Zina Celestine Pierre, the embattled Democratic Mayor nominee in Annapolis, has been under fire for revelations concerning her financial litigation history. But she has another problem that the media has only hinted at: state and county tax authorities regard her as a resident of Prince George’s County.
Article II, Section 3(b) of the Annapolis City Charter states, “The mayor must be a registered voter in the city for at least two (2) years immediately preceding the date of the general election.” The city’s general election is scheduled for 11/3/09. Pierre’s voter registration lists her address as 1901 McGuckian Ave Unit 231 in Annapolis.
The date on which she moved to Annapolis is unclear. She made a federal campaign contribution of $1,000 to the Democratic Party of South Carolina on 3/9/07 from Mitchellville in Prince George’s County. She then made a federal campaign contribution of $1,000 to Hillary Clinton on 2/10/08 from her Annapolis address. She must have lived in her Annapolis apartment since at least 11/3/07 to be eligible for office.
Her big problem concerns the tax status of her house at 1915 Woodshade Court in Mitchellville. The State Department of Assessments and Taxation shows her claiming it as her principal residence.
The Prince George’s County Office of Finance confirms this.
Pierre bought the house in Mitchellville for $239,269 on 10/16/98. She began claiming it as her principal residence in the 1999-2000 tax year and has claimed it ever since. She has saved a total of $4,283.94 off her property taxes due to her homestead tax credit, including $1,393.09 in the 2009-2010 tax year, when she was registered to vote in Annapolis. The Prince George’s County Government is entitled to question whether Pierre should have received homestead tax credits for the period during which she claimed to be an Annapolis resident for purposes of compliance with city election law.
It’s an open question whether Pierre is complying with the letter of the law since it only refers to voter registration, not home ownership. But the GOP can make the case that she is not complying with the spirit of the law, is improperly claiming property tax credits and is in any case a carpet bagger. This is a true debacle for the Democrats.
Credit: Paul Foer of Annapolis Capital Punishment began putting together this story yesterday.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Tax Authorities: Democratic Annapolis Mayor Nominee is Not a City Resident
Friday, February 15, 2008
Will the Donut Hole Get Filled?
To the causal observer, you measure a legislator's success by how many bills they sponsor or cosponsor that become law. But there are other ways to "succeed". Here is an example of one our newer Delegates getting something done behind the scenes. You wouldn't know that from reading the lead story of today's Baltimore Sun.
First-term Delegate Roger Manno (LD19: Leisure World, Aspen Hill and the northern reaches of Silver Spring) has been working since he entered the legislature on closing the "donut hole" on Medicare Part D. He filed this bill in 2007 and again in 2008.
It still has several hurdles to pass not the least of which is funding approval. The initial bill, HB 37, probably will never become law. But the concept, with today's announcement, has made a quantum leap forward. Having the most powerful person in Annapolis on your side gives a freshman Delegate a huge "win". The "victory" comes when it passed and the policy is changed.
Proving once again that there are several ways to measure legislative success.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Annapolis Foreign Policy Watch
If Gov. Martin O'Malley can negotiate peace between the House of Delegates and the Senate, I suppose we are truly living in wondrous times, so why shouldn't peace be made between the Israelis and the Palestinians in Annapolis?
On the other hand, the city's role in the crafting of the Constitution is only guardedly auspicious. When delegates from met in Annapolis in 1786, they agreed that they would meet next year in Philadelphia. Of the thirteen colonies, only five states sent delegates. Maryland, showing the leadership that would leave Virginia as the mother of presidents and Maryland as the mother of Spiro Agnew, did not send delegates to the Convention held in its own capital.
Low expectations are clearly the order of the day in Annapolis. While the general shape of a settlement has been apparent for sometime, no one seems to know how to get from here to there. The main players in the drama are all weakened leaders. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert can only envy President George Bush's dismal approval ratings. One poll showed that 65% of Israelis think that Olmert has no mandate to go to Annapolis and make major concessions; a majority want him removed from office. Such things matter in a democracy and Israeli is a lively, if fractious, one.
Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is really only president in the West Bank as Hamas rules the Gaza Strip. The Gaza strip is small but extremely densely populated, containing over one-third of the Palestinian population. Abbas, as affable as Arab leaders appear to come, is weak too and any willingness to compromise, crucial to negotiations, will be interpreted as weakness. Hamas is already declaring that Abbas has no right to concede an inch of Palestine.
The future is even more dismal. Likud Leader Benjamin Netanyahu appears like to win the next Israeli elections and return as a prime minister opposed to the peace process. It seems unlikely that Abbas could be replaced by a leader more willing to negotiate a peace settlement.
The problems of negotiating peace remain high even leaving aside the current dearth of leadership. Bernard Lewis outlined the problems on the Palestinian side in an opinion piece heavily on realism which is needed here even if it can be as unwelcome as a splash of cold water in the morning:
The first question (one might think it is obvious but apparently not) is, "What is the conflict about?" There are basically two possibilities: that it is about the size of Israel, or about its existence.The second problem is that there is the lack of any sign that any Palestinian leader seems able bind his people to an agreement. Leaving aside the current question of Hamas, no Palestinian leader has shown the ability and the inclination to prevent Palestinian attacks on Israel except as part of a short-term strategy.If the issue is about the size of Israel, then we have a straightforward border problem, like Alsace-Lorraine or Texas. That is to say, not easy, but possible to solve in the long run, and to live with in the meantime.
If, on the other hand, the issue is the existence of Israel, then clearly it is insoluble by negotiation. There is no compromise position between existing and not existing, and no conceivable government of Israel is going to negotiate on whether that country should or should not exist.
PLO and other Palestinian spokesmen have, from time to time, given formal indications of recognition of Israel in their diplomatic discourse in foreign languages. But that's not the message delivered at home in Arabic, in everything from primary school textbooks to political speeches and religious sermons. Here the terms used in Arabic denote, not the end of hostilities, but an armistice or truce, until such time that the war against Israel can be resumed with better prospects for success. Without genuine acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish State, as the more than 20 members of the Arab League exist as Arab States, or the much larger number of members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference exist as Islamic states, peace cannot be negotiated.
The Israelis also have a sizable opposition to a peace agreement for a variety of reasons as well. A small minority will even take up arms. The difference is that the Israeli government has shown the ability to enforce discipline on its own people when it desires as demonstrated by the withdrawal of settlers from Gaza.
Is it any wonder that the Bush administration is trying to keep expectations low?
