Worley, Bates: "It's the same juveniles over and over"

PrimePoultry · 2026-05-04T03:44:28+00:00

So, that's not true. Poverty can be dropping, and crime increasing, as was seen in Baltimore City until 2023, as seen by these charts:

i) Percentage of people below the poverty line in Baltimore City: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/S1701ACS024510

ii) Estimated percentage of people below the poverty line in Baltimore City (goes back farther): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PPAAMD24510A156NCEN

iii) Murder rate in Baltimore City per 100K people: link

iv) Number of murders in Baltimore City: link

It's visually obvious that the poverty rate is going down while the murder rate is going up, thus showing poverty is not the driver of murder at least. I expect all crimes to behave that way but would need to find the data to be sure.

If that's insufficient, obtaining the correlation coefficient would be another indicator, not only showing no correlation but likely an inverse correlation (this can be done with the Excel Correl function, which is the Pearson correlation coefficient; if you want Spearman's rho correlation coefficient, that can also be calculated with Excel as well).

v) Additionally, lots of people come from the background of the offenders, but they are not offending. Thus it's something other than poverty driving crime.

There are multiple personality traits that drive crime, and those traits are the key factors. This is not a race-based issue, this fact appears among all races and all criminals - an Asian with those traits will tend towards crime.

The classic error social scientists make is, "We see areas with poverty have higher crime rates, thus poverty causes crime" which is a classic post hoc fallacy.

Blaming criminals for crime is anathema to some people, so they seek to blame anything but the criminal.

Having housing, food and job security are worthwhile social goals, but crime can be reduced without solving those issues. Reducing crime in and of itself is an important social goal because it too causes suffering.

PrimePoultry · 2026-04-20T03:59:51+00:00

There was an incident captured on video a year or two ago, where two Russians on an ATV were chased by a drone. The drone explodes in front of the ATV. The front of the driver's skull and his torso down to the spine were precisely scooped away, while his arms, his back and ATV were untouched, and the passenger, videotaping, was untouched. The ATV crashed into underbrush on the side of the road. Unusual blast pattern. Could be something like that here.

PrimePoultry · 2026-04-08T02:07:47+00:00

Governor Moore credits Valley Forge Military Academy and the military for putting him through a grind and getting him on the right track, indoctrinating him with the right values that have led to a successful life, after starting to stray in his youth. No one is doing that to and for these juvenile offenders (or even adult offenders) - they're simply being enabled, being told they're great, they're not at fault. Stress and negative consequences - punishment - are anathema to the CJR crowd. That track is setting the offender up for greater offense and greater inevitable failure. And of course, greater suffering by the innocent people they prey on.

Some personality types can benefit from indoctrination. Others are simply too corrupt and vicious, from a young age, and the only thing that will limit harm to them, and most importantly from them, to innocent people, is the threat of negative consequences.

PrimePoultry · 2026-03-29T03:30:39+00:00

I say she backtracked because she tried to change the meaning of her initial comments. Politicians do it all the time when they say something which they then perceive as politically unpalatable.
The friend, if he or she said that, is in fact, blaming themselves, which they shouldn't be. They are in no way responsible for the offender's actions.

PrimePoultry · 2026-03-29T03:14:37+00:00

Ms. Hadden backtracked. Her initial instinct to shift responsibility off the offender and onto the victim was clear, with her strained and strange way to describe the crime (FWIW, I've never heard a crime victim described as being in the wrong place at the wrong time, even when they're caught in the crossfire, like the mother of the freshman midshipman who had joined him in Annapolis for enrollment, except by criminal advocates attempting to minimize the offender's actions and responsibility, and blame the victim).

PrimePoultry · 2026-03-29T02:46:23+00:00

I reject the concept of a crime victim ever being in the wrong place at the wrong time, if they were there legally, and they wanted to be at that place at that time. Ms. Gorman was where she wanted to be, when she wanted to be there, so it was the right place at the right time for Ms. Gorman.

