Tag Archives: Adam Pagnucco

Adam Pagnucco, alcohol

Poll: 71% of Marylanders Want Beer and Wine in Grocery Stores

By Adam Pagnucco.

A new push to allow beer and wine sales in grocery stores, which is illegal in most of Maryland, is underway by the Maryland Retailers Association. And the retailers have posted a Mason-Dixon poll from 2018 on their website showing massive support for their initiative.

The poll of 625 registered Maryland voters in September 2018 shows that allowing grocery stores to sell beer and wine had 71% support overall. Support had significant majorities across every split on region, sex, age, race and party tested by Mason-Dixon.

A few elected officials in the state favor grocery sales of beer and wine, including Comptroller Peter Franchot and Montgomery County Council Members Hans Riemer and Andrew Friedson. But since this issue is a matter of state law, it’s the General Assembly that counts. The retailers are asking consumers to sign up through their website to get involved with their campaign. The prohibition on grocery store sales of beer and wine is ancient and the package store lobbyists are powerful. Consumer support is absolutely necessary to get this done.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Corporate Welfare, Development, Economy, Metro

Smart Growth or Corporate Welfare? Part Three

By Adam Pagnucco.

Part Two examined the case made by supporters of Bill 29-20, which offers 15-year property tax breaks on Metro development projects, and found that they have a point: namely, that the economics of high rises at Metro stations likely deter many such projects from being built. But there are other issues with the bill that should be addressed. Some of them are:

Smart growth was supposed to make money for the county.

There are plenty of good reasons to channel economic development through smart growth principles, including transportation management, community building, agricultural preservation, environmental considerations and more. But one of the cited reasons has historically been its alleged impact on county finances. Concentrating development in existing downtowns means that new road and sewer infrastructure does not need to be built. Nor do new police or fire stations. Schools may need to be expanded but new ones are not necessarily required as they may be by remote greenfield development. And high property values in downtowns can generate lots of property tax revenues that can be allocated across the county’s many needs. That was the plan at any rate. White Flint, one of the county’s earlier smart growth plans, was projected to generate $6-7 billion in revenue over the next 20-30 years back in 2010.

That was then. Now we are being told that if we want development at Metro stations, taxpayers need to pay for it.

There is no evidence that corporate payouts have paid off for MoCo overall.

Bill 29-20 is far from the first corporate incentive proposal in county history. MoCo has handed out $67 million in incentives through its Economic Development Fund (EDF) over the last couple decades with millions more on the way. Most of this money has been expended for retention, not attraction. Four recipients alone – Fishers Lane (HHS), Meso Scale Diagnostics, Marriott and HMS Host – were allocated a combined $44 million in multi-year retention grants, of which $28 million remains to be paid. MoCo’s Democratic elected officials even gave a $500,000 subsidy to a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s Fox Corporation. Despite all of these expenditures, the charts below shows how MoCo compares to its neighbors in employment growth and establishment growth since 2006, the county’s peak in the prior business cycle.

Here is the bottom line: we have been paying escalating amounts of corporate incentives for more than twenty years and it has not moved the needle on our economic competitiveness. Any time you do the same thing over and over and don’t get a positive result, you need to reconsider what you’re doing. Council members, think about it.

The county’s own actions make it a tough place for landlords.

Back in April, I wrote an article titled, “Why Would Anyone Want to Build Rental Units in MoCo?” summarizing the many deterrents to residential rental construction here. Among them were the time-consuming and expensive eviction process, the county’s moratorium policy (which does nothing to stop school crowding) and the election of a frequent development opponent as county executive. But little compares to the recent imposition of rent stabilization, which is supposed to be temporary but could always be extended. Many landlords were outraged at allegations of mass rent gouging when in fact there was little evidence to back that up. So are we now offering tax breaks in part to make up for all of this? Wouldn’t it be cheaper for taxpayers if the county simply stopped doing some or all of the above so that tax breaks aren’t necessary to get landlords to build units?

Property taxes by themselves are not the reason why MoCo can’t compete.

In waiving property taxes on Metro projects for 15 years, Bill 29-20 assumes that MoCo’s property taxes are a deterrent to development. But according to D.C.’s chief financial officer, MoCo’s effective property tax rate in 2018 was lower than in Prince George’s, Fairfax and Alexandria and not much higher than Arlington. And according to the General Assembly’s Department of Legislative Services, MoCo’s real property tax rate ranked 14th of 24 local jurisdictions in Maryland in FY20. On top of that, MoCo’s transportation impact taxes are far lower near Metro stations than they are in other parts of the county.

