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.)

Guest Column by Tracy Pakulniewicz-Chidiac: What's Your Footprint?

>The following guest column is by Tracy Pakulniewicz-Chidiac:

Earth Day is April 22, just a month away, and with rising fuel and food costs, there is a great urgency, more than ever, for each of us individually to think about doing our part to live a “greener” lifestyle. But before we do so, it’s important for all of us to understand what our individual impact — our ecological footprint — on the Earth is. You can measure yours by going here.

When I worked at the global nonprofit, Earth Day Network, which was created by the founders of Earth Day, the late Senator Gaylord Nelson and Denis Hayes, we partnered with the nation’s leading public policy think tank dedicated to smart economics, Redefining Progress, to promote this amazing online tool that helps individuals measure what his/her carbon footprint is on Earth by taking an ecological footprint quiz. The result of the test will tell you how many Earths are needed to fulfill your lifestyle.

In honor of Earth Day and in a continuous effort to make our lives more green, I hope you’ll take the time to take the quiz. I do hope everyone, including our community leaders, will share the quiz with their friends, colleagues and family. The following quizzes are also available: The Office Footprint; Footprint Quiz for Kids and the Footprint of Nations.

I also offer a few “fun facts” that really highlight how poor environmental standards globally impact all of us:

• Most of the smog in Los Angeles is caused by pollution coming from China;
• Pollutants from fires in southeast Asian have changed rain patterns in Australia and added toxic pollutants, with adverse long-term health effects for Australians; and
• The US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, yet we are the third largest nation in the world by land-mass and population.

So, on April 22, Earth Day, and every day, please do your part to make our world a greener, cleaner place for ourselves and our future.

Tracy Pakulniewicz-Chidiac

Got an idea for a Guest Column? Drop us a line and let us know! You can be part of Rockville Central’s growing roster of contributors.

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.

Contributor Opinion by Roald Schrack: Report On Court House Activities

>The following contributor opinion is by Roald Schrack. It is a report he wrote for the members of the Alliance of Rockville Citizens:

I have struggled about how to report the Mayor and Council activities about the Courthouse location. First let me disclose that I, personally, do not think there are adequate reasons to block the construction of the courthouse in the current location. In large measure I see this conflict in the same light that I see the way the trash issue developed as the work of a very vocal minority to impose its position on the city. But the real problem I have is the way that the Mayor and Council went about it. I am very sorry to say that people that I strongly backed for election to the M&C have acted in what I consider is a very unfortunate manner.

The meeting of the M&C on March 3 was a calculated effort to justify the desires of the West End Citizens Association (WECA). Known only to the activists in WECA and its allies a plan was made to pass a motion that night. There was nothing on the agenda to warn supporters of the library site location that there would be action taken. But WECA and its allies arranged that people supporting their position should be there to testify in behalf of moving the courthouse location. Meanwhile it was necessary to have a motion prepared in advance to vote on. To have any political effect in Annapolis, such a motion must have unanimous support. It took a number of emails back and forth to all the councilmembers to achieve a wording that was acceptable to all the members of the M&C. Finally, on the afternoon of March 3 the final version was crafted.

The following wording of the motion was read by John Britton at the M&C meeting:

“While the Mayor and Council are committed to the construction of a District Courthouse in the City of Rockville, the Mayor and City Council, and the City of Rockville oppose the location of the District Courthouse in its currently proposed configuration at the Southwest corner of East Jefferson Street and Maryland Ave. and desire to have it relocated. In furtherance of this position, the Mayor and Council authorize its representative to testify on behalf of the Mayor and Council before the State Legislative Committee to express its opposition to the current courthouse proposal.”

The motion was passed unanimously. The only problem was that the motion agreed to by email a few hours before did not include the words in boldface. Most members of the M&C did not notice the change in wording and no indication of the change was made. During the next two days some members found that they had voted for something other than what they thought. It should not be considered surprising then that at a “Town Hall” meeting of the M&C with WECA on March 13 , councilmember Marcuccio stood up at the end of the meeting and announced her opposition to any further city actions to move the courthouse and withdrew her support for city testimony that was to be given against the site.

