From: At-large Candidate Marc Elrich
GO BACK to the questionnaire list
You can scroll down through this questionnaire OR use the links below to let you
jump to the questions you're interested in:
The Intercounty Connector (ICC)
What are your qualifications for this office? 
Back
to Top
Summary statement:
My 15 years of public service on the Takoma Park City Council and in the
Montgomery County Public School System gives me the knowledge and experience
for the job. My long history of civic
activism ensures that I will deliver community-oriented solutions to growth,
transportation, education and environmental problems.
Detailed statement:
I've served since 1987 on the Takoma Park City Council. I know the importance of elected officials
who are accessible and who listen. I
believe that my decisions have to reflect the interests of the residents, not
special interests, and that a representative has to be willing to hear new
voices and new information, even if it means changing previously held
positions.
My connections to this county are deep. My family moved here in 1960. I graduated from Einstein High School, the University of Maryland (BA) and Johns Hopkins (MA). My children graduated from Montgomery Blair, and my two foster sons went through the county Special Ed program. For the last decade, I've been a county school teacher at Rolling Terrace Elementary.
I also have a long history of civic activism. My involvement has always been on the side of
citizens working to preserve their communities and their quality of life. I
firmly believe that the interests of the average county citizen ought to come
first in any deliberations.
My
community involvement has spanned many issues.
I've worked with residents throughout the County to oppose development
schemes that would bury their neighborhoods in traffic and over-crowd their
schools. I was a founding member of the
Traffic Coalition, Save Our Community Schools and CURB (the anti-Pay and Go)
coalition. I've been an advocate for
affordable housing. I helped rewrite
Takoma Park's rent stabilization laws that have made the City the only
jurisdiction in the state with policies that actually preserve the stock of
affordable housing. I worked with
up-county communities against the incinerator, which has become a costly
boondoggle. I was one of the first
people to support and advocate a living wage. Knowing how important health care
concerns are, I testified against the Care First merger that would privatize
the state- chartered insurer. I’ve been
involved in efforts to get Maryland to provide universal health care
coverage. I have a deep commitment to
social justice and civil rights that goes back to my days at the University of
Maryland where I was active in efforts to integrate the campus and get the
University to divest its holdings in South Africa.
I have applied my activism to the educational system as well. I'm aware of the issues that face our schools and the manner in which our schools have changed over the last four decades. I've been a consistent advocate for reduced class size. I was active in leading efforts that led the State to abandon the MSPAP tests because of their many flaws. I’m an advocate for a rigorous curriculum that challenges every child and has the same high expectations for all children.
My
experience has shown me that active and involved citizens can make a
difference. I believe in working with
communities to find solutions. I
believe that the most important voices, the ones we need to listen to, are the
voices of our residents who are concerned about how county decisions affect
their quality of life.
Why or
why not do you support the ICC? Back
to Top
Summary statement:
County-sponsored traffic studies show
it is unjustified. While costing nearly
$2 billion, it provides minimal improvements in east-west travel time (usually
a couple of minutes), Beltway congestion is not alleviated, north-south roads
(on which most people travel) get worse.
It will cause tremendous environmental damage for negligible
transportation improvement.
Detailed statement:
The
ICC is an expensive non-solution to our traffic problems. I served on the county Transportation Task
Force. We ran a traffic model scenario
where funding was unlimited and environmental restrictions non-existent and the
county still slid into gridlock. We
cannot build our way out of congestion.
The ICC does not get Montgomery moving.
Most
traffic movement in the county is, and will be, north-south. Connections from Germantown to BWI or
Baltimore will never be the primary job/housing orientation in the county,
which is reflected in the fact that only 3% of ICC trips are projected to be
end to end. Those few east-west trips
do experience some time savings but only a few minutes. However, the north-south roads that
intersect the ICC typically get worse because they are already over-crowded and
now will bear additional traffic from drivers accessing the ICC. So, the most used roads worsen.
There
is an effort to mislead people about the Beltway impact. The fact is that if you build the ICC,
Beltway speeds drop 20%, sliding further into gridlock. It achieves an insignificant 1.5 mile per
hour average speed improvement over not building the ICC – assuming the Beltway
is running without incident, which frequently is not the case.
Within
the ICC corridor, despite rhetoric about local traffic relief, the fact is that
about 90% of intersections that fail congestion tests if no ICC is built ALSO
FAIL IF THE ICC IS BUILT! Moreover,
more vehicle miles are actually traveled on local roads, the average vehicle
miles for all trips is lengthened and the average time of trip is lengthened
because the ICC induces more people to take longer trips.
Environmentally, the ICC was more damaging than any combination of other projects we examined and unless the proponents of the “end on construction” are proposing to build the ICC above the forests that it cuts through, it is impossible to build without severe environmental damage.
