Also, because if this city were to somehow roll the dice and hit a 20 and elect a truly effective and generationally unique mayor/council and then have to let that go away because of an arbitrary term limit…well, that would be tragic.

Local voters are generally more sensitive to local issues not being attended to — or attended to — and tend to vote out or retain incumbents at a much higher rate than national or statewide incumbent officials. There have been numerous historical reviews supporting this. I wrote a huge college paper on this. Term limits may be more beneficial (depending how you define that) at a statewide or national office level, but is actually likely more arbitrarily limiting on a change-embracing local electorate.

Question K should be defeated. It’s a pointless amendment that will actually limit local voter choice where such choice is more effective.

Their ads for "Vote OK on question K" are all over my damn Facebook and Instagram.

Whenever I see them, I post a link to this discussion here from a few weeks ago and paste this text:

> "Just like the failed initiative to dramatically lower property taxes, Question K looks good in theory. But, in practice, it would have a widely negative effect in the long term. This amendment would not benefit Baltimore but would benefit those seeking to profit off the city at the expense of those who live here."

> "Consider who's pushing for this amendment: an organization called People for Elected Accountability & Civic Engagement. As noted by WYPR, "it’s chaired by Jovani Patterson, a former Republican candidate for Baltimore City Council President, and the effort is largely funded by David Smith, the chair of Sinclair Broadcasting,"