Contributor Opinion By Larry Giammo: Differences Between Beall's Grant 2 And Other Successful Developments

>The following Contributor Opinion is by former Rockville mayor Larry Giammo. It is a reprint, by permission and suggestion of the author, of a message he sent to the Mayor and Council on November 26, 2008.

Mayor and Council,

I watched the segments of the most recent city council meeting having to do with the proposed Beall’s Grant II development and related matters. I think the question of how the Beall’s Grant II development has ended up at the center of what is a troubling situation is worth serious thought and discussion.

If you look back at some of the most significant development projects approved in Rockville over recent years, there are at least several that had the potential to become sources of widespread concern and intractable opposition – but, instead, stand out as having in the end garnered widespread support among nearby residents. Examples that come to mind include Legacy at Lincoln Park, Twinbrook Commons, and Chestnut Lodge – to name a few.

Why did projects like these not end up in the unfortunate situation that we, as a community, now face with Beall’s Grant II? Three fundamental differences are apparent:

1 – Process: In each case, the developer engaged nearby residents in a series of multiple meetings to discuss the potential development. The series of meetings began well before a date had even been set for the development application to be formally considered for approval. The meetings were inclusive, interactive, substantive, constructive and productive. In each case, the result of the series of meetings was a project plan that a) had evolved significantly from what had originally been proposed, and b) both the developer and most of the nearby residents were comfortable with. By the time the actual development application came up for formal consideration for approval, any question of community opposition had, for the most part, already been addressed and put to rest.

2 – Developer’s Attitude and Intent: In each case, the developer made a good faith and significant effort to inform, engage and work collaboratively with nearby residents. And, the city government’s expectation was made very clear to the developers: unless and until they did in fact make a good faith and significant effort to inform, engage and work collaboratively with nearby residents, their project was highly unlikely to be approved.

3 – City Government’s Role: In each case, the city government monitored the progress of the discussions between the developer and nearby residents, in order to be able to informatively and independently assess whether both sides were truly making a good faith effort at collaborative problem solving. At the same time – and this is critical – the city government stood ready to step in at the appropriate time to represent the interests of nearby residents, based on the premise that it would be inappropriate and unfair to put the residents in a position of having to “negotiate” completely on their own, since they lack the resources and experience with zoning, planning, design, etc. that each developer has at their disposal.

So, back to Beall’s Grant II. Objectively speaking, what’s transpired in regard to Beall’s Grant II bears little, if any, resemblance to what was experienced with those other development projects, especially in regard to the three points outlined above.

The question for you now, most fundamentally, is whether you believe it’s worthwhile to move the process for Beall’s Grant II back a few steps so that there’d be the opportunity to apply what’s outlined above to Beall’s Grant II. If you do make that choice, it’ll likely take a couple of months to potentially achieve a positive outcome similar to that of the other projects, in terms of developing a project plan that is much more widely accepted and supported. At that point, the letter of support needed by the developer could then be put to a vote.

If, on the other hand, you’d rather not slow the developer down and choose to put the needed letter of support to a vote now, the numerous community members who already feel concerned, frustrated and disenfranchised will only feel even more concerned, more frustrated and more disenfranchised as a result – and arguably legitimately so, given how other development projects with potentially significant community impact have been handled in the city in the past.

Sincerely,
Larry Giammo

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 join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Share and enjoy:

Hide Sites