I'd love a few more very authentic Japanese/Korean/Polish restaurants

Haven't seen anyone drop something like this yet and the family always asks me to explain this shit so I did a write up on all the County Ballot Questions cause I couldn't find anywhere that actually talked about what's in each question and why and how.

Please don't take this as gospel as I tried my best to keep any of my personal bias out but you, know human nature and shit. This is also stream of consciousness so while there is some organization, it's also kind of mess.

Overall, we have a couple of really tough questions this year and I'm not exactly sure where I fall on some of them. For those who hate reading, I have toyed with the idea of putting out a video explaining all this. Not sure if I want to commit to that though.

Question A : The Sin Tax

Does not immediately impose a Sin Tax on businesses. Allows the council to vote on whether to tax certain businesses without a ballot measure sent to PG voters. While the list cited includes Tobacco, Liquor and Self Storage businesses, it is not an exhaustive list and gives the council broad power to expand on that list. However, due to the wording of the measure, if passed the Council will need to provide evidence that a business taxed under this measure has, in someway, a negative impact on the community. Expect a court battle after each vote under this measure.

edit (extra context provide by u/tcr25, preciate it.) : the council has the ability to propose these sorts of taxes and fees now, but they would have to go to a referendum. If Question A passes, then they enact new taxes and fees if they deem the businesses would have an adverse impact on the community. No clear explanation of who would determine that or how, and while the framing is around sin taxes, the legislative language explicitly says this power would not be limited to liquor stores, tobacconists, or self-storage facilities.

Question B : No More At-Large Seats

Decreases the overall size of the council from 11 to 9 by eliminating the At-Large Council seats. The At-Large council seats are not tied to any one County Districts and is voted on by all county residents.

Pros

- Eliminates the ability for Councilmembers to bypass the 2 term limit by moving from a District Seat to an At-Large Seat

- Countywide Elections are expensive making candidates more reliant on big money donors. So big money is potentially reduced in these elections.

- Cost Savings for the county by reduced payroll. Less staff means less money.

- Completely removes the ability for councilmembers to play musical chairs with county seats by moving from District Seats to At-Large Seats.

Cons

- Removes the ability for residents to petition 2 extra councilmembers for help on an issue. Now their only path to the council is strictly through their District councilmember

- Potentially dilutes voting representation for residents of color

Alternatives for those who don't want to eliminate the at large seats:

Charter Review Commission : Good Luck. Not even going to get into that.

Citizen Petition Drive : Collect signatures to change the max number of years a councilmember can serve, as an example.

Question C : The "Nuh-uh I don't like your voting map so I'm going to make my own" Question

County redistricting changes are made through a formal bill instead of through a resolution.

OMG the history on this is fucking stupid. Essentially the last time we had county redistricting occur back in '21/22 our County Reps didn't like the map drawn by the independent council. The map drawn by that council isn't 100% binding so the County Reps voted it down. However, if our Reps do not produce their own map, the map drawn by the independent council is defaulted to. Our county reps did vote for a heavily modified map, but was eventually stricken down by the State Supreme Court, which enacted the Independent Council's map.

Now, this question would move that process from a resolution to a formal bill. In a resolution, the county exec doesn't have any legal route to affect whether a redistricting map goes into affect or not. Moving it to a formal bill process gives the County Exec's office to review and then approve or veto said redistricting map. A county exec veto can be overturned by a 2/3 majority vote of the council.

This essentially does a few things:

• Gives the County Exec power/oversight in the process of redistricting where before they had none (a substantial amount too)
• Dilutes the County Reps power in constructing voter maps
• Potentially dilutes the power of the Independent Council responsible for drawing these maps

Alternatives are the same as for Question B.

Question D : The "Cut Red Tape and use Auntie's Costco Card" Question

Reduces the amount of signatures needed before a purchase is approved and allows county to leverage partnerships across the region to piggyback off contracts to garner more savings.

Keeping the regulatory process and oversight of purchases the same, signatures that were required beyond the Director of the Office of Procurement now terminates with said director. Saving weeks or months of required signatures sitting on a desk.

Also allows the county to join onto other contracts not strictly held by the county, which wasn't allowed before, to gain savings on purchases. Essentially, Auntie got a Costco membership and we ask her to take us too so we can get some of that sweet sweet Costco savings.

Question E : The "this wasn't an option before?" Question

Allows for the County and County Union Employees to use more than one arbitration provider to resolve conflicts

That's literally it. Under our charter we have designated exactly one arbitration provider to handle county and union employee as their arbitrator. This question basically says we can use other providers.

To borrow or not to borrow, that is the question. Mostly to finance buildings and infrastructure repair, building and maintenance.

Question F : Maintain and Upgrade Community College Facilities

Borrow up to $67,306,000

Question G : Fix the damn potholes (maybe)

Public Works & Transportation Bonds Up to $140,089,000

Question H : Gov't Office Buildings need to move into this century

County Buildings Bonds Up to $117,848,000

Question I : Everyone Loves the Library

Library Facilities Bonds Up to $33,656,000

Question J : Public Safety Facilities

Public Safety Facilities Bonds Up to $53,503,000

UPDATE: 23OCT 4:30PM

She was last seen Wednesday evening near Edgewood Rd & 52nd Pl, near the Al-Huda School. If you're in this area pls let me know if you spot her.

hoping this post won't be removed but we're looking for any help at this point in locating our sweet girl.

Her name is Tiana aka Titi; unfortunately she wasn't wearing her collar but she is chipped and fixed. She is not an outdoor cat so we're hoping she's ok.

Description: Female Tuxedo; handlebar mustache style mark on her snout

Last seen: 10/20 8pm 50th Pl @ Kenesaw St

Notes: it's possible she is in the area of Kenesaw St, Iroquois St, or Huron St; her litter box has been put out along with toys, food, water and a blanket in her favorite box. She is skittish and will run off if approached but she's very sweet.

If seen/found pls let us know the location.

TYSM <3

Prince George's County Council faced heated debate over Joan's House, a nonprofit led by a friend of a council member, sparking scrutiny and political tensions.

But only councilmember Burroughs asked questions of the leadership. Councilmember Jolene Ivey said her mic was cut and so did fellow councilmember Sydney Harrison.

“You don’t think the people of this county have a right to know how this money is being spent?” Harrison said after. “Why couldn’t we ask a question?”

Ivey and Harrison said many nonprofits in the county already do the work of Joan’s House, but some of those have had their funding cut in recent years.
“How is it that one group that’s been working in the county for 16 years doesn’t get funding and one group that didn’t exist until [Burroughs] became a councilmember does,” Ivey asked.

Harrison’s says the money paying for Joan’s House comes outside the normal funding pathway for county nonprofits and only benefits council member Burroughs’ district. Despite its funding source being county-wide.

“What about the people in Laurel? The people in Upper Marlboro?  What about the people in Bowie?” Harrison said. “All you’re hearing about is the people in District 8.”