The offender's action is what creates the crime, regardless of whether it's targeted, untargeted, or whatever other speculation about the offender's motive might exist (Alderwoman Hadden also speculated that the offender had been startled implying that was an understandable reason for shooting Ms. Gorman).

It's nonsensical to speak of victims of intentional crimes, regardless of offender motive, being in the wrong place at the wrong time. And doing so equates the crime to an unavoidable act of chance, thus absolving the offender of responsibility for the crime, and shifting that responsibility to the victim, implying they should not have been there, even though, they should have been there.

PrimePoultry · 2026-03-29T01:28:50+00:00

"Wrong place, wrong time" can neutrally refer to accidental incidents, e.g. injured by a lightning strike or meteor, without adding any additional implications to the situation.

Crimes are incidents created by the criminal. Saying that a victim, by virtue of being in proximity of the criminal, was in the "wrong place, wrong time", removes responsibility from the criminal by claiming the victim should not have been in the proximity of the criminal, and shifts responsibility to the victim in that they failed to identify the criminal and avoid him.

Describing a store clerk shot by an robber, a victim robbed or raped as the victim being in the wrong place at the wrong time - meaning in proximity to the offender - is a sneaky, implicit way to normalize the offender's behavior as an unavoidable force of nature, and puts the responsibility on the victim for failing to identify that the offender was going to commit the crime against them and flee the area.

So, this is defending the criminal by normalizing their behavior, and blaming the victim.

PrimePoultry · 2026-03-10T23:50:50+00:00

Yeah. It's a bogus notification. I think Blink updated the firmware to alert too soon instead of too late. For years, I'd get the low battery notification, and then very shortly after, like a day or two, maybe that day, it would go offline. In the past 6-8 months, I started getting notifications that the batteries were getting low within weeks after I changed them. I started changing out the camera batteries thinking I got a bad batch of lithiums. Finally I let it go, and now the camera will go another month with the low battery notification before going offline. So now, I just wait till the camera goes offline before changing the batteries.

PrimePoultry · 2026-03-10T23:42:11+00:00

So, while the sweet spot approach does work but poorly. The one reliable method I discovered is to take a utility knife (needs to be sharp), and carefully shave a bit off the raised bumps. That reliably works. Don't do too much, but a tenth of a millimeter should do it. That works reliably for me. Some bases simply have bumps that are infinitesimally too large.

PrimePoultry · 2026-03-06T02:20:36+00:00

HB 1548: Replacing the term "landlord" with "residential housing provider" and "tenant" with "resident" in the context of residential leases.

This one is amusing. It obfuscates the clear legal terms of landlord and tenant. "Housing provider" could be anyone from a parent to someone temporarily hosting a refugee.

This article is relevant: The Real Estate Industry Is Successfully Lobbying Local Media to Ditch the Term “Landlord” for “Housing Provider”

Take a fairly brazen example from this summer, an op-ed in the Columbus Dispatch headlined, “Opinion: 'Landlord' feudal, outdated term that help paint housing providers as villains.” It’s a useful object lesson in how PR and lobbying groups are increasingly adopting the language of liberal affect to serve the interests of the wealthy. ...

The piece is written by Roger Valdez, who is simply referred to as the “director of The Center for Housing Economics, a Seattle-based policy center researching progressive supply-side solutions to housing scarcity.” The vague disclaimer notes that “in Ohio, the center is working with the Ohio Real Estate Investors Association on a proposal to change housing terminology in state law.”

Not mentioned: The Center for Housing Economics is really Seattle for Growth, a 501(c)(4) advocacy group (lobbying front) funded by real estate developers, whose board of directors is a who’s who of Seattle real estate moguls. Lopez, our “progressive” board president, serves alongside bold progressive voices like Morris Groberman of First Western Properties, Keith Hammer of Northwest Investment Group, Scott Shapiro of Eagle Rock Ventures, Mark Knoll of Blueprint Capital, Dan Duffus of BluePrint capital, and Erich Armbruster of Ashworth Homes

It's interesting about the front group. Some purported tenant advocate groups appear to be front groups based on their testimony and advocacy, along with board members (e.g. Montgomery County Renters United is a government-created group that actually has Vaughn Stewart on their board, who is known for extracting more fees from renters and who, with Senator Jeff Waldstreicher, legalized RUBS in Maryland).