The ICC and the focus on major road building flies in the face of efforts to reduce emissions and reduce global warming. The Metro area is not in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Our region has had two code purple days and has some of the most unhealthy air in the country (contributing to the rapidly rising occurrence of major respiratory illnesses). We must move away from major road projects that encourage longer commutes (both in terms of time and distance), For our own health and safety we need a major transition to mass transit, which is not going to be cheap. With the state facing a budget deficit of almost $1 billion next year and rising to $2 billion, with no plan for funding the billion dollar requirements of the Thornton commission, there is no way we will have the resources for a simultaneous unprecedented investment in roads and mass transit. We need to be realistic and financially responsible and we need to choose mass transit as the future travel mode of choice.
Mental
Health: Given that the state has not adequately addressed
mental health needs, what should the county do?
Summary Statement:
Back
to Top
Although mental health funding is a
state responsibility, we cannot ignore the needs of persons dependent on our
provision of mental health services. If
the county can afford tax breaks for Fortune 1000 companies (like Marriott and
Discovery), then we can fund the clinics until the state resumes its
responsibility.
Detailed
Statement:
The county’s treatment of
the mental health crisis is nothing less than shameful. I’m mindful of the neglect of mental health
funding in the state budget, and I will work to redress the state’s abdication
of its responsibility in this area.
However, the county cannot look the other way when clinics are shuttered
or when patients are told they no longer can receive services. That is inexcusable.
I cannot fathom the mindset
that casts the problem in terms of who is “responsible”, as if our neglect of
the crisis will somehow make a point to the state. It’s as if the human beings who are actually affected don’t even
exist. The county budget is in the
neighborhood of $3 billion dollars. The
county, in the last couple of years, has provided tens of millions of dollars
in tax breaks for Marriott and Discovery.
If the county has money to give away to the largest corporations in
America, it surely has a couple of million dollars that it can spare to keep
mental health clinics open and serving the population that depends on
them. We certainly shouldn’t be giving
corporate welfare when we can’t satisfy essential human services.
The potential “cost” and
the risks we take by allowing the clinics to close are enormous. There is the potential for people to harm
themselves and possibly others. There
is the fact that individuals without support often end up in trouble, which
means they end up in hospitals and jails – expenses that we have to bear, but
which don’t show up in the mental health budget.
We need to look at the
long-term needs of the mental health care system and then put it on sound
fiscal footing. There are issues of the
level of state funding, the cost of regulation, and the timeliness of
reimbursements. All need to be
addressed, but while they’re being addressed, and until a new program is put in
place, the people who need the services should be held harmless and everything
possible should be done to insure that they receive adequate support. In a civilized and decent society, one
essential rule has to be that you don’t shut the door in the face of a neighbor
in need.
Housing: How would you respond to developers who say that it is economically unfeasible to build moderately priced housing (MPDU’s) in Bethesda and Potomac?
Summary
statement:
Back
to Top
Developers
need to understand that there will be no escaping the MPDU requirement. Either developers negotiate land prices that
reflect what they’re required to build or developers spread the costs of the
moderately priced homes over their profits on the high-priced homes.
Detailed
statement:
We
need to send a clear message that we want the MPDU’s produced. The first obstacle to affordability is the
price of land. That land is being
marketed as if the lots are all available to be sold at the highest market
price which means that lots are often priced higher than the target MPDU price.
If
developers can squirm out of the MPDU requirement, then they have no incentive
to negotiate with the seller to reduce the land price. Developers need to understand that there
will be no escaping the requirement.
Therefore, they need to negotiate land prices that reflect what they’re
going to be required to build. If a
land owner has 50 lots and knows that 8 of them will have to hold a house
priced at $150,000, then he can’t sell eight of the lots for $200,000 each.
The
problem is that developers are more than happy to pay the higher prices because
they can then plead poverty before the Planning Board and win exemptions. If sellers know that this is how the game
works, they have no need to make concessions to the MPDU requirement in the
pricing of the lots. Moreover, the
developer probably doesn’t want to build housing for teachers next to housing
that can be put on the market for a half million dollars. As long as requirements are not required,
there’s no reason for the landowner or the developer to use those requirements
in calculating the value of the land.
They both win.
The
only way to change the market is to make it clear that it will need to operate
in a different way. If a fifty lot
subdivision has to yield 42 market rate houses and 8 MPDU’s then the selling
price of the lots themselves will have to take that into account. It’s really no different than a developer
telling a land owner that the price of the lots needs to be adjusted downward
because extraordinary engineering costs will make the development of a parcel
more expensive and since the market won’t allow for the price of the house to
bear the increased cost, there needs to be a reduction in the land cost. This happens all the time in determining the
economic value of land, and it would occur here, too, if the players understood
it as a requirement.
Trash: How would you resolve the problem that within five years, Montgomery County may have insufficient capacity to meet solid waste disposal needs?
Summary
statement:
Back
to Top
The county needs to
do a better job on recycling to reduce pressure on the incinerator. We need a policy that gives priority to
waste reduction and recycling. Our
current policies have relied on incineration to deal with the problem, rather
than attempting to reduce trash generation.
