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.

We Have Deleted Court House Poll

Dear Readers:>

As many of you know, we recently put up a “poll” asking what people thought about the State’s idea to build a new district court house where the old public library building is. This building is next to a school, a church, and an historic district, and has no parking available neither now nor in any plans. It is a testament to the power of this particular issue that our traffic more than doubled over the norm.

But, I have deleted the poll. It was ill-advised.

Why? Three reasons:

1. People appeared to be gaming the poll. Near the end of the day today, there were sudden floods of visitors from the same Internet addresses, corresponding with a sudden flood of votes. They came one after the other, all from the same place. The system doesn’t allow the same computer to vote twice, but it looked as if whole offices were all voting at once — from Bethesda, Frederick, Silver Spring and other places outside of Rockville. It’s one thing to motivate your network, another to try to stuff the ballot box. That is what it looked like was happening.

2. People were clearly positioning to use the “results” as political ammo. No Internet poll like this even comes close to being “valid” for anything other than a lark, which is what this was intended to be. But from the emails I was getting, people were pinning a lot on the results, as if they might actually mean more than they do. I did not want to see anyone claiming a “Rockville Central poll shows” that they were right, or the other side was wrong.
3. There were problems with the wording of the questions. This was less of an issue for me than the first two, but it is valid. Some people thought the questions were biased against the “move the court house” position (this even though I have been very clearly on the move the court house side and have a “move” sign on my lawn). The main beef was that I did not include the idea that the Giant option might still be on the table. In any event, one side felt hard done by because of the poll and that was not the point — and it damaged the overall credibility of this space.

In retrospect, I should have anticipated all of the above.

It added up to a clear decision. It would be painful, and involve admitting a mistake, but that’s what grown-ups do. My main purpose in starting this site was for it to be useful in people’s lives and for it to be a space for civil dialog about issues that matter. This was just too big a lightning rod and was clearly going to do more harm than good.

So, there you have it. I can take my lumps. I am sorry if my experiment raised the anxiety level. If you were really looking forward to voting later, you will have to look elsewhere.

In the future, if I try another poll, it will be about something benign, like Hard Times vs. Giuseppe’s. Hmm, maybe not that, either.

Thanks for bearing with me. This is as new to me as it is to you.

–Brad Rourke

Feedback On The Courthouse Poll

Dear Readers:>

We have gotten quite a bit of feedback on our “move the Court House?” poll that we announced yesterday. Some is substantive, and some relates to usability.

Usability: It appears that for users of AOL, your default browser does not play nicely with the Google poll. There is a workaround, which is to use a different browser such as Internet Explorer or Firefox, but I recognize that this is a pain. Secondly, I have gotten a report of a disappearing “Vote” button. Suffice to say, this is a work in progress and we are getting what we pay for! I apologize.

Now, to substance. I was going to post this in the comments of the original announcement post, but I thought it important enough to make its own article.

The second question makes it sound like if you choose option 1, we’ll lose funding and the project won’t happen. Is that true? If it’s speculation, then it should be removed from that second statement or it should be phrased so it sounds like it’s someone’s opinion that the funding might not happen. . . . I also don’t think the wording on the first option conveys why people are so upset about the whole thing. In my mind, when Town Center was being planned and they said a new courthouse was going to go where the old library is, it wasn’t presented as if there were other options. Were there at the time? If there weren’t options then, but now there are (like the old Giant site), somehow that needs to be conveyed. . . . Personally, if I didn’t know the issues and casually looked at the questions, I’d vote for #2. It sounds more appealing, the way it’s worded.

This was not the first such response; I am just including it because it is well-worded.

Here is how I replied:

Thanks for the feedback. I was trying to be fair to both sides. Maybe I was more fair to the other side, but I am not so sure about that. In my experience, one always thinks the other side is argued more strongly than one’s own.

The “lose funding” argument is the crux of the “don’t move” point (#2). They don’t believe that we’ll be able to keep the funding our our place in line, notwithstanding promises to the contrary. (There concern is honestly felt, even if one doesn’t agree that it is warranted.)

