Rose Krasnow in The Gazette: City Should Live Up To Its End Of The Deal

>Rockville Central friend Brigitta Mullican drew my attention to former (1995-2001) Rockville mayor Rose Krasnow’s piece in the latest issue of the Gazette. I had missed it.

Krasnow’s article is an important voice in the debate over the new District Court House and she makes points that the Move The Courthouse folks (among whom I count myself) will need to be able to answer. I encourage you to read the whole thing, but here is a key passage:

[When Krasnow was mayor, a]greeing to let the existing library site be home to the new courthouse was just the incentive [to get the state to kick in funds for a new library in Town Center] that was needed. A deal was struck; and everyone, including many citizens who had opposed the other sites, was pleased. . . .Well, the state certainly lived up to its side of the deal. . . . Rockville got everything it asked for, but now we want to renege on our part of the equation. . . .

The old library site is the ideal site for Montgomery County’s new District Courthouse. It will be a landmark for people entering the Central Business District, and it will become a focal point of activity that will help boost the fortunes of downtown Rockville. I hope the city will rethink its opposition and welcome the start of construction when it gets underway this summer. It is the honorable thing to do.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Brigitta!

Gajewski Town Hall Recap

Council Member >Piotr Gajewski held his first-ever “Town Hall Meeting” last night at City Hall, an event which he said may become quarterly. I was there.

I counted a total of 27 citizens attending. People whose names I know who were there included, in no particular order: Frank Anastasi, Cynthia Cotte Griffiths, Art Stigile, Brigitta Mullican, Christina Ginsberg, Mark Pierzchala, Joseph Jordan, Jacquie Kubin, Belinda Engels, Bob Reiver, Carl Henn, Roald Schrack, Sally Stinner. (If you were there and I do not know your name, I apologize. Let me know!)

I found the meeting to be both civil and frank. At some points, emotions seemed to be running high. Over the course of the meeting, a handful walked out in frustration at various points. Having led many community conversation sessions myself, I can say that my impression at the time was that it must not have been an easy meeting to run.

This is just a recap taken from my notes. It’s not meant to be authoritative. It does not cover every subject that came up, but I think this hits the key themes and most of the key points that were made. I try to keep my opinion out of it and just stick to the facts. I welcome others to make corrections and clarifications. The best way to do that is in the comments, so all can see.

Around Rockville In Eighty Days

Gajewski began the evening recapping some of the legislative accomplishments of his first 80 days in office. The accomplishments (or activities) he listed were for the whole council, not just his own. His list included improving pedestrian safety at Richard Montgomery High School, the Rockville Green Building program, adopting a comprehensive financial policies document, and instituting paid parking in Town Square (there were others too).

He also gave a sneak preview of a new “City Vision” — indicating that it contained the aspiration that Rockville should become known as a cultural center, including both high culture and popular culture events.

Then he launched into the substance of the meeting.

District Court House

The first subject was the new District Court House. (I am not going to recap the substance of that issue here, as Rockville Central readers are probably pretty well studied up on it.) He started with what he called a “civics lesson,” complete with a diagram on the white board, outlining the facts — which he summed up as:

• The City has no role;
• The State’s wishes trump the City’s;
• The state funding process is such that, should the court house not get a “go” in the current state budget, the project would then go away and not reappear for ten years or so.

He then began stepping through a time line. When I asked, he said that it had been provided to him by Phil Simmons. (This was later clarified by someone else’s question after the meeting: It is evidently a time line prepared by State Delegate Luis Simmons.)

The time line reconstructs events back to 1999, and builds a case that, since that time, the City has known the court house was coming, directed the state to the “old library site” in the first place, and did not raise objections to the location of the court house even when plans were presented to the Mayor and Council in 2005 (in that meeting, according to the time line, then-Mayor Larry Giammo is said to have objected to the design and lack of parking for the planned building, “but not to the site itself.”)

The meeting began to get heated here. Some participants (including Frank Anastasi, a Rockville Central contributor, and Sally Stinner, a West End resident, among others) jumped in a few times with clarifications to the time line and additions designed to show that the city (and its citizens) had been trying throughout the entire process to raise objections about the new court house, dating back to 2001, but were continually rebuffed and told it was a “done deal.”

Council Member Gajewski held to his point. “From the State’s point of view,” he said, “they did everything right.” It was, instead the City that “dropped the ball” by not objecting officially when it had a chance to do so in 2005. Given the current situation, Gajewski said:

“There are two options. First, the court house is going forward. Swallow hard, admit it, and think about what we can do to make it work better. The second option is the one I call the ‘Nuke Option’ . . . which is to get really creative and start talking about lawsuits.”

Of the latter option, he said that he did not see will among the council to go that route, but was unsure. “Six weeks ago,” he said, “we were unanimous in believing that if it were a choice between a court house on that site and no court house at all, we would choose the court house.” He went on, “Since that time, I know that Council Member [John] Britton has changed his mind.”

