In the federal elections this year, I am firmly in the Vote Blue No Matter Who Camp. That will not be news to anyone who knows me.
As a nearly live-long resident of Montgomery County, going back to the 1950s, as a 34-year resident of Olney, and as someone who has been deeply involved in local politics for many decades, I am often asked my opinions around election time. This year I have been following the ballot initiatives very closely, listening closely to the views of those in favor and those against each of them. For the reasons set forth below, I recommend voting in Favor of Montgomery County Ballot Questions A & C, Against Ballot Questions B & D; and in Favor of State Ballot Questions 1 & 2. (The Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee has endorsed Questions A & C and 1 & 2, and opposes Questions B & D.)
The Case for Voting for Montgomery County Ballot Questions A & C and against B & D
The four local Montgomery County ballot questions on the November ballot are very important to our future. The first two, A and B, deal with our ability to have a rational property tax system, which allows us to grow. The second two, C and D, deal with how our County Council will be structured and present two opposing visions on how we will govern ourselves.
A and B: Montgomery County’s ability to finance its governmental services
To understand the impact of these proposals, we first must understand how, under our current Charter and current state law, we are able to raise the money will need for our public schools (47% of our budget), policing and fire protection (11%), debt service (7%), and social and general governmental services, including libraries, parks, transportation, (35%).
Real estate taxes on both commercial and individual properties cover 45% of our tax revenues. But under the current Charter (the County’s “constitution”) the total amount of revenue raised by property taxes may not increase from year to year in “real terms” (i.e., the rate of inflation) with the exception of revenue from new construction and rezoned property. This system is unique to Montgomery County, and makes the budget process unnecessarily complex and restrictive. Elsewhere, local governments figure out what they need to spend and then set the tax rate accordingly – but do not have a cap on the amount of revenue that can be gotten from the property tax. If the elected representatives determine that the tax rate is too high, they can cut spending. The existing arrangement essentially takes that policy making out of the County Executive and Council’s hands.
It also means that no matter how much the County grows, both in population and the value of property, the money raised by the property tax must stay pretty much the same in real terms. At the same time, the County income tax (which covers 41% of our tax revenues) is capped by State Law at 3.2%. So while the property and income taxes cover 87% of our income for all the services we need – existing laws impose a strait-jacket that can prevent us from dealing with the challenges faced by our community. Indeed, the inability to raise money under the property tax could interfere with our AAA bond rating, which enables us to keep our debt service low.
Question A, proposed by the County Council, would eliminate the revenue cap on the amount that may be raised by property taxes. By eliminating the cap, as our County grows our ability to keep pace with that growth would no longer be blocked by this outdated requirement. This would not impact the property tax rate, which currently, under the Charter, may not be increased beyond the rate of inflation unless every member of the County Council agrees. In other words, removing the cap on actual revenue would allow the County to provide services commensurate with the County’s growth; and it would encourage business in the County, because the County would be better positioned to provide those services.
Question B, on the other hand, was proposed by a petition spearheaded by Robin Ficker, a perpetual gadfly candidate for office who has not won an election since 1978. It only takes 10,000 signatures to place a proposal on the ballot for referendum, and in a County of a million people that is not a significant showing of public support. And it is not even clear how many signers of the Question B petition were aware of its impact. Question B would leave the existing Charter provision on real estate taxes in place, except that it would eliminate the power of the Council to ever, even by unanimous vote, raise the tax rate beyond the rate of inflation. The Charter currently requires a unanimous vote of the Council to raise the property tax beyond that level. In 2016, a fiscal crisis made such an increase essential, and County Executive Leggett and all nine members of the Council were able to make the necessary adjustment in the rate that was needed simply to keep revenues stable. The combination of a continued cap on the amount of revenue raised by real estate taxes and an absolute bar on raising the tax rate above the level of inflation would make a difficult situation disastrous.
It is significant that Question B is vigorously opposed by every present and past Montgomery County elected official to have taken a position and who was elected in the 21st Century. (Mr. Ficker was elected to a House of Delegates seat in 1978, was defeated for reelection, and has lost every race he has run since then.) See, for example, the recent op-ed by Democratic former County Executive Ike Leggett, former Republican Member of Congress Connie Morella, and business leaders David Blair and Carmen Ortiz Larsen; and these statements by Mr. Leggett here and here.
If both were approved by the voters, neither would go into effect, because they deal very differently with the same provision of the Charter.
A vote FOR Question A would eliminate Montgomery County’s fiscal strait-jacket without significant increases in the tax rates. A vote AGAINST Question B would prevent a potential fiscal disaster in Montgomery County.
