Contributor Opinion by Carl Henn: Plant Fruit And Nut Trees

This winter’s heavy snow and high winds have damaged and destroyed a fair number of trees. That is a pity since trees give us shade, reducing the energy we use to stay cool in summer. They block the wind, reducing the energy we use to stay warm in winter. They protect our watershed by reducing the storm surge when it rains. They give us the oxygen we need in the air we breathe and provide beauty that we often take for granted.

We tend to forget that trees can also give us food. I got a mailing from the Arbor Day Foundation earlier this week that offered me ten trees, not one of which provides food for humans. To be fair, I could eat the crab apples if I were hungry enough.

I hope never to be hungry enough to eat crab apples on a routine basis. But our agricultural system is heavily dependent on oil. We use oil to plow, plant and harvest our food. We use fossil fuels to generate nitrogen fertilizer, to dry crops for storage, to grind the grain, bring the food to market and cook it. Each calorie of food we eat has around 10 calories of fossil fuel embedded in its production.

Many energy experts believe we are near the peak of global oil production. America’s production peaked 40 years ago and has since fallen by half. World oil discoveries peaked over 40 years ago and we’ve been burning more than we discover since 1980. And we have more mouths to feed each year. We added over 70 million people worldwide last year, about the population of the entire United States in 1900.

Put rising population together with declining oil production and we will soon find ourselves in a different circumstance than we currently enjoy. I believe that we could manage the transition to a sustainable world without collapse or starvation if people of all nations acted promptly with intelligence and compassion. I haven’t seen that happening yet.

But I don’t envision huddling in the dark eating crab apples for my future. I’d rather eat apples and pecans. Accordingly, I have planted a few apple and hardy pecan trees. The storm-killed trees offer us an opportunity. Plant fruit and nut trees in their stead.

You may not see times coming that are hard enough to require you to grow your own food. I would note that Manna Food Center has faced unprecedented demand this year. Further, it has been normal through most of human history to grow your own food. And remember it takes years for a tree to get to the point where it provides fruits or nuts. We must anticipate the need.

The City of Rockville plants around 700 trees each year. These should also be fruit or nut trees.

Now is the time to find your tree catalogs or look online and order them, so you can plant them in the spring. I know next to nothing about fruit and nut trees, so I won’t offer any advice other than to be sure to plant them far enough away from your house that they fit when full grown, be careful that some varieties need another tree of a different cultivar nearby to pollinate, and note that you can train hazelnuts to serve as hedges.

Carl Henn

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

Contributor Opinion by Carl Henn: Solar Co-op Options

Let’s say you want to put solar panels on your roof. It’s a big expense. There are many options to choose from, many companies offering different products, lots of paperwork to get the state, local and federal support that is available. It’s a daunting prospect. I’m sure some people who might otherwise move forward with solar panels haven’t due to the complexity of the process, while others fear they’ll pay too much or buy a system that doesn’t perform as anticipated.

Solar Co-ops can help overcome these barriers. Depending on how it is organized, they may also reduce the cost by buying in bulk instead of as a single system at one household.

There is a fine example of what a solar co-op can do in the nearby DC neighborhood of Mount Pleasant. A few neighbors there wanted to install solar panels and thought if they are going to go to all the trouble of figuring the whole thing out, they would bring some other neighbors along and get a volume discount. They were driven to action by deep concern about global warming and other environmental problems. They have succeeded in getting 50 systems installed so far. See http://www.mtpleasantsolarcoop.org/

Another twist on this idea comes from the United Power Co-op in Brighton, Colorado. In this case, the power co-op is the local utility. Noting that many of their customers wanted solar power but face the same barriers noted above or don’t own their roof or have too much shade for solar to work at their home, they created a “solar farm” leasing arrangement. See http://www.unitedpower.com/solpartners.aspx  They set up solar panels on their own land, getting the capital from their customers. They provide a 25 year lease on a 210 watt photovoltaic panel for $1,050. They provide a 3% return on investment, based on current energy prices. Their promotional material claims a 17 year payback, though my own calculation shows that unless electricity prices increase, it won’t pay for itself before the lease expires. But carrying an income source into the future isn’t risk free. The stock market disappointed my expectation for a return on investment and indeed has swallowed much of the principal I invested. This investment has the potential to hold its own against inflation since rising energy costs are a primary source of inflation.

