Contributor Opinion: What is Rockville Doing to be More Accessible for Persons with Disabilities?

>The following contributor opinion is by Deborah S. Nixon. She wrote it as her final assignment for Rockville University graduation this week and I offered to publish it on Rockville Central.

As baby boomers are aging and medical science can keep people alive longer, what is Rockville doing to help people with disabilities to live a productive and independent life? Metro Access is available, but what if a person needs to get a prescription at CVS that day? Many people with disabilities live alone and do not have a family or support system close by. Have you tried negotiating the streets of Rockville as a person on a mobility device must do?

The developing principles of Rockville for Rockville Pike are:

1. Quality architecture and urban design will create a visually appealing environment along the Pike.
2. Roadway and intersection improvements on the Pike will allow for smooth, safe vehicular flow.
3. The Pike will feature a safe and pleasant environment for walking and biking.
4. Additional open space, landscaping, and environmentally friendly development will contribute to a “greener” Pike.
5. The Pike will feature vibrant, walkable mixed-use developments.
6. New public spaces on the Pike will provide a pleasant environment for community gathering and outdoor activity.
7. The economic success of Rockville’s Pike will be maintained by supporting both local and national retail and encouraging property redevelopment.
8. Rockville’s Pike will be well connected with surrounding areas, providing choices for cars and pedestrians to access and move between properties along the Pike.
9. The Pike will feature efficient and reliable public transportation options.
10. Appropriate signage, lighting, and wayfinding tools will make the Pike an inviting and easily navigable environment.

Where are the needs of the persons on mobility scooters or wheelchairs addressed?

I rode Rockville Pike with the person from the State of Maryland showing her the hazards. She saw cars almost run over me in crosswalks when I had the right of way. She saw the three dug out corners at the corner of Halpine and Rockville Pike. I still have to drive through the mud at that intersection and it has been 5 months. She saw the narrow sidewalks that do not meet ADA standards with steep drop offs into ditches, sharp turns in the sidewalks, and poles in the middle of the sidewalks. Cars in all of the crosswalks prevented me from crossing when I had the signal right of way.

The slants on the ramps to the street throw me into the street and into the flow of Rockville traffic. A guide wire hangs across the sidewalk and threatens to decapitate people. The asphalt runs jagged into the driveways of strips centers and prevents easily accessing the ramp back onto the sidewalk. Sidewalks are broken and poorly lit. Medians in the middle of driveways are a navigation hazard. The brick sidewalk and off ramp at the golf course are difficult to ride on. There are no entrance ramps back onto the sidewalk at some busy intersections. Ramps are blocked off due to construction with no warning so you have to try to turn around or drive off the curb and drive with traffic. The empty tree wells on Fleet Street leave less than two feet on the widest strip around them causing the scooter to have to drive through the muddy tree well or on the grass with the danger of getting stuck or flipping over. Overgrown shrubs actually whacked off my mirror. The hazards get worse every day.

I moved to Rockville because I loved having anything I wanted close by. Quickly I discovered the hazards of Rockville Pike. I flipped over into the busy pike due to a bumpy narrow sidewalk. Some people tell me how brave I am and others how stupid I am for riding my scooter and maintaining my independence. I don’t want my obit to say I was run over on Rockville Pike.

What is Rockville willing to do to help me and others with mobility issues and struggling to maintain our independence?

Reader Notes: Confine Pay Raises To Cost Of Living Increases

>The following Reader Note is from Jacques Gelin:

Times are increasingly hard for Rockville residents, along with the rest of the nation. Accordingly, I suggest that the city confine pay raises to city employees to cost of living increases, and that it forgo entirely any additional pay increases. I also suggest that the city implement a hiring freeze.

–Jacques Gelin

Rockville Central has begun a new feature called Reader Notes. These are sort of like letters to the editor in a traditional newspaper. Got something on your mind that doesn’t necessarily fit into a comment, or rise to the level of a longer Contributor Opinion or Contributor Review? Just send it in to us and we may publish it as a quick Reader Note. Short is good! Just a few sentences.

This is just another way we are trying to capture the voices of as many of our friends and neighbors throughout Our Fair City as possible!