C and D: Structure of the County Council
The County Council/County Executive form of local government was established in 1968, when, pursuant to a change in the Charter, the voters replaced the previous County Commission/County Manager system. Initially, the Council was made up of seven members, all of whom were elected at-large, but five of whom were required to live in a particular district. At that time, about a half-million people lived in the County. By 1986, the County’s population had grown to about two-thirds of a million, leading to a decision by the voters to expand the Council to include nine members, only four of whom were elected at-large, with five elected by the voters of particular districts. The County’s population is now over a million. Currently, each district member represents about 212,000 people.
Question C, proposed by the County Council, recognizes the growth of the County by increasing the size of the Council to eleven by adding two district seats. Under this proposal, each district member would represent about 151,000 people.
Question D, was proposed by a petition, would eliminate the at-large seats and create a Council of nine districts, each representing about 118,000 people.
I believe that Question C better than the existing structure, and preferable to Question D. While both ballot questions would make the district seats smaller, Question D would do so by eliminating the advantages of having several members at-large. A nine single member district Council with no at-large members could lead to too much parochialism and, depending on how the lines are drawn, result in decisions not supported by most people in the County.
Ballot Question C is, in my opinion, the best option because by adding two more district seats it reduces the size of the districts, making each more likely to be responsive; but it keeps the four at-large seats, thus giving people other members to turn to if their district member is not responsive, and assuring that in big picture matters, the Council is in sync with the majority of voters County-wide, taking into account County-wide considerations. Remember that in 2018, each of the at-large winners got 75% of the vote.
Arguments in favor of Question D do not withstand scrutiny.
The contention that the existence of four at-large seats inevitably means that too many members of the Council are down-county economic elitists who can afford to run county-wide live down county is without basis. None of the current at-large members – who emerged victorious in the 30-some candidate 2018 primary -- are wealthy. Indeed, like so many in Montgomery County, they are life-long public servants. Gabe Albornoz, now of Kensington, was former County Executive Ike Leggett’s Director of Recreation for eleven years. Will Jawando, of Silver Spring, has spent his entire career in public service, including work as a White House staffer in the Obama Administration. Evan Glass, also of Silver Spring, is a former CNN producer who spent his years after leaving CNN as a community activist. Hans Riemer, of Takoma Park, spent his career in the non-profit sector before his election to the Council. None could be termed wealthy elitists. It is noteworthy that a wide range of citizens, including Marilyn Balcombe of Gaithersburg (who came in fifth in the 2018 at-large primary), and many community organizations have organized to support Question C and oppose Question D. See https://mocoforc.org/
and http://www.theseventhstate.com/?p=13848
More to the point, to the extent that funding may have, in the past, been an impediment to seeking public office in Montgomery County, the public financing system has changed the ball-game in this regard: in 2018, all four winners relied on the public financing system. See here (Item 2). Those who emerge from the Democratic primary elections (which will continue to be tantamount to general election victory as long as the Republican Party in MoCo continues to be so far from its older Connie Morella/Gilbert Gude/Howard Dennis roots) win because they make the most positive impressions on those who attend campaign forums and secure support from experienced people who publicly endorse them. Thus, to the extent that, in the past, funding has been a barrier to county-wide candidacies, the public financing system has leveled the playing field.
In my part of the County, I have heard people express concern that they are not being well-represented by our current Council Member (who is term-limited and cannot run in 2022). But there is no guaranty that that will improve if we go to a Nine-District Council, since Olney and its immediate environs do not have a large enough population to warrant our own district. Whether C, or D, or the present system is in place in 2022, the challenge will be to field a candidate who will be sensitive to local concerns. That is always the challenge of representative politics. By keeping At-Large seats, if we do not succeed in getting a sympathetic ear from our district, there is always the opportunity to get the ear of one of the At-Large members elected in 2022 -- and that, too, is the normal challenge of representative politics. In local politics, it is often as much about the relationships we develop as it is about geography (at least that has been my experience in issues in which I have been involved).
Nor does the expense of having two additional members on the Council counsel against Question C. Council members are paid $140,370 (less than senior federal civil servants) and have a staff of four. This would be a low price to pay for better representation, which creates a sound balance between parochial and County-wide interests.
As with Questions A and B, if both Questions C and D were approved by the voters, neither would go into effect, because they are inconsistent with each other.
A vote FOR Question C and AGAINST Question D would result in more district-based Council members while at the same time keeping the advantages of having at-large members.
