Montgomery County Council PHP Committee recommends against funding Office of the People's Counsel

The Montgomery County Council's Planning Housing & Parks Committee has recommended against restoring funding for the Office of the People's Counsel in the FY-2024 budget. Not funded since 2010, the Office of the People's Counsel provided a land-use attorney who could assist the public on land-use matters, and represent their interests at administrative hearings. Committee members Andrew Friedson (D - District 1) - who serves as chair, Natali Fani-Gonzalez (D - District 6) and Will Jawando (D - At-Large) extensively criticized the office of County Executive Marc Elrich for not working with the Council to define what the People's Counsel position should be, despite the fact that the office falls under the legislative branch and not the executive branch.

It was claimed that a tight budget year would also be a hindrance to restoring funding. In reality, the funding sought by Elrich for the People's Counsel represents only 0.0004% of the entire FY-2024 operating budget.

Committee members had some novel ideas as to why the office should not be restored at this time. Jawando appeared unfamiliar with the Office of the People's Counsel as it was constituted in the past, claiming the executive branch had failed to enlighten the Council on this since it was discussed a year ago. He also echoed a talking point used by a lobbyist for developers, that certain resident groups whom he did not identify would use the office to stop development.

Fani-Gonzalez, amid chewing out executive branch representative Meredith Wellington, said there is no need for a People's Counsel to assist and represent residents' interests in land-use matters because the councilmembers already do that. Alas, none of the eleven councilmembers is a licensed land-use attorney, which is the whole point and defining characteristic of the People's Counsel. Fani-Gonzalez also created an awkward moment while chastising Wellington. One of the youngest past commissioners on the Montgomery County Planning Board, and now one of the youngest people to serve on the County Council, Fani-Gonzalez described septuagenarian Wellington as having been on the Planning Board "thirty years ago. A long time." "I was there until 2008," Wellington responded. "Oh, there you go," Fani-Gonzalez replied. "It feels like ages ago." 

Friedson, who has been feted at fundraising parties hosted by developers, had made his revulsion toward the Office of the People's Counsel clear long before the committee meeting. He actually introduced a bill this spring to permanently kill the position altogether. Everybody who has been paying attention knows what the office was, yet the Council keeps hiding behind a musty, old Office of Legislative Oversight report that didn't even say what they claim it said about the position. In fact, the OLO report never suggested defunding the office!

The unanimous opposition of the PHP Committee to restoring the Office of the People's Counsel was particularly astonishing given that 90% of the residents who testified on the matter before the Council last month favored funding the position. Once again, the Council - like the Planning Board - is openly legislating against the wishes of a majority of its constituents. How long this thumbing of the nose at residents can continue is ultimately up to the voters of Montgomery County.

All eleven councilmembers will vote on the question of the People's Counsel at their Thursday, May 11, 2023 meeting, and will have to go on the record at that time. The vote will be especially awkward for councilmembers who had promised the Montgomery County Civic Federation to restore the Office of the People's Counsel in interviews prior to the 2022 election. 

There is a palpable fear among some on the Council, and their developer sugar daddies, of having an Office of the People's Counsel in place during the upcoming process of ramming through the zoning text amendments that will weaponize the controversial Thrive 2050 plan. Those ZTAs that will make it possible to build market-rate multifamily housing within single-family home neighborhoods, a tactic that has failed to lower housing costs in the few jurisdictions that have employed it.