Detailed statement:
We need a serious
program that focuses first on waste reduction, second on recycling and lastly
on incineration and land fill. The
primary goal, and the least expensive way to deal with the problem is to reduce
the waste stream. As we continue to
grow, we face the inability to recycle or incinerate ever increasing volumes of
trash, and reduction strategies are the only way to actually reduce the size of
the waste stream.
We need to revive the recycling program and aggressively expand it to commercial and multi-family property. All parts of the community have to be a part of the solution. Additionally, the abysmal performance by the schools must end. It is not right that the schools have made only a minor contribution to the effort when they are a major producer of recyclable paper products.
Implement waste
reduction strategies. We need to reduce
the production of waste. Recycling and
incineration both have costs and neither effect the rate of trash
generation. We need to implement
strategies that address waste at the source – many European countries have laws
that deal with packaging that reduce the quantity of waste by requiring a
reduction in packaging materials. The
Executive Branch has been
“studying” strategies for waste
reduction for twelve years now. It’s
time to stop studying it and produce and implement a plan.
Annual independent audit, quarterly
reports, usage of actual measures rather than
estimates. The performance of our programs should be
monitored regularly, it
should be based on actual measures
and not on estimates
provided by the
department responsible for meeting the recycling objectives. A real evaluation has
to be based on real
numbers. I’d also support a regular
independent audit of the
performance of the solid waste disposal programs.
Open Space: Should the Legacy Open Space program be continued? If so, how should it be funded?
Summary
statement: Back
to Top
Yes, I support
continuing the program. It’s a critical
piece of acquiring green space in the county and especially important in
efforts to preserve open spaces in the older and more built out parts of the
community. I think we have to be
willing to commit general revenues.
Detailed statement:
I support continued funding of the Legacy Open Space Program. It’s a critical component of efforts to preserve green space in the county. While we’ve made a good decision to preserve the agricultural wedge, the high density of development in older parts of the county has put green space at a premium. Most of the land that is buildable has been used and remaining green space is being rapidly consumed. These older parts of the County were not planned with adequate green space and recreation facilities, so there are no parks waiting for future development. The land that is left was often bypassed earlier as development spread out in the county, but there is a renewed interest in our older communities and in-fill development has become a powerful force.
This program provides
badly needed funds to acquire high quality land and preserve it. There is not enough land or money to make up
for the deficit in open space, but the Legacy program is an effort to maximize
our preservation efforts.
I support funding it
from the general fund and would make it a priority item.
Children: What do you see as the future of the Early Childhood Initiative?
Summary
statement:
Back
to Top
Continuance
and expansion of the program are crucial.
Research shows that educational activities during pre-school years are
essential for school preparedness. The
Early Childhood Initiative is particularly important if we are to close the
ethnic and racial gaps in student achievement.
Detailed
Statement:
The
Early Childhood Initiative is absolutely necessary if we’re going to close the
achievement gap in county schools.
Research shows that pre-school years are critical to a child’s
development. Their preparedness to
learn and the background knowledge that helps them adjust and be successful in
school is developed before they hit kindergarten. As a fourth grade teacher, I have seen firsthand how readiness to
learn affects classroom success.
The Initiative helps identify
students with needs and provides support that is critical to their
development. I support its expansion so
that it has the ability to provide maximum wrap around services as needed. The issues that affect the emergence of
learning skills include more than academics.
Stability in the home and stress profoundly effect children. Severe economic stress that confronts
parents affects children. Having to
move every year and having to worry about whether a family can pay rent
contribute to family problems that affect children. The lack of adequate medical care, the inability to see a doctor
when needed, to get dental and vision services are all factors that compound
disadvantages that some students face.
If
children are hungry, if they are frequently ill, then it is also likely to
affect their social and emotional development.
If children don’t have proper day care, if they’re left in the care of
young siblings, or people not properly trained in day care, then the
environment in which they develop may put them at a disadvantage. If day care is little more than putting them
in front of television, then children will not be receiving the stimulation and
exposure that they need.
If you look at all these possible
factors and recognize that the formation of social skills, emotional
development, and familiarity with the world around them is shaped at a very early
age, then you can understand how important it is that we ensure that children
do grow up in an environment which leaves them ready to learn when they enter
school. The longer we wait to provide interventions and support,
the more behind a child may be and the more difficult it may be to put them on
an equal footing with others. In trying
to understand how the achievement gap
develops, it has become clear that much of what influences the ability to learn is shaped before a child steps foot in
a class room, therefore to change class room outcomes you have to start
influencing development as early as possible.
Other than the benefits to the
children, it may prove that early intervention is a key ingredient in avoiding
other more costly interventions later on.
Our special ed programs are both expensive and notoriously
ineffective. If children can enter
school ready to learn and if that makes them successful, then the need for
expensive remediation efforts later on may well be avoided.
Back
to Top