Eighty percent of MoCo voters turned out in the 2020 general election, about average for a presidential year. In splicing the data, I did not find large variations in turnout rate by geography. The highest turnout was in Leisure World (85%) and the lowest was in Glenmont/Norbeck (73%). But there was significant variation in party turnout by area, demonstrating one of MoCo’s least appreciated characteristics: its political heterogeneity.
MoCo is thought of as a blue county, and at first glance, it is. All of the county’s partisan elected officials have been Democrats since 2006 and Democratic candidates for statewide office and president have won here for decades. But there are big political differences between parts of the county. For example, while Takoma Park is one of the most progressive areas in the United States, Republicans are competitive in Damascus.
The charts below show the percentage of MoCo voters who were Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated or third party voters in the 2020 general election. The source of the data is the State Board of Elections. (See here for my methodology and definitions.) This information shows the differences in party participation by area.
Democrats
Democrats comprised 70% or more of the voters in the Democratic Crescent (the areas inside and near the Beltway), Downtown Silver Spring, Takoma Park and most of east county. Crescent voters play out-sized roles in Democratic primaries and were key to depressing Governor Larry Hogan’s MoCo vote percentage in 2018. Democrats were less dominant in upcounty and fell short of a majority of voters in Dickerson, Poolesville and Damascus.
Republicans
Republicans were just 15% of actual voters countywide. But they accounted for a quarter or more of voters in some parts of upcounty and were a third or more in Dickerson, Poolesville and Damascus. While the GOP has some pockets of influence here, they are in long-term decline in MoCo as I will discuss in a future post.
Unaffiliated/Third Party
Of the 156,702 eligible MoCo voters who were not Democrats or Republicans, 147,417 (94%) of them were unaffiliated. Unaffiliated and third party voters together accounted for 21% of actual voters, more than the Republicans. It’s probably not a coincidence that North Potomac, Clarksburg and Potomac had the highest percentages of these voters as those areas have concentrations of Asian residents. Many Asian voters don’t choose party affiliation and they tend to be politically diverse. It remains to be seen how the Trump presidency will affect their party choices in registration and voting over the long term.
One effect Trump did have was to stimulate a surge in voting among MoCo Democrats, as we will explore in a future post. There was also a lot of partisan activity around the four county ballot questions last year which gave the Democratic Party a lot of influence over their chances of success. That may not always be the case in the future, and if it’s not, Republicans and unaffiliated voters can still play a role in coming general elections.
Voicing concerns that MoCo is not receiving its fair share of vaccines from the state, the county’s state legislators have written to Governor Larry Hogan asking for more doses. The letter was signed by all 8 state senators and all 24 delegates who represent MoCo in Annapolis. It is reprinted below.
*****
February 8, 2021
Governor Lawrence J. Hogan, Jr. 100 State Circle Annapolis, MD 21401
Dennis Schrader, Acting Secretary Maryland Department of Health 201 West Preston St. Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Rona Kramer, Secretary Maryland Department of Aging 301 West Preston St., Suite 1007 Baltimore, MD 21201
Dear Governor Hogan, Acting Secretary Schrader, and Secretary Kramer:
We are writing to express significant concern that the DC Metro region is falling behind the rest of the state in terms of vaccination. We must address this immediately before the disparity becomes worse. We appreciate the work you are doing, and know there are many competing interests to balance. Although there are many concerns that need to be addressed at the statewide level—such as the volume and complexity of registration options—the concerns expressed here are of particular concern to Montgomery County.
As of February 8th, the statewide rate of vaccination is 9.0%. Montgomery County is nearly a full percentage behind the state average, at 8.2%. Prince George’s County is at only 4.1%. Baltimore County has 10.5% of their population vaccinated, and some rural counties have vaccination rates of more than 14%. This is especially concerning because the DC Metro region leads the state in COVID infections and deaths.
In order to address this disparity we request that the state:
1) Send a larger share of vaccines to hospitals and Health Departments in the areas of the state that have the greatest COVID spread and highest COVID death rates.