For his part, he said, he saw merit in the view that, “Rockville needs to be a mature municipality who is a responsible partner.” In other words, he went on to elaborate, the best course of action is to accept that the court house will be built, and look at ways to mitigate its impact.

Water Maintenance Fees

Next up was another contentious issue, water utility maintenance fees. The City’s sewers were built after WWII, 50 years ago, and they are now worn out — there has been
no plan to replace them. The City has essentially done no preventive maintenance on its 180 miles of water and sewer pipes, just ongoing repairs as needed; it is time now to pay the piper.

Gajewski said that surcharges were on the way, probably in the neighborhood of a surcharge that WSSC recently instituted of about $300 per year. He said that he felt that such fees ought to be indexed so that lower income people could afford them — and that, before asking citizens to pay, the City ought to look harder at ways it can reallocate its existing budget.

In a later email to some community members, Council Member Gajewski expanded on his views:

“I do feel that the City is coming to this issue at the right time (a few years ago, pipes weren’t bursting), on a similar schedule as other water authorities (WSSC for example), and, of course, the charge that is coming is a fee not a tax. From a personal perspective, as a King Farm resident, I will not be subject to the City fee (not yet quantified), but will have to pay the additional WSSC fee, estimated at about $300 per year. This is especially annoying as at King Farm I have completely new pipes, so that my fee will be going to replace other pipes in the WSSC system. The pipes at King Farm will not need replacing in my lifetime.”

A New Form Of Government

Finally, Council Member Gajewski seemed to surprise many in the room when he asked what they thought of the idea of switching to a “strong mayor” form of government. “In the current model,” he said, “accountability goes out the door.” With a strong executive, who is elected and has control, someone is accountable in a way a group of elected officials is not.

A few citizens said that the problem was not the form of government, but the quality of oversight that the council is currently exercising over staff. More than one citizen said they felt as if council members were “led” by staff, and not given enough options. (One participant pointed out that the council is indeed given three or more options for most issues, and that they are free to follow or reject advice of staff.)

Mark Pierzchala, who had been silent for the whole meeting, spoke up. “We just had a city election,” he said. “We had eight candidate forums. Tens of thousands of doors were knocked on. Not once did the form of government for the City come up. Now, with the election over with, the subject comes up. I am not necessarily opposed, but I think that a campaign is the right time to begin raising those questions. Now is not the time.”

Gajewski disagreed, saying, “I think during the campaign, you are running within the system,” so it is difficult to campaign on changes one would make to the system.

One Citizen’s Questions

Among the handful of citizens who left was Belinda Engels of Twinbrook. She later sent the following (edited for length) to Rockville Central:

I was at the Town Hall Meeting this evening and I give Mr. Gajewski a lot of credit for having the meeting and for answering questions posed in, what appeared to be, an honest and straight forward manner. . . . If I may pose my questions on Rockville Central perhaps someone with answers will respond.

1) Has the State of Maryland made any projections as to what the next step will be after the new Court House is built on the site of the old library and they discover that it is not adequate for their needs in a short time due to the growth of the population in Rockville and Montgomery County in general? After all, the millions of dollars to build the court house is taxpayer money, in one way or another, and it is senseless to build and have to build again at a different site in order to expand.

2) As I understand it, the planning phase of our “smart growth” has been going on for years. Projected traffic studies, environmental impact studies, etc. have been done and I would like to know what the projected profile of a Rockville resident in 5 years and 10 years is. I am sure that a profile(s) have been done and I’d like to know what persons and family units Rockville wants to have here. More and more I get the feeling it isn’t us — the people currently residing here.

3) In reading about the once a week trash collection we will be getting soon and how it will save the average household about $100 per year in increases, I notice the article says “bulk trash will be picked up by appointment.” This is a weekly service that was included in our regular trash schedule for as long as I can remember. Will we now be charged extra for bulk trash pickup? WSSC removes bulk trash but charges the customer extra for the service. You call and they come out to see what you have to dispose of, how much there is and then they give you a price for hauling it away. This system could void any savings to customers going to once a week trash collection.

4) We are going to have an increase in our water bill to cover updating the pipes, treatment plant, etc. I would like to know if the development of the Twinbrook metro and Rockville Pike areas will be using City of Rockville water and sewage or WSSC. Are we paying for improvements in order to service the new developments, after we have had to deal with broken water lines, clogged sewer lines and [had to] pay to replace our water lines from the street into our homes so we could have decent water flow for many, many years [while we have received] many promises of improvements?

5) I live on Ardennes Avenue, one block off Veirs Mill Road, at the opposite end of the Twinbrook Metro stop and I would like to know the future of our on street parking. I have asked a number of times and never gotten an answer.