The Mayor wanted to testify on Friday, March 14 at Annapolis but now a member of the council was no longer supporting the attempt to move the courthouse. Interestingly, the letter to the State was backdated to March 12, to a time when it still appeared that the full Mayor and Council supported the effort to move the courthouse. On Friday, the Senate Committee voted to allot $41 M for the first year of construction and then $30M for the second year. From comments at the House committee hearing, it looks like the House will also move ahead with construction at the library site.

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. Another move planned by opponents of the courthouse is to sue the State to stop it. Councilmember Marcuccio told the WECA meeting that she felt that: “there was plenty of documentation to suggest you don’t really have a case.” At this point there are no other moves known.

The back history of the activities of groups and individuals in the plan to block the courthouse construction is very disquieting. Rockville was known for its open and transparent government.

What now?

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 (Redux)

>The following contributor opinion about the new District Court House is by Rockville City Council member John Britton. (Hyperlinks have been added.)

This past Monday evening, as reported in the Gazette, a number of residents came before the mayor and council to express their support for the proposed district courthouse on the site of the old library. Many of these residents characterized the mayor and council’s unanimous decision to oppose the current proposal as “hurried,” “ill-advised,” “unseemly,” and “pandering to a small group of activists.” I take exception to these characterizations. With respect to the action by my colleagues, suffice it to say, each based his or her decision on a review of the issues and a considered and thoughtful analysis of their impacts on the community.

With respect to my own decision-making process, these characterizations wholly miss the mark. Rather than react hurriedly to a so-called small group of activists (NOTE: I believe that close to 200 residents have signed the petition to oppose the courthouse), I based my conclusions on a thorough review and analysis over the past few months of the facts and history of the district court proposal. This included a review of the correspondence and the official documents submitted by the State, an analysis of the project description and architectural plans, a viewing of the presentation of the concept plan by the State representatives at the May 2005 mayor and council public meeting, and various public and private discussions on this matter. One may substantively disagree with the results of my review and analysis, but hurried and ill-advised they are not. Furthermore, having identified and, in my mind, verified legitimate community concerns as a result of the adverse impacts of the courthouse, I do not consider opposition to the current courthouse proposal “unseemly.”

I reiterate my public statement that the proposed district courthouse as currently configured on the library site is inappropriate. This does not detract from the comments submitted by Mayor Rose Krasnow who informed us that the State, County and City officials initially agreed to the use of the library site for the courthouse. I respect and defer to Mayor Krasnow’s recollection and interpretation of the events at that time. I respectfully disagree, however, on the consequences of such agreement. First, there is no legal document that binds the City to any course of action; there could not be such a document since the property at issue was not in the City’s control. Second, there could not be any agreement at that time to a particular project because the concept plan was not submitted until 2005. At the time of the earlier concurrence for the use of the library site, there were no plans and designs for the proposed courthouse on which to rely to understand the impacts of the building and its activities on adjacent neighborhoods and the community at large. Finally, despite the fact that the library use was classified as institutional and the courthouse would be similarly classified, the current courthouse proposal significantly increases the scope of such use to an unacceptable level. In fact, the early design of the courthouse appeared to pay more respect to neighborhood impacts and the city’s zoning requirements than the current proposal.

Implicit in everyone’s agreement to utilize the library site should have been an understanding of an appropriateness of the scale and scope of the project vis-a-vis our neighborhoods. Put differently, such agreement should not have been carte blanche for the State to do whatever it desired in total disregard for the impacts on the community. Unfortunately, the project as proposed violates contemporary norms of how a high density structure should approach a low density one and implicates serious parking, traffic flow, pedestrian safety and neighborhood encroachment issues that are unique to this site. Furthermore, in response to the City’s and the community’s concerns, the State committed to work with the community to resolve these issues, a commitment that was more potemkin than sincere in nature.

Put simply, there was a dearth of analyses of the impacts of the courthouse proposal and a myopic focus on the judiciary’s internal needs and agenda – all to the detriment of our community. For these and other reasons that I have previously expressed publicly and despite State expenses already incurred, I continue to find that it is not prudent to invest $70 million in a flawed project.