MoCo’s tax competitiveness challenge lies in its income tax (which is not charged by local governments in Virginia) and its energy tax. Bill 29-20 does not address either of those issues.

What are the consequences for income inequality?

High rises on top of Metro stations will be able to command some of the highest rents and/or condo prices in MoCo (and perhaps the entire region). In fact, such projects need to charge high rents and prices to pay off the costs of high rise construction and WMATA requirements. Bill 29-20 does not impose any additional affordable housing obligations beyond the 12.5-15% moderately-priced dwelling unit requirements in existing law. (Council Member Will Jawando introduced an amendment to raise the affordable housing requirement to 25% in committee but it was voted down.) So the bill in effect requires MoCo taxpayers to subsidize high-cost housing. Given the county’s long-standing problems with housing unaffordability and income inequality, that’s a hard pill to swallow.

And so Bill 29-20 presents a tough policy predicament. It’s true that high rise projects at Metro, the local Holy Grail for smart growth in the D.C. region, are not happening because of difficult project economics. It’s also true that sprawl and no growth are bad alternatives to transit-oriented development. But it’s frustrating that some of the architects and advocates of the county’s 15-year smart growth approach are now telling us it can’t happen without big tax breaks.

That said, corporate welfare can in rare cases be a necessary evil. If the county council wants to consider tax breaks for projects on a case by case basis, so be it. In doing so, the council can sort out projects that have a compelling public purpose from those that don’t. The council can also exercise leverage over a developer when public amenities like open space, child care, schools and other priorities are under consideration.

Bill 29-20 does not enable any of that. It creates an entitlement. Developers at Metro station properties will get tax breaks by right according to law. The council gives up most if not all of its leverage to influence such projects. And of course future developers might want to amend the law to get even longer tax breaks or other benefits. Developers of sites near but not on Metro stations might demand concessions too. As with the county’s Economic Development Fund, which began by handing out small grants to companies twenty years ago and eventually distributed 7-digit and 8-digit grants, the subsidies in the current bill may only be the beginning.

Metro station development was supposed to make us money. Now it seems we will have to pay for it, at least up front, to get the benefits that come later. Dear reader, this is your judgment to make. Is it worth it?

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Corporate Welfare, Development, Economy, Metro

Smart Growth or Corporate Welfare? Part Two

By Adam Pagnucco.

In making the case for Bill 29-20, which would grant developers at Metro stations 15-year property tax breaks, supporters claim that Metro high-rise development is not currently happening. And they say that’s the case for the entire region.

Is it true?

WMATA had a spate of development projects at Metro stations from 2002 through 2007, when the region’s real estate market was hot. There are much fewer proposals in the works now. They include:

Grosvenor-Strathmore, Montgomery
WMATA selected Fivesquares Development as its ground lease development partner at the Grosvenor-Strathmore station. In 2018, the Montgomery County Planning Board approved a sketch plan for 1.9 million square feet of mixed use development at the site. The original plan was supposed to include seven buildings, two of which would be 300 feet tall and another 220 feet tall. However, Fivesquares subsequently claimed that it needed tax breaks to finance the high rises, thus giving rise to Bill 29-20. Fivesquares wrote the following in its testimony about the bill:

Simply put, but for this legislation, Montgomery County’s goals to promote high density growth at transit accessible locations and, specifically, to implement the Grosvenor-Strathmore Minor Master Plan Amendment that the Montgomery County Council and Montgomery County Planning Board unanimously approved in 2017, would not be feasible due to the prohibitive economics of building high-rise projects. There is a significant gap in building high rise projects due to the gap between costs and revenue and the unique infrastructure requirements of Metro sites.

In the absence of this legislation, instead of the potential at the WMAT A property at the Grosvenor Strathmore Metro station for over 2,100 units, including over 350 Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs), the only feasible development would be lower density, stick-built housing that would dramatically underutilize the site, resulting in less than half the number of total housing units and MPDUs.

New Carrollton, Prince George’s
WMATA plans to replace the parking on the station’s south side with hundreds of thousands of square feet of office, retail and multi-family space. At full build-out, the site could have a dozen buildings ranging in size from five to fifteen stories. Construction of a new garage is also planned for the station’s east side. Along with Grosvenor-Strathmore, this is easily the most aggressive of WMATA’s current development plans.