Three of the top five zip codes for COVID case counts in the state are in Montgomery County. A fourth is in Prince George’s County. Montgomery County has the most COVID deaths in the state, followed closely by our neighbor Prince George’s. These numbers should be a part of the basis for allocation. The fact is more Marylanders are infected and dying in the DC Metro area.
2) Send a larger share of vaccines to the hospitals and health departments in jurisdictions where more people are eligible for the vaccine.
In addition to lagging in percentage vaccinated, Montgomery County is also leading in the length of our waitlist and competition for the vaccine because Montgomery County has among the highest percentage of people eligible for the vaccine. That includes Montgomery County’s disproportionate share of essential workers who live in the County and outside of the County, as well as the large share of Montgomery County residents over the age of 65. But those on-the-ground realities are not addressed by the state’s reasonable sounding but flawed per capita allocation strategy that does not take into account differences in percentage of people eligible per priority group.
One reason Montgomery County is lagging the state is that the vast majority of vaccines to date have gone to protect our essential workers. Between one third and one half of our workforce lives outside of Montgomery County. Among the Montgomery County hospital employees offered vaccines, available data indicates nearly half live in other jurisdictions within Maryland or DC. A large percentage of our police, fire, and EMS also live outside of Montgomery County, which is reflected in the fact that Montgomery County is ranked 20 out of 24 jurisdictions in Maryland for the percentage of population vaccinated. While we are fully committed to vaccinating our essential workforce, we need a vaccine allocation that acknowledges significant numbers of the vaccines administered by our hospitals and County Health Department are going to residents of other jurisdictions.
According to the State Plan on Aging, people 85+ make up 1.7% of Maryland’s population. But in Montgomery County they are 2.1% of the population, which equates to about 22,000 people. The County is above the state average for 75+ and 65+ as well. We ask the Administration to update its current allocation formula to reflect Montgomery County’s extremely large health care workforce and senior population. Both of these factors have combined to make the Montgomery County waitlist for vaccine access include over 250,000 people, which as an online preregistration is an underestimate for the total number of people eligible in priority groups 1A, 1B, and 1C. While hospitals, the Health Department, and pharmacies have vaccinated about 20,000 residents over age 75, there are still 53,000 seniors in this age range awaiting vaccination. Based on the allocation of 11,000 doses received last week, it will take 4-5 weeks for Montgomery County to vaccinate all of our 75+ population. We understand and appreciate the difficulty of balancing priorities and needs with a limited supply of vaccines. However, given that weekly bulletins from Maryland Department of Health advise vaccinators to prioritize the population over age 75, we urge you to help us make this possible by allocating more vaccines to jurisdictions with insufficient supply for a given priority phase.
3) As soon as possible, add a mass vaccination site in Montgomery County.
While we appreciate the mass vaccination locations being opened in Prince George’s County and Baltimore City and understand the current limits in our state’s supply from the federal government, there is also a desperate need for a mass vaccination site in Montgomery County. It is our understanding that the County Government has offered the County Fairgrounds as a possible site. If a mass vaccination site cannot be established in Montgomery County as sites expand across the state, we request the doses that would go to such a site be sent to the Montgomery County Department of Health for more equitable distribution.
We believe addressing the above mentioned disparities are urgent because our delegation members are hearing daily from people in their eighties who still have not been able to secure vaccination appointments through any of the currently available options. Of course, long waitlists across the County of seniors and essential workers also makes it harder for smaller eligible groups to get vaccinated, like the immunocompromised and people with developmental disabilities. If changes are not made to the state allocations, Montgomery County’s vulnerable seniors and our essential workers will be waiting much longer for vaccine access than our neighbors in other parts of Maryland. While a simple per capita allocation was efficient in the early weeks of the rollout, it has become clear through the data that this approach is not equitable or effective, and leaves too many of our most vulnerable Maryland residents unprotected. It’s now time to have an updated formula with these factors in mind to ensure the DC Metro region does not fall further behind. Independent living facilities have also been a major concern given the difficulties with the Federal Long-Term Care Partnership. We’re particularly appreciative of Secretary Kramer and the Administration for making this a top priority and hope we can quickly begin to vaccinate some of the most high risk residences.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. We also look forward to discussing this further when the Maryland Department of Health joins the Montgomery County Delegation at our February 12th meeting.