On the “move” option (#1), I considered including something about Giant but a) I am not hearing proponents seriously saying Giant is on the table anymore and b) I wanted to force a choice rather than imply that one option has the “silver bullet” answer, which would duck the question. To me, this is an honest dispute that has real trade offs that need to be faced. With the “move” side seriously raising the idea of just stopping the court house, the question becomes not where it goes but whether it happens. Remember, I say all this as a proponent of the “move” option.

Since voting has already begun, it is impossible to edit the questions. But, I believe it is worth airing these concerns. Do both sides of this debate have a point? Is the poll inadvertently slanted? Are there other issues I am overlooking?

What do you think?

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!

Photos From Move-The-Courthouse Rally [UPDATED]

>

The Sign

What started life billed as a “press conference” and later became a “rally” in support of not locating the new district court house on the site of the old Rockville Library building was a success. A nice knot of concerned citizens showed up in the middle of the day to pick up “Move The Courthouse” signs, and four [OOPS: THREE] of the five members of the Mayor and Council, and the former mayor, were all present to support the effort. [UPDATE: I guess you might want to know who. Mayor Susan Hoffmann and Councilmembers John Britton and Phyllis Marcuccio, and former mayor Larry Giammo were there. Sorry for the confusion.]

A Throng

Film at…..5:00 pm

This morning’s rally for Move The Courthouse was covered by local and metro news organizations, including RC. Look for more coverage here later, and tonight on Washingon’s ABC 7 TV during their 5:00 pm news broadcast.

Town Center Action Team Plans News Conference on District Courthouse Location

The citizens’ group TCAT (Town Center Action Team) is holding a press conference on T>hursday, January 31 at 10:00am at the corner of Vincent and S. Washington Streets. The purpose of the press conference is to make public how many citizens of Rockville feel about the courthouse going in the location of the old library.

TCAT is encouraging all those who are concerned about the proposed location to come to the press conference.

My Opinion: In Search of the Elusive Courthouse Parking

This opinion piece is by >Cynthia Cotte Griffiths. It is in response to an article written by Mary Ellen Flynn.

After reading Mary Ellen Flynn’s Contributor’s Opinion yesterday, in which she stated “With public parking already located nearby (some even on the same side of the street as the old Library site)…”, I decided to try to find this existing parking that could be used for the District Courthouse.

So I dropped the kids at school and went to park by the old library site to take some pictures. I couldn’t find a parking spot. Now, I’m not saying this to be sarcastic or even funny, but I couldn’t. So I drove home, parked, and walked over. It’s cold out there today.

The only public parking on the same side of the street is the Council Office Building parking which is Permit Only.

I was thinking that if they have space in this parking garage, perhaps they would share with the District Courthouse, but it was full except for a few spots on the top level:

There is also the Jury Parking lot on Rt. 28, but it is almost always full:

My only conclusion is that there is no existing public parking on the same side of the street as the old library site. People need to understand that there is no parking anywhere for this Courthouse proposal. The use of false statements to sway an argument always disturbs me, probably because I was a Philosophy major. People might be persuaded by the rosy picture painted, so the facts need to be proven. It would be unfortunate if the courthouse supporters turn around in the future and state that they thought there was parking available because someone wrote that there was parking. There is no parking existing or planned for the current District Courthouse proposal.

If this plan goes forward, the City of Rockville should not fund a single penny of the millions of dollars that will be required to not only build parking for the Courthouse but also mitigate the traffic and neighborhood problems created by the Courthouse. The residents of Rockville should not have to bear the cost of the State’s terrible urban planning which is being forced upon us.

Contributor Opinion by Mary Ellen Flynn: Time for the New District Courthouse to be Built at the Old Library Site

This >contributor opinion is by Mary Ellen Flynn, president of the Bar Association of Montgomery County. It is in response to an article by Frank Anastasi:

I respect that you, your friends and colleagues have a different viewpoint from the one shared by me, the entire Montgomery County Delegation of Legislators, the County Executive, all of the Courthouse Elected officials, and many public officials and County residents on the subject of the location of the new Rockville District Courthouse at the old Library site. We who support the construction at the old Library site remain steadfast in our position, as it is firmly based on facts relating to location, cost, and positive benefits to be gained for the entire County and State.