A rendering of development on the south side. Credit: WMATA.

College Park, Prince George’s
WMATA is planning a 5-story project at this station with more than 400 housing units.

A rendering of development at College Park. Credit: WMATA.

Capitol Heights, Prince George’s
WMATA would like to place a 6-story residential building with ground retail at its Capitol Heights station parking lot. This project was terminated in 2018 but WMATA staff asked for a new solicitation last year. KLNB is advertising the project’s retail component.

Deanwood, D.C.
In 2018, the WMATA board approved a joint development project to replace its Deanwood station parking lot with a mix of residential and retail and a garage. The project is not high-rise; rather, it envisions four-story buildings.

That’s about it. The project in D.C.’s Takoma neighborhood looks stalled as does the Greenbelt site in Prince George’s, which was once considered for the FBI. Amazon’s arrival in Northern Virginia could eventually stimulate development at Metro stations there but that seems quite a ways off.

Other than the Grosvenor-Strathmore site (which led to Bill 29-20) and New Carrollton (which might not have been viable without the relocation of the state’s housing agency), none of these projects has a high-rise component. That’s not an accident. Developers at Metro station sites have to deal with replacing existing parking (either with a garage or underground), station access issues, bus circulation issues and even possible amenities like park space. There is also WMATA’s time-consuming approval process on top of any local planning approvals. Developers of private sites don’t have to deal with these problems. Combine the construction costs of high rise as opposed to wood frame with the extra costs of building at WMATA sites and the economics of such projects get difficult, even with high rents and condo prices.

DC Urban Turf, a website that tracks residential development, lists hundreds of new residential projects that have been delivered, are under construction or are planned in the area. Many of them are high rises. High rises are being built in the region. They are just not being built, for the most part, on Metro stations.

So if high rise construction at Metro stations requires huge tax breaks to work, are the bill’s supporters right? Should Fivesquares and other developers get 15-year property tax exemptions? There are lots of other considerations to be discussed. Let’s do that in Part Three.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Will Jawando

Jawando Fundraises Off Republican Attack

By Adam Pagnucco.

Council Member Will Jawando is raising money off an attack by the Montgomery County Republican Party on his work on police reform. He even borrowed our graphic of their Facebook ad without credit to Seventh State. (Pretty cheeky, Will!) Congratulations, Republicans – you just helped your least favorite council member raise some money. Jawando’s fundraising email appears below.

From: Will Jawando info@willjawando.com
Date: Mon, Sep 21, 2020
Subject: Maryland GOP Attacks, I need your help!

I need your help to fight back against GOP Attacks!

Dear ,

I’m writing to ask for your help.

The Maryland GOP is working overtime to incite President Trump’s right-wing base on Election Day — and they are using both my race and my efforts to reimagine public safety in our state’s largest jurisdiction as provocation.

Some of you know of the violent threats made on social media against me and my family. One Facebook post from a right-wing activist read: “God forbid you would be shot in the head while sitting in your car. One can only dream” and then, “We back blue.” This on the heels of an false advertisement published by the Republican Party to go after my efforts to reform policing.

This is just one example of how the GOP is targeting me — literally. They are doing that because I’ve succeeded in passing important police reform legislation in Montgomery County, and because targeting me right now helps them activate their base for the presidential election.

To be clear, I support the officers who put their lives on the line everyday. That is why I voted for their contract with the County, and why I believe they should not be on the front line for mental health crisis’ or student behavior in schools. We can honor the men and women who put on a uniform everyday while reimagining public safety and making changes when confronted with data showing disparities in policing.

Can you please make a donation today? We need allies like you if we are to stem this rising tide of racist hate. Your support will help us activate our own progressive base, and just as important, persuade undecided voters to stand up to the hate we see pouring out of the right wing.

I’m asking you for help because you have stood with me in the past. We are at a critical junction. To defeat our opponents, we must start in our local communities and our states — we must start at home. Please join me in this fight. Give today and take a stand against hate. Thank you.

Help me fight back against GOP Attacks!

Sincerely,

Will Jawando

Paid for by Will Jawando

Will Jawando
P.O. Box 10598
Silver Spring, MD 20914
United States

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Andrew Friedson, Corporate Welfare, Development, Economy, Hans Riemer, Metro

Smart Growth or Corporate Welfare? Part One

By Adam Pagnucco.