Another co-op approach worth noting is the effort by the Rockville Chamber of Commerce. They will negotiate purchase of wind generated electricity on behalf of their members. See http://www.gazette.net/stories/12022009/rocknew220922_32535.shtml This will be done through Clean Currents, which is also available to individuals who aren’t in the Chamber of Commerce. Clean Currents will sell you electricity that has been generated via wind turbines as described at http://www.cleancurrents.com/index.php/C-Green-Overview Currently, their price is lower than the standard Pepco price.

So what should we be doing differently in Rockville to increase renewable energy generation? First – step back and look at the bigger picture. There is a good chance you can save more energy by putting insulation in your attic then by putting solar panels on your roof, and can do so for less money. You should get an energy audit. Chevy Chase recently set up a rebate program for their residents to pay for energy audits and a portion of the upgrades that such audits recommend. See http://www.townofchevychase.org/n/166

The co-op approach used by Mount Pleasant is very powerful. But it requires a huge effort by a few individuals. I’ve seen several websites from other people trying to do the same thing. Most of them haven’t had a single installation yet. My hat is off to the Mt. Pleasant folks. Convincing people to part with thousands of their dollars, and setting up a structure for the contracts to work through is quite an accomplishment.

I would recommend a simpler approach – negotiating a “Rockville Deal” for solar panels that any resident can use, without trying to put the contract through the City or a community group, without guaranteeing a certain number of installations. While this would likely mean the cost per unit would be a bit higher, it is a more achievable approach. It would still be helpful. The City could set up a competitive process, eliminating those companies that have had performance issues, negotiating the technical specifications and prices of the unit and setting forth how to capture the state, local and federal subsidies. It would likely still be cheaper than most people would get on their own. The City could present the Rockville Deal approach in the proper perspective – energy audit first, invest in the most cost effective upgrades, how much sunlight/shade do you have?, is your roof good for another 15 years (i.e. Don’t put new panels on an old roof). If you get guidance from a salesman, you might not get unbiased advice.

The City could also mirror the approach taken by the Brighton co-op. The City’s owns a number of buildings that have unshaded roofs where solar panels could be installed. The City doesn’t have the money to do this, and indeed if they did they would probably be better served to put that money into more efficient street lights or better insulation at Glenview Mansion. But they could lease panels in such a manner that citizens would pay for the panels and the city would then pay the citizen for the electricity that the panels generate.

Investing in solar panels as an individual requires an appropriate site, knowledge of the marketplace and technology, knowledge of government subsidy programs, research into contract terms and such. Making this investment through the City allows for economies of scale, and makes it so each individual doesn’t have to do all the legwork alone. It makes the process more simple and accessible. This program would provide an investment alternative to the stock market which may fail widely in an era of declining oil production. A Rockville Solar Farm may well be one of the better investments available.

Carl Henn

This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

Contributor Opinion by Carl Henn: Peak Oil and Rockville

Our new Council should name a commission consisting of two council members, and one each from the Planning, Traffic and Transportation, Environment, Human Rights and Human Services Advisory Commissions, as well as REDI and the Bicycle Advisory Committee. The Commission should be charged with addressing two questions: What is the nature of the challenge that peak oil presents to our city and what responses should we implement?

World oil production stopped growing in 2005. Oil consumption in the U.S. has declined since 2005. The price run up from $50 per barrel in 2005 to $147 in 2008 was in large part due to the continued growth in demand for a product that was no longer growing in production. The collapse in price from $147 in 2008 to $35 in early 2009 was due in part to the damage the high prices did to our economy and in part to the exposure and collapse of various Ponzi schemes in finance and real estate. The rapid recovery of oil price to $80 a barrel in spite of no economic recovery reflects that the underlying problem remains – our economy needs more oil than the interaction of economics and geology can provide. Many oil experts have concluded that the peak of oil production is now in the past.