The old Library site is directly across the street from the current District Courthouse building, so infrastructure already exists for the placement of the Courthouse at that location. The site’s proximity to the Circuit Court, State’s Attorney’s Office, Public Defender’s Office and other County agencies associated with the everyday legal business conducted in our County Seat would facilitate efficiency, not only for lawyers, judges and other public officials, but for the County’s citizens who conduct business in this judicial quadrant on a daily basis. With public parking already located nearby (some even on the same side of the street as the old Library site) and easy access to both Circuit Court and many court-related agencies within a convenient two-block area, efficiency would result. It is anticipated that shorter, less confusing travel among the courthouses and other judicial agencies would occur if the Circuit and District Courts were located within a centralized area rather than being separated and on opposite sides of the expansive Town Center.

As is well-documented, a great deal of taxpayer money has been authorized and already spent on purchasing and designating the old Library site as the location for the new District Courthouse. Additionally, architectural designs specific to that site have been ordered, prepared and paid for. These plans are now only waiting for State funding. At a time when fiscal prudence is on the minds of all County and State taxpayers and no overabundance of funds exists in any of the governmental coffers, the scrapping of completed architectural plans on which significant money has already been spent, the incurring of millions of dollars solely due to construction delays, and the risk of diverting $71 Million of State funding away from this much-needed courthouse are unacceptable to most County residents.

Although it is understood that at the outset any new construction will not be without concerns and opinions on both sides, the concerns and opinions on construction at the old Library site have been voiced and addressed as completely as is practicable. Now, with the positive benefits of the old Library site far outweighing the few negatives, it is time for the new District Courthouse to be built at the old Library site, so that the judicial, commercial and residential sectors of our County Seat can once-again operate as effectively and efficiently as possible and thrive.

Mary Ellen Flynn, President
Bar Association of Montgomery County, MD

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. To submit your opinion for consideration, contact us.

Contributor Opinion by Frank Anastasi: Not Over Yet

The following contributor opinion is by >Rockville Central team member Frank Anastasi:

That letter from the MC Bar President Mary Ellen Flynn to Mr. Leggett inflamed me so that I wrote to her and copied Mr. Leggett. My letter follows.

This isn’t over yet. The community is rallying — look for “Move the Courthouse” signs coming to lawns near you soon. Also, I hear that the State’s submittal of the current plan to the City in 2005 may not have met the requirement to submit a plan “to the City Planning Commission”. If you wish, register your feelings on the matter with Mr. Leggett or Ms. Flynn. Feel free to use anything in my letter.

January 18, 2008

Mary Ellen Flynn, President
Montgomery County Bar Association

Dear Ms. Flynn:

In response to your recent statements in the paper and your January 17 letter to Mr. Leggett, I wish to point out a few things.

1) You say our opposition to building a courthouse on the former library site is “classic NIMBY”. What an insult to Rockville residents and elected officials alike – this just shows how disconnected you are from the community. But the NIMBY card is always raised when one side can’t be bothered by the basic facts, which in this case are clear. A courthouse, without parking, is a totally inappropriate use of the former library site. Especially when a far superior site exists a couple of blocks away where adequate facilities, and parking, could be built.

2) If it is so impossible to build a courthouse in Rockville unless it is on the old library site, as you say, then why has the Governor bent over backwards to get you to agree to building it at the Giant site? Why does he think the Giant site is a superior site? Why has he said he thinks putting it on the library site would be the worst case of urban design malfeasance ever? Why has he put extra money into the budget to enable redesign of it? Why has he pledged to do whatever it takes if you and the opposition would just agree to work together and build it at the Giant site?

3) Do you just not care that a courthouse at the library site does not meet our city zoning code? Do you not care that the vast majority of people who will have business at the courthouse will have to find a way to get there without any nearby parking, and cross four lanes of very heavy traffic to get to it? Do you really not care that the surrounding residential neighborhood streets will be gridlocked all day long with people driving round and round and round looking for courthouse parking that doesn’t exist? How can you think that these issues are not valid and relevant?