For many years, MoCo has focused its land use and economic development policies on transit-oriented development. Since 2006, the county has adopted eight master plans centered on Metro stations, another four centered on Purple Line stations and one more centered on Corridor Cities Transitway stations. Another plan is in the works for Downtown Silver Spring.

The capstone for the Metro-based plans is development on top of the Metro stations themselves, which requires joint development agreements with WMATA. Placing the highest density on Metro stations, along with nearby parcels, enables the county to balance growth, transportation and environmental priorities in its march towards the future. For fifteen years, that’s what we have been told.

Now we are told that this approach won’t work without taxpayer subsidies.

The problem is that most, if not all, development on top of Metro stations is not proceeding. And that is because of economics. In order to be economically viable, Metro development projects must charge rents or condo prices sufficient to not only cover construction costs, financing and investor returns but also the unique costs associated with Metro station sites. The economics are particularly difficult with high rise projects, which have higher material and construction costs than wood-frame projects. And so the county council has proposed Bill 29-20, which would eliminate property taxes on Metro station development projects for 15 years and replace them with undefined payments in lieu of taxes to be set later.

In justifying the bill’s purpose, consider these remarks by Council Members Hans Riemer and Andrew Friedson, the lead sponsors of the bill, and Planning Board Chairman Casey Anderson at the council’s first work session.

Riemer
I want to say that this is a smart growth proposal. This is about making development feasible where decades of inactivity has demonstrated it is not feasible. If you look at Montgomery County and our Metro stations, you will almost universally see empty space on top of the Metro stations and despite efforts by WMATA over many years to support development at those stations, to solicit development on their property, there is very little that has happened. And there is very little that has happened recently, in the last ten years or so. Very little high rise, especially, and because of a shift in the market, I think which is driven by regional economic shifts and global economic shifts that have made the cost of high rise construction prohibitive except in the most high rent communities…

I think very broadly speaking, we have sought to channel all of our development, almost all of it, through a smart growth framework. We want to get housing that is high rise. We want to discourage sprawl. But the problem is we have not – the market isn’t producing the high rise that we have zoned for, that we want. And so the end result is we’re not getting much development. We’re not getting very much housing. We’re not even getting much commercial development.

Friedson
The idea that we’re forgoing revenue and that has a direct cost, that we’re leaving money on the table, we’re not leaving money on the table – the table doesn’t exist currently. That is the issue. There is no development, there is no investment. At best, the table is going somewhere else. It’s been shipped to another region of the country. It’s been shipped to another county. The whole point here is to create the opportunity. You know, the idea that we would be serious about transit-oriented development, that we would be serious about meeting our significant housing targets to address the housing crisis that we currently face but wouldn’t be willing to do anything about it is troubling. And we need a game changer. We need something to change the economic development path that we’re on, we need something to change the housing path that we’re on, that currently does not work. And I will say our housing situation, that is our version of a wall in Montgomery County. What we do with housing is a decision that we make on whether or not we want new residents here or not. That’s the local government version of whether we put up a literal or proverbial wall to say who can and who can’t live here, who we want and who we don’t want here.

Anderson
Will the development happen anyway? And I think the market is not just speaking, it’s screaming that the answer is no. Because you don’t have to take any particular real estate developer’s word for it, you can see what’s happening in the real world. It’s not just in Montgomery County, you can look at what market rents are at every Metro station in the region and you’ll see that there’s a few, particularly in Northern Virginia and in Bethesda, where rents can justify new high-rise construction there. Everywhere else, the answer is no, and that’s not just true of Grosvenor, or for that matter Forest Glen, as you mentioned, it’s also true of White Flint.

In considering these remarks, let’s remember who is saying them. It’s not County Executive Marc Elrich, who voted against numerous transit-oriented development master plans when he was on the council. It’s Casey Anderson, who has served on the Planning Board for nine years and chaired it for six; Hans Riemer, who has served on the council for ten years and is the current chair of its planning committee; and Andrew Friedson, who has emerged as the council’s principal champion of economic development during his first term in office. These are not development critics as Elrich has been. Anderson in particular, and Riemer to a lesser extent, are two of the architects of the county’s Metro-oriented land use policy and they are saying that it has failed.