Contributor Opinion by Mark Pierzchala: My Mongoose Is Loose

>The following contributor opinion (and true story) is by Rockville Central friend Mark Pierzchala:

On Saturday November 1, I purchased a Mongoose. On Wednesday, November 5 it vanished. I swear it was locked up properly. Its disappearance is mysterious and foul play is likely.

The reason I bought a Mongoose is because on Friday, October 31 someone stole my bicycle from a bike rack at Rockville Metro Station. Now before you pull all your children inside, I should explain that a Mongoose is a bicycle brand and that the Mongoose I purchased on Saturday was a used bike from a reputable area bike shop. The reason that the Mongoose vanished on Wednesday is that it too was stolen from the same bike rack at Rockville Metro.

The first stolen bike was cabled properly to the bike rack. I assumed that someone picked the lock on this cable because it had a key lock. After losing that beloved bicycle, you can be sure that the Mongoose bike was even more carefully and fully cabled to the rack. This cable had a combination lock. I think someone has a cable cutter.

I rode the Mongoose back and forth to the Metro exactly 1½ times. Even though it was used, by the time I added a few basic accessories such as a thick cable, it cost $263. If I continue to lose bikes at this rate, this clearly would not represent a cost-effective transportation solution. This poses a dilemma since we share 2 cars between 3 drivers and being able to cycle to the Metro is a key part of this arrangement.

A few months ago, I broached the topic of bike parking at Metro at Citizen’s Forum. I noted that all bike lockers at the Metro were rented and that there was at least a year’s wait. Since then, the City expressed a willingness to purchase more bike lockers for the Rockville stop. Metro said it would accept them but is concerned about the expense of their maintenance.

Along the way I learned that Metro has little money for bike security, that it is replacing some of its 1600 bike racks, that more people are biking to the Metro, but Metro needs to focus on its core business. All I wanted at the time of my presentation to Mayor and Council was a few bike racks inside the tunnel out of rain and sun and within range of security cameras.

Anyway I’m back on my unicycle after a 15 month hiatus after I fractured my elbow a week after I bragged to a neighbor that I had never broken a bone in my life. Maybe one day I’ll get good enough at unicycling to ride it to the Metro and perhaps Metro would let me take it on rush-hour trains. But my skill level is minimal and it’s going to be a long time before that happens if ever. What’s a guy to do?

P.S. The following is from Carl Henn: The county runs a bike registration system that sends you a decal with a number on it, so that if it’s recovered they know who to send it back to. It’s here. I had a bike stolen years ago from a Metro station, but it was registered through NIH. The cops caught the thieves and returned my bike.

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.

Contributor Opinion By Carl Henn: Slot Costs Outweigh Benefits

>The following contributor opinion is by Carl Henn:

Choosing our president won’t be our only task when we go to the polls on November 4. We also must decide if Maryland should bring slots back. Maryland had more slots than Nevada until 40 years ago, then banned them based on the observation that they left a trail of wrecked lives in their wake and left gambling interests in control of many counties. People would spend their kid’s lunch money on slots and some turned to crime to feed the machines as they become addicted to the one-armed bandits.

The slots plan for Maryland is supposed to raise $660 million for schools. This sounds like a lot, and indeed it is. But that is the gross increase in funds, not net. Money spent on slots isn’t spent at restaurants or clothing, so we’ll be short on other tax revenues. We will need to pay more for police and social services to deal with the harm that gambling addiction causes. Studies show that over time the cost of gambling exceeds its revenues. Further, $660 million is now conceded to be an overestimate. It’s now $500 million at best.

I am troubled by the ‘something for nothing’ attitude that pervades slots. We won’t need to make tough decisions because slots will save us. Likewise on a personal level slots undermine sound decision making. It’s hard to save money. It’s harder still when you think each quarter you plug in a machine may solve your financial problems. Worse, when you do get a payout, folks are likely to think of it as found money. Found money is likely to be spent frivolously rather than saved. Slots undercut sound decision making both for governments and individuals.

A focus on energy and transportation brings other insights to the slots issue. We are now at or very near the peak of global oil production. The current downturn in the price of oil is temporary. High prices will return shortly and go higher still than we have recently seen.

This undercuts the argument that we need slots because the money will otherwise leave the state. As the price of oil rises, we will have less discretionary income to gamble away and driving to West Virginia or Delaware will recede as an option for most Maryland residents.

