I can agree with Stephen Meskin's letter of Feb. 25 on only two points. First, that citizens have a right to bring matters to referendum. Second, that the use of the referendum has served many valuable purposes over the years. Recent use of the referendum finally settled the statewide debate on slot-machine gambling, and allowed the establishment of procedures for early voting.

But I will make an important point that Mr. Meskin fails to address, one that ultimately undercuts the point of his letter. That is, that the referendum is useful if used for a purpose in which the wishes of the public have clearly not been served.

In the case of redevelopment of downtown Columbia, the subject of Mr. Meskin's group's efforts, this simply is not the case. The legislation enacted last month was the product of decades of thought and discussion, and over five years of active efforts. It has involved hundreds of stakeholders and has withstood the scrutiny of an exhaustive process. This legislation wasn't rushed; it went through considerable revision and ultimately was passed unanimously by a bipartisan County Council.

The only people I perceive are unhappy with this process and product are a handful of people who appear to be bound together by their fear of progress and the love of their own voices. While I do not know Mr. Meskin personally, I would advise him against casting his lot with this group. For apparently, their notion of progress consists of continuing to deny opportunities for affordable housing, business development and managed growth in Howard County.

So while the referendum itself is a noble tool, like any other tool, it can be abused when placed in irresponsible hands. I find the goals of the proponents of this effort irresponsible.

Bill Woodcock

Oakland Mills

user comments (31)

user patdornan says...

Well said, sir. And, the people will let the organizers of a referendum know that. Last year's state-wide speed camera referendum was a fine example. For reasons I will never understand, the organizers were unable to get the issue placed on the ballot. It most surely should have been, but they couldn't get the signatures. I sought out the opportunity to sign that one, and called people to tell them where they could sign it. To no avail. The petition in question this time is unlikely to prevail as well, but this time for the very good reasons you articulated.

Posted 9:58 AM, 03.05.10 | Permalink

user mdcommish says...

No one is arguing against progress, its the costs associated with the plan. Housing projects bring many problems with them, among them crime and blight.

Posted 12:21 PM, 03.06.10 | Permalink

user david14750 says...

MDcommish, exactly what "housing projects" are you referring to? There are certainly none planned for the new downtown. The land is far too valuable (as you and the other "bailout" accusers have pointed out). The affordable housing that will be built will be in the $40K-$80K income range - hardly the projects. Given that they'll be studio and one-bedroom units, $40K-$80K will attract young singles or couples that are downright middle class even for HoCo. Your assertion that there will be housing projects and crime and blight is not a truthful statement, whcih makes that claim similar to the misinformation that's being used to gather signatures for the petition. And please don't bother responding to this post unless you can do it with facts that support your claim that housing projects are coming to downtown Columbia and can do so without name-calling.

Posted 7:53 PM, 03.09.10 | Permalink

user independent says...

Housing project can be interpreted to describe density development, not necessarily low income housing. That said, the best laid plans cannot be enforced and some argue with validity that the current GGP plan passed by our elected council is less than the best.

Posted 7:16 AM, 03.10.10 | Permalink

user david14750 says...

Ind, you are far too sharp to actually believe commish's reference to housing projects and tying that to crime and blight was just a general statement about density? It's clear that he was misrepresenting what was going to be built, sterotyping that as bringing crime and blight all in attempt to scare people. If you don't want denisity and prefer Town Center remain a suburban town, that's a sincere preference and agrument against the plan. But misrepresenting facts to further the agenda is not sincere at all.

Posted 7:46 AM, 03.10.10 | Permalink

user mdcommish says...

Dave, your assertion that you actually "live" in Columbia is disturbing, now that we've debunked (multiple times) that A you don't live in Columbia, and B you're a special interest looking to profit at the expense of taxpayers. Who in the right mind would buy a studio condo for $400,000+ with roughly $8,000+ in county, state, and condo taxes and fees? When this falters, they will be converted to Sec. 8, because Uncle Sam always pays his bills on time. Dave, you argued for those of us to come with facts, and we have exposing the truth about you, a "pompous" idividual who lives in Woodbine looking to turn a quick buck at the taxpayers expense. Sorry Dave, this isn't Burger King, you can't have it YOUR way.