They are also saying that the only way to rescue it is through what may ultimately become the biggest application of corporate tax breaks in the county’s history.

Are they right? We’ll discuss it in Part Two.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Montgomery County Council

Nine Districts Blasts Council on South Lake Elementary School

By Adam Pagnucco.

Nine Districts for MoCo, the group that put a charter amendment on the ballot converting the county council to a nine district structure, has released a video blasting the council for its decision to delay completion of a new building for South Lake Elementary School. The school, located in Gaithersburg, was the subject of a WTOP article describing heat and air conditioning problems, crowding and rodents running free inside the building. Community members have asked for a new school for years and MCPS has described the building’s problems as “insurmountable.” MCPS requested funding for a new building, which the council approved, but the council delayed completion by one year to September 2024 due to fiscal problems. The school board has since asked the council to restore the project’s original schedule but that won’t happen unless money can be found.

The video accurately notes that the school’s student body is overwhelmingly black and brown. However, its claim that the at-large council members “voted unanimously to take South Lake Elementary school out of the $14B capital improvement budget” is inaccurate. The council voted to delay the project, not delete it. It remains in the capital budget with a projected cost of $34.9 million. This is not the first time Nine Districts for MoCo has released a misleading video.

This claim is inaccurate.

The video was posted on YouTube by Reardon Sullivan, a member of the county Republican Party’s central committee. Republicans support the nine district group because they believe such a structure might lead to a Republican county council seat.

The video appears below.

Share
Adam Pagnucco

MCM Labor Dispute Heats Up

By Adam Pagnucco.

Back in April, I wrote that a union representing production employees at MCM (Montgomery Community Media) had filed an unfair labor practice charge against MCM alleging failure to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement in good faith. MCM is a non-profit that receives most of its funding from the county government to act as its cable access channel. As of FY21, the county is due to provide MCM $2.8 million. MCM’s collective bargaining agreement with NABET-CWA Local 31, which represents some (but not all) of its employees, expired on 6/30/18. MCM and the union have had discussions about a new agreement off and on since then.

As of this writing, a new agreement has not been reached. The union sent the email below to its members updating them on the status of negotiations. When reading it, bear in mind that management likely has a different point of view.

To: MCT/MCM NABET-CWA Members:
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
September 17, 2020

We would like to thank you for all of your hard work and diligence of pursuit during these trying times. Mostly however, your Union extends a huge congratulations for the incredible awards and accolades you have received for your ongoing work at MCT/MCM. It is with great pride that your Union wants to acknowledge all of you!

The Union understands the value of your contribution to MCT/MCM’s success. That is what fuels our negotiating committee, as we fight to gain better wages, benefits and working conditions for you. During these negotiations, we have faced an employer that does not acknowledge your hard work and dedication. To recap, the Contract expired on June 30, 2018, and CEO Nanette Hobson refused to bargain during the following 6 months. Your Union insisted on talks to present ideas, discuss issues, and hopefully put us on track for a “quick” settlement of decent terms once the Company was ready to bargain in January 2019.

When the Company sat down at the bargaining table, it sought to eliminate many of the benefits that you enjoyed in the collective bargaining agreement. The Union has spent the past 18 months fighting either to preserve those benefits or negotiate new provisions to protect all of you. The Union has gotten MCT/MCM to agree to a 3% wage increase for all full-time employees retroactive to July 1, 2019. The Union has gotten MCT/MCM to agree to a 3% lump sum payment for all part-time employees. The Union has further negotiated increases to the rate codes for part-time employees ranging from 6% to 35% depending upon the work being performed.

Here we are in September 2020, and the Company has presented us with another “Last, Best and Final” offer. To be very clear, we have been kind in our rendering of some older clauses with the hopes that the Company would respond in-kind with some substantial offers that acknowledge its respect for your continued hard work. We were wrong on that assumption!

There are only three issues that separate the parties:

First, the Company wants either to limit part-time employees’ participation in the Flex Plan to those who are currently participating in it or reduce its contribution to the Flex Plan from $10.00 per 8 hours worked to $5.00 per 16 hours worked. The former proposal is unacceptable because it would leave those part-time employees who are not participating in the Flex Plan with no other option for fringe benefits. The latter proposal actually discourages participation by making it harder for part-time employees to obtain coverage and access meaningful benefits. Your negotiating committee has repeatedly explained these issues to the Company, but it has not relented. The Union’s proposal is to maintain the Flex Plan, work on encouraging participation in the plan, and, if employees do not want the plan, then the parties can negotiate alternative arrangements in the future. The Company has rejected this proposal too.