If the economy recovers and begins to grow again, oil demand will likely recover with it. But oil supply is now in decline so that another price spike will result. Oil can easily exceed the $147 we saw in 2008. We will see a repeat of the process – price spike followed by economic collapse. The next collapse might finish off the domestic auto industry, put the final nail in the coffin of the sprawl housing industry and wipe out several airlines leaving flight as the province of the wealthy.

If the economy remains anemic, we could see oil prices fall as capital and demand destruction outpace deficit stimulus spending. We will scratch our collective heads for a few years trying to figure out what’s wrong. In a few years oil depletion will drop production below our depressed demand and price will rise in spite of high unemployment. This will squeeze the industries listed above into collapse. In either case, those dieing industries will drag others down with them. The unemployed can’t eat out much so the restaurants suffer. Business falls off all around. We already know what this feels like. It will be the same only more so.

While this crisis may hit first in oil, it will soon affect other areas. During the 2008 oil price spike, industry poured tremendous amounts of corn into ethanol production. This drove up corn prices, which drove up rice prices and resulted in suffering and food riots in foreign capitals. While there are key differences between various energy sources, their markets connect. If rising oil price leads to more use of electric cars or plug in hybrids, this will drive up the price of coal and natural gas which are used to generate electricity. Or if we convert coal to gasoline, the price of coal goes up as we destroy climate stability in order to get our gasoline fix. Of course we could just convert to hydrogen, except that hydrogen isn’t a fuel source at all – only a leaky fuel storage system that can only work when we have excess energy, which we don’t.

Another scenario is possible. Recognizing the nature of our problem, we work collectively and individually to reduce our energy demand and to convert to renewable sources. Turning off the water while you brush and putting in curly light bulbs isn’t enough. We will need to choose to have fewer children, admit fewer immigrants, eat lower on the food chain, dump our gas guzzlers, take transit, bike, and find ways to use far less energy in our homes and offices. In the long run I suspect we will be doubling up in some homes and selling sprawl McMansions for scrap and returning the yards to farming. If this sounds unpleasant, note that the alternatives are worse. It is possible our oil supply will fall off fairly rapidly. The dangers both long and short term are grave. We need to leave oil before it leaves us.

I suspect most people reading this don’t agree with my diagnosis of the problem. Knowledge of peak oil isn’t widespread. Faith in technology to fix our problems is high, as indeed technology is part of the solution. Our media has done nearly nothing to inform us. We are distracted by less important matters.

If only peak oil were our only problem. It isn’t. It may not even be our most serious problem, though they all interrelated. We must also face the prospect of climate change, the demographic challenge of retiring boomers, too much debt at all levels, water shortages, soil degradation, the extinction crisis and more, all within the context of a weak economy.

There are a number of things we can do to address these problems here in Rockville. But it starts with understanding the problem. The more I’ve read about our situation, the more concerned I’ve become, though it is easy to get sidetracked by stories taken out of context. For instance, new technology has allowed us to put oil shale into production. But oil shale provides us less than 1% of the oil we consume and the shale wells deplete quickly. Nuclear energy doesn’t rely on oil and doesn’t put out much carbon. But we will need to build many plants just to replace retiring ones, and there are limits in available fuel. The big picture is relatively clear. We face declining energy availability.

Carl Henn

This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

POTD: Smacked Down

This grim image is by Carl Henn. Of it, he says: “A pedestrian paddle, in a crosswalk on a double yellow line, smacked down. Just evidence that the dangerous driving that killed Codi is too common.”

Note: Carl Henn is a candidate for City Council. Rockville Central does not endorse candidates.

Contributor Opinion By Carl Henn: One E-mail For A Better Rockville

Back in March I asked folks to send two e-mails to help resolve the access and security issues between Rockville and Montgomery College. The process initially improved – the City became more aggressive in promoting a solution that would allow access for bikers and pedestrians while preserving security for nearby residents. The College, in announcing it was willing to allow a smoking area on City owned land that happened to be inside the college fence, took a big step toward implementing that solution.