As the price of oil went up, it took asphalt, steel and concrete with it, causing a $100 million over run in the first part of the first ICC construction contract. Governor O’Malley then cut all of the construction funds for the Purple Line and Corridor Cities Transitway in order to keep the ICC on schedule.

The over run they have admitted to so far is just the beginning. The ICC will continue to over run and more money will be needed to keep the ICC going. That’s where slots come in. O’Malley has already said that slots will help us to avoid budget cuts. So here is the plan – Pass slots and provide the proceeds as promised to the gaming sites, horse racing industry and education. Then reduce state support to education and use that money to fund the ICC.

Most of the people supporting slots have said that we need it for the additional money it will raise. But we should be honest about what we are raising the money for and that there are better alternatives. It isn’t too late to cancel the ICC. O’Malley could cancel it tomorrow with one phone call. This would go a long way toward solving our temporary funding problem. In the long run, the costs of slots exceed its benefits.

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.

(Image from Baltimore City Paper)

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.

County Council Studies Ambulance Fee

>Note: Our friends at the Silver Spring Penguin (which you should definitely read) asked if we could cover a couple of County Council events. We usually don’t focus on County government, but since they have direct bearing on events in Our Fair City, we thought we’d publish them here too, with permission from the Penguin. The original article is here. We encourage any Rockville Central reader who has opinion on the ambulance fee issue to submit a contributor opinion article for consideration by sending us an email.

Last Thursday morning, the County Council’s Public Safety Committee held a worksession to discuss the proposed new ambulance fee. A procedural meeting, the Committee heard that the Fire and Rescue Commission had voted 4-3 to oppose the measure. They received technical amendments to the proposed legislation from Ike Leggett’s office. And they got answers to questions they had posed to the Executive after their July 24 worksession on the bill. On hand were representatives of volunteer rescue squads in Montgomery County.

Fire and Rescue Commission chair Kevin Maloney reported that at the previous night’s meeting, his commission had narrowly voted 4-3 to oppose the measure. “This process worked,” he said. “Maybe the outcome didn’t come out the way some wanted, but the process worked. . . It didn’t become a fractious discussion; it was a positive discussion.”

Next up: a delegation from the County Executive’s office. Leggett’s office had sent along a series of proposed amendment to the measure. According to Deputy County Attorney Marc Hanson, it seems that the original language of the bill would have actually allowed private insurers to refuse to pay claims for ambulance fees. It took a letter from private insurer GEHA to point this out.

Leggett’s office offered amendments that make explicit an assumption that had been embedded in the measure: that County residents’ taxes are being treated, in essence, as “prepayments” for any ambulance fees the County might impose. This follows a similar system already in place in Columbus, Ohio, according to Kathleen Boucher, the County’s assistant chief administrative officer.

At their July 24 worksession on the proposed ambulance fees, the Public Safety Committee had asked Leggett’s office a few questions. Among other questions, the Committee had asked about the possibility that imposing an ambulance fee would discourage people from using the ambulance when they need it. Opponents of the measure have pointed to this as a key argument.

According to attorney Ted Wolfberg, who is working on this issue as outside counsel for the County, this is a “laudable and legitimate policy debate.” But the studies opponents cite don’t actually support that position. While the studies do point out that income affects health care use, he reported, the studies don’t make a connection to ambulance fees.

Council Member Marc Elrich said, “I agree with how you read these studies, they just don’t indicate that fees have a deterrent effect. . . . If you do not have insurance . . . the magnitude of the ambulance fee is just a small portion of what you’re about to be hammered with. . . . people will still be afraid of going to the emergency room because if you don’t have insurance, you’re in deep, deep trouble.”

Council Member Don Praisner agreed, “I think this question is irrelevant. Neither side can prove to me [what will happen].”

However, John Bentovoglio, counsel for the Bethesda Chevy Chase Rescue Squad, pointed out that in Fairfax County, the year they imposed an ambulance fee — ambulance calls went down. “We are concerned about [the fee's] impact on people,” he said.

Council members expressed the most concern about what the possible paperwork and other administration might look like. “The devil is in the detail in this thing,” said Elrich.

Committee Chair Phil Andrews said that there would also be one more worksession — “which may be the final one” — at which the committee will get into the fiscal assumptions behind the bill, and just how efficient an ambulance fee will be at raising revenue.