I appreciate any assistance in getting my questions answered.

Thank you,
Belinda Engels

As I said at the beginning, this is not an exhaustive and authoritative recap, but it hits the high points. If you were there and have different recollections, or feel there are key points that I missed, I encourage you to bring them up!

My Opinion: Valid Criticisms Of Sincere Efforts

Criticisms have crossed my desk of late, directed towards members of the City Council. Since much of it relates to items that have appeared here at >Rockville Central, in the interest of transparency I wanted to make clear my thoughts. I am trying to be helpful here and advance an emerging dialog — you may not agree with my view and that’s OK. I welcome critique.

Anyway: One council member has recently announced a “town hall” meeting. Another has written a lengthy analysis of the district court house issue, and has suggested that ongoing meetings on the subject might be a good idea. Meanwhile, two officially-scheduled Council meetings have been canceled and, under pressure from the public, a previously-taken decision to cease televising work sessions was reversed.

All of this has generated a number of legitimate criticisms, which are well-crystallized in this contributor opinion piece by Joseph Jordan — though, based on my Inbox, Joe is not at all alone in his views.

For what it’s worth (which is probably just about what you are paying for it), here’s what I think are some important facts about where we are right now in terms of our City’s political climate:

• There are some contentious, substantive issues that the City is facing (such as the court house, the new budget, rezoning, and others), many of which have people understandably on edge;
• There is an existing recent history of the City Council having difficulty working together which has resulted in skepticism on the part of many that disagreements can be worked through; and
• While they are hopeful that productive norms can be maintained, a number of citizens voice a lack of trust how some of the City Council’s decisions are made.

The ingredients are all there for some difficult slogging and cross words in the near future.

I’m in favor of members of the city council making their own statements and holding their own meetings on important issues, so we can get to know them better. However, such things need to take into account these facts, and it’s important that they be calibrated — so they lessen mistrust as opposed to fan it. In other words: Joe makes good points when he criticizes both of these recent moves, but I also feel that council members John Britton and Piotr Gajewski are making sincere efforts to add to (not diminish) the public discourse and their intent ought to be encouraged, even if there are aspects of how it got done that we don’t agree with.

Indeed, cross words are sometimes just part and parcel of getting public work accomplished. But, with the above in mind I hope that all (citizens and community leaders and political leaders) can move forward remembering that:

• City officials have a number of hard decisions to make and actions to take — so they need “room” to do that; and
• Some citizens have felt shut out of decision making — so they need clear signals that their concerns are taken seriously; and
• Everyone involved, without question, has the best interests of the City at heart — so it’s likely they aren’t just trying to make one another mad.
  

Maybe this just adds up to “can’t we all just get along?” I do know it is not always that easy. But I think there is room, on President’s Day weekend, for there to be a pause and the heat to lower a bit, while we reflect on how best to move forward.

What do you think?

Contributor Opinion From Christ Episcopal Church: Library Site For The New Court House Is Unfair

>The following contributor opinion about the new District Court House is by Bob McCartin, speaking on behalf of Christ Church of Rockville as its Senior Warden:

As many citizens are aware, the State of Maryland has been considering building a new District Courthouse on the property that the old Rockville library currently occupies. The construction funds are in the recently proposed State budget and many assume that it is a done deal. But as with so many things in politics, it is not over until it is over. If enough citizens speak up, our elected officials will find another location.

The old Rockville library location is less than 100 feet from our church and school. If this project proceeds, it will impact our church and school adversely. We have huge concerns about traffic, parking, and safety.

1. Traffic along narrow South Washington Street, right in front of our church and school, will increase significantly. Not to mention traffic throughout the neighborhood.
2. Courthouse users will be trying to use our parking lot and will be hurrying in and out of our 3 entrances/exits. Our students need to cross these driveways frequently throughout the school day to get from class to class. To protect our 250 students and our property, we will need to fence in our property, establish a control system for using the parking lot, and add a security guard for school hours. Just the capital costs for this work are roughly $400,000.

It is our position that the State of Maryland should find another location.

• It is unfair for the State to compromise the mission and work of our church and school by putting the new courthouse in this location.
• It is unfair for the State to put us in a position where we must spend $400,000 and introduce a full time security guard into our staffing just to continue running our church and school with the same level of safety and security as we have for years.

We encourage all of those who care about Christ Church and Christ Episcopal School, as well as those who care about the character of the West End of Rockville, to let your elected officials, from the governor on down, know that they must find another location for the new courthouse.