Second, the Company wants to take playback operators out of the unit. It proposes eliminating a Playback Operator from the minimum/maximum wage scales for full-time employees (while acknowledging a Playback Supervisor will remain). Playback duties are bargaining unit work. The Union’s proposal keeps that work in the bargaining unit, but it at the same time provides greater flexibility to the Company as to which bargaining unit employees would perform that work. The Company refused that proposal as well.

Third, the final issue that is preventing a new agreement is the Company’s bad faith bargaining. MCT/MCM initially exploited the coronavirus pandemic by refusing to meet at all and then refusing to negotiate over economic matters. When the Union was finally able to force MCT/MCM back to the table, it tried to short-circuit the negotiations with ill-advised “Last, Best and Final offers.” MCT/MCM further tried to short-circuit the negotiations when CEO Hobson sent e-mails to you, mischaracterizing the Company’s last, best and final offers and encouraging you to ask your Union for a vote on proposals that the Company had not made at the time.

Throughout these two years of negotiations, the Union simply wanted to negotiate a new agreement that was fair and reasonable to everyone. The Union wanted an agreement that embodies the respect you deserve, as award- winning contributors to local, independent media. The Union wants an agreement that is fair to MCT/MCM, so that it can provide you with the employment that allows for you to continue winning awards and improving the quality of the media in Montgomery County.

On the other hand, MCT/MCM has not considered your needs as valuable employees. It refused for a long time to pay you properly. Now, it wants to limit or eliminate part-time employees’ access to fringe benefits, and it is seeking to do so during difficult times.

This has been a very frustrating time for the NABET-CWA negotiating team. We need your help! Wear RED whenever possible. Tell the Company you need to be appreciated! Union employees were slapped in the face in 2019 when every other employee at MCT/MCM got a pay raise.

This Company has received funding from the County budget. They have received special appropriations during COVID. Under the County “Services Contract” MCT/MCM receives almost double the salaries paid to those employees! Where does all the money go? Ask yourselves, then respond! Discuss this with management, but better yet… call and write to the County Councilmembers! They need to hear from you! This has continued too long!

The County Councilmembers emails are:

President, Sidney Katz – councilmember.Katz@montgomerycountymd.gov
Vice President, Tom Hucker councilmember.Hucker@montgomerycountymd.gov
Gabe Albornoz – councilmember.Albornoz@montgomerycountymd.gov
Andrew Friedson – councilmember.Friedson@montgomerycountymd.gov
Evan Glass – councilmember.Glass@montgomerycountymd.gov
Will Jawando – councilmember.Jawando@montgomerycountymd.gov
Craig Rice – councilmember.Rice@montgomerycountymd.gov
Nancy Navarro – councilmember.Navarro@montgomerycountymd.gov
Hans Riemer – councilmember.Riemer@montgomerycountymd.gov

In Solidarity,
MCT/MCM Negotiating Committee
/mw opeiu153afl-cio

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Election 2020, turnout

Turnout by County: 2020 Primary, Part Three

By Adam Pagnucco.

In Part One, we looked at overall turnout rate by county. In Part Two, we examined turnout rate by party. This post compares turnout between 2016 and 2020.

The chart below shows change in turnout rate between the 2016 and 2020 primaries. This one is a bit tricky. The counties in red (Allegany, Anne Arundel and Caroline) allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in 2020 but not in 2016. Therefore, since unaffiliated voters turn out at lower rates than party members, these counties’ turnout change is skewed downward. The counties in green (Cecil, Kent, Saint Mary’s and Worcester) allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in 2016 but not in 2020. Their turnout change is skewed upward.

Throw out the counties which allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in one year but not the other and this trend emerges: the four jurisdictions in which turnout went up the most – Prince George’s, Charles, Baltimore City and Montgomery – are all heavily Democratic and have large populations of color.

Overall, the two parties are headed in different directions.

Statewide Democratic turnout increased from 44.1% in the 2016 primary to 48.7% this year. Every county except Allegany, Frederick, Garrett, Howard and Washington saw increases in the Democratic turnout rate. One might have expected 2016 turnout to be higher among Democrats because Bernie Sanders had not yet dropped out by the time Maryland voted (on April 26). Nevertheless, 2020 primary turnout was higher despite Sanders suspending his campaign months before Maryland’s election day (June 2).