Posted 10:07 AM, 03.10.10 | Permalink

user david14750 says...

When did I assert that I live in Columbia? Guarantee you I never have and have bent over backwards to be transparent as to who I am, where I live and what I do for a living. Yet another misrepresentation from you Mr. Anonmous. And now we all see your "facts" - which are actually your "opinion" that nobody will buy the units and they'll be converted to Sec. 8 (as has happended so many other times in Howard Co). We also see that yet again, your post consisted of opinion stated as fact followed by personal attacks. Glad the readers are getting a sense of who is driving the opposition.

Posted 4:14 PM, 03.10.10 | Permalink

user brian says...

David might not live in Columbia, but I guarantee you he loves it just as much as anybody. He does not deserve these unfounded, vicious attacks by mdcommish. I think a moderator (or editor) should investigate whether the person using this pseudonym has violated the terms of this board.

Posted 11:13 PM, 03.10.10 | Permalink

user mdcommish says...

Brian, I know you and many of your cronies within the sham group you call new city alliance believe the electorate can be bypassed; as you put it "would be the death of the county if development is stalled". Let me tell what won't be bypassed...that's the Constitution. People have died to those rights protected through perpetuity. It is a 1A right to be on this board and post in annonymity. Those in your camp who have revealed themselves did so believing they had the moral high ground in doing so. Too bad the truth has been revealed.

Posted 1:53 AM, 03.11.10 | Permalink

user wildelakemike says...

It is your right, mdcommish, to remain anonymous. It is our right to ignore your unsubstantiated, personal attacks as a method of argument. There is no place for such false and defamatory tactics in this debate.

Posted 6:52 AM, 03.11.10 | Permalink

user independent says...

90% of readers likely long vacated this string, check the most read list. People don't like negativity. It would be wise to take a cue from the publishers of this paper who are still in business.

Posted 8:47 AM, 03.11.10 | Permalink

user independent says...

Patdornan, please clarify your original post regarding referendum efforts. Are you in favor of voter's use of this tool, or only in favor in some cases?

Posted 8:54 AM, 03.11.10 | Permalink

user independent says...

Someone has to say it. Countering name calling with name calling is ineffective. People on both sides of this issue are equally guilty, so countering statements by naming only one commenter is also ineffective.

Posted 8:58 AM, 03.11.10 | Permalink

user wildelakemike says...

Independent, your question to Pat Dorman would suggest an either/or situation. My answer to your questions would be that I endorse and support the right to petition for referendum, but that does not mean I would support every referendum. Regarding the petition to bring CB59 to referendum, it is my opinion that such an effort is ill advised, and I would encourage people not to sign such a petition. But my generalized support of the right of citizens to petition for referendum is not affected by my opposition to this particular referendum drive.

Posted 9:24 AM, 03.11.10 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

Commish's personal attacks on David have gone way over the line. We've all done some name-calling on occasion (except Ind who just uses big words), but this is way beyond that. Sure he does seem to know more about the issues than most so he's probably the authority among his totally uninformed friends and coworkers. Look back at this and many other strings. The personal attacks always come out when he's backed into a corner by someone who asks a specific question he can't (or won't) answer. My first reaction was to contact the editors and get him kicked off this board, but then I realized that every time he posts he makes our job easier because he just shines the light on how angry, paranoid and devoid of full understanding the the opposition is. Commish, you're nothing but an uninformed bully.

Posted 9:59 AM, 03.11.10 | Permalink

user patdornan says...

@Independent - the referendum is a tool any citizens can use any time to attempt to bring legislation to the ballot for consideration by the voters. I strongly support our right to referendum, and also support the right to recall elected officials who govern against the will of the voters, which we do not have.

Posted 11:00 AM, 03.11.10 | Permalink

user david14750 says...

I'm not sure how I feel about Commish's post from last night getting removed by the site administrator. Yes, it was awful and likely against the rules of engagement on this site. But it show the opposition's true colors whcih is a good thing for those of us working hard to get the facts out.

