community center, fitness center or museum.” These projects would be eligible for a 50% mitigation offset.
Where are the locations in which these basic services are clustered? Many are in the county’s four downtowns (Bethesda, Silver Spring, Rockville and Wheaton) or are around Metro stations, but those areas are already covered by the transit offset category. The rest are strip malls. The staff proposal explicitly acknowledges this:This category recognizes that not all development in the County will be near a major transit corridor. Many of the 106 strip malls in the County do not qualify. However, they should be redeveloped in a more sustainable manner.
Since the staff refers to US-29, let’s consider one area that might be eligible for an offset under their proposal: Four Corners. This is the intersection of US-29 and University Boulevard, the gateway to East County. It has a school (Blair High School), a church, a pharmacy, a supermarket, a bank, a dry cleaner, several restaurants and many other retail services, so projects there may qualify for a 50% mitigation offset. It also has four WMATA bus routes (Z9, Z11, Z13, Z29) and three Ride On routes (9, 19 and 22), so projects there may even qualify for a 100% mitigation offset.
A strip mall on Route 29 could offer amenities that would reduce vehicle trips through mixed uses and a minimum of stores that provide services and products that residents and workers use on a daily basis, or what LEED for New Construction and Major Renovation defines as “basic services.”
Basic services include grocery stores, dry cleaners, fire stations, medical office, and fitness centers. People who live near these services frequently walk to them, reducing car trips. For projects that qualify, the PAMR requirement would be offset by 50 percent.
But let’s be honest: encouraging dense development at a place like Four Corners is not smart, it’s madness. The intersection was explicitly designed to move cars by splitting University into opposing segments. Yet, it is still congested, acquiring special infamy at rush hour. It is near two Beltway intersections (US-29 and University). Some of the retail resides in the Woodmoor Shopping Center, a strip mall on the eastern corner. Pedestrian travel is difficult at best, dangerous at worst. There is no Metro stop and no plans to build one. Why should developers receive a traffic mitigation offset of any kind here? And how many other strip malls will be eligible for those offsets?
This proposal for traffic mitigation offsets is the worst single element of the staff recommendation. It would reward dense development of at least 75% of zoning along several corridors far from transit stations, as well as many of the county’s strip malls. This is NOT smart growth. In fact, it is a prescription for endless traffic congestion with no way out.
In Part Five, we’ll offer a few ideas for improvement.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Board of Education Statement on Blair Ewing
Following is the press release from the Board of Education.
Board President Issues Statement Honoring the Legacy of Blair Ewing
June 30, 2009
STATEMENT OF BOARD PRESIDENT SHIRLEY BRANDMAN ON THE PASSING OF BLAIR G. EWING, FORMER MEMBER OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
“On behalf of the children and staff of Montgomery County Public Schools and the Board of Education, we wish to express deep condolences to the family of State Board of Education Member Blair G. Ewing on his passing today.
“Montgomery County, indeed Maryland, has just lost a tireless crusader for children. For many decades, as a Montgomery County Board of Education member, Montgomery County Council member, and State Board of Education member, Mr. Ewing worked vigorously, enduring long hours to craft policies, draft legislation, and provide adequate funding for public education in Montgomery County and in the state of Maryland. His commitment to ensuring high quality educational opportunity for all children was unshakeable. As a leader, no other passion consumed his time and energies more than his principled love for the welfare of every child under his jurisdiction.
“As we mourn the passing of a giant, we are comforted by the knowledge that everywhere we look in Montgomery County, the fruits of Mr. Ewing’s labor of love for our children are evident—in the classrooms and in the positive academic outcomes that he fought so hard to maintain through good instructional policies and adequate funding. The Montgomery County Board of Education salutes Mr. Ewing’s lifetime of service on behalf of all children.”
###
Board of Education: Ms. Shirley Brandman, president. Mrs. Patricia O’Neill, vice president. Members: Mr. Christopher Barclay, Ms. Laura Berthiaume, Dr. Judy Docca, Mr. Philip Kauffman, and Ms. Quratul-Ann Malik, student member. Dr. Jerry D. Weast, superintendent and secretary-treasurer. Office of the Board: 301-279-3617.