Sincerely, Senator Craig Zucker Senator Susan Lee Senator Brian Feldman Senator Cheryl Kagan Senator Nancy King Senator Ben Kramer Senator Will Smith Senator Jeff Waldstreicher
Delegate Marc Korman Delegate Al Carr Delegate Gabriel Acevero Delegate Kumar Barve Delegate Lorig Charkoudian Delegate Charlotte Crutchfield Delegate Bonnie Cullison Delegate Kathleen Dumais Delegate David Fraser-Hidalgo Delegate Jim Gilchrist Delegate Anne Kaiser Delegate Ariana Kelly Delegate Lesley Lopez Delegate Sara Love Delegate Eric Luedtke Delegate David Moon Delegate Julie Palakovich Carr Delegate Lily Qi Delegate Pam Queen Delegate Kirill Reznik Delegate Emily Shetty Delegate Jared Solomon Delegate Vaughn Stewart Delegate Jheanelle Wilkins
One of 2018’s most talented county council candidates is back: Brandy Brooks. Her announcement that she is running again for an at-large county council seat effectively kicks off the 2022 council campaign season and will have a big impact on MoCo politics.
First, about Brandy Brooks. When she ran for an at-large council seat in 2018, she was a new resident, having moved here from Massachusetts. Most political players didn’t know her and didn’t know what to expect. What they found was an eloquent, passionate progressive who was equally adept in the spoken and written word. Brooks was arguably the best speaker in every room she entered, inspiring a loyalty in her supporters that is unusual in MoCo politics. One of her rivals told me, “I just hated following her in candidate forums!”
Brandy Brooks is back.
Progressive politics is not new in MoCo but Brooks proved to be a superior organizer. She joined forces with MCPS teacher Chris Wilhelm to form “Team Progressive” and the two fanned out across the county. Both of them picked up numerous endorsements, with Brooks supported by MCEA, Casa in Action, SEIU Local 32-BJ, MCGEO, UFCW Local 400, the Democratic Socialists, Progressive Maryland, and the AFL-CIO among others.
Brooks and Wilhelm ask whether corporate welfare for Amazon is worth it.
In the end, Brooks finished 7th in the four-seat race, right behind Wilhelm. The table below shows her performance by geography. She was particularly strong in Montgomery Village, Burtonsville, Silver Spring East County and Takoma Park. (See here for my methodology.) If the election were decided solely by upcounty residents, she would have won.
The table below shows her performance by demographics. Brooks did not do well in heavily white and Asian precincts, such as many located in Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Potomac, but she finished in the top four in Black and Latino precincts.
Many first-time candidates who don’t win disappear and never run again. Not Brooks. She has remained active in county politics, running for planning board, joining the board of the MoCo Renters Alliance and commenting frequently on county issues. By all appearances, she has retained most if not all of her 2018 loyalists. Among the advantages she brings to her second run for office are her experience from the first race, her understanding of raising money in public financing, her proven electoral performance in many parts of the county and her possession of relationships that she did not have as a brand-new candidate. She should be an even stronger candidate this time around.
Brooks’s announcement will have two consequences. First, other potential candidates fancying the open at-large seat created by term limits (incumbent Hans Riemer is termed out) will have to decide what they want to do. Brooks is raising money and campaigning at the very moment I write this. Some folks will rush out of the gate. Others will decide to run in other races or perhaps not run at all. Expect other prospects to announce their intentions soon.
Second, Brooks is no mealy-mouthed wallflower; she is a loud, proud progressive. The current county council has numerous issues before it of importance to progressives, including rent stabilization, police reform and (soon) a budget with a potential tax hike in it. You can bet that Brooks will have something to say about all of those things and more. That’s going to affect the incumbents, especially the ones who will be in her race. Because the council will be looking over their shoulders at Brooks’s big blue cheering section, her very presence in the race could wind up moving the council slightly – or maybe not so slightly – to the left. If that happens, expect progressives to give Brooks the credit for it.