Statewide Republican turnout fell from 46.5% in the 2016 primary to 35.6% this year. Every county in the state saw a decline in Republican turnout. This was probably affected by the fact that the 2016 Republican primary was still semi-competitive when Maryland voted on April 26 whereas the 2020 Republican primary has not been competitive at all.

Overall, the picture of significant turnout increases in majority-black jurisdictions like Prince George’s and Charles counties along with falling Republican turnout across the board should not be encouraging to the GOP. Maryland looks poised to see tons of Democratic voters rushing to the polls (or more likely, the mailbox) to demonstrate their fury against the current occupant of the Oval Office. One wonders how this will affect the various ballot questions and charter amendments across the state, especially the ones in Montgomery County.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Election 2020, turnout

Turnout by County: 2020 Primary, Part Two

By Adam Pagnucco.

Part One showed the overall turnout rate by county in the 2020 primary but that statistic conceals numerous nuances. Today, we will look at turnout by party. Let’s start with the Democrats.

Every Maryland county had higher turnout among Democrats than among voters overall except Cecil, Dorchester and Somerset. Jurisdictions with the lowest Democratic turnout rates tend to be dominated by the GOP.
 
The chart below shows turnout rate among Republicans.

The most obvious fact here is that statewide turnout among Republicans (35.6%) was significantly lower than among Democrats (48.7%). In fact, in every county except Cecil, Dorchester and Somerset, the turnout rate among Democrats was higher than among Republicans. Granted, with the exception of a contested county executive primary in Cecil County, Republicans don’t have much to vote for because their incumbent president had little primary competition. But something similar could be said for Democrats outside Baltimore City.
 
The chart below shows turnout rate among unaffiliated voters.

Only 11 counties allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in the 2020 primary. Since Maryland has closed primaries, unaffiliated voters cannot vote in party primaries but they can vote in primaries held for non-partisan offices. Among the counties allowing unaffiliated voters to vote this year, all had non-partisan school board races on the ballot except Washington County, which held non-partisan primaries for municipal offices in the City of Hagerstown.

In Part Three, we will examine change in turnout between 2016 and 2020.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, MCDCC, Montgomery County Council, Robin Ficker, taxes

MoCo Democrats Take Position on Charter Amendments

By Adam Pagnucco.

As they do in every election year, officials of Montgomery County’s Democratic Party gathered tonight to take positions on charter amendments and ballot questions.

The standard format is for the party’s ballot question advisory committee, which studies such questions, to present information to the party’s precinct organization. The precinct organization, comprised of the party’s network of precinct officers, hears opinions, discusses the questions and takes votes. The party’s central committee takes the final votes establishing the party’s position, although they usually don’t go against the precinct organization’s stance unless the latter’s vote is close.

Tonight, County Executive Marc Elrich and a majority of the county council made their case to the precinct organization on the county charter amendments. The precinct organization voted in line with their recommendations and so did the party central committee. I don’t have exact vote tallies but my sources say they were all lopsided.

The ultimate vote by the MoCo Democrats was:

Yes to Question A, which was Council Member Andrew Friedson’s proposal to redo the county’s charter limit on property taxes.

No to Question B, which was Robin Ficker’s charter amendment to impose a hard cap on increases to property tax collections.

There was huuuuuge support for A and equally huuuuuge opposition to B (the Ficker amendment).

Yes to Question C, which was Council Member Evan Glass’s proposal to increase council district seats from five to seven and retain the current four at-large seats.

No to Question D, which is a charter amendment to convert the county council into nine district seats. No doubt the Democrats paid heed to the fact that Republicans support this proposal because they believe it might create a Republican council seat.

The party also voted to support state question 1 (which would grant more budgetary authority to the General Assembly over the governor’s budgets) and state question 2 (which would allow sports betting).

The exact language of all the questions and charter amendments can be seen on the official county ballot.

The party’s vote tonight is important because it will be expressed on its sample ballot, which is customarily mailed to hundreds of thousands of registered county Democrats. The vote is a particular blow to the Nine Districts for MoCo group, which has depicted its charter amendment as bipartisan but now has it supported by county Republicans and officially opposed by county Democrats.

Share