Contributor Opinion By Christina Ginsberg: Important Steps On In-House City Attorney

>The following contributor opinion is by Rockville Central friend Christina Ginsberg. The report to which she refers was prepared by Drew Powell:

On Monday, July 28, the Rockville City Council took an important step to bring the City’s attorney function in house. The City was contracting with the firm of Venable, LLC, a very large law firm with many clients including developers such as FRIT that operate within Rockville City limits. For example, in last year’s discussions regarding the COPT property that borders King Farm, Venable attorneys represented the City of Rockville, while other Venable attorneys represented the property owners. As agents of the City, Venable attorneys wrote the GDA (general development agreement) for Rockville Town Center, that governed Rockville’s development with the property owners FRIT and RDI.

I’m glad to say that the City Council voted 5-0 to discontinue its service contract with Venable.

Please keep this issue on your minds – I’m sure it will be discussed this fall.

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.

Contributor Opinion by Ruth Hanessian: Of Mixed Use And Mice

>The following contributor opinion is by Rockville Central friend Ruth Hanessian:

The proposal that is being pushed by the new zoning ordinance currently being reviewed by the council seems a backward step to me. Mixed use, as it is called, takes me back to my days as a child in the Bronx when one of my friends lived over the candy store. It looked like a great idea until I visited and realized that I had a much cleaner apartment in a Met life development. Sure there were lots of apartments, but very little commercial and consequently, no mice and other visitors that were drawn to the store trash.

Rockville’s new downtown seems to not be filling the apartments very fast. That may be price but I am already hearing of folks moving out because of late night entertainment below them that interferes with their sleep. There is also concern about the restaurant dumpsters odors and what they attract. I was pleased to see rat bait boxes in the garage adjacent to CVS but what self respecting rat would not head for the gourmet food adjacent.

Urban living does have it’s plus side, but I for one am glad that I live in an area that benefits from the old wedges and corridors concept. Mixed use is a nice name but it does not reflect the reality of the outcome.I only hope that those property owners blessed with this new designation will think twice about their civic responsibility and not just the bottom line.

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.

Article continues. Click to expand and read more…

Contributor Opinion by Joseph Jordan: Planning Commission Behaved Poorly

>The following contributor opinion is by Rockville Central friend Joseph Jordan:

Contributor Opinion by Steve Cavallo: Remember Thomas Farm

The following >contributor opinion is by Steve J. Cavallo, who blogs at Down By The River. He was kind enough to offer it for publication at Rockville Central. Thanks Steve!

I thought to write you in the hope of bringing to light an issue that a few (certainly not very many it would seem) of your readers may be outraged or at least dismayed over. I am sure you are familiar with the development known as Fallsgrove at old Rt 28 and Shady Grove Road. However, do you know what was there before Fallsgrove? It was a farm — the last of a dieing breed in Rockville and from what I could gather as a kid roaming around it, rather old. The area now known as Fallsgrove used to be the Thomas Farm. Unlike King Farm where the City has made an attempt to retain some of the historic value, Rockville seems to have forgotten the Thomas Farm. In the City’s haste to allow developers to build Fallsgrove, they allowed this important part of Rockville history to be lost. I grew up across 28 from the Thomas Farm. My grandparents still live in that house on Glenora Lane.

In 1999 the City began the process of building Fallsgrove against the wishes of the last owner’s will (she died in the mid ’90s). There is a 1999 Gazette article about this and the subsequent law suit–this is, by the way, one of only two articles mentioning the Thomas Farm I could find at the MCHS library. That same year I went to college. Upon my return my now wife and I were looking for apartments nearer to work and discovered Post Fallsgrove. This is built on what was the Thomas Farm. My love of history and Rockville sent me on a search for records of the farm and family. Much to my surprise I found next to nothing save the aforementioned article.

It seems that Rockville is willing to let a part of our history slip quietly away. In my opinion, the City has done a great disservice to its residents by allowing this part of Rockville’s past to be lost. I’m not saying that Fallsgrove should not have been built. However, to build it and not bother to research and try to preserve some of the Thomas Farm’s history is unthinkable. How can Rockville pride itself on its history and the preservation of that history if we pick and choose what to preserve. Peerless Rockville makes mention of King Farm on it’s website but not the Thomas Farm. Why? We cannot decide to document and preserve one historical landmark and ignore another. That is not historical preservation.