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:Big Stone Heads

>The following contributor opinion is by Carl Henn:

Perhaps you’ve heard the cautionary tale of Easter Island. Easter Island is the windswept, grassy island over 2,000 miles off the coast of Chile with the enormous stone heads. For years it was a mystery how they could have been carved, transported and erected on an island that had no trees for rollers or cranes and no decent plant material for strong ropes. People even hypothesized that aliens had built them, since it seemed impossible for the small, Stone Age human population there to have built so many fabulous monuments.

Modern investigations have solved the mystery. Easter Island was once as heavily wooded as Hawaii, as shown by pollen spores found in core samples of the island’s crater lake. The trees could provide rollers, skid roads and cranes, and other trees provided fine fiber for strong ropes. A count of the many ancient foundations of homes long since rotted away show that the island once supported thousands of people rather than the straggly few hundred that were there when they were “discovered” on Easter Sunday, 1722.

How did the island wind up with lots of heads and no trees?

They had cut down all the trees to make big heads. The trees that once allowed them to make big heads also provided shelter and fuel. Without them, they had to move into caves for shelter. The trees had provided seagoing canoes that allowed fishing to bring in protein from the sea. Trees had provided edible seeds as well that were lost to them when they cut the last nut tree. Trees also captured rainfall and charged the aquifers that provided fresh water. Without trees, the people went hungry. Easter Island went through a period of warfare, cannibalism and starvation as the once large population collapsed.

Not too bright, these Easter Islanders, eh? Well, they were every bit as bright as we are. We too are building big stone heads while undermining the resources that support us.

Our big stone heads are highways. We are burning the one time inheritance of fossil fuels in one big fiesta, supporting an ever larger population using oil to plow, plant, fertilize, harvest and process our food. We are building roads, parking lots, houses and shopping malls on some of the nation’s richest farm land. Like the Easter Islanders, a day will come when we realize that big stone heads can’t feed us.

Oil is finite and runs out as we use it. Oil experts believe we are now at or near the peak of global oil production. It will soon enter its inevitable decline. We will need to reduce our demand greatly. We should use the last of our oil to build a sustainable energy infrastructure, not to support one more round of sprawl. (Come to one of my energy talks to hear more about how we can get from where we are to where we need to be.)

The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging. We are spending our limited transportation dollars on highways rather than more efficient transit, our own way of building big heads – infrastructure that will soon be worse than worthless. At least the big heads are interesting to look at. Highways are uglier than what they replace. Destroying forests, farms and wetlands with borrowed billions makes no sense.

Here is our biggest proposed stone head – The Intercounty Connector:

The ICC was estimated to cost $2.4 billion dollars in 2004. Since then the cost of oil, steel, concrete and asphalt have all increased markedly, yet the official estimate remains $2.4 billion. We are being lied to about its cost.

Underestimated at $2.4 billion, it costs too much. While this road literally bulldozes forward, the Purple Line limps forward with barely enough funds for planning, and the Corridor Cities Transitway is nothing but a dream. The ICC stole its lunch money.

Even if we magically found an answer to our energy problems tomorrow, the ICC wouldn’t make sense. It is projected to trigger another 5 to 20 thousand acres of additional sprawl and to increase traffic on segments of the Beltway, I-95 and I-270. It would undercut existing businesses in Silver Spring and Wheaton by funneling customers to the new regional Konterra Mall to be built where the ICC would meet I-95.

But we have no magic energy answer. Our cars run on gasoline and cause global warming, smog and acid rain. We can’t reduce our global warming impact by spending billions to move in the wrong direction.

The ICC was planned for a world with no energy problems. The ICC study assumed that oil would cost the same in 2025 as it cost in 2004. That has already proven wrong. Oil cost $40 a barrel in 2004 and $100 a barrel today. The ICC was intended to support ever growing traffic. But in response to rising oil prices, vehicle miles traveled have been in decline for two years.