Why do you think a government of the people for the people should be able to just trash a community against its wishes? I thought the court system was supposed to be about justice.

Opposition to building a courthouse at the library site runs very deep, is genuine, and I assure you is not a classic case of NIMBY. Any unbiased person would realize this when acquainted with the facts — if this dispute were to go to an arbitrator, who do you think would win? Your reasons for wanting it there essentially boil down to convenience for lawyers and judges. Should this take precedent over the common good of the community?

Frank S. Anastasi
Rockville

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. To submit your opinion for consideration, contact us.

County: Thanks, We'll Take Back Our Old Building

As >expected, Montgomery County Executive Isiah “Ike” Leggett has sent Mayor Susan Hoffmann a letter letting the City know that that County does indeed intend to exercise it’s right of first refusal in the event that a new District Court House is not built on the site of the old Rockville Public Library.

Here’s a copy of the full letter.

Here’s a funny part: Leggett does not exactly come out and say “no,” but instead says this:

“Based on discussions I have had with individual County Council members, the County Council would support a recommendation by me to exercise the right of first refusal.”

It’s a classic example of political leaders seeming to be constitutionally unable to deliver bad news in a clear voice. Just a pet peeve of mine.

Lawyered Up

The ongoing >public debate over the location of a possible new District Courthouse appears to be generating much heat, but less light.

This is understandable. The prospect of having such a large building, with no parking, filled with people interacting with the legal system (a time when people are typically not at their most restrained or reasonable), hard by an historic district, church, and school for children as young as three is enough to unnerve anyone. (Note, too, that the three-year-olds are often moved outside from school building to school building.)

I believe the old library site is a poor choice for a new courthouse building. It’s just a silly spot for it, notwithstanding the convenience it would pose for lawyers and judges.

However, along with Mark Pierzchala, I get the sense that the debate so far has not given full due to the political facts of the issue. (He also makes a good point about whether we are giving a fair hearing to the other side too.)

A number of recent comments in this post appear to have embedded in them the notion that the City is facing a decision about where we want a new court house, or whether we should have one.

I may be very wrong, but my understanding is that it’s not in the City’s power to decide whether the state courts need a new building or not. Since the City unfortunately, and inadvertently, let pass (long ago) the deadline to officially object to the plans, there isn’t an official planning process to influence. (The state could, I believe, overrule such a process anyway.) The Montgomery County Council would essentially have to approve any move of the court house to the Giant site by giving up its right to take the old library site back in the event a court house is not built there — something they have all but promised they would do (notwithstanding Exec. Leggett’s agreement to “look into” the matter).

It is not just the local, District 17 state delegation that must be convinced — it is all state legislators from Montgomery County. Even if it were possible to convince all four District 17 legislators of the value of moving the court house site to the old Giant, there are 28 more legislators to go.

Finally, there are funding issues. In order for a move to the Giant site to happen, not only would the City of Rockville need to absorb a significant expenditure hit (possibly up to $5M but at least $1M or $2M to redesign the building) but, in addition, Governor O’Malley would have to expend a significant amount of political capital to ensure the funds for a moved court house remain available over multiple fiscal years (while, presumably, other jurisdictions throughout the state lobby to get a piece of that money for their own projects). That’s a lot to ask of a Governor who has already spent out a lot of chits on a special session and is now trying to get a budget passed.

I’m just little old me, but my read on this is that a move to the Giant, while far preferable to placing the new court house on the old library site, remains a very difficult sell. So much has to fall into place, with so many forces arrayed in opposition, in order for it to happen. Jupiter will have to align with Mars, to quote my favorite Broadway musical.

Given all this, Mayor Susan Hoffmann and the Council are really rolling a rock up a hill and I am proud of their efforts. In the dim, dark, past, I was a lobbyist (only for the forces of good) and know a little about how hard it is to make things happen. I will be stunned — in a good way — if they can pull it off.

