Ficker's Victory Leaves Politicos Black and Blue

By Steve Hendrix and Ann E. Marimow
Washington post Staff Writers
Thursday, November 20, 2008

The county's political realm continues the tizzy it began election night, when Robin Ficker's ballot offering appeared to be -- shock -- headed for the winners' column.

Absentee and other ballots counted since then have only widened the margin in favor of Ficker's Question B, which would require all nine council members to approve any increase in property tax revenue over the agreed limit.

And as election officials prepared to certify the provision as law this week, Montgomery politicians were kicking themselves, or their colleagues, for letting the former state delegate sneak one by -- the first time one of his anti-tax measures has prevailed in the Bethesda lawyer's 34-year crusade to limit county spending.

"Some folks were asleep at the switch," said former council member Howard Denis, a Republican who has campaigned against Ficker amendments in the past. Denis said he was surprised not to have been asked to pitch in again.

Usually when a Ficker proposal has been on the ballot, Democrats, unions and even the Chamber of Commerce unite behind a "vote no" campaign, saying that Ficker's approach would hamstring important government spending. This year the counter-effort was notably weaker, and many observers said the measure could have been turned back with a stronger campaign tying Question B to Ficker.

"I'm kicking myself," said Bruce Adams, director of the county executive's Office of Community Partnerships and a close adviser to County Executive Isiah Leggett (D). "We should have done more to say this is Robin Ficker, Robin Ficker, Robin Ficker."

Adams and several other Montgomery Democrats interviewed since the election said that Ficker tapped into a particularly angry electorate after last spring's hefty property tax increase.

"We should also have been saying, 'Folks, we hear you. We are not going to be raising property taxes for the rest of our term,' " Adams said.

State Sen. Jaime B. Raskin (D-Montgomery) gave Ficker credit for a remarkably consistent focus over the years but said he hoped voters would eventually overturn the amendment as the wrong way to restrain spending.

"A Ficker amendment is a monkey wrench thrown into the gears of government, and that's not always a bad thing," Raskin said. "Democracy needs its Robin Fickers, but in the long run, it's not good government to follow a Robin Ficker policy."

Note: Although Ficker had never previously succeeded in his many anti-tax ballot questions, he has prevailed on three less lofty points. He got voters to prohibit landfills in residential areas (1978), restrict the burial of "sludge" (1980) and force a telephone company to make Gaithersburg part of the Washington local-call zone (1982). Coincidently (or not?), all three triumphs were bundled together and put on this year's ballot by the County Council as Question A. They were repealed.

Strategy in Annapolis May Be Mostly Defense

County Executive Isiah Leggett (D) and County Council members will host a reception tonight for Montgomery's legislative delegation. The informal gathering and public hearing that follows are a sort of pregame strategy session to set next year's agenda for Annapolis. But it will probably be a challenge for anyone to put a happy face on the county's prospects for defending its turf in the coming session.

At a council meeting this week, county lobbyist Melanie Wenger suggested that the message to legislators should be to "severely resist" any changes in state aid formulas that provide additional funding for certain school systems, including Montgomery, and pay the retirement costs of teachers employed by counties.

Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has resisted pressure to make such changes in the past, but the magnitude of the state's budget problems are even greater for fiscal 2010.

Montgomery's public schools have requested $114 million for construction and renovation, including $19 million for the second year of work at Walter Johnson High and Galway Elementary schools. But Wenger told the council that O'Malley is expected to recommend only $260 million in school construction funds statewide.

On the transportation front, the county is again pushing for funding the Purple Line, Corridor Cities Transitway and road projects related to the Pentagon's base realignment and closure plan. But council members said the state's current source of revenue for such projects is unsustainable.

It's an all-around gloomy picture that could get worse. Wenger told the council: "You can expect another round of cuts" in January or with the introduction of the governor's budget.

The meeting Tuesday also inadvertently exposed a communication gap when the discussion turned to economic development. Included in a draft of Leggett's priorities was a proposal to secure funding to lure a Maryland Clean Energy Center to the county. A law passed during the last legislative session created the center to encourage the development of clean energy technologies, and Leggett has been lobbying to locate the center in the county.

Council members looked surprised by the proposal and seemed taken aback at not learning of it sooner.

"It seems like the executive branch is talking to itself and we're only now learning of this," said George L. Leventhal (D-At Large).

As it turns out, the trouble may be that council members have not talked among themselves. An e-mail to President Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) from Leggett's environmental protection director, Bob Hoyt, in early October includes a copy of a proposal that makes the case for putting the center in Montgomery. The e-mail mentions that Roger Berliner (D-Potomac-Bethesda) has also been involved in the effort.

Leggett Proposal Targets Neighborhood Scofflaws

All the things that can make or break neighborhood relationships -- cars parked on the lawn, home improvement projects that never end, the sense that there is little follow-up from county government when violations are discovered -- are the subject of an extensive package of legislation proposed last week by County Executive Isiah Leggett (D).

The bills, which will need approval by the County Council before taking effect, would increase fines for repeat violators from $500 to $750 per day. They would also set up a system to nab people who are operating businesses from their homes without proper permits. And they would provide a time limit on building permits and their renewal. If a project isn't done in 18 months, the permit holder would probably be penalized, according to the bills.

Leggett's legislative package also takes on the pesky issue of parking for commercial and recreational vehicles. Knapp has introduced similar legislation that would ban commercial vehicles, large pickup trucks and RVs from parking on all residential streets and on roads with schools, hospitals, churches and playgrounds.

According to an analysis in the report, Leggett would define where such vehicles could park, allowing street parking on roads zoned for commercial or industrial uses. His recommendations would allow RVs to remain on the street for a 24-hour window instead of the 12-hour period Knapp's legislation proposes.

Knapp said last week that he hopes the public safety committee will take up the two proposals before the new year and said he hoped "we can get to a good outcome."

"We're basically saying the same thing," he said.

Raquel Montenegro, a lobbyist for the building industry, said she is concerned that some of the proposals do not really resolve the problems the report outlined.

"How big a problem is this? Obviously, folks who have called and found trucks on their street have found it a problem, and it is a safety issue," she said. But forcing business employees to park elsewhere may lead to other challenges, such as trying to figure out where to park and then how to get back and forth to work every day, she said.

And capping the amount of time for a building permit may penalize builders and homeowners who have lost their financing or encountered construction challenges that slow down the project.

"The purpose of this is to assure that houses get finished. Now, because of circumstances out of my control, I am not able to finish, my permit expires, and the county forbids me from doing any other work unless I get another permit with the money I don't have. It seems it is not really addressing the issue," Montenegro said.

The members of the panel outlining the proposals came from county government, and industry officials were not involved, Montenegro said. But she said that she had recently called Leggett's office to voice her concerns and that she plans to do so as the proposals make their way through the legislative process.

Staff writer Miranda S. Spivack contributed to this report.