Comments on: West End Approves Memorandum On Beall's Grant II; Outcome Uncertain

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:35:13 +0000

Did anyone see the Council meeting last night? MHP filed their 74 unit plan. In the meantime, Giammo’s legal appeal continues. Sounds like MHP is acting in good faith, while Giammo is not. What an ego! Glad he’s not Mayor anymore!

By: Theresa Defino

Theresa Defino — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:52:14 +0000

to anon–i agree with you that BGII itself should not be major issue. and that the campaign should deal with a vision for the futurehowever, these are linked. the fact is what happened to BGII should be part of the discussion of who we are and who we want to be as a city. one member of the committee has already announced she will run for council and others may as well.we need to ask ourselves, in my view, whether we are a welcoming city of residents who lift each other up or whether we simply look down on others who don’t have the means–or desire–to drive a landrover or a BMW. do we respect our own laws and processes? BGII was approved by the planning commission at 109 units.or do we allow a faction of a citizen organization to hold a project hostage after it has passed all legal requirements?are we FOR anything, or just against everything? to you and the other silent and anonymous 60,000 rockville residents, i ask that you become engaged and informed and make this campaign about what is important to you.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:31:04 +0000

Mr. Pierzchala:Rockville is a city of 60,000. Of these, perhaps only 500 or so (less than one percent of the population!) are really engaged in the BG II issue. One can only hope that it will not be a “major issue.” One can hope that perhaps the campaign might deal with a vision for the future of the City – not with idiot NIMBY fetishes.

By: Mark Pierzchala

Mark Pierzchala — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:56:17 +0000

Just so you know when reading the following, I attended this meeting (and several before it), I live in College Gardens where I used to be a Civic Association president, and I’m running for council (I ran for mayor in 2007). And in the interest of fullest disclosure, when the issue came before Mayor and Council of whether to send a letter to the state to support the original project, I came out for the letter because I saw far more good than harm in the original BGII proposal.The compromise building design is a good one. It addresses the one valid argument against the original plan; that its massing was too large (and it really was, and I told MHP this). There are some nice additional improvements in the compromise including improved facades and the parking entrance on Dawson. I agree with some of the commentary above that there are loaded phrases that were used that were not appropriate. These include “low income housing” and “subsidized housing”. The term “affordable housing”, while used, was not adequately explained; there are key differences. Additionally, I find the focus on kinds of professions the future BG II residents should have (police, teachers, etc.) to be offensive. It can be implied from the emphasis on this point that crime would be a problem. The current residents of Bealls Grant are from a variety of professions and this has not presented a crime problem. Affordable housing provides housing for law-abiding people who work!It appears that the decision to appeal the ruling on the AFPO was made before the meeting. This should have been mentioned. I’ve read through the AFPO and I can see the appeal going either way. The appeal, while raising a valid question that is important not only for this project, serves to introduce uncertainty into the process. Maybe this will effectively kill BG II.Without having heard MHP’s side of the story, if it is true that post-signature, they introduced some additional text, then of course, this was not at all wise and should not have been done.I heard at the meeting and read in the commentary above, that when MHP originally brought this to the WECA executive committee, that it was with a full 109-unit plan; and that the WECA executive committee approved it. If this is true, then I can see some valid exasperation on the part of MHP, as they did what the City Staff suggested they do.One last comment on the concentration of “this kind of housing” (another loaded term). It is really hard to know what kinds and what numbers of, shall we say, “alternative housing” is in each area of the City. I tried to pursue this when I was president of College Gardens Civic Association. We certainly have a “concentration” in this part of the City. There are privacy rules, multiple sponsoring agencies or organizations of this alternative housing, and I’m not sure a reasonable count is even possible, or who you would go to in order to get it. I finally decided not to focus on numbers of units, but whether they introduced an ongoing problem into the community; and they haven’t. The West End is huge. I would argue, that when you look at these numbers of alternative units in proportion to the size of an area of the City that there are other areas of the City that would be just as saturated.I’m sure that this will be an issue in the fall campaign. I’m hopeful that WECA sponsors a candidates forum as it did in 2007, and that this comes up as a major issue with adequate time for all candidates (all 20 of us!?) to thoroughly explain themselves. And I promise, we’ll try to keep it nice.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:11:50 +0000

Andrew, according to the article the property will have 20% of the units at market rate, which should be far less than the Fenestra and the other over-priced properties across the street jugding by what “market” residents pay at Bealls Grant now; give ‘em a call. I get sick and tired of hearing people talk about “huge taxpayer subsidies” for “subsidized housing” when the housing program that costs the US taxpayer hundreds of billions a year, far more than any other program, is the home interest deduction. It’s a great program, but let’s be honest about it–any of us who owns a home lives in “taxpayer subsidized housing”, including the residents of WECA who decry “subsidized” housing in “their” neighborhood. Tax credit housing is not “subsidized” housing–it’s for working people! It was a Ronald Reagan program to encourage private (not government ) investment in properties for working folks—those who work and sweat in our libraries, hotels, restaurants, construction sites, government offices, etc.. All those Republicans on the WECA Board and Beall’s Committee should be very proud of this program!

