Re: For the Future of PG County

From: Jacob Andoh
Date: Fri Oct 29, 2004 12:55 pm
Subject: Re: For the Future of PG County

Thanks for the question.

Your question:

" ...... the PG County Education Assosciation is supporting the measure. So are the teachers in the pockets of the big developers or have they been bamboozled with dreams of sugar plums and classrooms?"

Response:

Teachers? No, not necessarily. (I am one of them). I regulartly meet with many teachers in my community and elsewhere in our County who oppose Question H are
appalled by what ACORN and PGCEA appear to be condoning.

The union? Absolutely! PGCEA appears to be hypnotized by ACORN which was, in turn, funded by big moneyed-interests to carry water for them.

Ordinarily, I would admire the merits of your point (anti-parochialism) but facts on the ground and the reality existing in our County classrooms and communities speak otherwise.

Remember the new, huge, mixed-use residential-retail development that is supposed to come soon to Pennsylvannia Avenue?

How many apartment buildings planned? Way too many! How many new homes planned? Way too many! How many new schools planned for the area? You guessed it .... ZERO!

If you live in this affected area will your child's school be overcrowded such that he/she would have to share his/her seat with a recent arrival brought in by
the mega-developers and their brand new, mega development?

Certainly looks like it.

Is concern with parochialism the REAL issue here or acting unilaterally to thwart the expressed will of County voters?

It does not take much research to uncover the fact that Question H is bound to replace existing District-based parochialism benefitting smaller communities with heavily-funded and deep-pockets-distorted parochialism benefitting developers and their paid (read: ACORN) agents and others.

I am casting my NO vote on Question H for one major reason.

To ensure that community residents such as exist in Suitland/Oxon Hill/South County and Hyattsville/Laurel/North County and Kettering/Bowie/Central County get to maintain their single-member Council seats.

Such a seat occupied by a resident who lives in their midst at a minimum will guarantee that a Council member is one totally available and responsive to
them, sees and understands their plight first hand, and is totally responsive to them, not to Rikker and Co, Michael Cos and other big-moneyed, special interests. Parents of small children see this even if you do not.

If parochialism bothers you, you have the right and the opportunity every four years (as afforded by our current single-district representatation) to vote to unseat such (if any) narrow-visioned representative on the Council.

However, do not ask others and I to accept to be represented by an at-large Council member responsible for over 850,000 persons when we can have one responsible for about 90,000 persons.

Vote NO on Question H!

No matter your opinion on the issue, do vote on November 2. Thanks for the dialogue.

Jacob Andoh
jyandoh@yahoo.com