Sincerely,

The Rev. John McDuffie, Rector, Christ Church
Bob McCartin, Senior Warden, Christ Church
Jane Pontius, Headmistress, Christ Episcopal School
Bill Goetzenberger, Chair, Board of Governors, Christ Episcopal School

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 John Britton: Thoughts On The District Court House

>The following contributor opinion about the new District Court House is by Rockville City Council member John Britton. The original is more lengthy and is posted in full here. The article below is an edited excerpt:

THOUGHTS ON THE DISTRICT COURT HOUSE

I thought it time to contribute to the extensive and growing public discourse concerning the proposed district courthouse to be located at the former library site. I come to this discussion late, focusing on the issues only recently. I have read with great interest the e-mail traffic on the matter, listened to discussions at public meetings, held private conversations on specific issues and reviewed documents related to the project. Others may have a greater familiarity with the history and politics of this proposal. With this in mind, I set out below some of the pertinent facts and my take on the controversy based on these facts at hand.

Pertinent Facts

There seems to be no dispute that the current district court is overcrowded and dilapidated and no longer adequately serves its intended purposes. Given this, the proponents of moving the courthouse to the former library site – I’ll refer to them as the judiciaries – seem to rely on two other factors to further their proposal: (i) the proposed location and its proximity to the circuit court serve the convenience of the judicial system and (ii) a significant amount of money (millions of dollars) has already been expended on design and other costs related to the proposed site. It appears that these factors are the basis for the fait accompli character of the library site proposal.

The pro-community group – those who oppose the use of the library site – raise certain public welfare and safety issues, including lack of adequate parking, pedestrian safety, proximity to a school and intrusiveness on a residential neighborhood and historic district. I think the judiciaries’ response is that such concerns have already been addressed although I have not heard any response couched in terms of the welfare and safety of the local community. Regardless, I have yet to see an analysis of traffic, pedestrian safety, impacts on neighborhoods and the school and environmental effects. Nor have I seen a document pertaining to mitigation of any adverse effects of building at the library site. If such analyses exist, they may be old and need to be updated. The judiciaries also state that the community did not raise these issues previously and are, in effect, johnnies-come-lately on these matters. The documentary evidence suggests, however, that community members have been consistent on these issues since the library site proposal was first put forth a number of years ago.

A more troubling comment confirmed recently at a meeting on this proposal is the fact that the proposed new courthouse will not satisfy the needs of the district court in the very near future. Is it possible that we are debating the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars on a building that is already obsolete? Furthermore, there may be a violation of state environmental law. Pursuant to the Maryland Environmental Policy Act and prior to any request for funding from the legislature, an environmental effects report may be required for certain state proposals.

Conclusions

Based on the information at hand, I find the arguments of judicial efficiency and monies expended in support of the library site not compelling. More important, the public welfare and safety factors must be balanced more thoroughly. Our community will be stuck with the consequences of bad decision-making in this case for 50 or more years. Although the state may not have a legal obligation to follow our zoning rules, it certainly has a moral obligation to its citizens to do the right thing. This should not be an exercise of gotcha simply because the city negligently missed a deadline. In light of the significant public interests at stake and other orderly land use principles, I have to agree at this time with the oft-used statement that putting the district courthouse on the former library site would be an act of urban malfeasance.

I am sure there is much more that can be added to this public discourse. For this reason, I would like to see a public forum with representatives of the main stakeholders in this project – state, legislative delegation, city, judges, community and civic associations, neighbors – to discuss candidly and fully these issues and the impacts on all. I will encourage the city and the civic groups to facilitate such a forum.

John Britton
Rockville City Council Member

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.

Gajewski To Host Town Hall

> While this appears in the latest Weekend To Weekend, it is also worth a quick mention on its own:

First-term council member Piotr Gajewski has announced he will hold an open Town Hall Meeting on Thursday, February 21, 2008, 8:00-10:00 p.m. at the Rockville City Hall.

The purpose of the meeting, according to the press release, is to discuss the “major issues facing the City, including the proposed new courthouse, Town Center parking, the imminent roll out of the new trash system, and other issues of importance to Rockville Citizens.” (Those are my links, not Gajewski’s.)

Questions? Contact the council member directly.

For my own part, I encourage other members of the Mayor and Council to hold similar meetings. While it is important to be accessible as a group, it also seems useful to have forums like this in which to get to know individual members of Our Fair City’s government.

(Image from Gajewski campaign website — because it was a larger photo than the one on the City’s site.)

Take Our Poll: Move The Courthouse?

>As Rockville Central readers know, the question of where to put a new District Court House building is quite controversial.

I thought I would try an experiment. I have set up a poll (here on the site, in the upper right)

• The State wants to build a new District Courthouse where the old public library was. Some people don’t agree. What do you think?

• Don’t put it at the library site, even though this change might derail the whole project. There’s no parking there, and it’s right next to a school.

• Keep on track and put the building on the library site. The plans have been on the books a long time and complaints now are too late. We need a new court house. If we don’t move forward, we will lose the funding.

Voting closes Wednesday morning (2/13) at 5:23 am.

If this goes well, this may become a series.

Come on over and vote!