They suck, but they're not the worst. Take this with a grain of salt, though, because I organize tenants against their slumlords and know what the worst really is. I moved in to an apartment with a broken fridge and had to replace it myself as it's not included in the lease. Took 3 weeks of calls to get them to remove the old fridge as promised. They were fairly quick to respond to a leak. The property had heat pump heating which is not appropriate for such a cold climate- couldn't use it in the coldest months because it stayed on "emergency heat" always and cost $400 in BGE bills. They're certainly out to spend as little money as legally possible on their properties.

Read your lease carefully, because anything not in there, they'll tell you to go fuck yourself. Besides that, though, they did take care of the essentials and didn't try to steal from me or take money they weren't entitled to.

Female is not a noun, for fucks sake.

This is gonna blow your fuckin' mind, but get this- the city of Baltimore is capable of doing multiple things at once.

Statistics don't tell the whole story. Who's getting murdered? Mostly people connected to the drug trade, in places where that trade is happening, at night. If that doesn't describe you, you don't need to worry much about the murder rate.

I don't know for sure, but I doubt a law passed for Baltimore city would apply to higher offices.

This new policy will change nothing. If people weren't electing effective leaders before, there's no reason to expect they'll start now.

>There are a couple issues with that. First of all, different people's opinions vary on who is considered a good politician.

That's not really relevant. Whoever you think the good ones are, they're gone. Doesn't matter if we agree on who.

> Secondly, the bill allows for 8 years in city council, an additional 8 years as city council president and an additional 8 years as mayor. A truly good politician can stay in office for 24 years! They can also run again for whatever office they had after sitting out for 8 years.

Not a consolation prize. I'd reelect my councilperson indefinitely, but they wouldn't make a good mayor or president. Now that choice has been taken away.

If this only removed the bad politicians, it would be great policy. Unfortunately it indiscriminately removes everyone after 8 years.

Totally plausible it was a fox!

I live between Clifton and Herring Run park and I see foxes on a regular basis while walking the dogs late at night. Just last week I had a particularly fearless one that was stalking some stray cats.

I'd also seen one before when I lived near Greenmount Cemetery, but not regularly like where I am now.

First off, I'm a Baltimore city voter, and go fuck yourself. Secondly, how do you think this is gonna get better people in office if nothing has changed about the voters?

Question K isn't a referendum on the government, it's deciding whether or not to let voters keep a representative as long as they choose. It will lead to near 100% turnover in city government 8 years from now, which will be a disaster, and we'll indiscriminately force out good people along with bad.

If you think a politician needs to go, vote them out. Not that many people in this city vote, so yours is worth a lot.

Ok, but are you gonna make the argument that it's good policy?

It's not the same thing at all. All children are unqualified for office. Not all incumbents need removal.

>I think it creates political machines and hinders the ability for fresh legislative ideas or meritocracy in legislatures/political bodies because seniority is given preference, no matter how good of a lawmaker one actually is. Incumbencies of a long duration can also create unfair advantages because the name recognition and familiarity can set up steep burdens for new candidates.

Question K does not get us closer to a meritocracy, it takes us further away by indiscriminately removing politicians regardless of their competency. This policy does not serve your stated values, it proposes a paternalistic system that assumes voters can't make good choices on their own, yet relies on them doing so more often.

>By your logic, a monopoly is okay

Please stick to engaging with stuff I actually said instead of making up arguments for me.

>To further poke holes in your logic, why have age limits or residency requirements or ANY requirements for politicians since it removes people’s “choice”?

There are tangible downsides to having children or people who don't live here as representatives.

Hard disagree. This is limiting all candidates, not bad ones.

>Unless they vote FOR term limits. Then the voters are deciding that the incumbent advantage is undemocratic

You throw the baby out with the bath water by preventing people that are actually good from continuing to serve.

>and we shouldn't be beholden to ineffective politicians just because they got elected once.

Then vote the ineffective ones out instead of passing a policy that's indiscriminate.

You're dodging the question. If this passes, voters will not be able to reelect someone they might want to continue to represent them. We will be taking away that choice. Why is that good or necessary?

Sure, you can pass undemocratic policy democratically. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking about the merits of the policy. Why should this choice be taken from voters?

You've badly misjudged my politics. No, I will not suddenly have a problem with it just because Trump's name is attached to it, especially given the massive effort, overwhelming popular support and organization that would require.

Do you have an argument in favor of your own beliefs or do you just want to ask about mine? I think voters should decide when someone's term ends. Why do you think they should not have that choice?

There would be a big difference between a president unconstitutionally granting themselves power and voters democratically changing the laws that govern them, so... Shit example. Also, having precedent doesn't make it any less undemocratic.

-Replacing politicians more often makes them easier for private interests to purchase. This effect will be compounded in 8 years when the majority of elected positions in the city all turn over at the same time.

-It is anti-democratic. Voters should decide when terms are up, not artifical limits. Voters should also get to decide that they like who's representing them now and want them to continue.

-It doesn't matter who's advocating for this or whether there's precedent for it. That doesn't impact whether it's right for Baltimore.

-It does not solve any problem. It's a lazy alternative to actually campaigning and voting bad incumbents out. The voters whose choices you disapprove of aren't gonna suddenly change when there's term limits.

You can run for a different office, but you can't hold the same position more than two terms.

Not sure if you're just being edgy and pessimistic or if you really don't understand the functioning of the government and the importance of experience.

It's irrelevant if it's conservative, what's important is that it's anti democratic. Voters should decide when someone's term is up, not term limits. This just makes it easier to buy politicians, especially when they get the chance to buy them all at once in 8 years.