Posted 11:36 AM, 03.11.10 | Permalink

user mdcommish says...

Nonsense-Bully? What are you 5? ROTFLMAO Let me remind you of the Constitution and the truth avails any lebelious acts you call attacks. If I make the statement Dave is a terrible driver, that may come off as libel until I highlight his driving reccord of constantly running stop signs. Seriously, thanks for the donation Dave! Back to the issues though, those in your camp continue to engineer facts, and now that the truth has come out you're crying like a little baby. Grow up...

Posted 10:03 PM, 03.11.10 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

It says alot that your post from Tuesday night is the only one I've ever seen get deleted from this message board. Congrats on winning the prize as the most innapropriate and unhinged poster. Also for your ability to use CaseSearch. Ah, if you only had the guts to expose yourself to the same scrutiny you coward, You've actually become quite a well-known voice of the opposition among elected officials and other relevant people from both parties and all appreciate the comic relief your posts add to what is otherwise a serious debate.

Posted 11:42 PM, 03.11.10 | Permalink

user columbiauser says...

Commish, personal attacks are the last bastion of a losing argument. Let's move this discussion to a different level.

Posted 7:42 AM, 03.12.10 | Permalink

user mdcommish says...

Nonsense-that was good spin, but notice I'm still posting as I didn't violate the TOS. Sorry you're still living in the past of your high school days of getting picked on....apparently you never learned to close your mouth

Posted 2:21 PM, 03.12.10 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

Never said YOU got deleted, just your comment. I see reading isn't your strong suit.

Posted 9:24 AM, 03.13.10 | Permalink

user patdornan says...

I had a post removed from this very thread - I told mdcommish what I thought of his/her sick comments. My post didn't see the light of day, but I hope I was the catalyst for mdcommish's getting deleted as well. I applaud the moderator's policing of this board. Perhaps Mr/Ms commish will grow up now.

Posted 2:25 PM, 03.13.10 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

I said it was my first reaction then I decided otherwise. Now I see you're attacking Pat personally. You are such a coward.

Posted 5:07 PM, 03.13.10 | Permalink

user mdcommish says...

Once again...good spin! no ones buying it....

Posted 6:48 PM, 03.13.10 | Permalink

user patdornan says...

OK Ms. Commish - THAT could very well be considered a threat. You are are VERY thin ice here.

Posted 9:53 AM, 03.14.10 | Permalink

user patdornan says...

A complaint against mdcommish has been filed with the Internet Crime Complaint Center. I want this clown removed from this forum.

Posted 10:47 AM, 03.14.10 | Permalink

user mdcommish says...

Pat, that was simply me applauding our brothers in blue for "looking beyond the plate" when rapidly turning a routine traffic stop for speeding into an aggressive criminal investigation, and ultimately removing uninsured drivers from the road. That's tax $ well spent, in my opinion.

Posted 2:39 AM, 03.16.10 | Permalink

user independent says...

Pat, your comments are more inflammatory than md commish at this point. Please take a look at what you've said.

Posted 6:31 AM, 03.16.10 | Permalink

user columbiauser says...

Commish and Independent, when implicit threats are considered appropriate behavior on this blog, it's time to shut the blog down. Commish made such a threat. And, Independent, your support of such behavior is surprising, to say the very least!

Posted 8:50 AM, 03.16.10 | Permalink

user patdornan says...

@independent - I disagree. After what mdcommish wrote (the threatening material as well as the reference to another poster's marital situation, all of which has been deleted by the editors), as well as his/her general attitude, I feel my words and actions are more than justified. Interesting it is to see those that I do not know coming to my defense, isn't it? Do you think it is unreasonable to believe that it is possible mdcommish researched whether "Pat" is Patrick or Patricia. Do you think he/she just guessed what type of vehicle I drive? And, earlier today, mdcommish babbles incoherently about the police removing uninsured drivers from the road? This thread has nothing to do with whatever he is referring to!!!! His words were a legitimate threat to me and my property, and were dealt with accordingly. Those of you whining "Choose Civility" best look in the mirror, as this has gotten WAY out of hand!

Posted 8:53 AM, 03.16.10 | Permalink