Subscribe free to our daily email newsletterContributor Opinion By Alice Liu: Planning Commission Rules Unfair To Citizens
Jul 14, 2009 8:00 - 9 Comments
>On June 24, 2009 the Planning Commission met to review the road abandonment of Mt. Vernon Place. This “paper road” runs behind the Courthouse Walk townhomes and abuts the Fleet St property owned by the County. On this land Victory Housing has applied to build a large apartment building to be used as affordable housing for seniors.
Conflict of Interest – County Representative and Victory Housing Representative are One and the Same
At the Planning Commission meeting, several citizens were disturbed by what appeared to be a conflict of interest regarding the representative for Montgomery County. The representative is also the lawyer for the developer, Victory Housing. He was asked by the County to speak on their behalf, yet there were times when it was clear when the lawyer said “we” that he was speaking for Victory Housing, not Montgomery County. Anyone can watch the meeting video and judge for themselves (go here, click on “Planning Commission Meetings”, and then click on “Video” for the 6/24/09 meeting).
The conflict arises when you consider the following:
- The County is responsible for promoting the public interest, while Victory Housing is responsible for promoting Victory Housing’s interests. How can one person represent both interests?
- The County plans to lease the land to Victory Housing for $1/year if the City of Rockville approves the project. They will be the landlord and Victory Housing the tenant. How can one person fairly represent two sides of a transaction? This is like having the same real estate agent for the buyer and seller of a home. This is particularly true in a case where the county, supposedly the holder of the public trust, is planning to give away public lands for free. Which master does the agent serve?
Using the same person to represent the County and the developer seems inappropriate at best and a conflict of interest at worst. The County should have separate representation. Based on the Planning Commission meeting of 24 June and subsequent written communications between the City of Rockville and the County’s lawyer, it is clear that the county is advocating positions that favor the developer at citizens’ expense. From this it is hard not to conclude that the County is in league with the developer
City Gives the Developer and Montgomery County All the Advantages for Input and Rebuttals
During this Planning Commission meeting, the applicant (Montgomery County) was given ten minutes to make their presentation. For citizens to match that 10 minutes of time it requires at least one of the following combinations of citizen speakers: four ordinary citizens, one association leader and two citizens, or two association leaders. Why do citizens have to jump through these hoops to have their say? Furthermore, the only time citizens were asked for clarification was immediately after they gave their testimony, whereas throughout the proceedings the Planning Commission engaged the County/Developer representative multiple times for clarification, discussion, and rebuttal. We estimated that the County/Developer representative was given at least 45 minutes total to speak. No such opportunity for dialogue was given to citizens. In fact members of the Planning Commission misquoted and misunderstood citizen’s statements and yet did not give citizens a chance to correct their errors. Citizens should be given at least the same opportunity as the developers to rebut, correct, and clarify during these public deliberations.
In a letter dated July 1, 2009 from the law firm for Victory Housing to Jim Wasilak of the Rockville Planning Department, the firm states that “You have advised us that Staff is preparing a report for the Council’s consideration outlining issues that arose during the Planning Commission’s review on June 24th. As of this writing, no one from the City has proactively contacted members of the community to apprise them as well of this Staff action. We found out only because we reached out to the City. The report prepared by Staff for the July 13 meeting clearly states that “At staff’s request, the applicant’s counsel submitted additional information on July 1, 2009, which addresses why the applicant (Montgomery County Government) seeks abandonment of the subject public right-of-way”, yet Victory Housing’s law firm went beyond that request and attempted to address the question of costs and benefits to Courthouse Walk, which is then included as an attachment to this staff report. Once again the developer gets more time to make his case. Meanwhile there is no such request for community input from Courthouse Walk.
Victory Housing’s law firm does NOT represent Courthouse Walk. Mayor and Council and City Staff should disregard the firm’s statements with respect to Courthouse Walk. It is impossible for this law firm to represent Victory Housing, Montgomery County, and the community all at the same time! The only people who can answer the cost/benefit to Courthouse Walk are either Courthouse Walk or the City if they would ever make the attempt.
Alice Liu
Courthouse Walk
This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!
Follow on Twitter
I am disappointed to hear this, although I have to say that I am not terribly surprised. In my and other neighbors’ attempts to be heard on a variety of issues at the Citizen’s Forum of the Mayor and Council Meeting, we have been met with indifference at best by the Mayor and Council.Much of it frankly feels like a kangaroo court. I understand that we have a choice when we vote this year, but what else can be done in terms of process/procedure to create an environment where regular, active, and concerned citizens feel heard?
