Contributor Opinion By Temperance Blalock: Beall's Grant II Opposition Based On Fears And Assumptions

>The following contributor opinion is by Temperance Blalock:

As a resident of Bealls Grant I, it is distressing to see the proliferation of signs opposing Bealls Grant II, and it is impossible not to take it personally. That is especially so when one has watched the notorious Planning Commission videocast, as I have, and saw the anger of the opponents.

For the opponents to say that their campaign against Bealls Grant II is not based largely on fears of and assumptions about “those type of people” who live at Bealls Grant I is disingenuous.

I moved to Montgomery County in 1973, and have lived/worked within a 10-mile radius of downtown Rockville ever since. I’ve worked at the same job for 19 years, and lived at my last rental for 14 years before moving to BG-I. I am the antithesis of the “erratic, unstable” type that the opponents claim is the norm at BG-I, but I feel that I actually am characteristic of the residents there, who are average, hard-working people who just want a decent place to live.

The most inflammatory fear is of crime, and I have seen no evidence of it as a resident of BG-I. I recall that, when my job first moved to Gateway Tower in the summer of 2001, we were apprehensive about walking to our cars in the parking garage during late night hours, but that fear has since diminished due to the nearby development of Town Center and the Fitz apartments. The management of BG-I has done an excellent job of maintaining the building as a controlled-entry environment. As a resident, I have walked around downtown Rockville in the evenings and even late at night. The new Town Center is certainly safe, since the large number of people patronizing the restaurants and movies is conducive to deterring a criminal presence. I have also strolled through the West End residential areas at night, but feel less safe there due to the lack of a pedestrian presence. Finally, police statistics verify that BG-I does not now, nor has it in the past,
been regarded in any way as a place that generates or condones criminal activity.

The residents of BG-I, and renters in general, are labeled by the opponents as “transient” and “unstable”. Again, though, the actual facts belie this, as BG-I has a very low turnover rate. The previous resident of my unit was there for ten years, and several of the other residents whom I’ve met have also been there a long time. In all of 2008 I have observed only a handful of moving vans in the parking lot, whereas I would see them constantly at my previous apartment unit in Gaithersburg. I fully intend to stay at BG-I as long as my circumstances remain the same.

The opponents claim that the presence of BG-II would somehow “violate” the nature of the neighborhood. However, the proposed location of BG-II is at the corner of an intersection where the three other corners all house four-story or higher buildings that are largely businesses.

As for traffic, that is already a tremendous problem in downtown Rockville that would be much more affected by the addition of a gourmet supermarket than by an apartment building. Who is opposing the supermarket, or the possible relocated courthouse? Many residents of BG-I either don’t own cars, or, like me, don’t drive theirs. I moved to BG-I because it is within walking distance of my job at Gateway Tower, and the parking lot of BG-I is evidence that the residents are not frequent drivers. The opponents should instead be more concerned about other sources of traffic.

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to contribute too! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Share and enjoy:

Hide Sites