Charles County Charter

[FISHTAIL]

So, I've been seeing LOTS of signs lately opposing the charter. What's the major argument against it? On paper, having a legislative and executive branch of local government, where the legislative branch is at least partially by district, doesn't seem like a terrible idea. I'm not a big fan of the timing, IMO, the short term given the first appointed counsel will likely be somewhat problematic, but still. What are the major arguments for/against? I have found references to a town meeting that supposedly covered that, but no real details.

 

[FollowTheMoney]

A charter is one big municipality. Think of Montgomery County. Instead of Annapolis, through the delegates, dealing with all the requests for whatever laws specific to the local area are decided, the local municipality (authorized by the state) get to make those decisions for themselves. This means that a municipality could, increase taxes, create all sorts liberty stealing, rights encroaching, crazy, zany, feel good, types of ordinances, (called local law). You could also get your own police department to supplant the local sheriff office. Yup, sure could. It's the states way of saying that they are too lazy to do the people's business and are happy to let counties take over some of their responsibilities.

 

[FISHTAIL]

A charter is one big municipality. Think of Montgomery County. Instead of Annapolis, through the delegates, dealing with all the requests for whatever laws specific to the local area are decided, the local municipality (authorized by the state) get to make those decisions for themselves. This means that a municipality could, increase taxes, create all sorts liberty stealing, rights encroaching, crazy, zany, feel good, types of ordinances, (called local law). You could also get your own police department to supplant the local sheriff office. Yup, sure could. It's the states way of saying that they are too lazy to do the people's business and are happy to let counties take over some of their responsibilities.

Well, how much freedom they have for that sort of thing is governed by the charter under which they are bound. I'm aware of how it is supposed to work, what I wanted to see were all the pro/con arguments against the one that's been drafted. I'm guessing it's not very good given all the negative signs I've seen, and none in support.

So yes, the local's can enact local laws, instead of mostly relying on the state. That can be good or bad, it really depends on the quality of idiot we vote into the chamber. Honestly, whether such a thing is good or bad really can vary, as it gives the local government more control over the county. But it can also limit the government depending on how the charter is drafted. Additionally, I'm pretty sure that the county can already enact local laws, like the no BB gun within 500ft of a residence thing, it's just a different process now as I understand.

I figured there would be more specific arguments against aside from "if it's abused it could be bad". That goes for all government.

 

[tommyjo]

Well, how much freedom they have for that sort of thing is governed by the charter under which they are bound. I'm aware of how it is supposed to work, what I wanted to see were all the pro/con arguments against the one that's been drafted. I'm guessing it's not very good given all the negative signs I've seen, and none in support.

So yes, the local's can enact local laws, instead of mostly relying on the state. That can be good or bad, it really depends on the quality of idiot we vote into the chamber. Honestly, whether such a thing is good or bad really can vary, as it gives the local government more control over the county. But it can also limit the government depending on how the charter is drafted. Additionally, I'm pretty sure that the county can already enact local laws, like the no BB gun within 500ft of a residence thing, it's just a different process now as I understand.

I figured there would be more specific arguments against aside from "if it's abused it could be bad". That goes for all government.

Why would you look for a reasonable, informed opinion on this site?

 

[FollowTheMoney]

Ok, sorry. How about this. Not having a charter slows down the law making process, some see this as good, for what counties ask the state to allow them to do. Often times ideas are rejected and are not implemented. Also, the counties are unusually limited to the number of proposals they send to Annapolis for consideration due to other priorities that state may have and the sheer number total from other counties.. The state in this case is a good road bump.

Whereas, if decisions are made locally, they can be made hastily and without much public input, too many feelings can get involved, can be railroaded to a vote, or the public doesn't know of said discussions until it is too late. Kinda like it is now, only worse I think. So, I think, if you want faster a process to "governing" then charter is a way to go. If you want there to be a mechanism to keep the process slow with a greater checks and balance, then no charter.

A charter just moves more of the process of local governing from the state to the local level.

But don't forget, charters can be amended by a vote at the ballot. And we all know that everyone voting is educated on all matters politic.

 

[Gilligan]

Why would you look for a reasonable, informed opinion on this site?

Because your demented arse is here..of course!

 

[Lurk]

One of the most telling reasons to not support Charter government is the sorry fact that so many County Executives manage to get themselves thrown in prison for embezzeling and otherwise stealing from the public purse. Funny that happens, especially in some of the largest minority-majority populated communities.

 

[FISHTAIL]

Why would you look for a reasonable, informed opinion on this site?

lol, touche sir.

 

[FISHTAIL]

Ok, sorry. How about this. Not having a charter slows down the law making process, some see this as good, for what counties ask the state to allow them to do. Often times ideas are rejected and are not implemented. Also, the counties are unusually limited to the number of proposals they send to Annapolis for consideration due to other priorities that state may have and the sheer number total from other counties.. The state in this case is a good road bump.

Whereas, if decisions are made locally, they can be made hastily and without much public input, too many feelings can get involved, can be railroaded to a vote, or the public doesn't know of said discussions until it is too late. Kinda like it is now, only worse I think. So, I think, if you want faster a process to "governing" then charter is a way to go. If you want there to be a mechanism to keep the process slow with a greater checks and balance, then no charter.

A charter just moves more of the process of local governing from the state to the local level.

But don't forget, charters can be amended by a vote at the ballot. And we all know that everyone voting is educated on all matters politic.

I see your point. Thanks for the perspective. I haven't had much time to read up on everything this year because we've been so busy with the new rug rat. And I hate going into the polls uninformed. I swear people that do that cause most of our problems with elected officials.

Anyway, thanks for the input guys.