Mr. Slavin:I am sorry if you feel that you have ever been met with indifference from me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I invite you (and all others) to the Townhall Meeting this Thursday night (see article posted today on this site) or to my drop-in time (before Council meeting) on August 3rd when we can take whatever time you need to discuss issues that are on your mind.Piotr
Mr. Slavin:I am sorry if you feel that you have ever been met with indifference from me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I invite you (and all others) to the Townhall Meeting this Thursday night (see article posted today on this site) or to my drop-in time (before Council meeting) on August 3rd when we can take whatever time you need to discuss issues that are on your mind.Piotr
Mr. Slavin:I am sorry if you feel that you have ever been met with indifference from me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I invite you (and all others) to the Townhall Meeting this Thursday night (see article posted today on this site) or to my drop-in time (before Council meeting) on August 3rd when we can take whatever time you need to discuss issues that are on your mind.Piotr
In answer to Mr. Slavin’s question, what can be done is vote in a mayor and council who are sympathetic and responsive to residents. I have sent emails with specific questions to the mayor. With rare exception, they have gone not only unanswered, but without acknowledgement. I, and others, have stood at citizen’s forum and asked the mayor, point blank, for an answer to the same questions. Not only do you not get an answer, you are treated like you weren’t even there…ignoring not only your question, but your presence.Mr. Gajewski, you are not the only member of the council, so it isn’t just about you. While you do an okay job responding during citizen’s forum, you have at times done so with disrespect towards some speakers. You, and other council members, have at times responded with allegations or interpretations that are just plain inaccurate, but you get the final word and we have to swallow hard and end up frustrated with the whole process.Your town hall meetings are yours. I have been asking for the same town hall meetings with the entire council answering questions. There certainly is enough room on the calendar since you all meet on average once every three weeks or so.I can concur with everything Ms. Liu has written because I have been part of the team working on this issue, and while she and Noreen Bryan have done most of the work, I feel the same frustration and disadvantage as they do.
I don’t see how you can fault Gajewski for what the Mayor and other Councilmembers do or don’t do. Gajewski provides a forum with his town hall meetings. That doesn’t guarantee you get the result you want, but you certainly have opportunity to take your issues directly to your elected official.
I have attempted to remain up to date on this issue since May. Twice I have written to an address provided in the WECA newsletter and asked to be added to the list serv run by Noreen and Alice and have never been added. I asked Noreen in person to add me and she brushed me off.I have been told that there is a petition circulating to kill this project–just like happened with BGII. Again, this is all happening in secret apparently among certain residents who simply don’t want people who support affordable housing to be involved–like me. I fear that this worthy project could again be held hostage by a splinter group of citizens and possibly with the support of some on WECA–which has NEVER taken a vote on this project.This project has nothing to do with the Mayor and Council.The project is on county land and is proposed by a non-profit organization, the Catholic Archdioceses.There is a meeting Monday night that I urge all interested parties to attend.The meeting will be at 7 PM in the cafeteria of the Council Office Building at 100 Maryland Ave. The meeting is required by the city zoning ordinance as a “post-application AREA meeting.”The developer has reduced the bulding to 86 units and made other improvements, which will be discussed at the meeting, according to a flyer I received.
Many of the people who have a perception that they are being ignored or “not listened to” in political exchanges are often the ones who are operating from a highly-charged emotional state of anger or frustration, and feel that the anger itself should be sufficient to motivate their officials to react in a certain way. From the time of our Revolution, through the Civil War, to the scores of conflicts and issues of the 20th century and into our currently polarized blue state/red state millennium, Americans have always been politically exuberant. But it’s disturbing to realize how little we’ve evolved as citizens or human beings that we are still so easily inflamed into behavior that is often so polluted with emotional rage that the perspective of the actual issues at hand is obscured or distorted, if not sometimes completely forgotten. I admit to being susceptible to it myself.It’s sad to see how many of the issues affecting Rockville frequently degenerate into forums for personal attacks and intimidation.Do we really want our elected officials to make decisions based primarly on the level of emotion displayed at public hearings, rather than on what they may feel to be the best interests of the entire citizenry, and not just the subset who were motivated enough to show up and yell? I’m reminded of the July 2008 hearings about Bealls Grant II, when the opponents claimed that their overwhelming presence and volume at the hearing was “evidence” that the entire West End opposed the development. In fact, many supporters of the development, such as myself, refrained from attending this meeting (and several others) out of sheer fear of the level of emotion. I have a lot of sympathy for the public officials who listen to this type of testimony and can remain calm enough to properly evaluate the situation. While political officials should most definitely listen to their constituents, they should not base their actions on what sometimes amounts to a mob mentality.
It is satisfying to read T. Blalock’s comment regarding the difficulty that our elected officials have to make because the decisions will please some people and displease others. Decisions need to be made in the BEST INTEREST of the ENTIRE citizenry with all accurate information. The loudest voices do not necessarily represent the most informed group. Unfortunately, decision makers do make bad decisions. In some cases mistakes can be rectified.