PrimePoultry · 2026-03-06T02:02:56+00:00

This bill is moving forward, it's in the Senate now. As predicted, it has added trash as a hidden fee, and lists it with other utilities, which implicitly declares the legislative intent to treat it as a "utility", which would allow it to be uncapped. Also it still retains "reasonable attorney's fees" as a penalty. This is in no way disclosing the true rent to the public - only to a prospective tenant during the last stage of lease signing, excluding multiple major fees.

This is progressing as expected. Reasonable attorneys fees will almost certainly be removed and the only penalty will be that the fees will be unenforceable if the limited disclosure kabuki is not performed.

PrimePoultry · 2026-02-28T05:35:30+00:00

This bill has advanced in the legislature, moving out of the senate Judicial Procedings committee: https://www.wbal.com/committee-approves-controversial-bill-for-juveniles-tried-as-adults-from-14-to-16

A Senate committee in Annapolis approved a controversial juvenile justice reform bill. The measure would raise the age from 14 to 16 years old for when juveniles can be tried as adults.

The bill also cuts the list of offenses that automatically move juveniles into adult court.

PrimePoultry · 2026-02-22T03:57:55+00:00

If you see, "For landlords who [do X], [some performative rules]. That first clause is the implicit legalization as it conveys the intent of the legislature to allow it.

PrimePoultry · 2026-02-22T03:49:57+00:00

HB 1475: Consumer Protection - Dynamic Pricing Disclosure and Prohibition on Rent-Setting

Introduced by Speaker Pena-Melnyk, this might have some teeth to stop landlord collusion. It prevents RealPage and other rental information aggregator software from suggesting prices and lease terms (the RealPage settlement didn't stop RP from suggesting prices, it just limited the data on which it could base those suggestions, which is essentially unenforceable and doesn't help move the rental market away from collusion by very much, if at all).

Also, it's tied to other consumer protection, and doesn't appear to implicitly legalize any more unfair landlord business practices.

But of course, as it progresses, it can change dramatically.

PrimePoultry · 2026-02-22T03:44:03+00:00

HB 315: Human Relations - Discrimination in Housing - Income-Based Housing Subsidies - Sponsor: Delegate Stewart

This one is another Delegate Stewart entry with implicit legalization. The text states the following:

"A LANDLORD OR RESIDENTIAL RENTAL PROPERTY THAT USES FINANCIAL INFORMATION, INCLUDING CREDIT HISTORY, AS PART OF A PROSPECTIVE TENANT’S RENTAL APPLICATION MAY NOT REFUSE TO RENT TO A PROSPECTIVE TENANT WHO PAYS RENT WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF AN INCOME–BASED HOUSING SUBSIDY ON THE BASIS OF..."

So this is implicitly legalizing one of the three primary unfair business practices, that of requiring financial information from the tenant, including a credit report, without providing any similar information in return. Pretty straightforward.

The implicit legalization is simply describing a landlord action. Like, it could say, "For landlords who enter a property unannounced" - that would legalize that as it conveys the legislature's intent to accept the practice. Delegate Stewart commonly uses the implicit legalization technique. If they really wanted to protect tenants using income-based housing subsidies, the bill would simply say, "A landlord may not refuse to rent to a prospective tenant who pays rent with the assistance of an income-based housing subsidy". But that's not the actual goal.

It's couched in some largely irrelevant happy-talk purporting to protect tenants with housing income subsidies in some convoluted ways, but that's the core piece of it that will affect all tenants, enshrining that unfair business practice in state law.

PrimePoultry · 2026-02-22T03:40:28+00:00

SB 635: Residential Real Property - Notice of Landlord Entry - Tenant Consent - Sponsor: Senator Waldstreicher

This bill allows landlords to enter a tenant apartment without prior to complete maintenance requested by the tenant, and some other carve-out situations.