In closing, for my part, I will continue to research the Thomas Farm in the hopes of digging up enough of the history of it to present to the City Council during a public comment period. At least in that way the City will be made aware of the historical value they allowed to be lost. Also, what’s left will be preserved so that future residents of Rockville and Fallsgrove will know what sat at the corner of 28 and Shady Grove Road long before the houses, the apartments, and the shopping center were even thought of.

Steve J. Cavallo

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.

Contributor Opinion by Gayl Selkin-Gutman

The following >contributor opinion is by Gayl Selkin-Gutman, president of the Rockville Library Advisory Committee. She sent it along as an email originally, and I have reformatted it as an “opinion piece.”

If you listened to the last edition of Rockville Central Radio, you know that we discussed the fact that the Montgomery County Council appears poised to do away with a subsidy that makes free parking at Rockville Library possible. This contradicts a 2006 policy that the Council passed making parking free for all library patrons throughout Montgomery County.

My own opinion is that ending this subsidy, which I am told is $84,000 per year, is a bad move and sends the wrong message about the worth of public libraries. Libraries can turn areas that are otherwise strictly commercial in nature into civic hubs — witness what is beginning to happen in Town Square. This move would work against that, treating this important public institution as just another shop in a commercial center.

Enough from me. Here is Gayl’s note:

Dear Friends of the Library, Rockville Chapter and Members of the Rockville Library Advisory Committee,

As you may have heard, on Tuesday, May 13th the County Council plans to consider a hastily proposed resolution to eliminate the library parking subsidy. This means that the policy adopted in April 2006, enabling Montgomery county library patrons to park for free near all of the county’s libraries could be rescinded. The Rockville Library Advisory Committee seeks to encourage library use, and we support free parking at all county libraries. We believe that this resolution is the wrong way to go.

If you support free parking at the county’s libraries, please take the time to send an email, or contact your Council member to let them know of your support for this policy.

Following are some important points:

• The policy was established after significant input and deliberation – and should not be rescinded without allowing enough time to adequately inform the public, provide opportunities for sufficient input and understand the impacts of such a change.
• Requiring paid parking at only two of the 22 branches will deprive some county residents of equal access to their libraries.
• Imposing a parking fee would discourage library use for many patrons for whom driving is their only viable option for getting to the library.
• Many daytime library users, senior citizens on fixed incomes, the poor or the disabled, simply cannot afford to pay for parking

Thanks for your interest and support of the Rockville Library.

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.

Contributor Opinion by Rich Gottfried: Good Work; And Things To Watch On Budget

>The following contributor opinion is by Rockville Central friend Rich Gottfried:

Some positive goals that were accomplished in this year’s budget besides maintaining the services provided to support the City’s operations include but are not limited to:

• Property tax rate reduction by one percent
• Property tax credit of $100
• No SWM Utility fee of $55.80 per ERU this year and utilizing the SWM fund balance to pay for the expenditures in this area in this fiscal year.
• Public hearing on switching from a contracted outside city attorney to an in-house attorney along with utilizing some contracted outside attorney’s services in specialized legal areas.
• Increase in the income and the asset limits for the Homeowners Property Tax Credit program (the “circuit breaker” that lets seniors stay in their homes) and possibly future COLA (“cost of living adjustments”) to the limits so that this program accurately reflects the high cost of living in Rockville.
• and many other services like the funding for some additional not-for-profit agencies.

Some concerns that are still unresolved in this year’s budget include but are not limited to:

New style once per week trash pickup impacts: Since most of the City outside Hungerford has little knowledge that they will be losing once one pickup per week, is there anything built into the budget assumptions about the possiblility that the system might have to be retooled again should citizens request current service levels be retained? Namely, if projected savings (including increases in recycling rates) cannot be proven, or alternately buying more trucks to provide biweekly service. This of course must be carefully analyzed as the new style system is not equivalent to the old style system.

The parking garage enterprise fund operational financial deficit: If the parking fund is truly an enterprise fund like the water, sewer, SWM and refuse funds — is the City planning make this fund “self-sufficient” by charging taxpayers a “user” fee, “subsidy”, or “interest fee” as in the SWM utility fee example.