The ICC can still be stopped. The General Assembly will soon vote on three bills regarding the ICC. HB 1471, with 40 co-sponsors, would repeal the ICC’s funding package, freeing $2 billion dollars for other projects. HB 1416 would block further expenditures until the highway’s impact on global warming is assessed. This was never done in the Environmental Impact Statement process. And a third bill would require the state to assess the public health impacts of the ICC on air pollution before spending more money.

Our District 17 Delegates and Senator aren’t cosponsors of these bills. In fact they are all ICC supporters. It’s time for them to wake up and smell the coffee. If they understood peak oil, they wouldn’t support this road. All our District 17 representatives have cosponsored the Global Warming Solutions Act. If they truly care about global warming, they would vote against the ICC.

Please let them know where you stand. style="color: rgb(153, 0, 0);" href="http://www.rockvillecentral.com/2007/11/rockvilles-legislators.html">Here is their contact information.

The biggest supporter of the ICC today is Governor O’Malley, who claims to care deeply about the environment and global warming. Ask him to connect the dots and drop the ICC. You can e-mail him through the form here.

The stakes really couldn’t be much higher. Please contact your Maryland representatives and urge them to vote for the bills to stop the ICC. If you have any questions feel free to contact me.

Carl Henn
Hungerford

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.

(Images from Bugbob and Freestate Politics.)

Contributor Opinion by Roald Schrack: Voter Turnout In City Elections

>The following contributor opinion is by Roald Schrack, adapted from a longer report he wrote for the Alliance of Rockville Citizens:

The recently released updated voter list shows who voted in the November 2007 Rockville election and allows an investigation of the level of the voter turnout. Age distribution, partisan party affiliation, differences between Rockville districts, and previous voting history were examined. No patterns were seen that could have explained the level of turnout except previous voting history.

It is revealing to compare the results for the recent 2007 election with 20% participation and the 2001 election with 28% participation. The term “voters” means a person who has voted at least once during the previous 3 elections. The term “non-voters” means either someone that has been on the rolls and not voted or a person that has been added to the voter rolls since the last election.

The first difference to notice in the charts is the larger fraction of non-voters in the 2007 chart. This is due to a large influx of new voters in 2007. Note that the “voter” group has a slightly larger probability of voting in 2007 than 2001 but the opposite is true for the “non-voters” with over twice the probability of voting for “non-voters” in 2001 as in 2007. This difference is the source of the higher overall participation in 2001.

This great change in voting probability for the “non-voter” was due to a change in electioneering done in the two elections. In the 2001 election one candidate spent $32,000, over twice as much as any candidate in 2007. That large expenditure allowed the candidate to mail literature to a larger segment of the population. In 2007 no literature was sent to any “non-voters.” Mailing to all voters costs over four times as much as mailing only to the “voters” and the expected return of votes is only a third. It is a very inefficient use of limited campaign funds to mail to the entire voter list, but this is the only way to raise the number of votes in an election.

One of the virtues of running for office in Rockville is the relatively small amount of money needed to run for office. The lowest amount spent by a winner in 2007 was less than $5,000. This low level of expenditure means that candidates can receive sufficient funds to get elected from their friends and neighbors and need not accept money from interests that might then exercise influence over them after their election. Perhaps it would be desirable if the City Board of Elections had as one of its responsibilities a effort to get out the vote from all sectors of the electorate.

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 Joseph Jordan: What's Going On?

>The following contributor opinion is by Joseph Jordan:

I am not sure who received Piotr Gajewski’s “press release”, but I learned of his intended town hall meeting via the Rockville Central blog. What’s going on here? We have John Britton sending letters on the court house, but no idea who they are being sent to. Mr. Gajewski is having his own meetings at City Hall. At the same time, meeting after meeting is canceled because there is not enough business to discuss. Yet Mr. Britton wants to have quarterly meetings to discuss ideas. Is this a body working together, for the citizens of Rockville, or is there another election going on we are not aware of?