It’s too early to pick favorites, especially since we don’t know which other candidates will be running for council at-large. (Those seats tend to attract crowds.) But for now, I will just say this.
“Reimagine the police” is a phrase that has been thrown around quite a bit in the last year, although its meaning has often been nebulous. County Executive Marc Elrich’s Reimagining Public Safety Task Force has issued a report attaching specifics to the term. At its establishment, the task force had no representatives from the Montgomery County Police Department (MCPD) or Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35 (FOP). The report lists them as participants but the FOP alleged on Facebook, “No law enforcement officer or Union President had a vote or voice on this committee.” Regardless of who participated, it is the report’s recommendations rather than the task force’s composition which will attract attention.
The report contains many sensible proposals such as ensuring language access in MC311; new requirements for data collection, screening and background checks; incentives for officers to pursue higher education; expanding opportunities for youth (including reviving the Police Athletic League); expanding workforce development; increasing recruitment efforts at Historically Black Colleges and Universities; and enhancing community policing. However, these proposals are likely to be overshadowed by the more controversial recommendations in the report. They include:
Abolish school resource officers (SROS) and replace them with counselors
This is the least surprising recommendation from the task force. SROs were a hot issue before the task force was established. Their fate will be decided by competing county council bills and perhaps by state legislation in Annapolis.
Analyze whether police officers should always carry guns
Recommendation 37 states, “Conduct a risk assessment of police activities to determine when it is necessary for officers to carry a gun. Conduct a risk assessment audit of policing activities to determine the need for and effectiveness of having all officers carry firearms at all times.”
Are there any circumstances in which police officers should be required to perform their duties without carrying guns? The task force suggests that there may be and wants to find out.
Fully automate traffic enforcement
Recommendation 8 states, “Move to fully (or expanded) automated traffic enforcement through expansion of speed and intersection camera programs, and reduce FTE sworn officer positions across MCPD districts in proportion.” The task force justifies this recommendation by saying it “will remove the potential or appearance of racial bias resulting from traffic enforcement encounters. Use of automated traffic enforcement has the ability to reduce the person-to-person element in traffic enforcement that can result in racial bias in policing.”
Two questions. First, many traffic stops result in warnings. Can cameras issue warnings too or will every traffic offense now result in a ticket? Second, how can cameras pursue and arrest drunk drivers?
Reduce enforcement of drug violations
Recommendation 17 states, “Direct MCPD to treat all offenses in the ‘Crimes Against Society’ segment, except for weapons violations, as the lowest department priority.” Crimes Against Society are defined as drug violations, gambling, pornography and prostitution.
Recommendation 18 states, “Eliminate SID Drug Enforcement and SID Vice Intelligence, with a proportionate reduction in sworn officer FTEs.” The Special Investigations Division (SID) is responsible for investigating criminal gangs, some of which earn revenue from drug sales. MCPD’s 2019 crime and safety report says that MS-13 is “known to be responsible for human, narcotics, and firearms trafficking.” If the police stop investigating drug sales, will criminal gangs have access to more financial resources?
Analyze whether the police should enforce trespass law
Recommendation 34 states, “Consider whether the MCPD should continue to act as the agent for private properties in enforcing trespass law.”
The report goes on to say, “Evaluate policies, agreements, memoranda of understanding, and practices of MCPD acting as agents for private properties to enforce the property rights of the owners, make on-site trespass arrests, and issue stay away orders. Evaluate the duration of stay-away orders from public and private property to something more reasonable (i.e., three or six months as opposed to 1 year). This may also include renegotiating the collective bargaining agreement between the Fraternal Order of Police and the County that describes the circumstances under which a police officer may engage in second employment providing private security for private property owners.”
If private property owners are forced to rely on private security companies, does the task force believe that they will be less prone to engage in racial discrimination than trained police officers? Also, what does this concept mean for homeowners? If a break-in occurs at a residence, will officers be allowed to respond?