State Questions: Vote for both 1 and 2
Council Member Evan Glass has provided cogent reasons for voting for State Question 1 (about the budget process in Annapolis) and State Question 2 (which would permit state-regulation sports betting). I agree with him (although I do so reluctantly on Question 2; I think that funding public needs with gambling revenues is, as a general matter, not good policy. But that train has long ago left the station. The argument that those wishing to engage in such gambling have been crossing into neighboring states to place their bets, thus depriving Maryland coffers of significant revenue, persuades me to vote for it.
Pasted below are Evan Glass’s analyses of both the County and State ballot questions.
**************************************
Dear Neighbors:
As you receive your mail-in ballots or make your plan for voting in person, I would like to draw your attention to six ballot measures that will have an enormous impact on the future of Montgomery County and Maryland. From tax policy to the Council’s structure, these questions deserve your attention and your vote.
I am sharing with you a summary of what each of these questions mean and how their passage will impact us locally. You can also read the Washington Post article on the ballot measures. Also for your consideration is the Montgomery County Democratic party’s official position on all measures.
Vote FOR Question A
Question A is a step toward fixing our broken tax system. It’s simple, as tax policy should be. Your property tax rate next year will remain the same as your tax rate this year, unless all nine County Councilmembers vote to increase it. No complicated formulas. No need for a Ph.D. in economic theory to calculate it. A cap on the rate we pay, not on the total revenue the County can receive. Tax revenues would increase exactly how they should, when the tax base grows. The better our local economy does, the more the County will be able to invest in schools, transportation, and everyday services. By simply keeping our tax rates steady, it would generate millions in revenue without even needing to raise taxes to do so. It’s clear. It’s consistent. It’s fair. It’s better for residents, for businesses, and for the county.
Vote AGAINST Question B
Question B is bad and it could bankrupt the County. Proposed by Robin Ficker, it doubles down on our broken property tax system, turning a bad policy into a catastrophic one by eliminating any ability to provide basic services or to respond to a crisis. It would directly threaten our AAA Bond rating which is needed to fund schools, libraries, transportation projects, and rec centers. It doesn’t promote a thriving economy, but actually discourages the very economic growth we need to invest in critical infrastructure and address school overcrowding in a fiscally responsible way. That’s the wrong choice at the worst possible time, threatening our ability to adequately address this COVID-19 health emergency and the resulting economic crisis.
Question A is about fiscal responsibility. Question B is about fiscal irresponsibility.
Vote FOR Question C
C is for more Council representation. The County Council is currently made up of nine members: five elected in a district and four elected at-large (by the entire County). Question C would create two new seats on the Council by adding two new district Councilmembers, while maintaining the four at-large seats. Most importantly, Question C would maintain your ability to vote for five members of the Council, who you can contact for constituent service needs and advocate for/against public policy.
C is for more Council diversity. Montgomery County's population has grown by 50% since the current Council structure was enacted 30 years ago. Question C will expand democracy, provide for more representation, and add more diverse voices by adding two districts.
Vote AGAINST Question D
D will dilute your voice. Currently, every voter in Montgomery County can vote for five Councilmembers: one in their district and four at-large. This means that every resident has five Councilmembers to represent their interests and provide constituent services. If Question D passes, you’ll be limited to voting for only one Councilmember instead of five.
D is not Democratic. Question D is opposed by former County Executive Ike Leggett and former GOP Congresswoman Connie Morella. This measure will only shuffle the chairs and create more parochialism on the Council. This same structure was used in Prince George’s County for decades and in 2018 they changed the system to include at-large members. The at-large members of the Council are important because they maintain a Countywide perspective on major issues such as schools, the environment and transportation, and allow you the ability to contact more than one Councilmember for assistance.
For more representation and more diversity, vote FOR Question C and AGAINST Question D.
Vote FOR Question 1
Question 1 is a statewide ballot question that would grant the Maryland General Assembly the same power 49 other states have –– a power most Marylanders assume we have –– to move money around the budget submitted by the Governor. This would not impact Maryland's requirement for a balanced budget and would require the General Assembly to fund the budget within an overall amount set by the Governor. It would also create a line item veto for the Governor on any budget changes the legislature makes. Finally, the legislation does not take effect until the next Governor's first budget. Bottom line: The people's branch of government should have the authority to fund the people's priorities.
Vote FOR Question 2
Question 2 is a statewide ballot question that would authorize sports betting in the state of Maryland, something every jurisdiction around us has already permitted. The revenue –– possibly $20 - $40 million annually –– would go toward the education lockbox to fund our state's education programs. For many of us, the state's incremental expansion of gaming from lottery to slots to table games to sports gaming has not been our first choice, but given the actions by other states in our region, the fact is much of this gambling will occur whether in Maryland or not. If we can help fund education programs with these dollars, we should.