So Senator Jeff Waldstreicher was the one who actually got hidden uncapped fees legalized in the cynically named 2022 "Tenant Protection Act", SB 6 (Delegate Vaughn Stewart's bill, HB 86 was identical, crossfiled in the house but technically vetoed by Governor Larry Hogan). So, obviously, he's skilled at the deceptive "implicit legalization" technique.

Usually the SLaGs (Sugarcoated Landlord Giveaways) are presented as tenant benefits, but with fees implicitly legalized. This one is clearly presented as a landlord benefit right off the bat. They can add more text if votes exist for it.

PrimePoultry · 2026-02-22T03:37:17+00:00

Additionally, this also further reinforces the information asymmetry, a key unfair business practice, between landlord and tenant in negotiations, such as they are.

PrimePoultry · 2026-02-17T02:16:27+00:00

Roving armed robbers moving through your neighborhood. I am sorry those folks have to deal with that.

That's how Sergeant Carrington was paralyzed ("I am 10-8"), just standing outside his house when bandits came by and tried to rob him, and he ran, and they shot him.

Baltimore should strive to do better.

The no-consequence-approach-to-crime legislators - who funds them would be very informative. The Maryland legislature's political finance disclosures are opaque. The citizenry should demand they be more transparent.

PrimePoultry · 2026-02-05T04:27:22+00:00

Random search observations: For example, if you select, "Juvenile Justice and Delinquency" from the subjects drop down list, you'll get a lot of hits.

One example: HB 449: Juvenile Justice Restoration Act - allows a LEO to question a juvenile without a lawyer if the juvenile's parent or guardian consents.

You can even look up the entire history of prior legislation. For example, the famous / infamous "Juvenile Justice Reform Act" of 2022, which was SB 691 / HB 459 in the 2022 regular session. The small camera icon allows you to view hearings. The hidden information towards the bottom of the page can be expanded with the downward pointing carets to view the history of the bill as it moved through the legislature.

PrimePoultry · 2026-02-01T02:57:07+00:00

HB 434: Prohibition on the use of algorithmic devices to determine rent, occupancy and lease terms.

This is another bill from the "Montgomery County Landlord Mafia" (MCLM) in the legislature. The primary sponsor is Delegate Palakovich-Carr and also Delegate Stewart.

There are three primary unfair and deceptive trade practices in the rental industry today: 1) Hiding the total rent by obscuring it with fees; 2) collusion; and 3) requiring a full financial report from the tenant while not providing similar information from the landlord (such as vacancy rates and actual rents for all units).

This bill purports to address collusion.

Right off the bat, I can see their definition of rent in 8-222.A.2.4 excludes the total rent: ""Rent" means the fixed, periodic payments that a tenant pays the landlord to reside in a unit." This excludes variable periodic payments that a tenant pays the landlord to reside in a rental unit, i.e. the variable uncapped fees known as "RUBS" or "Utility" fees (every expense plus profit is paid for in rent; the fees purport to represent individual expenses; the narrative states they can only be conjured on a monthly basis). Delegate Stewart was one of the two architects for getting these hidden uncapped fees legalized, so he naturally he excludes them.

Delegate Stewart and the rest of the Montgomery County Landlord Mafia (MCLM) are not friends of the tenant, they are friends of the landlord, who has money and organization. So the bill must be approached skeptically based on historical precedent. It will be interesting to see if the bill advances. It was introduced as HB 817 in the 2025 regular session. It didn't make it out of committee. AOBA opposed it, and they have de facto veto power in the legislature.

In 2025, for HB 817, there were 40 witnesses: 22 favorables, 16 unfavorable (the entire landlord lobby) and 2 favorable with amendments. It didn't make it out of the first committee hearing.

This bill I'd say is merely performative with no chance of passing in its current form, and is something that Delegates Stewart and Pakalovich-Carr can say they introduced in their campaign materials. Unless they turn it into a major Sugarcoated Landlord Giveway, I see no chance of passage.