Cut the number of police officers by half in Silver Spring, Wheaton, Olney and East County
Recommendation 12 states, “Reduce sworn officer FTEs in police Districts 3 and 4 by 50% to reduce patrol officer contact with residents in these districts.”
Police Districts 3 and 4 include Silver Spring, Wheaton, Glenmont, Aspen Hill, Leisure World, Olney, Brookeville, Ashton, Sandy Spring, Spencerville and Burtonsville as shown by the map below.
The task force justifies this recommendation by noting the disproportionate use of force in Districts 3 and 4, especially against residents of color. The report is full of recommendations to reduce police racial bias, but the task force must think they are inadequate because its chosen remedy is to simply remove police officers from some communities.
Has anyone asked the residents of these districts whether they want their police service cut in half?
So what are the prospects of the above recommendations being implemented? That’s hard to say, but consider this comment in the report by County Executive Marc Elrich, who appoints the police chief and has ultimate control over the department.
“I am inspired by the effort of the Task Force and my administration is committed to continuing the transformative work of public safety in Montgomery County by advancing the goals of this report.”
Congressman Jamie Raskin, the U.S. House of Representatives’ lead impeachment manager in the trial of former President Donald Trump, has invited Trump to testify in his trial. It’s doubtful Trump will accede to the request, but assuming he reads Seventh State, we have one thing for him to consider: think of the ratings, Donald! Joe Biden will never match them!
Raskin’s letter to Trump is reprinted below.
*****
February 4, 2021
President Donald J. Trump c/o Bruce L. Castor Jr. and David Schoen
Via E-Mail
Dear President Trump,
As you are aware, the United States House of Representatives has approved an article of impeachment against you for incitement of insurrection. See H. Res. 24. The Senate trial for this article of impeachment will begin on Tuesday, February 9, 2021. See S. Res. 16.
Two days ago, you filed an Answer in which you denied many factual allegations set forth in the article of impeachment. You have thus attempted to put critical facts at issue notwithstanding the clear and overwhelming evidence of your constitutional offense. In light of your disputing these factual allegations, I write to invite you to provide testimony under oath, either before or during the Senate impeachment trial, concerning your conduct on January 6, 2021. We would propose that you provide your testimony (of course including cross-examination) as early as Monday, February 8, 2021, and not later than Thursday, February 11, 2021. We would be pleased to arrange such testimony at a mutually convenient time and place.
Presidents Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton both provided testimony while in office—and the Supreme Court held just last year that you were not immune from legal process while serving as President—so there is no doubt that you can testify in these proceedings. Indeed, whereas a sitting President might raise concerns about distraction from their official duties, that concern is obviously inapplicable here. We therefore anticipate your availability to testify.
If you decline this invitation, we reserve any and all rights, including the right to establish at trial that your refusal to testify supports a strong adverse inference regarding your actions (and inaction) on January 6, 2021.
I would request that you respond to this letter by no later than Friday, February 5, 2021 at 5pm. I look forward to your response and to your testimony.
Last summer, the county council passed a law regulating the use of force by Montgomery County police officers. On Tuesday, Council Members Hans Riemer and Will Jawando claimed that the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35 (FOP) had tied up implementation of the law through collective bargaining. If true, that would be a problem as county law preempts collective bargaining with county employees. However, the FOP has released a statement claiming that Riemer and Jawando are incorrect. The FOP claims that police department management has used the use of force policy to implement extraneous measures in order to circumvent their bargaining rights and violate the constitutional rights of their members.
The competing allegations are serious ones. The county council should determine which of them are right. The FOP’s letter to the council, which it posted on Facebook, is reprinted below.
*****
President Hucker,
I hope you and your family are staying safe and healthy during this world-wide pandemic. I am writing today to address a false claim that was publicly stated during yesterday’s council meeting. Councilmember Jawando stated that he was told that FOP Lodge 35, which represents more than 1,400 active and retired Montgomery County Law Enforcement Officers, has held up the implementation of Council Bill 27-20, Use of Force. Lodge 35 wanted to avoid a public battle over matters that are not directly related to the Council’s Use of Force Bill, but after deceptive claims have been made by anonymous sources to councilmembers, I believe it is important for you to hear from Lodge 35.
