I vote yes.....

What exactly was the justification for reversing the previous council's decision? Is it common for that type of thing to happen? If that's the case, why bother having a council make any decision that would affect things after their term is over?

Gee....the no votes went from 2 to 14 in the space of about 10 minutes? Vote early and vote often :)

Polls can be weird, but this one is especially awkward as it appears right underneath a long letter in support of one side with no rebuttal or balance of any kind.

I know there is a disclaimer that it is not “scientific” (whatever that means), but then why have a poll at all if no attempt is made to present both sides of the issue when introducing the topic? Mr. Sedam?

I was able to vote twice.

Thoughts on Monday nights hearing? Well, I would recommend every Rockville voter WATCH it online, and listen to the whole thing. They'll learn a lot.

Second, by my count, the speakers in the public hearing were 26-14 against the reversal of the text amendment (in other words, they support Pumphrey's in being able to modestly expand their parking lot).

I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who think how Pumphrey's is being treated is a sad mistake, and that the actions being taken by the Mayor and two other council members in reversal the previous council's decision are being done solely because they didn't like it before--there was no error in process, no new information, nothing improper about the way it was passed before. That is something the Maryland courts, contrary to what the City and proponents of the reversal are saying, will probably not take kindly to---anyone can read any of the major cases on nonconforming legal uses, and see that the courts purpose in ruling on these cases is ONLY to determine if improper or erroneous process was used. The passage of the zoning ordinance amendment that would have allowed Pumphrey's to modestly expand their parking lot was completely legal, proper, and common step.

As a taxpayer, it really bugs me that the Mayor and Councilmembers Newton and Hall appear poised to put the city taxpayers at significant risk of more legal expenses, this shortly after they increased the budget item funding legal defense expenses by $1M!

I voted yes. Then I voted no. Now I'm thinking maybe none of the above makes more sense. (Just practicing my Rockville flip-flop dance moves.)

No, Peter. The way that a Rockville dance works is that as soon as the music starts a small group rushes to the dance floor, block off anyone from dancing, yell about how they're being oppressed, and demand that the dance floor be granted a Historical designation.

Thanks, Doug in Rockville, for explaining that "there was no error in process, no new information, nothing improper about the way it was passed before." I had been wondering if there was any justification for revisiting the vote, and it seems that there was not. To me, that's the most important part of this entire matter.

My fellow Rockville residents you are great in sharing your comments, especially since most folks don't take time to get involved in City issues. Many individuals don't have time or believe their opinion matters, which some of us commenting on this blog may know. I for one do.
Doug's statements are very reasonable and I mostly agree with him. However, all the testimonies (or the non-scientific poll) don't matter much, because the decision will be made by the Mayor and Council. The Mayor and Council need to make the right decision considering all the legal ramifications. Some of us will be very disappointed no matter what decision the Council makes. Overall the citizens should have a voice in this process. I believe the nearest neighbors and the applicant should have stronger consideration. The Rockville City Council needs to rethink the issues and make the correct decision not just to please one side or the other, but consider the best for the whole city. A solutions can be reached.
Personally I would like to see the Rockville citizens speak more about how the tax dollars are allocated and spent. Those are tough decisions facing the City as a whole.

Why would anyone vote twice? What are you trying to prove or say by that?

Jacques Gelin: Are those supporting Bealls Grant II and Victory Housing fueled by an obsession for profit?

Obviously, that's the poll that can be manipulated and should not be used as a mandate for anything.

Debbie,

Judging by the spike in voting today, I think the answer to your question, “why would anyone vote twice” is: because (s)he couldn’t figure out how to vote three times! ;-)

That poll is totally ridiculous now....there is no it is representative of the residents of Rockville....someone's obviously "stuffed the ballot box" so to speak. Somebody probably keeps changing their IP address and resubmitting No votes. Hey, way to be productive!!! Still can't change the fact that, as evidenced by the public hearing testimony, the Yes vote represents more of Rockville....I would laugh so hard if the IP's could be traced to one person.....

Doug,

That’s actually a pretty brilliant suggestion.

If the Patch could analyze this vote and find out and disclose the identity of anyone who stuffed this poll; that would provide a tremendous service to our Rockville community.

How about it Patch? You guys would be community heroes overnight! It would rain attention on the Patch. I guarantee you would double readership.

You have the technology. You know you want to!

An internet user that thinks their IP address should be private would be like saying that an automobile driver should expect their license plate to only be viewable by law enforcement.

That just is not how it works.

Hey Doug,

I have a law degree and am unaware of any protected expectation of privacy when participating in a poll such as this.

Oh please, please run it up the flag poll and expose the ballot stuffers!

Your readership will jump (and so will the integrity of your polls in the future!).

And BTW: those of us very close to an issue can identify a stuffing pretty quickly.

I'll concede that you folks might be right about the expectation of privacy on IP addresses.

But Piotr, we'll have to disagree about the expectation of privacy on this poll. When I see a survey like this that specifically doesn't ask for my name before I respond, I assume I can expect my vote to be secret, or at least revealed in only remarkable circumstances. I assure you we'd have a hard time convincing a judge or jury that 485 votes constituted ballot stuffing. It may be obvious to you, but even with my meager cranial tools, I will be able to cast doubt on your assertion.

Hey Doug,

I think that you are missing the point. Of course people can have an "expectation of privacy" when they vote. (It’s a free country: you can expect to win the lottery too!) The question is whether their expectation is legally protected. (Just because I expect that no one is watching when I purchase that big cake from the store does not mean that it is illegal for someone who observed this to report it to my weight-watcher’s coach.) And as a lawyer, I can tell you that I am unaware of any legal protection that applies here. So, it would simply be up to the Patch to decide if it wants to disclose anything and everything it can with respect to its poll(s) (no judge or jury involved here).

Now, if Patch were to find that in a given poll, a large number of votes were cast by the same individual (or a few individuals), and it disclosed their identity, I guarantee you that the Patch community as a whole (with the notable exception of the individuals in question) would be delighted and amused!

And Patch would definitely be hailed as standing up for the community that it serves.

Hey Piotr --

"(no judge or jury involved here)"

Sorry, you're not going to convince me on that. There's no way you believe we can divulge the name of the Montgomery County resident who allegedly stuffed the ballot box on a Patch poll without ending up in court.

And I'll say it again, I've seen ballot box stuffing on our polls. This doesn't even come close.