By: Temperance Blalock

Temperance Blalock — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:06:00 +0000

I pay market rate, and I don’t begrudge my neighbors paying less. The convenience of living in this location is a priority for me (so that I don’t have to drive much, which is a problem with impaired eyesight), and it’s hundreds of dollars less than an overpriced unit at Fenestra. My only options otherwise would be to pay about 75 to 80% of my take-home pay for rent of a puny studio/efficiency, or else to move out north of Frederick and commute several hours a day.*Nothing* gets built without tax credits. If you think that rental conglomerates like Grady Management aren’t getting huge tax writeoffs, while simultaneously gouging their tenants, then you need to look into those arrangements a lot closer.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:32:24 +0000

One thing I can say, if I was one of the 10% paying “market rate” i’d be pretty peeved. Imagine paying significantly higher rent than your next-door neighbor, just because you earn more. Same building, same location, same amenities…the standards for a fully appointed rental unit in this county are pretty high.If the cutoff is $60,000 per year, making $61,000 per year doesn’t exactly make it easy for you to pay several hundred more dollars each month in rent. Therefore, there is a disincentive to earn more money. The fact that this project is not viable without a giant infusion of tax credits is a signal that maybe its not economical anyway. Oh well, GM and nearly every big bank seem to get handouts, why not everyone else?

By: Temperance Blalock

Temperance Blalock — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:46:48 +0000

The constant characterization of MHP as deceitful unethical liars was depressing and false. The presentation stated that, at the February 2008 meeting of WECA, MHP presented plans to renovate only the existing 14 units. This is absolutely not true: MHP gave an extensive presentation at that meeting in which they displayed multiple architectural renderings of the proposed 109 unit project, and there was no outrage expressed at that time. It was only when the opponents distributed a shrill pink flyer just two days before the Planning commission meeting in July, that the outrage was inflamed. A reminder that that flyer was printed on pink paper, marked URGENT!!!, was unsigned by the distributors, and made vicious personal characterizations of the residents of BGI as criminal, irresponsible, and parasitic. This has been a campaign of longstanding mud-slinging and innuendo, and for the opponents to paint themselves as the only party of integrity and propriety is severely hypocritical.

By: Theresa Defino

Theresa Defino — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:46:55 +0000

I should have said that MHP agreed not to increase the number of units at BGI or BGII for 25 years. The MOU states they intend to make improvements or rehabilitate BG I. But interested parties can easily read the MOU.

By: Theresa Defino

Theresa Defino — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:28:59 +0000

Thank you for this report.You are correct in that no one spoke up for MHP. They were not permitted to attend. I wish they had. Many speakers–who knew very little about the issue and had not attended any meetings– were allowed unchallenged to characterize MHP as sneaky, under-handed, withholding and uncooperative. I was part of the committee and know this to be untrue. One need only to look at the agreement to see. MHP gave on every single issue the committee wanted. Every issue. Look at the height, the number of units, the design shape of the building…there were so many changes. They have agreed to no changes to the existing building for 25 years. That is a huge concession and way beyond the scope of the committee, which was supposed to deal only with the proposed BGII. Everyone seems to forget: they have a legally approved building for 109 units!There was no compromise on the committee’s part–except for those who really wanted “zero” units. In addition, the discussion last night continually referenced “low income” and “subsidized housing.” This is neither and these words were never corrected for those in attendance who don’t know the real situation. Insulting comments were made such as “people in affordable housing don’t have cars.” They do–just not fancy ones like some in Rockville seem to think is our due.It is clear what the purpose of the kick-out clause was–the litigants want to stop this project, period. So many–including the former mayor–are on the committee. They could have stopped. No challenge is likely to come from anyone but them. By filing the appeal and moving the case forward, they have sought to destroy the many months of negotiations. And doing so right before the meeting without the citizens in attendance being aware of this–seems to me a mockery. I didn’t find out until after the meeting that an appeal had been filed.I want to add one final thought: all of this is over SEVEN units, folks.That’s right. Not 109, not 74, 7 units.The building will be 10 percent for folks with incomes under $35,000. The rest is above that and market rate.