The Montgomery County Board of Education is the official educational policymaking body in the county. The Board is responsible for the direction and operation of the public school system. The Board consists of seven county residents elected by voters for a four-year term and a student elected by secondary school students for a one-year term. Board members are elected county-wide but run at-large, or from the Board district in which they reside.
Cary Lamari on Blair Ewing
By Cary Lamari.
I was sorry to hear of the loss of my friend Blair Ewing. The last email I received from Blair was on May 18th, he regretted my loss in the election and he followed up with me on the State Board of educations denial on the county waiver request.
I have known Blair personally for about 20 years although I knew of him for over 30 as an active county resident. I first met Blair during one of Ida Mae Garrotts weekly strategy meetings for her political action committee the New Democrats. Blair and Ida Mae were good friends and it was Ida Mae Garrott that convinced Blair he should run for the County Council. I worked with Blair on numerous initiatives but the one that was most memorable was the initiative to promote Mental Health awareness. Blair was critical on the Civic Federations first Mental Health community forum that led to the Blue Ribbon committee the County’s most comprehensive document addressing Mental Health.
Blair wasn’t afraid to tackle the hard issues even if they drew criticism, he once told me it was his job to bring topics to the forefront, put them on the table and see how they shake out. Blair was a leader in protecting the environment and always was available to discuss a concern of any resident of this County.
Blair was a true Civic Activist; he cared for this County and took some serious lumps trying to protect our quality of life from eroding. Blair and I spoke in depth about the End Gridlock team and the dismantling of our Annual Growth Policy in 2003, he was one of very few who truly understood the meaning of Smart Growth, not what is being promoted today by Chairman Hanson and Rollin Stanley and he also understood the need for a measurable growth policy, he recognized the need to promote community with all necessary infrastructure which also requires a sustainable budget that protects our county employees so they would not have to be burdened with always being the people that get stuck with balancing the budget because we allow developers to get away without paying their fair share.
He was truly a hero of not only the residents but the employees of this County. I am proud to call Blair Ewing a friend and a mentor. He was not only a gentleman but also a Statesman. Blair represented the caliper of public servant that most dream of becoming. Blair stands in the same category as Neil Potter, Ida Mae Garrott, Betty Ann Kranke, and Marilyn Praisner. I do not know a politician in this County today that has his integrity, dignity, honor and sense of community. My thoughts and prayers are with his family.
Cary Lamari
Gas Tax Up a Quarter in 2011
Oddly, this major news story appeared only in the Frederick News-Post as far as I know:
Maryland needs to increase its gas tax to pay for transportation projects across the state, the Senate president told assembled business leaders Tuesday.
Sen. Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. acknowledged that could take an act of political will by lawmakers, but pledged it as a major order of business if he is re-elected in 2011 to his Senate seat and the highest position in the Senate chamber.
If Gov. Martin O'Malley is re-elected, Miller predicted that a gas tax hike would be in effect in the first year of the new term. Miller did not specify how much of an increase. Both men are Democrats in a Democratically dominated state house.The environmentally sound but regressive gas tax would need to go up by around twenty-five cents--more than doubling the current tax--to pay for the Corridor Cities Transitway, the Purple Line, and Baltimore Red Line. The plan is to wait until after the elections as it is easier to do tough things at the beginning of a four-year term. Of course, it may be even more difficult than now if the economy and gas prices recover between now and then.
"We're paving (I-)270 with stimulus money," Miller told an invited audience of about 80 Frederick County Chamber of Commerce trustees and board members. "All we're doing is repaving. All we're doing is maintenance. . . .
Federal stimulus money is limited to projects that can be ready within 120 days and directly result in jobs, Miller said.
Meanwhile, almost all of the state's major road improvement projects are on hold, as well as plans for Metro's red, purple and green lines.
Politics may well require an even higher tax hike. In order to get to the numbers needed to pass the tax increase, the General Assembly will need to fund other costly projects in other areas of the State. Why should Sen. Middleton (D-Charles) want to vote for a big tax hike on his constituents who already have long and expensive commutes?
