Politics & Government

Petitions Could Mean Potential Trouble For City, Officials Say

A private signature gathering firm has been sending employees door-to-door. The council has some ideas as to who might be behind the petitions.

A pair of petitions circulating the city could have potentially devastating consequences if voted into city code, College Park officials say. 

Employees from a private signature gathering firm based in Arizona have been going door-to-door in recent weeks, though the force behind the petitions is ostensibly a mystery. However, city officials have reason to believe that the Prince George’s Property Owners Association is backing the effort.

One petition would prevent the city from collecting property tax revenue above what it collects in 2011, regardless of circumstances that may change in the future. For example, said City Attorney Suellen Ferguson, the city would be unable to collect revenue on the many new developments springing up around town, despite the fact that these additional revenues would not raise the tax rate. 

Find out what's happening in College Parkwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

This would also strip the council of its ability to vote on a new tax rate each year. Ferguson said she knows of no other jurisdiction where a law like this is in effect.

“Once this is put in your charter, this is permanent. There is no end point,” she said.

Find out what's happening in College Parkwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The other petition would eliminate the distinction between different types of property in the city, namely, rental properties and owner-occupied properties.

According to Ferguson, this is an attempt to overturn the city's , which was in August, much to the consternation of many area landlords.

Passage of this referendum would have a wide variety of negative consequences for homeowners and renters alike, Ferguson said. First, it could prevent homeowners from collecting their Homestead Property Tax credit. It could also enable rental property owners to shirk resonsibilities like trash collection, and prohibit the city from making annual safety inspections of rental properties. 

The petition is worded in a way that makes it appear to be about eliminating discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc. However, Ferguson said that discrimination is already prohibited. 

“I think that the way that the referendum question concerning the housing disguises what it’s intended to do," she said. “That’s not coming to you in a straightforward way. It’s coming in a way that makes it more likely that folks not asking questions would sign it.”

Councilwoman Stephanie Stullich (Dist. 3) said though no one has taken responsibility for the petitions, the Prince George’s Property Owners Association happens to have discussed both items at previous meetings. 

"It’s not surprising that they would be pushing a referendum that would benefit rental properties at the expense of owner occupied individuals who live in their houses," she said.  

For now, the council is drafting a resolution to take an official stance against both referenda, and will vote on the matter in coming weeks. Information regarding the referenda and the potential harm they may cause will be posted on the city website, and has been published in the Municipal Scene portion of the Gazette. 

Each referendum must be signed by at least 20 percent of eligible voters in order to be placed on the ballot in November's election. 

Whether the city will take further action, like mailing a letter to residents warning them against the petition's impacts, remains under debate. Councilwoman Christine Nagle (Dist. 1) said that sending a letter would be too much. 

“If they’re not comfortable, they don’t sign it," she said. "And those that do want to sign it are going to sign it, and I don’t think it’s our position to tell them not to sign it." 

But Councilman Marcus Afzali (Dist. 4) said that it is imperative that people are made aware of what they are signing. 

“This is basically being run by a group of cowards who don’t want to reveal who they are," he said. "I think it would be very right as a council to make sure people know exactly what’s happening and to get this information out there."


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here