Meanwhile, the Montgomery County Bar Association and other attorneys and judges are addressing their arguments where they will do a lot of good: to the full Montgomery County state delegation and to the Montgomery County council — both of which have the power to say “no” to the Giant site and “yes” to a court house. Rockville Central friend Brigitta Mullican has passed along some of their communications along to me (and to others, I am not airing any laundry here). Those interested in having a full understanding of what we are up against ought to read:

• A recent email from the Mary Ellen Flynn, Montgomery County Bar Association’s president, to the Montgomery County Council; and
• Chief Judge Ben Clyburn’s December letter to the Montgomery County delegation to Annapolis, along with a state report on the proposed Giant land swap.

My interpretation of things is that, given the state of play, one option the City faces is to try in various ways to stop any court house from being built by delaying (ironically, through the courts) for so long that the state money essentially disappears, claimed by other projects. Even this tactic is not guaranteed of success and I have doubts about its ethics. There is a lot of momentum behind a court house, and it is hard to argue with a straight face that a new court house is not needed.

I hope this is helpful. I don’t mean to be a downer, but it seemed worthwhile to spell out just what obstacles are standing in the way. I would love to hear comment from people who see other ways through this.

News on Courthouse Issue

The Town Center Action team got bad news on the fight over where to build the new courthouse. Rockville Central readers know the city and a growing group of residents oppose the State’s plans to build it on the former library site. >Tonight City Manager Scott Ullery and Mayor Susan Hoffmann explained where the matter stands after a recent summit meeting with everyone from the Governor on down.

In spite of Governor O’Malley’s strong support for building the courthouse at the Giant site and his pledge to go to great lengths to make that happen, State Senator Jennie Forehand remains the lone hold-out among our elected officials who is not willing to work to get the courthouse built at an appropriate location.

To make matters worse, Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett said it seems certain that the County would exercise its right of first refusal and take back ownership of the former library site if a courthouse is not built there. That takes the wind out of the proposed Giant site land-swap in which the City would buy the library site back from the State.

City officials and residents alike were vindicated, though, in their stand that the delegation was made aware of their opposition to the court being built on the former library site long ago. Former delegate Cheryl Kagan provided notes from her Palm PDA of a June 11, 2001 meeting at City Hall in which then-Mayor Giammo and concerned residents — several of them current TCAT members — presented reasons why the library site was not the place for a courthouse.

Yep, you guessed it, lack of parking, “dark after five”, need for transition between residential neighborhood and buildings in town center were cited. The “Giant site” was specifically mentioned as a preferable alternative. So that’s six and a half years of consistent, logical opposition. So much for the “too late in the game” argument.

The meeting ended with plans for mounting an 11th hour, grassroots campaign to sway Senator Forehand, and seeking a meeting on Saturday afternoon with her and the rest of the delegation to explain just how frustrated Rockville is with the stalemate and what it might lead to.

Some tough talk indeed. I felt the presence of those former Rockville citizens who in 1774 gathered at the Hungerford Tavern, a block or so away, and drew up “the Hungerford Resolves”, a statement of support for their fellow patriots in Boston and against British rule (don’t know what I am talking about? read the plaques out front of BB&T on the corner of Washington and Jefferson).

Don’t you just love Rockville? I know I do!

Stay tuned……..

Developments In The New County Courthouse: Update Meeting Set For Jan. 15

>(Warning: Long post. Contains my own opinion.)

Word has come that the Town Center Action Team’s next meeting is set for January 15 at 7:00 pm in the Blue Crab Room at City Hall. This meeting will include an update on the state of play of the new district court house, and it appears that many of the important players will be there. If this is an issue that concerns you or about which you have questions, I urge you to attend.

For those who have not been following the issue, here is a link to our November 15 article on the question. The key points are:

Many in Rockville know that the current state District Court building is old, overcrowded, and in need of — well, it needs to move. Back when the new Town Square was a gleam in the eye of a few civic leaders, it seemed like there was a perfect solution: use the old public library building! (The red pushpin on this map.) Approval has recently been given for the state to go ahead on its plans to build on this site.

But, what might have been a viable option five years ago isn’t anymore, and there are far better options available. For years now, many have been working to try to stop the state from placing its new District Court building at the old library site (which is next door to City Hall and hard by Christ Episcopal School). [The Gazette reported] that outgoing Rockville mayor Larry Giammo [had] proposed what sounds like a reasonable solution: swapping the old library site for the old Giant Supermarket building (next to The Pink Bank — the green pushpin on this map).