But with a July 24 letter from Judy Ackerman, Vice President and Provost of the College, to Scott Ullery, Rockville’s City Manager, the College is reneging on this offer and appear happy to be a bad neighbor. They no longer intend to create a smoking area and open the fence.

They say that “such action, however well intended, would obscure our goal to be a smoke-free institution.” They intend to allow a misguided devotion to principle to block a healthier, pragmatic policy. If they don’t allow a smoking area away from the Princeton Place entrance, then students will be forced to walk through a cloud of smoke right at whatever entrance the smokers find most convenient. The smoking area/fence opening under consideration would reduce loitering in Princeton Place, would allow access for the hundreds of citizens who need it and would prevent the ‘entrance – smokers gauntlet effect”.

In March I asked folks to send e-mails to both the City and the College. I think the City is now acting appropriately and the College needs another firm kick in the pants. Please send an e-mail to Trustees@montgomerycollege.edu expressing support for a the City’s proposed Memorandum of Understanding. The City may need to compromise on a few details, but in broad outline has the right approach.

E-mails aren’t nearly as powerful as personal contact. It is the Montgomery College Board of Trustees that we must reach. The members are listed here. If you know any of the members, please reach out to them to ask that they be a better neighbor. Hopefully, this will be resolved before the next Board of Trustees meeting – September 22. But if not, you need to sign up at least a week in advance to speak.

This issue is too important to drop. Our citizens need access and the immediate neighbors need security. The City’s MOU would meet these goals. The College’s refusal to agree to this is truly sad.

Carl Henn

Carl Henn is a candidate for City Council.

This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

Contributor Opinion By Carl Henn: The Five Trees Agreement For Princeton Place

This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central authors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

The following contributor opinion is by Carl Henn.

The Montgomery College smoking issue is expressed in sharp relief by two neighbors who spoke at the Planning Commission hearing last week.

One Princeton Place mother asked a smoker to please move from in front of her house. The smoker yelled back three times to “mind your own business and watch your children.” Further testimony spoke of constant littering, drinking, bottles and broken glass, aggression towards residents, parking problems and drag racing. No one should have to put up with that.

Another parent related that she has two disabled children. Her older son attends Montgomery College, but isn’t able to drive due to his disability. Walking up Princeton Place is a short, safe journey. If the access is closed, his walk would be increased by about a mile down poorly lit and heavily trafficked roads. The woman fears that closing the gate will close off Montgomery College from her son’s life options. Person after person spoke of using the access to get to class, attend events, catch the bus, play tennis, walk dogs and more. The ability to walk and bike in America is suffering death by a thousand cuts, and we in turn are suffering the diseases of the car dependent – obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

What we need is a solution that protects the quality of life for residents on Princeton Place and preserves access between the college and community. Such a solution is possible. Neighbors and city staff confirm that there was no problem at Princeton Place before the smoking ban. If students are given a nearby place to smoke on campus, the smokers would move over, particularly if the City simultaneously bans smoking in Princeton Place and perhaps restricts parking as well.

There is a perfect place for such a smoking area 50 yards south of Princeton Place where 5 large trees demark an area where the college’s perimeter fence takes a turn back into woods. It’s shaded and pleasant, well marked by the fence and the trees. It is at the far end of the parking lot and just about the same distance as Princeton Place is from the class buildings so that it wouldn’t encourage smoking through greater convenience.

This solution is blocked by the Montgomery College Board of Trustee’s refusal to consider any limitations on its smoking ban. The Board claims that their policy is a moral issue so that compromise isn’t possible. But it isn’t moral to push your problems onto your neighbors. The Board has another motive. They have wanted to close the gate ever since they got a security audit in 2003 that recommended “defining the college perimeter.”