In late November 2020, the police department provided Lodge 35 with a draft copy of what it intended to release as the new use of force policy. The policy included the directives from the council through Bill 27-20, but it also included two other items that were not mentioned. The first would require officers to provide written statements, contrary to a U.S. citizen’s 5th Amendment rights. The second would institute punitive actions against officers who fail to qualify for annual handgun training. Lodge 35 has corresponded numerous times with police department representatives, telling them to implement the new policy as the council has written and to provide the necessary training to our members to achieve this goal. As of the writing of this letter, the department has not provided a training plan to the police academy staff, nor has it released the policy to our members.
I stated Lodge 35’s concerns to the council during the public hearing on Bill 27-20. One concern was that the department would try to use this policy to add things that were not included in the council’s law in an attempt to circumvent collective bargaining, or, in this case, an officer’s constitutional rights.
To blame Lodge 35 and ignore the police department’s responsibility to implement the training is not a fair, nor correct, assessment of what is taking place.
Respectfully,
Lee G. Holland Corporate Vice President FOP Lodge 35
The letter from FOP Lodge 35 as posted on Facebook.
Several months ago, Council Member Hans Riemer requested that the council’s Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) research the county’s administration of its collective bargaining agreements with the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35 (FOP). OLO’s reportwas a stunner, revealing that the county’s sloppiness resulted in different sets of collective bargaining agreements being regarded as definitive by the two parties and that the agreements contained benefit levels exceeding maximums set in law. When OLO briefed the council on the report on Tuesday, multiple council members expressed concerns about the issue. But Riemer outdid them all with a brutal attack on the police union.
A bit of background. When Riemer was first elected to the council in 2010, he was supported by all three county employee unions (MCGEO, the Fire Fighters and the FOP) as well as the two largest MCPS unions (MCEA and SEIU Local 500). While the MCPS unions continued to endorse him, none of the county employee unions endorsed him in his next two reelection campaigns.
Over the years, Riemer’s relationship with the county employee unions has gradually deteriorated. He’s not alone – majorities of the county council voted to abrogate one or more of their collective bargaining agreements in 2016, 2019 and 2020. But the intensity of union sentiment has focused more on Riemer than his colleagues, culminating with a picket of Riemer’s home last May.
I may have a comment about the merits of Riemer’s criticisms in a future column, but for now let’s hear what he had to say. The following is a transcription of his remarks at the council briefing on February 2.
Council Member Hans Riemer: I think what you see here is the result of an organization, which is our police department, frankly being under siege for 25 years from a hyper-aggressive legal adversary that uses every means at its disposal to gain control. And I think it’s very reasonable to separate our strong support for our officers who need our support. They need to know that we are there for them, we will equip them, we will train them, we will fund their salaries – at the same time, not having a dynamic where the legal advocacy of that organization takes over the department, which I think has unfortunately happened in so many different ways.
And if you saw the letter to the editor from the FOP to the Bethesda Beat over the weekend, I thought it was shocking. You know, they actually said nowhere in county collective bargaining law does it say that a third party or the county council need to be able to decipher all collective bargaining documents. Put yourself in a mindset to be able to write those words, that the public has no right to know or need to know what is in our governing documents. That is the mindset that we are dealing with. And it is a huge problem.
So we need to tackle the many consequences of this in discipline, we see this playing out, officers committing egregious offenses, sitting on payroll for year after year after year, and there’s legislation that Council Member Rice and I, co-sponsored by Council Member Jawando, Council Member Navarro, have introduced that will address a lot of the root causes of these problems. And I would really like the county council public safety chair and committee to review that legislation. It’s been before the council for months. It has not had a meeting. We need to review that legislation and have a discussion about it. The fact that the use of force policy is now being bargained despite our clear intention is problematic.
*****
Note: That last sentence from Riemer refers to legislation passed by the council last August that codified a use of force policy for the county police department. Both Riemer and Council Member Will Jawando claimed that it is now being bargained despite its presence in county law, which supersedes county collective bargaining agreements.
(Disclosure: I was Riemer’s Chief of Staff from 2010 through 2014. I have worked for labor unions but have never worked for the FOP.)
The Restaurant Association of Maryland (RAM) has gone on the warpath against Montgomery County, claiming that its restrictions against indoor dining have made it “an island all by themselves.” RAM points out that MoCo is now the only jurisdiction in the region to prohibit indoor dining and is seeking to have that policy overturned.
Are they right?
RAM blasts MoCo on Facebook.
RAM bases its case on MoCo’s declining COVID statistics. Its president told WTOP, “When you’re really looking at all the metrics that Montgomery County claims to be watching, we see good news and good signs.” And it’s true that the county has seen improvement on some measures according to its COVID dashboard.
RAM notes MoCo’s declining COVID stats.
But there are two caveats here. First, any improvements are coming from huge peaks. For example, the county’s COVID case rate has been falling for a couple weeks but it is still higher than it was in the spring, when restaurants were last shut down for indoor service.
MoCo’s COVID dashboard shows recent progress in case rate but it’s still high.
Second, RAM is comparing MoCo to other jurisdictions, alleging that the county is unusually harsh on restaurants. Well, if MoCo were unusually overrun by COVID, it might be justified in being more restrictive. Let’s test that.
The table below shows five data points from two sources. Johns Hopkins University compares counties across the nation on 14-day case rate per 100,000 residents, inpatient occupancy and intensive care unit (ICU) occupancy. The table shows how MoCo compares to twelve other major jurisdictions in the region on these measures. The State of Maryland tracks 7-day case rate per 100,000 residents and test positivity rate for its 24 local jurisdictions. The table shows how MoCo compares to six other large jurisdictions in the state on these measures.
On the three stats tracked by Johns Hopkins, MoCo is above average on inpatient occupancy and below average on ICU occupancy and 14-day case rate. On the two stats tracked by the State of Maryland, MoCo ranks 5th out of 7 peer jurisdictions. In other words, MoCo is not an outlier. It has not been hit unusually hard by COVID in comparison to the rest of the D.C.-Baltimore region.
That calls into question whether the county’s now-unique prohibition on indoor dining is justified. It also occurs in the historic context of the restaurant industry’s long-time frustration with the county’s unique wholesale monopoly on liquor sales, which is not currently the industry’s biggest problem but has nonetheless damaged the county’s reputation among restaurateurs. MoCo should consider revising its restaurant restrictions if it continues to make progress on its COVID metrics. If not, its reputation as a tough place to operate restaurants will only continue to grow.
In the wake of the county council’s changes to a zoning text amendment that would allow solar panels in the agricultural reserve, the solar industry is now urging the council to defeat the legislation. The industry claims that two amendments adding soil restrictions and additional review requirements are tantamount to a “de facto moratorium” on solar in the reserve. One solar generator based in Kensington has already abandoned its projects in MoCo and industry representatives allege that others are also pulling out.
Montgomery County Council 100 Maryland Avenue, 6th Floor Rockville, MD 20850 RE: ZTA 20-01
Dear President Hucker and Councilmembers,
The Coalition for Community Solar Access (CCSA) and Chesapeake Solar and Storage Association (CHESSA), formerly MDV-SEIA, thank the Montgomery County Council for its year-long consideration of the Zoning Text Amendment 20-01 (ZTA 20-01) and the opportunity to offer input on behalf of the solar energy industry. We appreciate the time and attention the Council has dedicated to this important issue and recognize that you sought to find balance in your approaches with the best of intentions. However, at this time and due to the amendments that were adopted by the Council on January 26, 2021, particularly related to restrictions on Class 2 soils and new conditional use requirements, CCSA and CHESSA regrettably submit this letter in strong opposition of the ZTA 20-01 as it will prevent reasonable solar development in Montgomery County.
The trade associations and our member companies presented information stating that either soil restrictions beyond Class 1 soils or conditional use would prevent reasonable development of community solar and AgNEM facilities in Montgomery County. As you know, the Maryland Community Solar Pilot Program seeks to provide clean, renewable energy to Maryland residents who do not otherwise have access to solar electricity, particularly with respect to low- and moderate-income families.
While we understand many on the Council believe that these two amendments were a “compromise,” seeking to find a “middle ground,” these two amendments unfortunately undermine the very purpose of the ZTA – which we believed was to allow solar development in a very limited portion of the AR Zone. Small scale solar energy development, such as Community Solar and AgNEM, is a complicated undertaking that entails many federal, state, and local hurdles. ZTA 20-01 as introduced was a relatively modest bill that included several safeguards and an aggregate cap. Over the course of the year-long process, we conceded to several additional amendments related to land conservation as well as other ancillary agricultural benefit requirements and safeguards. While most of the amendments prior to the January 26th decisions created additional cost and burdens on solar development, our members were willing to meet such challenges to promote renewable energy development in the County and work hand in hand with the agricultural industry.
However, the adoption of the class II soil restriction not only reduces the available acreage under the 2% cap by 70% but it eliminates development overall because it doesn’t take into account solar siting provisions required for construction. When these considerations are applied, as required by developers, the soil restriction in fact prevents ground-mounted solar development in the county. Furthermore, the extensive delays caused by the conditional use provisions and the inability to fast track the process will inevitably place community solar facilities in jeopardy of being fined for an extension and removal from the community solar pilot program. The increased costs associated with the court proceedings, duplicative planning board processes and subjectivity for approval, decrease the cost savings for community solar subscribers, defeating the intent of providing affordable clean energy to customers who have been unable to access it through other means. These are simply risks the industry cannot take.
Not only will the two amendments to ZTA 20-01 – Class 2 soil restrictions and conditional use – prevent Montgomery County from achieving its robust clean energy goals, these amendments, if the ZTA is enacted, will introduce considerable risk to the state’s community solar pilot program and reduce the customer benefits received by Maryland residents as a whole, including low- and moderate -income families. The recent actions taken by the Council place a de facto moratorium on solar development in the AR Zone and prevent Montgomery County from participating in the remaining three years of the Maryland Community Solar Pilot Program.
As a result of the votes taken on January 26th, several of our members have already started to cancel current land option leases with landowners and farmers in Montgomery County. Others have begun cancelling contracts with local vendors and consultants, including employment opportunities in the County. We have also heard from other subscriber organizations that have begun to cancel subscriber acquisition for Montgomery County residents to participate in community solar programs.
While we are always willing to find workable solutions to our climate challenges with the County, we respectfully but strongly urge that ZTA 20-01 be defeated in its current posture. Thank you for your work and we hope we can count on your support to vote no.
Sincerely, Leslie Elder, Mid-Atlantic Director Coalition for Community Solar Access
David Murray, Executive Director Chesapeake Solar and Storage Association
CCSA is a national coalition of businesses and nonprofits working together to implement best practices for all community solar markets. Our mission is to empower all Maryland households and businesses that seek home grown energy sources through community solar. We work with customers, utilities, local stakeholders, allies and policymakers to develop and implement best practices that ensure community solar programs provide a win-win-win solution. The solution begins with the customer and the land owners. Our members are solar industry leaders and are engaged at every step of development, ensuring these best practices are not theoretical but are applied and practiced. We have members headquartered in Maryland, including some members headquartered in Montgomery County, and others who were interested in investing here.
The Chesapeake Solar & Storage Association (CHESSA), formerly MDV-SEIA, is a regional trade association representing over 10,000 solar installers, developers, manufacturers, and other solar workers in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. It is the recognized state affiliate of the Solar Energy Industries Association.
This is a pretty concise list of what has been on the minds of MoCo’s political community: the attack on the Capitol, Jamie Raskin, vaccines and the movement to throw out Andy Harris. The story on the solar zoning text amendment reflects a split among environmentalists that is bound to resurface on future issues. As for White Flint, which was also the top story in December, that article demonstrates a major challenge that MoCo will face as it emerges from the pandemic: how to rebuild its economy and not lose any more ground to the rest of the region. Economic competitiveness was a big issue before COVID and it will return to that pedestal as the next election approaches.
