Agreed that there's merits both ways and it's not a clear answer. I was initially a "soft no" because I see it as a false solution to the real problem you describe, and moved to "firm no" when I began thinking of it as more undemocratic than the alternative. It wouldn't be the worst thing to pass, though, and I think it has a good chance based on general pessimism towards city government alone.

Vote no on question K. Not because our politicians are great, not because bad people support it, but because it reduces voter choice and doesn't solve any problems.

Limiting terms might get Stokes and other do-nothing name recognition politicians out of office, but it will also limit the terms of people who do a good job representing their constituents and/or have a wealth of experience. Why shouldn't I be allowed to reelect someone I like for real reasons if I want to? Further, this will do nothing whatsoever to improve the quality of candidates that will replace the term limited ones. The developers and grifters funding the current asshole you want out will never run out of replacement assholes to fund. Real change requires a sustained political fight, and it still will with term limits.

Only a very small portion of voters participate in the primaries, where elections are decided in this one party town. Stokes won his primary by receiving just over 8k votes. If you want to get the dead weight out of office, do it by utilizing voter choice, not limiting it.

Having to pay for people from out of town to shut down our city and run around it is a valid complaint.

Many people running the marathon don't give a single shit about the impact the race has on locals, and they'll tell you so to your face.

"I'm just asking an honest question"

Nah, you're looking for a reason to be confrontational.

>Lol I’m sorry - better restaurants and architecture?? Have you been to DC? DC is 100% safer

Nothing whatsoever to do with restaurants and architecture.

> You must not be from around here if you think Baltimore suburbs aren’t strip malls

We're talking about the city, not the suburbs.

You're willing to make quite a reach to talk shit about Baltimore.

Be persistent. Email is a good start because you have something in writing. A record is good. Call as well, and write down the date and time when you do to continue that record.

You didn't mention that you're renting in the original post. Don't call the city, that's a waste of time. Call the landlord, they have plenty of enforcement power and might do something.

Yeah, I understand perfectly well how it works without you restating it in caps. You're just mad because an attempt was made to make your income a little less passive.

... That's what the article is about. You're acting like you've made some kind of great comeback by restating the premise of the discussion. I guess you gave up trying to argue you shouldn't have to manage your own property.

I don't have sympathy for you. This is your business, you own and profit from this lot. This is your job, same as a landlord maintaining the house they rent. We should not allow predatory towing companies free reign in this city for your convenience. Install a gate.

A security guard doesn't patrol other people's lots looking for people to tow unsolicited.

If you own the lot and you're renting me space, you'd be the one to call, not me. You're shifting responsibility.

Why shouldn't the owner have to call every time? You own the lot, you profit from it, is it not your responsibility? We shouldn't allow predatory practices from towing companies just to save people from having to monitor their own property.