Fencing off bike and pedestrian access won’t enhance security. The College’s own emergency evacuation plan shows Princeton Place as the escape route for 6 buildings. 2003 was the height of America’s paranoid reaction to 9/11 — the year we invaded Iraq. It is time for a level headed reassessment. The security consultant’s recommendation to define the perimeter should be implemented by putting a “Welcome to Montgomery College” sign at the access point on Princeton Place.

2003 was also the last year that oil production increased. Since then we experienced 5 years of oil production plateau. Oil prices doubled, doubled again and finally popped our real estate bubble and collapsed our economy into its present dire straits. Oil production is falling in most oil producing countries. When we leave the current plateau, it will be in the downward direction. The world is becoming a smaller place where barriers to pedestrians become barriers to prosperity. Over half of MC’s buildings have no bicycle parking. They should put in bike racks, not fences. The Board wouldn’t push so hard to close the gate if they truly understood our energy problems.

College representatives also present the “slippery slope” argument, claiming that an agreement here will lead to a slow reversal of their campus-wide ban. But since there is no other similar access point anywhere around the campus, there is no reason for establishing any other smoking areas. Regardless, any further change would be under the control of the Board of Trustees. The argument has no merit.

Police rarely ticket you for doing 58 in a 55 zone. They have the discretion to ignore minor violations. The Board wouldn’t need to rescind their smoking policy, even for this one small smoking area. They could post signs at the small area 50 yards south of Princeton Place between the parking lot and the fence reading “Smoking Policy Non-Enforcement Area.”

Perhaps posting such a sign would feel like a defeat to the Board. What is needed isn’t defeat or compromise — it is a compassionate, thoughtful agreement. They could post a series of statements on the trees that delineate the smoking area such as:

We do not wish to push our problems out into the surrounding community.

Sometimes a compromise that protects the community is better than rigidly enforcing a policy, even when the policy is well intentioned and generally sound.

We didn’t mean to hurt our neighbors, and responded compassionately when we realized the harm our actions caused.

Smoking cessation aid is available through Student Services.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds – Ralph Waldo Emerson

Placing these statements on the five trees that delineate a small smoking area just south of the current area of conflict, together with direction to the security staff that they are to focus their smoking enforcement efforts elsewhere would be all we need from the College to solve this problem. The City should also designate Princeton Place as a nonsmoking area and implement permit parking on the street in order to end the current problem. Call it the “Five Trees Agreement” if you will.

The Board of Trustees to date have expressed no interest in such a solution. They need to hear from us that we insist that they reconsider their position. The Board can be reached at Trustees@montgomerycollege.edu and their board meetings are open to the public as described here.

Carl Henn

POTD: Wheels

This cool, old wheelbarrow-thingy was snapped by Rockville Central friend Carl Henn.

POTD: Skinny!

This neat find is by Rockville Central friend Carl Henn. Of it, he says, “Rockville’s skinniest fire hydrant, out front of Womack Pest Control.”

And, apropos of our recent brightly colored hydrant photo, Our Fair City’s JoAnn Grbach sent along some information that was pretty useful:

The City of Rockville is changing the color of its fire hydrants to help Montgomery County Fire and Rescue Services to better see them at night. The tops for the fire hydrants will be one of four colors based on the water flow of the particular hydrant.

Contributor Opinion By Carl Henn: Car Free Contract For Beall’s Grant II The Way To Go

The following Contributor Opinion is by Carl Henn:

The recent decision by the City Council not to support the Beall’s Grant II project isn’t the end of the story. Regardless of how it turns out there will be consequences. Montgomery Housing Partnership may cut the size of the project significantly to meet neighborhood concerns. While this would reduce the impact of the project on the neighborhood, it would also decrease the number of people that it can serve while nearly everyone concedes that we have a tremendous need for affordable housing. Or perhaps MHP and the neighborhood won’t be able to find a workable compromise. This could result in an even worse outcome. If MHP finds that they can build more affordable housing for the same money elsewhere, they may sell the lot and the Rockville site will be built for the standard commercial market. The neighborhood impacts may be nearly the same as the current proposal, but without creating significant additional affordable housing. A commercial development wouldn’t require council approval, so would be less constrained by neighborhood interests.