REDI, Inc.: There is an inherent conflict of interest having the City fund this nonprofit when the goals of REDI’s mission are to entice new businesses to Rockville and to support and maintain existing businesses in Rockville.

Rockville already has a Chamber of Commerce where businesses pay membership dues to support the Chamber. REDI’s goals and mission are great, however REDI should be a self-funded organization not by the City but by the business community, especially if REDI is as effective as claimed.

REDI cannot advocate effectively for existing businesses (for example the Home Based Businesses and the Stonestreet Businesses) against policies that the City proposes or that currently exist because REDI is funded by the City, hence a conflict of interest. “No man can serve two masters” and REDI cannot speak for Rockville based businesses in front of Rockville’s City Council while it is taking its funding from that same Council.

What was decided regarding an audit committee, an investment committee, and a finance committee?

Speed camera revenue: Hopefully during the budget deliberations you will discuss scaling back this program once the overall goal of slowing down traffic for pedestrian safety is achieved. This program will gross $4.8 million dollars for FY09 alone and net $12.6 million dollars over the next five years.

What specific projects in the City will be funded with this money, and how will it affect negotiated traffic mitigation agreements with various developers?

The City may end up with an embarassingly large amount of money earmarked only for pedestrian safety projects, however that should not let developers avoid the costs of impacts generated by their projects.

Is there any mechanism in place to assure that this money is spent throughout the City, for both new projects and for retro-fit projects in older areas such as raised crosswalks, etc.

SWM Utility fee for FY10: There still needs to be some more discussion regarding the committment for staff and consultants amounting to $30 million over the next ten years – especially since there has been no clear distinction made between those parts of the program required by the State of Maryland and the federal government and those parts of the program that are being recommended by staff.

Other issues that could be raised but this is a starting point.

I am willing to volunteer my time to discuss the above items mentioned in detail with the M&C and of course with Mr. Cohen, the City’s Director of Finance and with Ms. Tate, the City’s Budget Director either as their consultant as needed or in the capacity as the City’s Audit Committee Chairperson or the City’s Finance Committee Chairperson, if I could be of service to the City of Rockville with my financial background, experience and expertise please let me know how I can help.

Let me know your thoughts, comments, and suggestions.

We all live in the City of Rockville together so let’s make this the best place to live in and with a united front . . . together we can help each other out to the best of each of our abilities.

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. pan>

Contributor Opinion by Joseph Jordan: RedGate A Green Space

>The following contributor opinion is by Rockville Central friend Joseph Jordan:

Redgate Golf Course is the single largest piece of open, green space left in the city. It has been a jewel in the city crown for 35 years. For 29 of those years the golf course enjoyed strong financial success, finishing in the black every year – until 2003. Yet, during every budget cycle, questions are raised about its fiscal performance. This is to expected, especially when it operates as an enterprise fund. It is the only Recreation and Parks entity left as such. The recent subsidies to the fund pale in comparison to those given to other city programs. Two years ago, light was shed on several things that had negative impact on the course’s ability to sustain its’ outstanding performance as a revenue generator. These factors included a 58% increase in administrative charges; a year when it rained more than it didn’t; the summer of the sniper, when no one went outside; the summer when dozens of courses were hit with drought, then heavy rains and turf disease; outside, annual income promised to the golf course was taken away and redirected to another fund. These were all factors that led to significant decline in play and subsequent loss of revenue. It is this recent loss that now gets carried forward every year. It gives the appearance RedGate is doing worse than it is.

In an effort to remedy the situation and give the course a fighting chance, in 2006 a five year plan was drafted by staff and approved by the previous Mayor and Council. FY 08 marks the end of the second year of that five year plan, and it is my understanding that on a cash basis, Redgate did in fact finish in the black the first year and is on track to do so again in FY08.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have been a strong advocate and supporter of the golf course. I have worked closely with Burt Hall (director of Recreation and Parks) and the golf course staff in helping come up with ways to improve service as well as revenues. I chair an advisory group that consists of players representing the diverse population using the golf course — Asians, seniors, residents, non-residents, women, Hispanics. We established a volunteer program where players “adopt” holes and, on their own time, repair ball marks, seed tee boxes, etc. At my own expense, I have designed and conducted web based surveys that provided valuable information to Mr. Hall, as well as golf staff, on topics including course conditions, comparisons to other courses, fees, staff, pro shop, snack bar, tournament programs, etc. I mention all this because it is important to know what the players are willing to do to help the golf course succeed, as we ask for continued support.

