budget, MCPS, schools

Placeholders, Indeed, Do Have a Place in the MCPS Capital Budget

By Glenn Orlin.

In a recent piece in Seventh State it was argued that so-called “placeholder” projects have no place in the Montgomery County Public Schools capital program. But there are very good reasons why the County Council has done exactly that for the past eight years.

First, some background.  The Subdivision Staging Policy (SSP) Public School Adequacy Test compares enrollment five years in advance—at each cluster and level (HS, MS, or ES), and at each school—against the budgeted capacity at each cluster/level and school five school years hence.  If the future enrollment exceeds the future capacity in a cluster by more than 20% at any level, then the cluster goes into a housing moratorium; that is, no more housing subdivisions can be approved until the capacity standard is met.  (Relocatable classrooms are not counted towards “capacity” under the School Adequacy Test.) If the future enrollment exceeds the future capacity in a MS service area by more than 20% and 180 students, then that MS service area goes into a housing moratorium.  If the future enrollment exceeds the future capacity in an ES service area by more than 20% and 110 students, then that ES service area goes into a housing moratorium.  The five-year rule was selected many years ago because, on average, that is how long it takes for a housing subdivision approval to morph into occupied housing units, many of them having kids of school age.

At the start of this decade the Council began the practice of budgeting generic “Solution” (i.e., placeholder) CIP projects in certain circumstances.  The rationale is that while a cluster or school service area might have enrollment that exceeds the moratorium threshold, in many cases MCPS is concurrently planning for a new school or addition that would provide sufficient capacity in time to avoid such a moratorium.  The Council has approved Solution projects only when all the following conditions are met:

  1. A cluster or school service area is projected to exceed the moratorium threshold;
  2. MCPS is concurrently—or about to start—planning for a capital project that would address the potential moratorium; and
  3. MCPS’s normal schedule for planning, design, and construction would have the project’s added capacity opening by the start of the school year five years hence.

The most recent application of the School Test was approved by the Planning Board on June 22, 2017.  The Board placed seven ES service areas into moratorium: Burnt Mills, Highland View, Kemp Mill, Lake Seneca, Rosemont, Strawberry Knoll, and Summit Hall.  At that time, while all of them met Condition #1, none of them met Conditions #2 and #3.  Eight other clusters or school service areas were not placed into moratorium because Solution projects were justifiable and programmed: they met all three conditions.  In the FY19-24 CIP several of these Solution projects will be replaced by specific projects that the Board of Education (BOE) is now officially ready to recommend.  This new CIP will include only four Solution projects.

It is important to note that the decision to budget a Solution project for a school has nothing to do with whether there are new housing applications in that area awaiting the Planning Board’s approval.  Condition #1 occurs either when projected enrollment growth due to turnover, already approved new housing, or both, will be over the capacity threshold.  Whether there are impending housing development applications simply doesn’t matter in the decision to budget a Solution project or not.  Now let’s turn to the examples raised in the earlier Seventh State piece.

Bethesda ES and Somerset ES.  The service areas for both schools in the B-CC Cluster are projected to be well over capacity (+25% and +27%, respectively) in five years, that is, by the start of the 2023-24 school year.  MCPS is initiating an elementary school capacity study for the B-CC Cluster, which would examine a range of options.  The study will be conducted during the 2018-2019 school year.  The Board of Education (BOE) will then be in position to propose a specific project in its FY21-26 CIP request; if that project’s funding were to begin in FY21, then, following the normal schedule for planning, design, and construction it could open at the start of the 2023-24 school year.  Because all three conditions are met—a projected moratorium, planning about to begin, and a path to project completion in five years—the Council is poised to fund Solution projects for Bethesda ES and Somerset ES.  The total amount to be budgeted for these two Solution projects is about $6.4 million.  When a specific project is ready to be budgeted, this $6.4 million will be used to help fund it.

Judith A. Resnik ES.  The current CIP has a fully funded addition at this Magruder Cluster school (which would bring its capacity up to 740), but the BOE deleted the construction funding in its request for the FY19-24 CIP.  Enrollment is trending downward, although in five years it is still projected to exceed the moratorium standard if there is no addition.  The BOE is continuing planning for an addition, however.  So, since all three of the above conditions are met, the Council is planning to fund a $2.7 million Solution project for Resnik ES.

