Yeah, it's the same rhetorical appeal of politicians saying they will refuse or give up their pay (like Trump did). It sounds nice, like they're doing it out of passion and not money, but it's only because they are already wealthy and can eschew a regular salary and rely on outside contract work, passive income, just regular wealth, etc.

It reminds me of the argument used to underpay social workers and teachers. "They shouldn't be in it for the money." Also, most city council persons are paid like $70k? That's higher than median in the city, but that's not exactly rolling in it. It's enough that an average person can do it and not need a second job.

Strong pay also decreases the incentive to seek outside enrichment.

ETA: I think as a general rule, yes, it requires a lot of careful consideration when legislators are voting on their own compensation but also, it feels like the earlier outrage that the CEO of BCPS gets paid a salary that seems high but that is also regular to low for a CEO overseeing an organization that big.

I don’t disagree with your point. It is valid. But business owners would have a vested interest in reducing crime in the city and making it more appealing for visitors with money to visit the city. Not saying they also wouldn’t do shady things for their own benefit. It’s really a challenge to get decent people and give them the support to make change.

Council member as a jobs program. I'm dead.

To your other point -- very few wealthy people on country council in Baltimore region. I'm sure there are some but I can't think of 1. It's certainly not anything near a majority.