Mayor and Council meetings scheduled for this Monday (19th) and the following (25th) have been canceled because of “insufficient business.” It seems to me this affords the perfect opportunity to have a “Town Hall” kind of meeting involving all the mayor and council, maybe even some staff members. Wear stripes, jeans — whatever — roll up your sleeves, and have an open dialog with the people who elected you and whom you represent. What are our issues, our concerns?

Here are some suggestions on agenda items for future meetings:

1. Town Center – Financial information on the original plans and projections for revenue and expenditures and the trend lines on actual outcomes on both measures, including information on sales and rentals of the condos, parking garages, etc.;
2. Information on contingency plans that the City has (if any) for dealing with a major reduction in tax assessment revenue and reduced funding for current projects from the County and State, should the County and State make their expected cuts;
3. Information about how the funding requirements for any plans for new development will be met if the anticipated revenue is not forthcoming;
4. Pros and cons of hiring a Lead City Attorney versus retaining outside law firm;
5. Report on status of pavers debacle — who did, or did not do, what and who pays;
6. What can the city do to reverse the perception that Rockville is not business friendly. What can be done to find balance between serving the tax paying residents and the tax paying businesses.

Joseph Jordan
New Mark Commons

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 MOG.com)

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.

Guest Column by Beth and Todd Harrison: A Greener Rockville Starts at Home — Eight Steps to a More Environmentally Responsible Home in 2008 (Pt.1)

Part One of a three-part series by >Rockville Central friends Beth and Todd Harrison:

At the start of each new year, many of us make resolutions — promises about changes that we will make in the coming year. This year, consider committing yourself and your family to a greener Rockville by making a greener home one of your New Year’s resolutions. You can make simple changes in your day-to-day living that will save energy (and money) and reduce your impact on the environment. In this series of three articles, we will share eight simple steps you and your family can take to create a more environmentally responsible home in 2008.

This series will not cover the more obvious things, like driving a more fuel efficient car and recycling, but rather will focus on the little things we can do in and around the house that collectively can make a big difference. We start with two steps related to the outdoors: composting kitchen and yard waste and collecting rain water.

Step #1: Compost Kitchen and Yard Waste

The EPA reports that yard trimmings and food scraps account for 23 percent of all waste generated in the U.S. According to Recycling Revolution, the average American throws out 1,200 pounds of this type of organic waste each year. One simple step for creating a greener home is to compost this waste.

You may already be aware that the City of Rockville collects labeled containers of yard waste from the curbside with our weekly trash collection (click here for details). With a little bit of effort, you can start your own compost pile in your backyard. This provides an easy way to compost kitchen waste and create a natural source of rich, organic matter for your yard or garden. There are many products available that you can purchase to build a compost pile, but we prefer the simple and free option offered by Montgomery County (click here for details). We got two of these free compost bins so we can handle more compost at once.

Something that has made composting kitchen waste easier for us has been to keep a plastic container (with a lid) on top of the refrigerator. We collect anything that does not have animal or dairy products: vegetable scraps, coffee and tea grounds, and even eggshells. Every few days, we empty the indoor container into the compost pile outside. Here is a link to a great article on composting that will help you get started (click here).

Step #2: Collect Rain Water

Stormwater management is a growing issue for Rockville (“Council Approves Stormwater Management Fee”). Stormwater runoff washes pollution into our creeks and streams, but you can help reduce water runoff by installing a rain barrel or creating a rain garden.

There are many different types of rain barrels available on the market. We purchased a sixty-gallon rain barrel that connects to a gutter downspout (like this). It has a spigot that can connect to a water hose. A light rainfall (1/4” or less) is more than enough to fill our rain barrel. During drought periods, watering our garden without using up precious drinking water is a real benefit. Rain gardens also help reduce stormwater runoff but require a bit more work and space. For more information on how to build your own rain barrel or how to create a rain garden, go here.

Next week we will continue the series with additional steps for making a more environmentally responsible home in 2008. If you have any questions or if you want to add additional suggestions from your own experience, please post them in the comments section of this article and we will do our best to follow up.

Got an idea for a Guest Column? Drop us a line and let us know! You can be part of Rockville Central’s growing roster of contributors.