Two recent letters by the same person [Editor's note: me] convey a misunderstanding of reality and history regarding land-use issues.
When politicians predictably decide in favor of those with extraordinary connections at the expense of citizen taxpayers, the only option residents have (barring spending $1 million to match an incumbent's campaign war chest at election time), the only right we can rely on is that of sending the matter to the voters in the county, i.e., referendum.
What Angela Beltram (in much more detail and gently) said is that county citizens have already tried using the comprehensive planning as the guide.
Nice idea, but in practice it has a) been defeated as an enforceable plan in a Maryland court and b) been circumvented by powerful people with extraordinary connections to our representatives beyond what most taxpayers enjoy.
Those who learn by not repeating mistakes realize that recent history in Howard County supports the claim that residents lack rights rather than lobby, buy votes, exert excessive influence, or step over the line of misrepresentation. We have very little power compared with the most active and moneyed county lobby, and the notion that we should somehow find a basis to decrease our rights by forgoing the right to referendum might be the call that organizes sufficient citizenry to vote out a few offenders.
Mona has been missing the point of both of my letters. Let me be clear - I DO NOT want to suppress or ask anyone to give up their right to take CB58 to referendum. I don't know how many times I can say it, but I will until it sticks.
Rather, I have said that the referendum will not be the be-all-end-all instrument to get better land-use practices in the County. Even if victorious, it would be on in the ongoing, never ending series of battles that land-use challengers would have to fight. Since those have a spotty track record in favor of Mona, Angela, and others, the long-term implications of this win would likely be small for land use. It is up to them if they would like to keep up this approach, but it doesn't seem to be working too well in the grand scheme.
Also, running a campaign for the referendum is effectively like running a campaign for a candidate. You still need money, resources, time, and effort as you would with helping a candidate get elected. Logic would say that if you could find, support, and elect a candidate - or several - that stand up for land-use in the County, then you would get more bang for your buck that way.
People can't just throw up their hands and give up by citing that rich people have all of the influence. That's a lie. There are two very distinct ways to change policy, candidates, process, etc. Yes, one is money. Political contributions are an investment in a candidate with an expected return. But, the other is equally as powerful. That is the power of organized voices. Two wonderful examples of powerful, sizable national lobbies are AAA and AARP. Thanks to membership drives that provide benefits to their members, both organizations boast member rolls that make their organizations powerful lobbies. They can bring about political change through action alerts or advocacy.
We can do the same thing in Howard County. We should do the same thing in Howard County. The HCCA tries to do that very valiantly. It's not quite large enough to be that influential, but HCCA is very vocal and visible. Growing that organization or one like it would prove helpful in the land-use struggle.
Posts
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteTake a look at last week's Baltimore Examiner profile of Richard Talkin http://www.baltimoreexaminer.com/local/people/39472342.html
This will give you perspective about how certain well connected developers and their lawyers control the money that all politicians crave.
I definitely won't deny that developers can exert influence more quickly and efficiently than citizens. They have the advantages of concentrated money and a lot of due diligence to tell them who to target, what to lobby, etc. Citizens can do that kind of thing very well, too, and often do. They have the lag time of getting organized and start up capital. Both are significant, but definitely can be overcome.
ReplyDeleteYou mention that a referendum campaign costs money. Your detractor is very concerned about those who contribute to local campaigns. Has anyone seen who is paying for the referendum effort of CB 58? Where is the openess of that process?
ReplyDelete