We expect our elected officials to weigh and scrutinize discretionary expenses. I am not sure why Redgate is frequently singled out as the one city amenity to make a case for shutting down. Several years ago there was speculation selling the land could fund future Town Center development. There is a view by some that golf is an elitist sport and taxpayers are subsidizing such a sport. If you spent any time at Redgate you would quickly see nothing could be further from the truth. It is a melting pot of people from all walks of life looking to enjoy a few hours of outdoor recreation.There can be such things as amenities that bring value and prestige to the city that outweigh the bottom-line. I hasten to add some can also drive revenue in other areas. For example, many people playing golf at Redgate make a day of it…doing some shopping as well as staying in town for dinner and maybe a movie.

It is my understanding the RORZOR folks expressed concern about the possibility of the city selling the golf course . . . even parts of Glenview Mansion. The general consensus in RORZOR was that a developer-oriented Mayor and Council could, with three votes, sell off Redgate at will. I was told the city agreed to designate RedGate as “park zone” as opposed to residential. I don’t think this has been done yet. There was a great deal of talk about a “Green Rockville” during last years election. There is nothing greener in the city than the acres of green grass, green trees and storm water management ponds that make RedGate the special place it is.

My passion for preserving Redgate goes beyond saving a golf course. Redgate represents a community within a community, where men, women and children…young and old…all ethnicities…share a love and passion for a game. New friendships are made and old ones nourished. Just last week one of those friends passed away, and another in February. Both were charter “members” of the Redgate family, and as friends recall fond memories, many of the stories told will revolve around times shared at Redgate over the past 35 years.

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.

(Photo from RedGate Website.)

Cold Turkey On The Courthouse

Dear Readers:>

Lately, to some of you, this blog may seem to have become “all Court House, all the time!” Certainly the location of the District Court House is an important and contentious issue. People have strong views on both sides.

But, I believe at the moment just about all the arguments on both sides have been aired and those who are going to change their minds have done so. The issue has shifted from one where the chief tactic being deployed is reasoned argument to one where the tactics are more political. That does not make these tactics worse. But, it does mean that the opinion pieces about the court house have begun restating positions already taken, only more emphatically. I include myself in that; I am not criticizing anybody.

And so, I have made an editorial decision that for the time being Rockville Central is going to swear off of opinion pieces (by us here at the blog as well as contributor opinions) about the district court house.

As I have said repeatedly — because I believe it is an important transparency issue — I am personally opposed to the old library site for the court house. I think even if there was an agreement from the turn of the century to put it there, that now that there are other options possibly on the table, they ought to be looked at more closely and taken more seriously. I believe that there is nothing wrong with the affected neighborhoods, after having their protestations and complaints ignored for many years the apparatus of the state, to take the issue into a more combative arena. That’s just politics. That said, I also see arguments on the other side and am sympathetic to them. For me, they do not outweigh the neighborhood’s arguments, but they are valid and I have done my best to make sure they have a full airing in these “pages.”

This decision is not final for all time. If significant developments occur that seem important to weigh in on (or new voices come to the fore with important new arguments) we may well run them. But look to see far less on this subject for the time being.

This only applies to opinion pieces. If there is news on this issue, of course we will report it.

Here are some of what I think have been the most interesting arguments on this issue so far:

• Detail on the City’s official position.
• Council Member John Britton’s analysis of the issue, including the conclusion that there are many valiud reasons to oppose the court house at the old library site.
• Former Rockville Mayor Rose Krasnow’s contention that the City should honor its deal with the state to place the court house at the old library site.
• Letter by Brigitta Mullican in this week’s Gazette reiterating some of Krasnow’s points.
• Recap of the “timeline” of how this all unfolded, from 2001 to now, by Frank Anastasi.
• Argument that there’s wasn’t a deal with the state, or that it is not valid anymore, by Frank Anastasi.
• Montgomery County Bar Association Mary Ellen Flynn’s email and opinion piece recapping some of the state’s arguments
• Christ Episcopal Church’s statement of their opposition to the proposed location of the court house

These aren’t the only, or even necessarily the best, pieces on this issue. Just some of what I think have been the more interesting ones. I encourage you to follow this link and read to your heart’s content!