Both sides have reason to compromise. What they need is better ideas on how to compromise. I believe that Car-Free by Contract housing, supported by investment in transportation alternatives such as car sharing, bicycles, grocery delivery, and transit can make this alternative work. Instead of building a 212 car parking garage and a 17 space surface lot, they could build a 200 bicycle parking garage and a 17 space surface lot with 10 shared cars provided and a free bike with each apartment.

The concept of Car-Free by Contract is that the project is given permission to build far less parking than is usually required in exchange for implementing a plan to ensure that the parking isn’t needed. Residents sign a contract agreeing not to own or use a car while living there. The contract establishes that they will be evicted if they are found to be keeping a car, with loss of security deposit.

Car free living isn’t for everyone and doesn’t work everywhere. But this is a circumstance and place where it can work. Beall’s Grant II will be primarily affordable housing. So many people are waiting for affordable housing that finding 100 households willing and able to get by without a car is very workable. Moreover, Beall’s Grant is within walking distance of Metro, several bus routes and plenty of stores.

The advantages for the neighborhood and city include far less traffic and a smaller building footprint. It is also likely that by selecting people who are able to live without cars that the number of additional students brought into Beall Elementary will be reduced. The arrangement is inherently more environmentally sustainable – car free living uses less energy. But it also opens up new opportunities. The smaller footprint can allow space for a community garden. The money saved by not building parking can instead pay for more advanced environmental features.

Let’s consider the math: Structured parking costs around $20,000 per space. Eliminating the 212 space garage saves $4,240,000. Providing a basic but fully outfitted bike (lights, fenders, panniers, helmet, lock) should cost around $500 each. One hundred would total $50,000. You can fit 12 bikes in the space of one car parking space. If it cost the same as structured car parking, we could provide 200 bike parking spaces for $333,333.

Providing a car sharing service is central to making this concept work. By providing a fleet of cars to share, people can have the use of a car for occasional use, but can share the expense with their neighbors. A fleet of ten cars for 100 households would provide a car when needed at only a tenth of the cost of maintaining a car for each household. Even if brand new cars were purchased for cash up front, this would cost far less then the money saved by not building a 212 car garage. Ten cars at $20,000 each is $200,000. My newest car cost me $5,000 – we don’t need to buy all new for this concept to work. Car sharing is already working in our area through Zipcar, or a non profit co-op can be created to manage it, ranging from a large successful venture in Vancouver to a small community startup.

This still leaves plenty of money left over to provide solar water heating for the complex. A laundromat/car wash in Massachusetts built in solar water heating for $55,000. A similar approach would keep the energy costs lower for this apartment throughout its life.

The cost of the car sharing, bicycles, bike parking and solar water heating comes up to $3.6 million less than the cost of the car parking that they forgo.

In Vienna, a Car-Free by Contract apartment building arrangement allowed an apartment complex of 244 units to provide only 20 parking spaces.

Making this work at the Beall’s Grant II site would solve a vexing problem. Beyond that it points the way to a more sustainable future. While this approach has worked elsewhere, this isn’t an off the shelf, cookie cutter model. This process, even after the fundamental agreement is reached, will take a lot of thought. Is it better for car sharing to happen through Zipcar, an MHP program or some other approach? How can bike lessons be provided to residents, and how will that be arranged? Can free deliveries from PeaPod or their competitors be arranged if a given number of residents agree to a particular delivery schedule? What exact language should be used in the Car-Free contract?

Pulling this together is an exciting and worthy challenge. The active engagement of the neighborhood, MHP and the City will be needed. The seven month delay necessitated by the Council’s decision not to move forward at this time provides the time needed to completely revise the proposed development. Car-free by Contract housing is the tool that can break our current deadlock and create a positive outcome for everyone involved.

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.

POTD: Pumpkin Pi

This great photo is a family affair. Submitted by Rockville Central friend (and contributor) Carl Henn, photo by Jessica Henn, pumpkin carved by Allison Henn. There was no way I could refuse.