Politics
3 questions with Md. delegate candidate Scott Goldberg
Scott Goldberg is a candidate for the Maryland House of Delegates, District 16, which includes Bethesda. Scott lives in downtown Bethesda, and founded his own small property management company.
At his campaign kickoff, he expressed his support for the Purple Line in addition to detailed visions for alternative energy initiatives in Maryland. After the event, he enthusiastically explained some of his positions on issues for southwestern Montgomery County and the state.
1. What do you foresee as the the largest challenge to bringing the Purple Line as endorsed by Governor O'Malley, a project that you support, to groundbreaking?
According to the Purple Line engineering team, the metrics are in place for the FTA to fund the Purple Line. I believe that both Montgomery and Prince George's Counties will come through with funding on their end. My biggest concern is the ICC's fiscal situation. Like you, I question whether the ICC tolls will pay for the road's debt service. If the tolls aren't enough, the bond payments will further eat away at Maryland's transportation fund. Currently, ICC construction is on schedule for completion as the Purple Line finishes its engineering phase. As a member of the Maryland House of Delegates, I will work to responsibly appropriate adequate state funding to ensure that the Purple Line moves from engineering to groundbreaking.
Montgomery County has recently put a lot of emphasis on job growth in the biotech sector. The Purple Line will provide a major competitive advantage for the county and state because it will connect the NIH and private biotech companies in western Montgomery County with the tremendous human capital and research initiatives at the University of Maryland, in addition to points in between and east.
2. On your website, you endorse using more solar power as part of our strategy to become energy independent and carbon-neutral. How would such a Goldberg Plan work?
We would use a part of Maryland's rainy day fund as collateral at Maryland banks to borrow money at low interest rates for Maryland businesses to install panels on the roofs of state buildings. The funds would be extended to all Maryland counties and Baltimore to install solar panels on county (and Baltimore City) buildings.
County buildings include schools, which use less energy when students are on summer break. In the long run, Maryland will make money from selling the energy from the solar panels back to the grid.
I am also against drilling for oil off the east coast of the United States. I like Old Bay on my [Maryland Blue] crabs, not crude oil. I want future generations to enjoy the bounty of the Chesapeake Bay.
3. Recently, the Washington Post took note that Maryland's smart growth laws have been "toothless." As a delegate, what steps would you take to encourage other Maryland jurisdictions to enjoy the successes of Bethesda rather than the current car-dependent gridlock in neighboring Fairfax County, Virginia?
The Maryland House of Delegates has the state's purse strings. We should use the power of the purse to encourage Maryland jurisdictions to engage in Smart Growth planning.
For example, Prince George's County wants the state to help funding their hospital system. If Maryland contributes funding to the county, they should look for something in return. The state should require Prince George's County to plan new sustainable, traditional human-scale towns around their Metro stations. Maryland spent billions in previous decades and also pays the yearly WMATA operating and capital subsidy. The state should get more return for the investments.
We have learned that car-dependent sprawl doesn't work here in Montgomery County because the road construction and maintenance costs are threatening to be more than we can afford. We know that Maryland won't be able to afford lots of new road projects to create more car-dependent sprawl 25 years from now. Investing in our existing traditional towns and transit-oriented infill is far more cost-effective in the long term, as our experience with Bethesda has shown.
Disclosure: I reside in District 18.
Comments
- Cyclists are special and do have their own rules
- M Street cycle track keeps improving, draws church anger
- O'Malley announces first projects using new gas tax money
- Can Loudoun grow while protecting its rural areas?
- Silver Spring mall could get massive facelift, new name
- ICC losing bus service in classic bait and switch
- WMATA launches "Short Trip" rail pass on SmarTrip






(I know this has little to do with MoCo, but I agree with Goldberg's point about better development around Metro Stations)
by C. R. on May 27, 2010 6:51 pm • link • report
by Cyrus on May 27, 2010 9:29 pm • link • report
by James on May 28, 2010 1:10 pm • link • report
Respectfully, I think you are incorrect in saying that the ICC is being funded out of MdTa tolls. That is only partially true. According to AASHTO, the ICC's funding sources are:
"Federal funds
GARVEE bonds - $750 million (backed by future Federal aid receipts)
Special Federal funds - $19 million (National Corridor Planning and Border Infrastructure Program funding, SAFETEA-LU National Corridor Improvement Program and high priority project funding)
Additional funds from GARVEE sale - $17 million
State funds:
MdTA Toll Revenue bonds - $716 million (backed by future MdTA system toll revenue)
TIFIA loan - $516 million (backed by future MdTA system toll revenue)
State of Maryland Transportation Trust Fund - $180 million (motor fuel tax receipts, motor vehicle excise taxes, motor vehicle fees, corporate income taxes, operating revenues)
State of Maryland General Fund - $265 million
Future Anticipated Funding - $103 million"
(http://www.transportation-finance.org/projects/inter_county_connector.aspx)
This breaks out to roughly 52% of the cost of the ICC coming from non-MdTa toll revenue sources.
Regardless of the ICC sucking up most of the state's future toll revenue to support just one highway, it crowds out other projects that the federal funds or the state's general fund could have been used for. This means a dimmer outlook for the new road projects you mentioned (as well as the transit projects I would prefer). All of this for a highway that will generate additional congestion, emissions, and frustration. Yes new jobs will be generated, however the benefits of alternative projects outweighed the benefits of the ICC. Your argument is using a false question, MD did not have to choose between the ICC or the status quo. MD chose the ICC from a menu of options that all had their marginal costs and benefits when compared to the ICC. Personally, I think Ehrlich chose incorrectly.
by AdamG on May 28, 2010 2:01 pm • link • report
As candidate Goldberg says, we need to make sure that he doesn't get his wish by responsibly appropriating state funds.
by Cavan on May 28, 2010 2:06 pm • link • report
The ICC is crucial to the creation of 100,000 new jobs in Montgomery County. The Purple Line will create minimal new jobs from the office space already approved to be built in Silver Spring and Bethesda. I do not refute the benefits of the Purple Line for regional mobility and I support the project, however, it will not create significant new jobs in Montgomery County. The main benefit is to raise local property values and allowing for the redevelopment of low-quality low-income housing stock into luxury housing. Both projects will raise significant tax revenues for the county government and both projects are essential to economic prosperity in Montgomery County. Please do not use ACT/NBM tactics to marginalize other viewpoints.
by Cyrus on May 29, 2010 1:43 pm • link • report
Their main goal is to Sabotage ALL Forms of Revenue, Business, and Economic Growth in Maryland while promoting it in Virginia........
Soo this Character reppin' Bethesda is nothing but a Maryland Hating Opportunist possibly being sponsored by the Powers that be from Northern Virginia........
by tim on Jun 2, 2010 11:26 pm • link • report
Add a Comment