http://sites.google.com/site/stopbeallgrant2/

The power of the web!

I attended this Planning Commission meeting. While not happy with aspects of it, one of the big problems for the protesting neighbors is what I call “The Big Surprise”. Most of them found out only on Monday (two days before this meeting) of this particular application.

I’ve seen other Big Surprises in Rockville and experienced this myself. Those who are caught out are suddenly on the defensive and have limited time to prepare and state their case. This often results in unpleasant meetings and confrontation.

Timely and effective notification on such high-impact neighborhood issues are constant concerns. The requirements for notification are stated in the zoning ordinance, and I hope Mayor and Council take a second look at these as they continue to review the new zoning ordinance.

For these immediate neighbors to have had a fairer chance to influence the proposal they would have had to have been drawn into the process far sooner than this last PC meeting. Perhaps they could not have stopped it, but maybe they would have been able to reduce its scope, or at least obtain more conditions attached to its approval. The neighbors did not have a fair say in this project just because they had a chance to express their concerns at this meeting. (I personally support Phase II of Beall’s Grant Apartments.)

The meeting did have the good effect of raising some city-wide issues on the distribution of these developments, traffic and school impacts, among others.

I have attended about 8 meetings of the Planning Commission in the past few months. About half of these were work sessions on the new zoning ordinance and the others on various projects around the City. The body has a good mix of experienced and inexperienced members, and taken together their knowledge of planning matters is very high. Their work on the draft zoning ordinance was excellent.

Mark Pierzchala

“If high density in and of itself were a bad thing, San Francisco, New York, and Boston – our nation’s densest cities – would be undesirable urban environments. The truth is that high density is needed for a city to support a diverse and healthy mix of retail, to justify public transit, and to reduce dependency on automobiles.”

I ask joshlubell how many “hardware stores, independently-owned groceries, and other small businesses” that are not “chain stores and restaurants” do you find in the densest parts of big cities? My impression is that people who live in the downtown parts of big cities have to drive to the suburbs to find a Home Depot or a WalMart when they need to do serious buying of other than boutique-shop items.

Many sociologists will tell you that there is a school of thought dedicated to the proposition that density is undesirable in many respects. And many people who live in other parts of our nation will tell you that there is much to be complimented about “small towns”. Regardless of one’s perspective shouldn’t we allow those who don’t agree to have a place that is to their liking in which to live? I dare say that the vast majority of the current residents of Rockville are here because they like it’s relatively lower density better than they like San Fran, NYC or Beantown (or Paris or Barcelona for the charette-goers). Please let Rockville remain something other than those more dense urban centers. The present course will eventually drive us all out either because we get tired of the crowding or because we just can’t afford it any longer.

Put them in Twinbrook or Lincoln Park!!

They will ruin our lives!!

They make Rockville a horrible place!!

We don’t want them in Town Center!!

I thought Rockville was a great town, full of open minded people who support one another.

How dare they build more low income homes on a site where there are already low income homes!!

Go visit First Street, remember Moore Drive?

Oh no too many black faces!!

I’m sure that, had someone created a bright pink flyer with URGENT!!! scrawled across the top, and then thrust it into the hands of Bealls Grant I residents, warning them of impending doom, more than a few would have shown up at the meeting to speak in support of the project.

If high density in and of itself were a bad thing, San Francisco, New York, and Boston – our nation’s densest cities – would be undesirable urban environments. The truth is that high density is needed for a city to support a diverse and healthy mix of retail, to justify public transit, and to reduce dependency on automobiles.

Don’t get me wrong – I think Town Center is great. But I wish it had a better retail mix.

I wonder, respecting the low supporter turnout, if Montgomery Housing Partnership was taken by surprise at opposition to something they may have thought was moving ahead with smooth sailing. After all, this has been going on since at least 2006 (that is when it first came before WECA) and they have been working hard to address concerns.

And just because someone put a lot of time and effort into creating a compelling business case that shows a building with 109 units is economically feasible, doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. It only means that someone can demonstrate how to make it look economically viable to put a building of that size and density in that location.

And I’m trying to figure out what’s so inflammatory and “class-based” about the flyer and which words are “loaded.”

Is it that they say “high density, low income rental property?”

Here is one of the objectives of the Montgomery Housing Partnership:

“Develop with the County a pilot program that begins to address the affordable housing needs of very low income households (as evidenced by the growing Section 8 waiting list) in Montgomery County”

So, that was a true statement.

Was it “transient nature of apartments?”

By definition, people living in apartments are more transient than those owning their homes because they’re renting. People who rent move more often than people who own. I don’t think there’s any arguing with that one.

Was it “saturation of subsidized housing already?”

Maybe that’s what was inflammatory, although I’m not getting it.

If the flyer had inaccurate information in it, I’d like to know what it is. I’m not the author or distributor of the flyer, but feel it’s as valid a document as this one is: http://rockvilleliving.com/blog/docs/BeallsGrantII.pdf.

Neither of them alone tell the whole story, but one is supportive and the other is not. One tries to convince you it’s the best thing for Rockville and its neighborhoods and comes from an organization trying to build the development and the other has an opposing viewpoint and (I assume) comes from people who actually live in the neighborhood who will be directly affected by it for years to come.

It’s too bad we weren’t having this conversation earlier in the process.

Obviously, someone put a lot of time and effort into determining what the number of appropriate units would be, for the amount of land available for building and the carrying capacity of the community.

It was the writers of the flyer who phrased this in an inflammatory class-based conflict, who are using loaded words to characterize renters as the human equivalent of vermin.

This is all a matter of opinion based on personal experiences and the perceived impact it can have on each of us and our families.

I oppose the development because I think 109 units is too much for that space regardless of whether it’s MPDU or $500K condos – Either way, I still don’t support this project.

I also take exception to the letter that was sent from WECA stating that they represent my views. Regardless of what that letter says, she doesn’t and they don’t represent my views or the views of some neighbors I’ve spoken to – and we all live in the West End.

I don’t understand how that letter could have been written when the majority of those living in the West End are either unaware or aren’t fully aware of the Beall’s Grant project. It would be the equivalent of me sitting down with my neighbors, agreeing on something and sending a letter to the Mayor and Council saying that we voted, unamimously agreed to something and our vote represents all the homes in the West End. It’s ludicrous.