The fourth Solution project is about $6.3 million for Einstein HS, which the Council had already initiated, and the BOE itself has recommended continuing it. Therefore, the sum of the four Solution projects is about $15.4 million.  All but $3.7 million would be programmed in the last three years of the CIP (FYs22-24).

Burnt Mills ES.  This school is projected to be 47% over capacity in 2023-24, so certainly Condition #1 is met.  However, MCPS is requesting the Council to set aside in the CIP $120 million (talk about your placeholders!) while it undertakes a thorough review of the prior revitalization/expansion program “in order to develop a multi-variable approach to determine the priority order of large-scale renovations, possibly including programmatic and capacity considerations” (Superintendent’s FY19 CIP Request, page 1-2).  Therefore, the Burnt Mills situation meets neither Condition #2 nor #3.  Once the BOE has determined a strategy for this school, its improvement would either be partially funded as a Solution project or fully funded from the outset.

Ashburton ES.  If the argument is being made that Solution projects are budgeted to meet the desires of new development, then consider the case of Ashburton in the Walter Johnson Cluster.  It is projected to be more than 22% over capacity five years from now, meeting Condition #1.  Just last fall the Council approved the Rock Spring Master Plan which allows for at least 2,300 more housing units than exists or is already approved.  Almost all the Rock Spring area is within the Ashburton ES service area.  Nevertheless, since MCPS is not undertaking planning for additional capacity that would further relieve Ashburton, its service area will go into a housing moratorium in July.

E. Brooke Lee MS Addition. When the Council approves the CIP, it assures that there is enough money to pay for the projects it is budgeting in each of the CIP’s six years.  The Council is approving a tighter CIP this year than in the past, because it recognizes that debt service on borrowing has grown too high.  (Debt service is an obligation that must be paid before anything else in the budget, including salaries.)  Earlier this year the Council asked for the Superintendent to provide it with a list of “non-recommended” projects that would be the first choices to be reduced or deferred, should the Council need them to meet the spending limits.

One of the projects on his list was to delay the construction funding for Lee MS by one year, although not to delay the first-year (FY19) design funds, which would allow the opportunity for the project to be reaccelerated next year.  In its worksession on April 17, several members of the Council expressed the desire to delay neither the design nor the construction funds for the Lee MS project.  To accommodate this desire, there is a shortfall of $8 million in FY20 and $9.5 million in FY21 for which funds must be found.  We will do our best to do that, but deleting the Solution projects would contribute nearly nothing to this effort; there is only $169,000 in Solution project funds in FY20, and only $3.6 million in FY21; the remaining $11.7 million is in FY22 and later.

Do Solution projects almost never get done in five years, as the Seventh State article claims?  In fact, almost every project does get done within five years, or, the BOE later decides that the project isn’t needed after all.   In the article, it is stated that most of the Solution projects added in FY15 did not translate into actual projects within five years, which would have been the 2019-2020 school year.  For FY15 the Council added Solution projects for five Downcounty Consortium elementary schools: Brookhaven, Glen Haven, Highland, Kemp Mill, and Sargent Shriver.  Two years later, however, the BOE retracted its request for these projects, noting that the projected seat deficits were no longer high enough for it to request funds for additions there (see the FY17 Educational Facilities Master Plan, pages 4-37 through 4-41).

Is “real money” being taken out of the MCPS for Solution projects?  In a word, no.  The Council never budgets all the money it could in the CIP.  This is because the Council needs to reserve funds for: (1) when construction bids come in over estimates; (2) for when projects that are in the planning stage are ready for construction funding later in the CIP period; and (3) for unanticipated opportunities or emergencies that arise.  For these reasons, the Council this year will probably set aside a capital reserve of about 9% of the funds available for budgeting, as has been recommended by the County Executive.  But, after all, a Solution project is but a designated reserve, so the Council—as it has in the past—will likely set an undesignated capital reserve less than the Executive recommended by the $15.4 million in these Solution projects.  Therefore, the Solution projects do not compete with other projects in the MCPS CIP, nor with those in the County Government, Montgomery College, or Park & Planning CIPs.  If anything, the Solution projects provide a first claim on the capital reserve.

In summary, Solution projects in the CIP in no way compete with other projects, and they avoid housing moratoria in certain situations where they are not warranted.

Glenn Orlin is the Deputy Director of the Office of the County Council.  He has been the Council’s CIP Coordinator for the last 26 years.