Of course, the State increase in the gas tax doesn't help Montgomery answer the question of how to fund its share of these two projects. If anything, it makes it harder by making it even more difficult to levy new taxes at the local level.
Is This Smart Growth? Part Three
Smart growth holds that development should be directed to areas with abundant transit access. The Planning Department staff proposal for a new growth policy pursues that goal through a variety of measures. But it also directs more development to areas far from transit. Here is one way it does that.
Developers of new projects are required to pay impact taxes to the county to help offset the cost of building and maintaining infrastructure to support them. Commercial projects are charged impact taxes to subsidize transportation, while residential projects are charged taxes to subsidize both transportation and school construction. Currently, the county has three schedules of impact tax rates for transportation. Projects in Metro Station Policy Areas (MSPAs), which are small areas immediately surrounding all metro stations in the county except for Forest Glen, are charged the lowest taxes on the grounds that substantial transportation facilities are already in place. Projects in Clarksburg are charged three times the MSPA rates on the grounds that Clarksburg requires substantial infrastructure investment to meet the needs of its residents. Projects in all other areas are charged double the MSPA rates. The net effect of the schedules is to encourage development around Metro stations through charging lower impact taxes than elsewhere.
The staff proposal would create a fourth schedule for transportation impact taxes: “other urban areas.” Chapter 49 of the County Code designates a number of areas as “urban” for the purposes of road design. The vast majority of them are near Metro stations and are covered by the MSPA impact tax schedule. But a few of them are not. The Planning Department staff proposes to charge projects in those areas two-thirds the impact taxes of the general (non-Metro, non-Clarksburg) schedule.
Where are these “other urban areas?” The Montgomery Hills Parking Lot District is near the Forest Glen Metro station, but is located on one of the most clogged stretches of state highway (Georgia Avenue just south of the Beltway) anywhere in the county. The Flower/Piney Branch Arliss urban area would have a Purple Line stop assuming that the transit line is constructed. The Germantown Town Center and Clarksburg Town Center urban areas would have Corridor Cities Transitway stops assuming that that project is constructed. But neither project is guaranteed and even if they are built, construction will be completed many years in the future. Yet the staff proposal would encourage development there now. The Damascus and Olney Town Centers may never get transit stations. Yet projects in those areas will be eligible for lower impact taxes too. Why?
The staff provides this reasoning in encouraging development in these “other urban areas:”As described above, the MWCOG [Metro Washington Council of Governments] Travel Survey conducted in 2007 and 2008 found that housing proximate to regional activity centers generated both fewer trips-per-household and shorter vehicle-miles-traveled, reflecting higher non-automobile use and the proximity of jobs and services prevalent in land use clusters. An equitable approach to taxing the households in these areas would reduce the per capita tax for new dwellings appropriately, similar to the lower rates available in Metro Station Policy Areas. We therefore recommend a new category for these residences to coincide with Urban Areas classified in Chapter 49 of the County Code that are not in MSPAs.
The staff is making a significant mistake here by lumping in all “regional activity centers” together. Most urban areas in Montgomery County are located in Downcounty. Residents there have shorter distances to travel to work, to retail, to school and to D.C. and Virginia than Upcounty residents. They also have access to Metro stations, while Upcounty residents do not. But the staff assumes that travel patterns in Upcounty “regional activity centers” or “urban areas” resemble those in Downcounty. That violates common sense. Most Damascus residents will have far longer commutes than Bethesda residents because the jobs will almost always be farther away. Plus, they will have to drive a much longer distance to access Metro.
Data from the 2008 MWCOG household survey shows a VMT [vehicle miles traveled] rate of approximately two-thirds that of a residence located outside of an activity cluster. Households in MWCOG activity centers generated 19.6 VMT per day, compared to 29.3 VMT per day generated by households outside of the activity centers. Therefore, rates proposed are calculated as two-thirds that of the 2007-2009 adopted rate for general residential.
By giving developers impact tax breaks for projects in places like Germantown, Clarksburg, Damascus and Olney, the Planning Department staff is actually encouraging more auto activity. That’s not smart growth at all.
But this is the tip of the iceberg compared to what is coming next. We’ll have more in Part Four.