(The lovely oil painting of Blind Justice is by Doug Rugh.)

Contributor Opinion by Eileen McGuckian and Mary van Balgooy: Peerless Rockville Preserving Recent History

>The following contributor opinion is by Eileen McGuckian, Executive Director Emerita, and Mary van Balgooy, Executive Director, for Peerless Rockville:

Dear Rockville Citizens,

This is a response to a comment made by Roald Schrack in his recent opinion piece for Rockville Central. Toward the end of his discussion of the Mayor and Council’s actions regarding the location of the proposed District Courthouse, Roald wrote:

“In a parallel move to block the construction of the courthouse at the library site, there was an attempt to declare the old library a Historic Site and thus immune from destruction. The Planning Commission denied the request last week.”

Peerless Rockville has for almost 34 years followed its mission of preserving buildings, spaces, objects, and information important to Rockville’s heritage. To advance this mission, Peerless Rockville has utilized education, example, advocacy, and community involvement. There has never been an instance of Peerless Rockville viewing a proposal or initiating an action that does not conform to this mission.

In 2003, Peerless Rockville initiated a program entitled “Rockville’s Recent Past.” It is a pioneering study to create a database of information on buildings constructed in Rockville between 1914 and 1984, with particular emphasis on the post-WWII decades of the 1950s through the 1970s. The study has thus far produced a survey of 300 properties and has identified 50 or 60 of these, including the 1971 Rockville Regional Library, as of paramount importance to our community. This project also held a symposium on the Recent Past in October 2006, an outgrowth of which is a Recent Past Advisory Committee composed of residents, property owners, preservation professionals, academics, and others interested in this time period.

It is incorrect to frame Peerless Rockville’s motives in the context of the current controversy about the location of the new courthouse. Simply, Peerless Rockville has been at this for a long time, and the information about the 1971 Library has been around for years. Our staff has featured it in presentations and newsletters and in education and outreach programs, some of which have been televised on The Rockville Channel and made available to a wide public audience.

In May of 2007, Peerless Rockville proceeded with the nomination to the Historic District Commission because our research demonstrated that the Library is significant. Historically, it is our City’s first full-service, purpose-built library. Completed in 1971, it was the culmination of a century-long odyssey to build a permanent facility for library services in Rockville. It is an emblem of the City’s post-war emergence as a major suburban center. Architecturally, it is the only International Style library in Montgomery County and is one of Rockville’s best-known modernist buildings.

Peerless Rockville’s objective is not to block anything but to do what Peerless has always done. Following our nomination nearly a year ago, the Historic District Commission held two public hearings and open discussions, then in June 2007 voted that the property meets the criteria for designation and recommended it to the Mayor and Council. This nomination sat in the City Manager’s office while the District Courthouse issue was heating up. The Mayor and Council unanimously agreed to take up the nomination by its action on March 3 to authorize filing of the Map Amendment.

The Recent Past is the Rockville we know today. Increasingly citizens, institutions, and local governments, including the Planning Commission, are coming to the realization that buildings of the mid-20th century are an important part of our heritage, equally important as the Victorian architecture Peerless has espoused and protected since the 1970s.

Peerless Rockville shares the concerns of the citizens against the courthouse in the context of our mission. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts the proposed structure would have on the existing adjacent Historic Districts. On Washington Street and in Courthouse Square are 12 significant buildings that were listed in the National Register of Historic Places and in a Rockville designated Historic District two decades ago.

Lastly, let me remind you of the process of historic designation in Rockville, the same as in the rest of Maryland. A property is nominated, the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission make recommendations, and the governing body (the Mayor and Council) makes the decision. It is the same process as a Map Amendment. And, unfortunately, nothing is ever immune from destruction. Buildings designated as Rockville Historic Districts have been demolished in the past, and they will be in the future. As has been discussed and reported, State actions and wishes trump those of the local jurisdiction.

So in the end, the question that will come before the Mayor and Council at the public hearing on this Map Amendment on March 31 is whether the 1971 Rockville Regional Library meets the criteria for designation as a Rockville Historic District.

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.