When last we met, the Mayor Susan Hoffmann, members of the Council, and the City of Rockville staff were working hard to make sure this “swap” took place. So we are clear, I am in favor of this swap and think the “old” library building is an unsuitable site for a court house.

Never one to be scooped on local news by more than a couple of months, the Washington Post ran a good recap of the state of play in its most recent “Montgomery Extra” section. The Gazette ran a similar piece a day earlier. There’s a new wrinkle. It turns out that, if the “old” library site is not used for a court house, Montgomery County has the right to purchase the property back and do something else with it.

Indeed, State Delegate Jim Gilchrist told me, “The County Executive and the Council are looking into it and all preliminary indications are that they would exercise that privilege. They are looking into it again at the request of Mayor Hoffmann.” So, it is not necessarily in the City’s power to make this happen.

And there are many forces now lining up on both sides. What is more, they all have good arguments on their side. So, while I am still of the opinion that getting this thing to happen at the old Giant site is by far the preferable option, I do understand the counterarguments.

What are the various arguments in play, and who is involved?

• Neighborhood citizens: There are myriad reasons why the surrounding neighborhood might not want this courthouse on this spot. It’s next to a church and a school. There isn’t enough parking. The size of the proposed structure is exceedingly large, pushing up against the boundaries of the site. As Rockville Central team member Frank Anastasi says in the Washington Post article, “What happens when an inmate decides to make a break for it? Where is he going to go? Right into the school door or the church door.”

• Other City residents concerned with cost: It is true that shifting to the new site will result in higher costs. Brigitta Mullican, long a staunch fiscal conservative when it comes to City expenditures, recently wrote a note that crossed my desk which read, “I am very concerned how much money the project will cost especially in light of the budget shortfall the State is dealing with.”
• The judicial branch (the courts): The court system is perennially last in line when it comes to getting the resources it needs to function. As citizens, we ask a great deal of our judges and court system, and meanwhile we pack their offices and courtrooms into dismal, inadequate buildings and underfund their operations year after year. I know this from research that went into a recent discussion guide I wrote for the American Bar Association, and the Kettering Foundation about the separation of powers in America. In a recent op-ed in The Gazette, David L. Cahoon, former Circuit Court administrative judge who oversaw the design and construction of the current court complex in 1975-84, put it this way: “For nine years a new District Court building has been planned at the site of the old library in Rockville. We are concerned that a last-minute effort to relocate the new courthouse to a different location will cost this community a much-needed facility. The current District Courthouse is obsolete and antiquated. The county’s population of is approaching one million, and the caseloads for the county courts have increased exponentially. We as a community need adequate facilities for the adjudication of our civil and criminal cases.” This view holds that, while the “old” site may not be optimal, the risks associated with having this particular project “fall out of bed” at this stage are too great. Finally, some who support this view, such as Montgomery Bar President Mary Elle
  n Flynn, also criticize the local citizens’ view: “It’s a classic not-in-my-backyard position,” she says in the Post article. (I might reply to that by saying that, in this case, the building is just about literally in people’s backyards, so it isn’t an outlandish position to take).
  
  
• The state delegation and the Governor: It’s theoretically in the Governor’s power to make sure the risks of the project “falling out of bed” are mitigated to a great degree. After all, he submits the budget. But it is not necessarily clear that he wants to expend the political capital it might take to force the issue. There are lots of other places that could use a court house, who would be very happy to see the Montgomery County project delayed so they could get in line. Governor O’Malley has asked the state delegation to agree on which site it would like to go with, which is an unusual move but which would result in cover. Problem is, the delegation is at best divided on the issue. Senator Jennie Forehand is an outspoken proponent of placing the court house at the old library site. The rest of the delegation is happy to go along with the move to the old Giant site provided that the wrinkles get ironed out. And,with so many forces at work, the clock is running out. As Del. Gilchrist told me:
  

  “I have . . . told Mayor Hoffmann a number of times that I really don’t feel strongly about either site but we need to make a decision soon. Only since about September has the Giant site been in play, but with the County’s ability to claim the site, uncertainty about how soon the City could take possession of the Giant, and the cost and time lost for doing new architectural and engineering plans I think the possibility for the site is exceedingly small. I think in the next week the county delegation is going to have to support the library site. The Governor and his office told us during the Special Session that there would be funding in the budget, and it seems to me the library site is the only viable option at this point.”