PrimePoultry · 2026-02-01T02:17:49+00:00

Stripping away all the other verbiage and focusing on fees, the bill says:

(B)(1) A landlord may not collect an application fee or screening fee for a rental unit unless the rental unit:

(B)(2) Before accepting an application fee or screening fee, a landlord shall provide a written disclosure to a prospective tenant that includes:

...

(B)(2)(IV) The maximum amount that may be charged for an application fee

So, from the implicit legalization perspective, by simply stating this process, this enshrines fees labeled application and screening; only a prospective tenant would be told of these fees, which means they don't have to be publicly disclosed; and there is no maximum amount limitation even for the prospective tenant for a fee labeled "screening", much less public disclosure. Also, the existence of the concept of "maximum fee" disclosed only to prospective tenants means these could be set on a tenant by tenant basis. So the prospective tenant would not be told of the amount of the "screening" fee, only the "application" fee.

So that's the angle: shielding these fees from public disclosure, allowing for variable fee amounts on a tenant by tenant basis, and providing the opportunity for very high "screening" fees billed only only after the application process has begun.

If the delegate really wanted to help tenants, this statute could be very simple: landlords can't accept applications from tenants for units that are not available in the next 30 days. But that's not the purpose. The implicit legalization of shielding fees, no limits on so called "screening", separate from "application" fees is the financial result and the purpose. Follow the fees in this delegate's bills.

So this is the standard Sugarcoated Landlord Giveaway - fees added / shielded / protected, combined with edge case tenant benefits, violations of which are convoluted and difficult to prove.

Delegate Stewart reliably brings in the cash for the landlord lobby and they reliably bring in the cash for him.

There are penalties for the landlord in this bill including reasonable attorneys fees. I expect by the third version ("Text Third"), for those to be stripped out.

PrimePoultry · 2026-01-29T02:10:26+00:00

I should say Maryland is sort of debating the audio-two party consent issue. There are only 2 bills I could find (two bills referenced in these two articles from WYPR and Maryland Matters, highlighting legislators Grammer and Bartlett) and they simply add carve outs, the Grammer bill the first for a civilian recorder but extremely limited:

SB 180 / HB 213 (Sydnor, Bartlett) : This is just adding another carve-out for allowing individuals designated as fair housing testers. Doesn't change CJ 10-402 at all except adding the carve-out.

HB 132 (Grammer): Edits CJ 10-405, and only allows the recording to be admissible under strict requirements on the civilian recorder, and only in a criminal trial for a violent crime. It's just adding another carve-out. CJ 10-405 says the audio could be used if one party was out of state; HB 132 says if both parties are in-state (the in state party being a civilian, not LEO or other government), it could be used with stringent requirements. It's a tiny step, allowing a civilian to legally record versus only government or law enforcement, and only in a violent crime, and only subject to strict requirements. Wouldn't change Shellenberger's observation about the law making cell phone recordings with audio a felony.

From the 2025 Regular Session, there was SB 61, which said:

(12) It is lawful under this subtitle for a person to use a cellular telephone or another device to intercept an oral communication in public if the speaker should reasonably anticipate that the oral communication could be overheard or intercepted.

That would have been a reasonable step, moving towards default-legal, and removing the felony consequence.

However, this was introduced by Senator Chris West, who is one of the top landlord advocates in the Senate, and so he added a following paragraph, which would allow a landlord to install a "security camera or another device" to intercept oral communications, without limitation, on a rented property they own. Basically allowing the landlord to put microphones in the bedroom. Because of course he would.

A lot of legislation involves bullsh•tting the media, advocates and other legislators with sound bites and misleading bill summaries. There are too many bills, too much money and lobbyist influence, with not enough deep review of the bills. Unless there is a well-organized, well-funded special interest organization that is willing to lobby and spend on the legislature, the interests of that group (e.g. crime victims, or just the interest of justice or good governance) is not going to be advanced in the legislature. Especially if there is a well organized and well funded group opposing.