 

 

Share
Chevy Chase

Town of Chevy Chase Election Results

The Town of Chevy Chase held its municipal elections today for three of the five seats on the Town Council. There were two open seats as Mayor Mary Flynn and former Mayor Scott Fosler decided not to run for reelection.

Barney Rush (i) 566
Kirk Renaud: 552
Wicca Davidson: 493
Fred Cecere: 349
Deborah Vollmer: 66

Fred Cecere’s decision to run made the election more interesting because he was the candidate elected to a term in the 2015 stealth write-in campaign. Confusing “not illegal” with “right,” only people in his support group were alerted to his decision to run and they were told to keep it secret. Another example of the decay of democratic norms even in a small town.

Fred stepped down reluctantly after a term, as he had promised to serve only one term. After a year, however, he decided to run again, this time openly. In a good example of how breaking norms results in new laws to get people to adhere to what were formerly common sense values, the Town now requires write-in candidates to register with the Town before the election.

Running in her umpteenth election, Deborah Vollmer is best known in the Town for her seemingly endless failed lawsuits against her neighbors. (Disclosure: I was mayor of the Town at the time and Deborah also sued the Town unsuccessfully to try and overturn the permit.)

More recently, Deborah has gotten press for refusing to pay the monthly fee that Pepco charges if you didn’t let them replace your old meter with a smart meter. Though the fees have piled up, I don’t think her lights have been turned off yet.

Instead of Fred and Deborah, the Town reelected Barney Rush, who is tipped to be the next mayor. Joining him will be new councilmembers Kirk Renaud and Wicca Davidson. Kirk has been active on the town’s committee on climate change, while Wicca has chaired the committee on community relations. Continuing with them will be Cecily Baskir and Joel Rubin, who is currently seeking election to the House of Delegates as a Democrat,.

Share
Uncategorized

John Delaney Endorses Bill Conway

By Adam Pagnucco.

Congressman John Delaney has endorsed Council At-Large candidate Bill Conway.  We are not aware of Delaney endorsing other county-level candidates.  We reprint the Conway campaign’s press release below.

*****

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday April 30, 2018

Congressman John Delaney Endorses Bill Conway for County Council

Bill Conway, candidate for County Council At Large, announced today that he has been endorsed by Congressman John Delaney of Maryland’s Sixth Congressional District.

“I am proud to endorse Democrat Bill Conway for an At Large seat on the Montgomery County Council,” Congressman Delaney said. “Bill would bring policy and business experience to the County Council. He is a consensus builder who combines progressive values and a deep commitment to social justice with clear-eyed practicality and fiscal prudence. We need Bill’s leadership on the Council to grow our tax base with new jobs, control our choking traffic problems, and reduce the performance gap in our schools,” Delaney added.

“John Delaney is one of the most thoughtful and innovative leaders in Congress. He has served the people of the Sixth District with distinction and would lead our country wisely if elected to the Presidency. I am honored to receive his endorsement,” Conway said.

Share
District 3, Montgomery County

Van Hollen Endorses Katz

Sen. Chris Van Hollen has long been considered the most popular politician in Montgomery County, so this is a good get for the Katz campaign. Councilmember Sidney Katz endorsed Chris Van Hollen for Senate in 2016.

The following is the Katz campaign’s press release:

GAITHERSBURG, MD – Sidney Katz, running for re-election to Montgomery County Council District 3, announced he has received the endorsement of Senator Chris Van Hollen.

“I’m proud to endorse Councilmember Sidney Katz’s re-election campaign,” said Senator Van Hollen. “From his time serving the City of Gaithersburg, Sidney understands how local government works and he’s been an effective advocate for his constituents. Sidney has also been a leader on important issues like criminal justice reform – spearheading Montgomery County’s new Mental Health Courts, and ensuring our seniors can age in place. Sidney has also been a leader in the fight to get big money out of politics and to put the public interest first.”

“I’m honored to receive Senator Van Hollen’s endorsement,” said Katz. “He’s been a progressive champion for our state as a state legislator, congressman, and now senator. He’s been a strong advocate for Maryland on issues ranging from education funding to the environment to campaign finance reform. I’m proud to have his endorsement.”

Katz has also been endorsed by the Montgomery County Public Schools Retirees Association, IAFF Local 1664 Montgomery County Career Fire Fighters, Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35, the Coalition of Asian Pacific American Democrats of Maryland (CAPAD-MD), Metropolitan Political Action Committee – MD, the Brickyard Coalition, and over 25 local officials, including County Executive Ike Leggett and former District 3 Councilmember Phil Andrews.

Katz was first elected to the Montgomery County Council in 2014; he is serving his first term. Previously, Katz served as Mayor of Gaithersburg for 16 years and on the Gaithersburg City Council for 20 years. His civic career started in 1976 when he was selected to be a member of the Gaithersburg Planning Commission.

Share
2018 Montgomery County Executive Race

The Not Marcs

Marc Elrich has cornered the progressive market in the county executive race. He has scooped up the lion’s share of endorsements from progressive groups and unions, and stands out as the most left-wing candidate in the race. Marc’s civic activism around the county has also won him a great many fans.

As Adam outlined yesterday, the challenge for the other candidates is to emerge as the alternative. Who is best positioned to do this?

Roger Berliner is probably the best County establishment candidate. After several terms on the Council, he has compiled a highly marketable record of leadership on environmental issues, especially for voters who are more concerned about climate change than economic equality. We’re a wealthy county, so even in a Democratic primary, there are lot of these voters.

Roger’s challenge is building a larger coalition is his record on business concerns. He has steered a middle course on these issues, which may be where many county voters are, but impedes him being a convincing champion of business or change. Roger is doing his best to make the case that he’s the person to lead on innovation and reinventing county government but it’s a hard sell for a multi-term councilmember.

George Leventhal’s comments on Facebook after the recent business forum reporting that he hears complaints about too much and too little growth from different people pretty much capture it all. Candidates simply cannot come across as annoyed with voters. What do those people want anyway?

Even more bizarre was George’s comment at the forum: “Democracy is not a spectator sport. If the business community wants to be heard, you have to speak to us.” Really? After 16 years on the Council, you have no idea what the business community thinks? They have lobbyists and are often highly engaged with the process. Politics is about addition, not subtraction.

Rose Krasnow has some clear strengths in the race. She’s the only female candidate in the #metoo election, though sometimes she sells it a little too hard. Her time as Mayor of Rockville, working on Wall Street, and as a senior staffer at the Planning Board allow her to make a very convincing case that she has the experience to lead the county in a new direction. The Planning Board is a great place to meet a lot of leaders around the county, especially in the not always popular but well-funded development community.

While Democrats are often not too keen on Wall Street, Rose’s real problem, ironically, is her identification with the Planning Board. It’s like flypaper for all the problems in the county and almost worse than being an incumbent when voters are in a mood to shake things up. Too much traffic? Too many portable classrooms? Blame the Planning Board. It may not always be fair (or unfair) but if you want fair, politics is the wrong line of work.

Businessman David Blair is certainly making a splash around the county. He’s already on TV and sending out mail, giving him profile among county voters as a sunny guy in a way that resembles David Trone’s last congressional bid. Empower Montgomery, which he helped found, seems ready to launch an independent expenditure campaign on his behalf.

If he spends enough, he could well become the not Marc. Of course, he’s going to have to compete with David Trone who will also be filling our airwaves. There is also the question of how many rich businessmen do Democrats want to elevate in the days of Trump. Still, I’ve heard positive feedback from some about his business plans, though his press interviews have at times demonstrated a lack of fluency with issues or government. Could this stall his campaign once he faces greater scrutiny?

Last but not least, Delegate Bill Frick is an interesting candidate. Although he’s an elected official, he is not associated with county government, so doesn’t carry their baggage. In short, he manages to combine appealing experience without the blame – a combo that worked rather well for former Rockville Mayor Doug Duncan. As someone widely seen as smart and a good, often passionate speaker, he ought to be an appealing candidate.

So far, however, his campaign has yet to catch fire. Insiders ding him for switching races but I seriously doubt voters know or care. He needs an issue and the county’s strongly disliked liquor monopoly looks like a good target notwithstanding the mud MCGEO has thrown at him. Frick needs convince voters, donors and opinion leaders opposed to Marc that he is best positioned to unite an alternative coalition to renovate county government. He has a good case.

Share
District 18

Waldstreicher Misleads on Endorsements. Again.

Del. Jeff Walstreicher, running for the open D18 Senate seat, has a graphic at the top of his campaign’s Facebook page with quotes from the Washington Post calling him is “a reformist voice” who “deserves reelection.”

Unfortunately, these quotes are from the Post’s endorsement of Waldstreicher for reelection as delegate four years ago. I suppose one could argue that the word “reelection” indicates that it’s old, as Jeff is not running for reelection but the Senate. But it’s easy to miss that clue and fail to make the connection.

Waldstreicher and frequent state legislative candidate Dana Beyer, his main opponent for the Senate seat, both ran for the House of Delegates in 2006 and 2010. The Post endorsed neither in the 2006 primary. In the more recent 2010 primary, they endorsed Beyer but not Waldstreicher even though he was the incumbent.

Jeff has also posted the following to his Facebook page:

While Jeff is a certified gun sense candidate, he has not been endorsed by Moms Demand Action. Indeed, MDA sends out the following in their notification email:

[B]eing a Gun Sense Candidate should not be considered a formal endorsement from Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and multiple candidates running in the same race may receive the Moms Demand Action Gun Sense Candidate distinction.

Like all certified gun sense candidates, including Dana Beyer, he is free to use the logo but not to claim an endorsement. However, Jeff’s campaign intentionally modified the logo to turn the Moms Demand Action imprimatur into an endorsement. If you want to see an example of how to properly use the logo, check out Mila Johns’ delegate campaign webpage.

This isn’t the first time that Jeff has misled regarding endorsements. Previously, I noted that he made it easy for voters, including me, to think that he had been endorsed by Rep. Jamie Raskin even though that was not the case.

I don’t know why the frontrunner who collected a nice passel of genuine endorsements needs to give the false impression that he has endorsements that he doesn’t. It just feeds an impression of someone who is less than wholly trustworthy.

I should mention that I learned about Jeff’s Facebook page from an anonymous tip. I asked Dana Beyer directly and she replied that “I did not” send it, though did not respond to a follow-up asking if someone from her campaign had sent it. Similarly, I asked Jeff for comment as well as a copy of his endorsement letter from Moms Demand Action and have not yet heard from him. You do the math.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Bill Frick, County Executive, George Leventhal, Marc Elrich, Roger Berliner

The Executive Contest is a Two-Candidate Race

By Adam Pagnucco.

The Washington Post recently published an article declaring that the contest to succeed County Executive Ike Leggett was seen as “anybody’s race.”  Pshaw!  One of two candidates will win it.  One of them is Council Member Marc Elrich, who finished first in the last two Council At-Large primaries and is nearly sweeping progressive endorsements.  The other is…

We don’t know yet.  And we don’t know if we ever will.

During the 2016 Congressional District 8 race, your author called up one of the smartest people in state politics we know.  This fellow lives outside MoCo but he tracks all parts of the state and has sources everywhere.  When we asked him who was going to win, he said, “When I talk to the various campaigns, all of them say they’re gonna be the last one at the end along with Jamie Raskin.  When I hear that over and over, when I see that they all think that Jamie is the man to beat, that leads me to think Jamie will win.”  That dynamic is going on now in the Executive race.

Elrich’s long-time message combining opposition to development with far-left progressivism has earned him an overlapping base of land-use voters, liberals and Downcounty residents, especially in and near Takoma Park, where he served 19 years on the City Council.  In the 2014 Council At-Large race, Elrich finished first in every council district except 2 (where he finished second to Nancy Floreen) and first or second in every local area in the county except Damascus and Laytonsville.  He finished first in 138 of 251 precincts.  In the 2010 Council At-Large race, Elrich finished first in all five council districts and in every local area in the county except Cabin John, Damascus, Darnestown and Laytonsville.  He finished first in 166 of 243 precincts.  No other MoCo politician running for county office in this cycle has a base of this kind.

How did he assemble it?  For many years, Elrich has been assisting residents who oppose master plans all over the county.  And whether they won or lost, those development opponents came away from the fight with Elrich as their hero.  Here is an illustration: an email sent out by the East Bethesda Citizens Association on 6/2/16, on the eve of the council’s consideration of the Downtown Bethesda Master Plan, describing their meeting with Elrich and calling for action:

A year later, Elrich cast the lone vote against that master plan as he has with several other plans.  This plan’s opponents have now been incorporated into Elrich’s base – assuming they were not part of it already.

While other candidates struggle to attract volunteers, Elrich’s volunteer base is well established.  In 2014, the campaigns of Elrich and his ally, Beth Daly, posted poll coverage sign-ups on Signupgenius.com.  They were able to recruit coverage on 67 precincts, many on more than one shift, with particular strength in the voter-rich areas of Silver Spring, Takoma Park and Leisure World.  No one other than the Apple Ballot could touch this.  Now that he is running for the county’s highest office, how many precincts will Elrich be able to cover?

Among the influencers and highly informed activists, this election is rapidly becoming defined by whether you’re with Elrich or not.  If you don’t believe us, check out the Council District 1 candidates.  They’re an interesting group that collectively spans the differences of opinions in the county district containing the most Democrats.  Bethesda Magazine reporter Andrew Metcalf asked them during a recent debate for whom each was going to vote in the Executive election.  After significant prodding, here’s how the candidates responded:

Bill Cook – would vote for Marc Elrich

Pete Fosselman – undecided; wouldn’t vote for Elrich

Andrew Friedson – undecided; disinclined to vote for Elrich

Ana Sol Gutierrez – torn between Elrich and George Leventhal

Jim McGee – would probably vote for Elrich

Reggie Oldak – refused to say; would not vote for Elrich

Dalbin Osorio – would vote for Elrich

Meredith Wellington – undecided

All of the non-Elrich candidates have potential as well as challenges.  Council Members Roger Berliner and George Leventhal are running on their experience and qualifications.  (Disclosure: your author respects both but supports Berliner.)  Berliner is trying to get known outside his council district and Leventhal has been severely out-polled by Elrich in the last two elections.  Delegate Bill Frick, former Rockville Mayor Rose Krasnow and businessman David Blair are the fresh faces.  But they are little-known in most parts of the county and Blair started as a complete unknown.  All of these candidates have a long way to go and each of them is in the others’ way.

To contrast with Elrich effectively, a non-Elrich candidate needs to hit this sweet spot dead-on: “We live in a great county, but we can be even better.  Here are some ways we can improve.”  That involves a bit of threading the needle for the two council incumbents.  It’s understandable that they might react to critiques of the county’s economic performance as criticism of their records, but they should think of it like this: every Executive leaves unfinished business for the next Executive.  Ike Leggett inherited his share of problems from Doug Duncan, who in turn inherited some issues from Neal Potter.  This is entirely normal, so who is the best choice to lead in the future?  As for the non-incumbents, they aggressively point to the need to improve, but they tend not to have many specific proposals to get better because they don’t know the history and operations of county government as well as the two Council Members.  To be fair, how could they?  If no one hits this sweet spot, that leaves Elrich as the only candidate with a crystal-clear message that is distinct from the others.  Those who hear Elrich’s message and agree with it are less likely to peel off to someone else than tentative supporters of the other candidates who might change their preferences between them.

One more thing: we wouldn’t be surprised if most, if not all, of the non-Elrich candidates have polled.  If so, they all probably found similar results.  And so they could all tailor their messages in similar ways and maybe even say the exact same things.  That would blur the differences between them and make Elrich stand out even more.  This may already be happening as Berliner, Blair and Frick all repeatedly mentioned “innovation” at last Friday’s Executive forum.  Was that a coincidence?

If questioned privately, we bet all of the non-Elrich candidates would grudgingly admit that it’s a problem that five of them are in the race.  Each of them wants to be the person who gets to take on Elrich one-on-one.  So each of the five is looking at the others and saying, “If YOU all get out of the way, I can beat Elrich.”  But no one is dropping out because they all think they have a shot.  The big winner from this is – you guessed it – Marc Elrich.

One non-Elrich candidate needs to emerge from the pack and consolidate everyone that is not in Elrich’s camp.  If that happens, Elrich is beatable.  But if nothing changes and this election continues down the path it is on, Elrich will win with less than 40% of the vote.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Bill Frick, County Executive, Economy, George Leventhal, Marc Elrich, Roger Berliner

Executive Candidates React to Sage Consulting Report on MoCo Economy

By Adam Pagnucco.

Last Friday, the candidates for County Executive attended a forum to discuss a report by Sage Consulting listing numerous problems with the county’s economy.  Afterwards, most of the Executive candidates commented on the report and on the economy more generally via email and social media.  Their responses say a lot about which ones take the economy seriously, an issue that has drawn much attention from Seventh State.

Council Member Roger Berliner (whom your author supports) sent out this email over the weekend.

Our county has serious work to do to improve our business climate, diversify our economy, and increase the number of good jobs. It must be Priority #1 if we are going to be able to meet the needs of our school system, reduce congestion, invest in public safety, and protect our environment.

I have a record that I am proud of on improving our economy and a vision for our future that you can read about here. Some of my competitors have records too. Others have just words. It’s important to consider what we have done in pursuit of increasing prosperity, not just what we say we will do.

My record includes leading the successful effort to reduce our energy tax three years in a row; creating the small business navigator and a micro-loan program to help our local small businesses and entrepreneurs thrive; and playing a leading role in our Amazon bid. My vision is of a forward leaning county that embraces innovation, education geared towards the jobs of tomorrow, and vibrant urban centers served by state-of-the-art transit.

Yesterday, a consultant tasked with assessing our business climate and outlook, issued a scathing report. It highlighted one startling statistic: that “between 2011 and 2016, the number of [business] establishments in Montgomery County increased by 6, or roughly the population of businesses at a strip mall.” The report concludes that “Montgomery County therefore desperately needs to step up efforts to expand its commercial tax base.” You will get no debate from me on that point.

At the same time, the report declares:

This should not be mistaken for an assertion that Montgomery County is anything other than the finest possible location for Amazon HQ2. It will be difficult for Amazon to identify an area that is as open to new ideas, offers such abundant human capital, is as saturated with transportation options, supports such high quality public education, is as institutionally rich, and is as committed to shared prosperity as Montgomery County, MD.

So, while it is true that we have our challenges, challenges that must be met head-on, it is also true that we have extraordinary assets and a quality of life to match. I will build on our assets as your next County Executive, work diligently to improve our business climate, and am 100% committed to expanding a “shared prosperity.”

Life is good in Montgomery County, but we can make it better still. That’s my goal: a “more perfect” Montgomery County.

In service,

Roger Berliner

Delegate Bill Frick (D-16) sent out this email hours after the Executive forum ended.

Something doesn’t add up. How does a county with our talent, our people, our great public schools and our values lag behind the rest of our region in job growth and economic development? How is it that private sector employment has declined by 12,500 jobs from 2006 to 2016? How is it that, during that same time period, Montgomery County created on net just six new businesses?

The answer is clear. As I told the Montgomery County Business Roundtable earlier today, it is our political culture. My opponents have built a political culture in Montgomery County that doesn’t want to work with businesses to thrive and grow here in our County.  And if we elect someone to be County Executive who is part of that culture, things will not get better for business.

I am an outsider to Montgomery County Government and yet I have real governmental leadership experience as the Majority Leader of Maryland’s General Assembly. I have the relationships in Annapolis that can help our County. But since I am not a multi-millionaire, and unlike three of my opponents, I am not spending your taxpayer dollars to fund my campaign, I need your help to communicate with Montgomery County residents who deserve leadership that the current members of the County Council will not provide.

Montgomery County is an awesome place to live. It’s why I’m raising my two children here and sending them to our public schools. But we have a problem, and that is that we must reform in order to create new private sector jobs and increase our tax base. We have to focus on the core functions of county government – education, public safety, and transportation – and those need to be our priorities for our budget. Our County Government does not need to be in the liquor business, a failed venture that is hurting our food culture to the benefit of downtown DC restaurants. We have to have a culture of ‘yes’ in county government so that we are trying to find reasons to say yes to businesses rather than find reasons to say no.

Sincerely,

Bill

Former Rockville Mayor Rose Krasnow ran this Facebook ad.

David Blair commented on Twitter.

Council Member George Leventhal commented on Facebook.

We are not aware of Council Member Marc Elrich commenting via email, Facebook or Twitter.

Share
2018 Governor's Race

More on Ben Jealous’ Voting Record

Ben Jealous’s campaign blasted my posts about his voting record with its own blog post earlier today. If nothing else, my posts have helped clarify the voting records of the candidates, a topic Larry Hogan will be sure to bring up if the nominee is vulnerable.

Could I have done so in a better way? You bet. (For example, it was pointed out to me last night that I should have indicated that Krish Vignarajah was simply too young to vote in some elections on the chart.) Jealous’s post, however, is a combo platter of legitimate grievance, high dudgeon, and deception by omission.

Agreed Facts

Jealous says he has voted in Maryland exactly four times: the 2012 general election, the 2014 election, and the 2016 primary and general elections. This is exactly what I reported in my post on the Maryland voting records of all candidates.

As Jealous has now made clear, he did not vote in Maryland previously because he was living in D.C. and California. When he became NAACP President, he moved “back to D.C.” The NAACP headquarters are in Baltimore, though the organization also has a Washington bureau.

Jealous further claims that, contrary to my statement, that he has “long been” a Democrat but then says that he “chose to be formally unaffiliated during his time as president of the NAACP.” Fair enough, but this also means that was, in fact, not a registered Democrat from 2009 to 2013.

More interestingly, Jealous states “Since leaving the organization, in 2013, Jealous has voted consistently as a Democrat in Maryland, including participating in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary election.”

This neatly elides over and omits that he didn’t participate in the 2014 Democratic primary, the only gubernatorial primary for which he has been eligible. He left the NAACP in 2013, so his stated reason for being unaffiliated no longer held. Certainly, the 2014 Democratic primary was exciting with a gubernatorial race between Anthony Brown, Doug Gansler, and Heather Mizeur.

Though Jealous touts his record on supporting women and people of color, he chose not to vote in that primary. (Krish Vignarajah faces the same problem far more acutely. She routinely lambastes the lack of women and people of color in elected positions in Maryland but elected not to vote in Maryland in 2014 or the hotly contested Edwards-Van Hollen primary in 2016.)

Bottom line, Jealous has voted four times in Maryland since 2012. He has never voted in a gubernatorial primary, as he skipped the 2014 Democratic primary. According to Jealous, he was not a registered Democrat in 2012, so he was unable to vote in that primary.

High Dudgeon

Jealous spends much of the post, which appeared today, attacking claims I made two days ago but realized on my own were not right and corrected within hours as soon as I had that facepalm moment.

I took the unusual step of putting out a separate post highlighting the corrections, so that everyone who gets 7S in their mailbox would see it. Additionally, I tweeted and put up a post on the blog’s Facebook page with the correction. All state: “My apologies not just to Ben Jealous but to readers for the errors.” The original post is not only corrected but contains the same wording at the top highlighting the corrections.

I make mistakes and I try to take my lumps and to correct them when brought to my attention. It’s part of my effort to maintain trust with the people who read as well as my own standards. My time is limited since I have a full-time job and other responsibilities, so I mess up sometimes but I do my best. While I certainly have opinions, I regard facts as friends and try to adhere to them.

I can only speculate why Jealous chose to spend so much time expressing outrage about the corrected errors. It might be in order to distract from that his voting history and residency in Maryland in much shorter than others might think. He might also rather direct attention to me rather than his failure to vote in the 2014 Democratic primary.

Legitimate Grievances

Where Jealous has a good point is that I did not know about his California voting history, which occurred in the middle of his two periods voting in D.C. Why didn’t I know? I looked as his campaign bio page, which makes no mention of having lived in either D.C. or California.

Instead, it says “Ben grew up spending summers in West Baltimore and has lived in Maryland throughout his career as a civil rights leader and businessman.” However, his never voted in Maryland prior to 2012 and did vote elsewhere, which indicates that he has not lived in Maryland “throughout his career.”

I learned that Jealous had previously voted in D.C. Like Vignarajah in Maryland, he was never purged from the rolls during his time in California. I had no idea from his bio, which I looked at prior to putting up the post, that he had lived in California. So I wrongly stated that he had missed elections in D.C. when living in California.

Nevertheless, in retrospect, it would have been best to have taken the time to ask the Jealous campaign. Of course, Jealous could have done the same if he wanted the errors corrected. We both know how to contact each other and my corrections and apology for the errors indicate a willingness to fix others. Unlike me, he has a professional, paid campaign staff. Instead, his blog post blasts me two days after many of the errors were corrected.

Conclusion

I’m certainly not above criticism. When you put your opinions out there, you should expect some flak, especially when you make mistakes. At the end of the day, however, I’m not up for election. It’s up to voters to decide if Jealous’s voting history or residency matters. I imagine voters have a range of opinions on these topics – and they’re absolutely the ones who matter here.

Share

Maryland Politics Watch