There are good arguments on all sides. The issue appears to be coming to a head. It is worth keeping an eye on. One good way to do that is to attend the upcoming Town Center Action Team meeting on the 15th!

Because I can, I want to give Twinbrook Citizens Association president Christina Ginsberg the last word here. She wrote an email to many concerned — it does a good job summing up these arguments:

[I was] at the TCAT meeting [in November] where this was discussed in detail. The most telling fact AGAINST putting the new courthouse at the old library site is that there will be NO PARKING for the many, many people who will be coming to the new courthouse, crossing East Jefferson or parking on neighborhood streets since no other parking will be provided. The State has tacitly acknowledged this by scaling back their original proposal, but the new proposal is (apparently) STILL larger than the new Rockville library.

STILL larger – and as Gayl Selkin-Gutman of the Rockville Friends of the Library pointed out at the TCAT meeting – if those parameters are going to be allowed, we might as well have kept the new library on the old site.

How could ANY building of this size be proposed or approved ANYWHERE in our City without parking as mandated by our city zoning codes? That is the question that should be investigated, especially since we just went through the same questions regarding Richard Montgomery. When and how did it slip by our City Council, our elected representative who are supposed to protect citizen interests? Saying that the State does not have to comply with City code is not an acceptable answer – these issues should have been part of the original negotiations when the land was sold by the County to the State.

It is going to be a BIG mistake to put that courthouse astride one of our busiest streets without major traffic mitigations, including parking. Looks like we, the Rockville citizens, will be paying for the mitigations that the State is refusing to acknowledge as necessary. My gut feeling estimate is that mitigations to Jefferson, Washington, Falls and West Montgomery to accomodate the traffic increase would be in the range of $2 million dollars. As for the issue of citizen objection being late in the process, part of that problem is that citizens were not shown what was being planned.

Yes, it will be costly to move the site, but the cost estimates must take into account the fact that the City is still looking to expand its facilities and will be spending $5 million to $7 million anyway for new facilities, either by re-designing the Old Post Office on North Washington or by buying new property. I’m not willing yet to dump this idea based solely on the price tag. Looking forward, this may be the CHEAP solution.

Yes, there are many hurdles to overcome before this issue can be resolved, including obtaining the support of Governor O’Malley, but I’m willing to explore it in detail, not shut it down immediately.

Anyone who reads the articles will note that the impetus to spend the money to resolve this problem is coming from the CITIZENS who are affected by this decision. It is the GOVERNMENT, notably the court system and our elected leaders, who are pushing forward with what can only be described as a flawed decision.

Let’s take the time to get this right. I’m not saying at this point that I’m for moving the courthouse or that I’m for spending the money, but I want full information on the table. It’s too early to take sides.

Too early to take sides is right. But not too early to pay attention!

What do you think?

(Image from Hi Tech Justice)

Rockville's Legislators

I thought it would be useful to have a list of all the Rockville state legislators — that is, the Delegates and the Senator in District 17. (And not just because there happen to be important issues right now.)>

Here they are:

• Senator Jennie Forehand website | email
• Delegate Kumar Barve website | email (interim email)
• Delegate James Gilchrist website | email
• Delegate Luiz Simmons website | email (interim email)

(“Interim email” is a non-state email for when the legislature is out of session, but I am pretty sure the state email will reach them whenever.)

These folks are part of the delegation from Montgomery County, which has its own website here. The MoCo delegation’s key leaders are:

• Delegate Chair: Brian Feldman (district 15) website | email
• Senate Chair: Rona Kramer (district 14) website | email

And, here’s a contact list for all Montgomery County Senators and Delegates.

Curious to see a map of our county’s legislative districts? Why, here it is.