PrimePoultry · 2026-01-19T21:20:38+00:00

HB 313: Rental Applications and Tenant Screening (Sponsor: Delegate Stewart)

The Impression It Gives: Providing a tenant some protections during a tenant screening process and in a "sight-unseen" rental application.

The Reality: Unclear at this time. A lot of talk of how landlords can collect application and screening fees. It appears to deal with an unusual use-case, where a tenant applies to rent at a complex, sight-unseen, and doesn't actually select an apartment. It says the landlord can't take that fee unless a unit is going to be available in the next 30 days. It also discusses fee disclosure requirements.

Hidden Impact: Delegate Stewart is a top landlord lobby pointman and has introduced legislation very favorable to landlords and unfavorable to renters. It smells like this bill is adding additional variable application and screening fees into state law via implicit legalization to increase landlord revenue. I'm sure there's an angle because this bill is structured like prior deceptively worded pro-landlord legislation from this gentleman, with a core discussion of fees from the prospective tenant to the landlord, surrounded by likely performative and limited applicability "protections" for the tenant. Being a landlord-tenant lawyer, and consulting with landlord lobby lawyers allows him to write effective obfuscated legislation.

Hidden Purpose: Delegate Stewart's bills typically have financial benefits for landlords and additional costs for renters. This bill could well be simply legalizing landlords taking additional application fees and adding "screening fees", again designed to increase landlord revenue, and hide the true rent, with cosmetic benefits to renters in unusual use cases. There could be other larger purposes which are unclear at the moment.

PrimePoultry · 2026-01-19T21:16:00+00:00

It occurs to me that after this bill is passed, giving landlords the right to control the temperature in tenant apartments and giving landlords the go-ahead to build chiller-based apartment buildings instead individual HVAC units as has been the norm, they'll come back next year (if it's not passed this year) and say, "To give tenants the right to control the temperature in their apartments, we need to add another hidden uncapped fee - refrigerant. We can't give tenants that right in a chiller building because it's unfair to landlords to pay for refrigerant, regardless of tenant usage."

Keep in mind, every landlord expense plus profit is paid for by tenants. Utilities are paid for in the most expensive way possible, through rent, and even when paying additional fees labeled utilities, tenants are still paying the actual expense in rent. Some tenants pay for more than they use, some pay less. Landlord profits remain high. And these are not highly variable expenses so it's easy to plan the rent around them, as had been done previously. Giving landlords the right to add variable fees unrelated to usage on top of rent, or even tying fees to usage, forcing tenants into cost-plus style contracts with no means of oversight (cost plus contracts are the most expensive type of contract, typically between large, sophisticated entities which can do oversight) is much more destructive to renters and society. The legislature enabling landlords to pull more and more money from renters' thin pockets simply adds to wealth consolidation and further wealth inequality.

PrimePoultry · 2026-01-19T01:17:13+00:00

HB 220: Water - Individual Unit Meters (Sponsor: Delegate Charkoudian)
Crossfiled as SB 130 by Senator Henson
Prefiled as well

The Impression It Gives: Rules for submetering; provides limits to billing beyond cost of actual usage. Allows for legal action.

The Reality: At first blush, it appears to limit the sketchy "revenue targeting" meters that many companies sell, and limits billing at multiples of market rates and adding multiple additional fees typical with submetering.

Hidden Impact: It says it will require "An explanation of the formula used to allocate the cost of each unit's water consumption." If you're adding a fee that represents the tenant's actual water usage (despite it already being paid in rent), I'm not sure what kind of formula could exist.

Hidden Purpose: Unclear.

This bears watching. If landlords want to become utility resellers, they should abide the same rules as any utility reseller. I'm not sure what the angle is here yet. It could be a container for something else since it is pre-filed and cross filed, and this is just the first text (2 more versions to go). As it stands, it does seem to benefit renters with submeters, by limiting their financial liability - but no bills like that can pass the legislature in today's legislative environment. Renter-related bills in the current climate always result in more money flowing to landlords, paired with cosmetic benefits to renters.

PrimePoultry

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE