Contributor Opinion by Art Stigile: Using FOIAs To Intimidate Opponents Of Subsidizing RedGate Is Unacceptable

On Monday morning I sent a press release to the Gazette announcing that I was soliciting signatures on a petition condemning Joe Jordan’s attempt to silence my criticism of using taxpayers’ money to bail out the RedGate golf course, I also announced that additional information is available on my website (www.rocktrash.org).

Here’s a summary of what led me to take this step.

At Citizens’ Forum last summer (and here on Rockville Central), I posed 10 questions to the golfing community about the future of the RedGate golf course. The RedGate Advisory Committee largely ignored these questions on their quest to convince taxpayers that somehow we benefit from the privilege of paying huge subsidies for other people to play golf. September gave way to autumn, and I slipped into my normal budget season schedule of working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. From October through the end of January, I was totally uninvolved in City issues and had no time to follow Mayor and Council action on any issue. I confess that I didn’t even have time to read Rockville Central!

I was gone, but apparently not forgotten. In late January, I was astounded to hear that Joe Jordan, chair of the RedGate Advisory Committee, had filed a FOIA request for all emails between me and Rockville City email addresses. I asked the City for confirmation and received a copy of Mr. Jordan’s FOIA request for my email, and a second FOIA request that he filed asking for email between the City Manager, the City Finance Director, and the Director of Parks and Recreation.

I don’t mind having a vigorous debate about the substance of public policy. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy and respect Rockville Central so much. But going on a fishing expedition for the email of your political opponent, and using City staff as a political punching bag go well beyond anyone’s definition of acceptable political behavior.

So, at the Feb 7th Citizens’ Forum, I spoke out against Mr. Jordan’s tactics, saying “You don’t have to be a political genius to see that Mr. Jordan’s action is designed to intimidate and silence critics of using taxpayers’ dollars to bailout the Golf Course.” I went on to say that his actions are “a perfect example of why many, if not most, Americans view politics with disgust.”

For anyone doubting my characterization of the intent of Mr. Jordan’s FOIAs, I refer you to his statement in the Feb. 16th edition of the Gazette:

“[I asked for it] because of [Stigile's] outspokenness on the golf course,” he said. “I don’t know [how it will be useful].”

I don’t care how you parse his statement, it says he targeted me because I oppose the golf course bailout.

I thought the public exposure might cause Mr. Jordan to rethink his political tactics. However, late last week, I learned that Mr. Jordan has expanded his FOIA request to cover email through Feb 12th of this year.

As I said at Citizens’ Forum, I fully support Mr. Jordan’s request for copies of my email. He absolutely has a legal right to see public records. In fact, I asked the City on Feb. 7th and again on Monday morning to post all of my email on the City web site, so that everyone can enjoy them.

But just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right. Mr. Jordan represents the City. His political tactics send the wrong message to any resident who wants to participate in the political process and isn’t a life-long fan of the Broad Street Bullies’ brand of hockey. (Sorry Caps fans.) I concluded my remarks at Citizens’ Forum by saying that this kind of politics is not acceptable from someone who represents the City, and I asked the Mayor and Council to discharge Mr. Jordan from his position on the Advisory Committee.

If you are appalled by political intimidation like this, I invite you to go to my website at www.ROCKTRASH.org and sign my petition condemning Mr. Jordan’s behavior.

I hate this kind of politics. It’s cheap and tawdry, and it taints all of us, even when we are pursuing honorable means. But turning our heads only encourages more of the same.

Art Stigile

p.s. I don’t send many emails, and I rarely keep email, so I don’t have copies of all of them. But I’ve posted a few that I have on my website. Enjoy!

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. 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 Martha Klasing: Will Our Mayor And Council Take Time To Evaluate The Best Course Of Action For Redgate?

What will RedGate’s future be? Our Mayor and Council may decide this on Monday night, as RedGate is once again on the agenda. City staff recommends following the National Golf Foundation’s (NGF) suggestion to outsource the management of the course. This would certainly bring in the needed expertise that has been lacking thus far. RedGate has suffered over the past several years under City management due to lack of marketing and lack of care. The negative rhetoric about its poor financial performance, cost to taxpayers, and possible closing of the course has kept golfers away and resulted in lost rounds of golf and revenue.

For anyone who had the patience to read my lengthy posting back in September, I attempted to explain exactly what the City (and others) were calling “RedGate’s Deficit”. For those who did have the patience to slog through the numbers, hopefully you understood that the majority of any accumulated deficit attributed to RedGate did not stem from RedGate’s operations, but rather from the City’s allocation of administrative and overhead charges. Costs that weren’t a result of operating RedGate and costs that the City would have to pay whether RedGate existed or not. If anyone is still laboring under the idea that RedGate is costing taxpayers a large sum each and every year, here is a figure for you. Over the past decade, the accumulated deficit in the RedGate fund – which includes over $1.3 million of City overhead not directly attributable to RedGate’s operations– amounts to just $6.97 per household annually.

This past week, an article in the Gazette states that the City could save more than $200,000 a year by outsourcing the management of the course. This is the management option that NGF recommends. I’ve studied NGF’s financial projections and I tend to disagree that outsourcing would save the City up to $200,000 per year. This is what it boils down to: The City would terminate its employees that work at the golf course. In turn, the City would hire an outside company to manage the course. So, rather than pay our current City employees, the City would pay a comparable amount (slightly more, based on their projections), to a 3rd party management company. The numbers are as follows: over the projected 4 year period FY 2012-2015, the City would save $1.452M on salary and benefits by terminating the city employees. They would then spend $1.488M on additional line item expenses related to the management company – NO NET SAVINGS! So, where do any projected savings come from? Here’s the answer, and please think about this carefully - if RedGate is outsourced to an outside management company, the City anticipates reducing the allocation of CITY admin/overhead charged to RedGate from a total of $1.359M to a mere $240,000 over the same 4 year period. There’s your savings. But, it isn’t really savings to the City, because those amounts of City admin/overhead represent City costs for running the City government and still have to be paid. They will just tuck it away in some other fund. So, as a city resident and taxpayer – and I am not a golfer so I’m not floating these ideas to preserve my hobby – I ask, how does this make sense? I can’t see that outsourcing is really saving any money at all –it’s just moving numbers around on a piece of paper. And, people will lose their jobs.

What outsourcing would do for RedGate is to bring in professionals who operate in and know the golf business. This would be a plus, and it is needed. Per the NGF study, the market favors golf operators in this area. RedGate is well situated to capitalize on an improving economy, increasing population, and a shake down in the industry, as some courses close. It highlights what RedGate has going for it – attractive venue, dedicated staff, and a core group of loyal customers. It provides the basic steps to take in order to get the course back on track. The study points out that RedGate needs to be able to operate competitively without decisions being made by those who don’t know the golf business (like City Hall). Outsourcing is one way to do that. If you read the RedGate Advisory Committee’s response to the NGF study, there is another way to do this, which could be a lower-cost alternative. Hire a golf director that has the experience and golf business acumen to run a golf business. Sure, this would require the city to create a new position, but it may be a more frugal approach to full outsourcing. Herndon has taken this approach with their course (a comparable facility to RedGate) and has been quite successful. Herndon’s golf course expenses track similarly to RedGate’s, but they enjoy nearly half a million more dollars of revenue than RedGate. This is something RedGate could do with the right direction and control. Do we really need to lay off City workers and take their livelihoods away? And then take those savings and pay an outside 3rd party to do something the City could easily do with the right expertise? I hope not – a very sad statement indeed when the entire nation is talking about job creation and job preservation.

If it is all about saving money, then outsource the care for all our passive parks - that costs a significant amount more than the golf course. The City could lay off even more workers and just hire a 3rd party landscaping company to do the same job for a lot less money. I hope our Mayor and Council have more of a vision than this.

By Martha Klasing

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. 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!

What’s In And What’s Out In Rockville

It’s that time of year again. Time to reflect and remember. What’s better than a traditional In and Out list?

My family has been throwing around ideas for a few days and here’s ours for 2010-2011:

Thanks to my husband and sons for helping me and making it fun. We’re sure there are more!

Happy New Year!

Editorial Opinion By Cindy Cotte Griffiths: Questions Arise About The APFO Committee

APFO Committee Members present during the Planning Commission Appointments On Wednesday.

If you want to find out who was appointed to the Rockville Planning Commissions Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) Advisory Committee, you need to listen to the video from the Wednesday, December 15, 2010 meeting. The list of who will be appointed was not on the Agenda for the meeting nor has it been posted anywhere on the City’s website.

Surprisingly, before the nine members were appointed on Wednesday night, an article was published in Wednesday’s edition of The Gazette and it appeared online with the lede:

The Rockville Planning Commission had tasked nine people with reviewing one of its most controversial zoning ordinances.

The members of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance Committee will officially be announced at the Planning Commission’s meeting today. The list includes business, non-profit and neighborhood representatives.

(The grammatical error is The Gazette’s, not mine.) The article includes the names of who will be appointed later in the day.

During Wednesday’s meeting, Planning Commission David Hill admitted to providing the information about the appointments to The Gazette on Monday so that they could publish in their paper version on Wednesday. He also emailed the information to the Mayor and Council on Monday.

So my first question is, why does The Gazette get such privilege over all the other news providers?

My second question is, why can’t I find the names of who was appointed anywhere except for this news article? The names are still not on the Planning Commission section of the City’s website. Why weren’t they included on the Agenda for Wednesday’s meeting if they were sent to a news outlet on Monday? Shouldn’t the citizens have the information first – before a newspaper?

After repeated attempts throughout the years, The Gazette still does not deliver to my house. Many of my neighbors in apartments don’t get it either. This obviously is not the way to communicate with residents.

I hope The Gazette spelled their names correctly because I have no way of officially knowing:

Jason Anthony
Temperance Blalock
Denis Cain
Julie Carr
Sean Hart
Soo Lee-Cho
Charles Littlefield
Roald Schrack
Eric Segal

During Citizen’s Forum at Monday night’s Mayor and Council meeting, Beryl Feinberg spoke about her application for the APFO Committee. She said that no one who applied was ever contacted or interviewed about their application. She was only contacted to be told she was not selected. She knew that there would be seven (7) male and three (3) female members chosen, including one reserve. Since Rockville’s population is roughly 50-50 male-female, she didn’t think the Committee was inclusive or reflective of our population.

Councilmember John Britton responded by asking for copies of the resumes and applications of all the applicants knowing that it is privileged information. Due to Ms. Feinberg’s remarks, he was curious about the ethnic, gender and geographic breakdown.

Councilmember Piotr Gajewski used his response to Citizen’s Forum to explain his position on the Committee:

I’m sure you’re not going to be the last to complain about the composition of this Committee which is the problem I have with the forming of this Committee to begin with. APFO is arguably one of the most inflammatory issues that our City will be facing. I think it should be faced by elected officials at the very least it should be faced by officials appointed by elected officials.

Mayor Phyllis Marcuccio reminded everyone that it was within the privilege of the Planning Commission to appoint a subcommittee. The Mayor and Council had absolutely no input. The Planning Commission will eventually make recommendations to the Mayor and Council for a decision. She added:

I think it’s a process that maybe is flawed in some ways. I don’t think that anyone had the intention of slighting a soul. I think they were just looking for more help and this was one way to do it. Sometimes when you mean to do well, you do poorly. Let’s hope it results in something we can positively use.

I’ve been told that originally only 11 people applied for the 9 positions which is why the deadline was extended and about 21 applications were eventually received.

Regardless of these concerns, the Planning Commission seems pleased with their selections.

During Wednesday night’s meeting the Planning Commission decided the Advisory Committee’s start date will be January 2, 2011 and they must report to the Planning Commission by their first meeting in July.

Commissioner John Tyner reminded the representatives that their first chore is to elect a Chair to keep the meetings moving on schedule.

Offering all the Commissioners as a resource, Tracy Pakulniewicz advised the Task Force that they can contact them with questions in addition to asking City staff because “it is a pretty hefty task that you’re being charged with and we want to make sure you have all the information, all of the insight you need to effectively and efficiently do your job.”

Mr. Tyner added “You won’t be left hanging out in the breeze. That’s for sure.”

Editorial Opinion by Cindy Cotte Griffiths: None Of The Above

Recently a couple of public decisions in Rockville have involved three final choices which have not received overwhelming support.

After the Cultural Arts Commission reviewed the entries, the neighborhood associations were given three selections for the East Rockville art project. I’ve been told that some of the community leaders involved in the decision may not have liked any of the choices but they picked one because this was the process.

The branding campaign for Rockville has also resulted in three final designs. From my personal discussions, an overwhelming majority doesn’t seem to like any of them.

When I mentioned these instances to my husband, he mentioned the “none of the above” choice available on the Nevada ballot. If you don’t like any of the candidates, you can vote for the “none” option. Although it has been in place since 1975, I’d never heard of it. During this last election, the number of “none of the above” votes was expected to affect the outcome between Harry Reid and Sharron Angle, so the unusual ballot choice was getting some press.

Could we be so bold as to freely give our community a “none of the above” choice when deciding on bidders or artwork or other decisions? If we are truly not impressed, why go forward? Why settle? Wouldn’t we be a greater place if we didn’t settle?

Now, if our pipes are leaking underground and all the engineering bids are not perfect, we need to go forward with the best available contractor because the situation is in dire need of repair. Of course there will be instances where we absolutely need to accomplish a task.

But if there is no rush and the outcome is for aesthetics or an extra program, why not just say “none of the above”? Is this possible?

Perhaps it’s simply a matter of keeping the option in mind when volunteering in the community. This could mean having the courage to state that everyone should begin again or decide not to go forward at all. Such positions might be problematic and complicated, but necessary.

The Human Service Advisory Commission, which I chair, spent a long time studying an issue last year with the intent of having a summit. Even though we invested considerable time, we eventually decided the effort might not be needed. Sometimes it’s difficult to put on the brakes.

Often, the questions or the system is designed to go forward without other options. For instance, the branding survey at the City site wants feedback but the survey seems intent on proceeding. If you’re against the whole concept, the question doesn’t seem to invite this option.

We need to consider how to create systems where we aren’t forced to pick the “least worst” choice rather than the best one. Systems where we can answer, “You know what? None of the above. Should we be doing this and how?”

This Editorial Opinion is Cindy’s, and doesn’t represent Rockville Central.

Contributor Opinion by Eric Raynor: ERCA Response To East Rockville Art Decision

Below is a letter from the East Rockville Civic Association (ERCA) submitted to the Mayor and Council yesterday concerning their vote at the Mayor and Council Meeting on Monday to approve artwork for the property behind the East Rockville sign by the Rockville Metro Rail Station.

At our monthly meeting on October 12, 2010, members of the East Rockville Civic Association (ERCA) reviewed and discussed the proposed sculpture (aka “The Blossom” by East Los Streetscapers) planned for placement at the corner of Park Road and S. Stonestreet in East Rockville, across the street from the Rockville metro station parking lot.

We understand that opinions about public art are highly subjective and that not everyone will or can agree on what is aesthetically appropriate; nevertheless, ERCA members are displeased with this choice of artwork, and do not feel it befits our residential neighborhood. In fact, the consensus opinion at our meeting was that we would rather not have any public art at that location; we’d prefer to just have enhanced landscaping. (For the record, ERCA members did not like any of the three proposed artwork options that were on view at city hall; members felt that none of the options adequately capture or reflect the character of our residential neighborhood. )

ERCA members are also concerned about the process by which art is chosen and placed in our (and other) residential neighborhoods. We don’t recall ever having been specifically asked if we even wanted artwork at that location, and we feel that the process to select and approve this artwork has been too rapid and without adequate neighborhood/community input. Where in this process is there an opportunity for the community at large to say we’ve taken a vote and we don’t like any of the proposed options and feel that none of these should be selected?

We are, however, mindful of the fact that you have already voted 4 to 1 in favor of this project the night before we had an opportunity to discuss it. Therefore, if it is too late to cancel this project, we respectfully request that this artwork be considered for placement in some other area within the city – perhaps a municipal or corporate location, which we think would be a more appropriate setting for this artwork.

On behalf of ERCA I will be happy to further discuss this matter with you and/or city staff. Thank you for your consideration.

Eric Raynor
President, East Rockville Civic Association (ERCA)

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. 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!

Please also note that Rockville Central does not endorse candidates in election campaigns. Supporters of all candidates are encouraged to submit opinion pieces for consideration.

Contributor Opinion by Martha Klasing: Did the Mayor and Council really spend over $2 million on RedGate?

I would like to respectfully submit to the citizens of Rockville some clarification on the recent story in Rockville Reports on the City paying off “RedGate’s deficit”. There is no doubt that many were angered or disappointed with what they read. The story stated that the Mayor and Council voted to use more than $2 million in reserve funds to cover the existing $1.7 million deficit at RedGate and to cover the projected $674,000 debt for Fiscal Year 2011. The motion that was made, and unanimously approved, stated very clearly the funds would come out of surplus funds.

I put the term “RedGate’s Deficit” in quotes for a reason. Let’s not forget or overlook one critical fact about those numbers – the existing deficit of $1.7 million includes $1,342,000 of City Administrative Overhead costs that did not arise from the operation of the Golf Course. Those costs stem from the running the City and had to be paid whether RedGate existed or not. The costs of running the City – things like salary for the City Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, costs of maintaining City Hall – get allocated to various departments. Based on some formula, the City charged the Golf Course over $1.3 million up through FY 2010. As you can see, the full $1.7 million is NOT attributable solely to RedGate and should not be portrayed as such, as was suggested by the article in Rockville Reports. The article was misleading and did not give Rockville Citizen’s the full story.

At the end of the article, it was mentioned that the accumulated deficit is projected to grow to $5.8 million over the next five years. Same story – that figure includes nearly $3 million of City Administrative Overhead costs that did not arise from Golf course operations. To give this perspective, the overhead charged to RedGate in FY2005 was $168K. In FY2012 this will have doubled to $335K, and increases every year.

Certainly, RedGate needs attention – the finances need to be shored up and the operating model needs to be scrutinized. The Mayor and Council recognized this, accepted the recommendation of the RedGate Advisory Committee, and voted to finally bring in the industry experts – the National Golf Foundation – to assess whether RedGate is viable and, if so, to render advice on the best operating model to achieve financial stability.

The National Golf Foundation (NGF) is considered the gold standard in terms of industry expertise. NGF is a not-for-profit organization with no agenda in terms of maximizing its own profits or increasing its footprint by taking over golf courses. Its mission is simple – to serve as an objective and independent resource dedicated to serving all the people, companies, facilities and associations that are involved in golf. Getting expert advice is the first, and sorely needed step, to get RedGate back on track, if that can be done. If not, the Mayor and Council will have another tough decision to make. I, for one, believe RedGate can operate profitably. Municipal courses in the DC metro area have demonstrated that this can be achieved, even in these current, difficult times. With appropriate marketing, the right operating model, and an appropriate business plan, RedGate can succeed. And, by the way, RedGate didn’t cost taxpayers $2 million.

Martha A. Klasing
Member, Redgate Advisory Committee

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. 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!

Please also note that Rockville Central does not endorse candidates in election campaigns. Supporters of all candidates are encouraged to submit opinion pieces for consideration.

Contributor Opinion by Art Stigile: Golf Subsidies 10 Times Greater Than Swim Center Subsidy

This Contributor Opinion is by Art Stigile.

For the past two years, I’ve been challenging golfers to answer a simple question — why should Rockville taxpayers provide a $24 subsidy for each round of golf played at RedGate, when golfers are supposed to be paying the full costs?

A common answer from golfers’ is that we subsidize swimming, but we can’t see the amount because the Swim Center subsidy is hidden away in the General Fund. In contrast, the Golf Course stands alone in a separate enterprise fund where the costs are transparent. If you pull the Swim Center out of the General Fund and compared apples to apples, the argument goes, you would see the Swim Center subsidy.

Well, I like apples, so let’s do the math.

For RedGate, the total subsidy for the current fiscal year is the sum of the projected deficit ($673,990) and the 50 percent reduction in the charge for central administrative expenses ($165,750), for a total cost to taxpayers of $893,740. Divide this amount by the projected number of rounds played (roughly 35,000) to get the estimated subsidy of $24 per round.

The calculation of the Swim Center subsidy is a bit more complicated because of how the City accounts for it, but the formula is the same. According to page 14-44 of the FY 2011 Adopted Budget, the Swim Center will have $1.694 million of operating revenue in FY 2011 and $1.730 million of operating expenditures, for a net operating deficit of $36,430.

To be comparable to RedGate’s bottom line, you have to add debt service ($169,762), depreciation ($70,745), and administrative overhead expenses ($398,386) to the Swim Center’s operating deficit. These amounts do not appear in the regular budget document, but they are provided in a March 26, 2010 memo from Gavin Cohen to Mayor and Council. The memo appears as attachment G to agenda item #10, “RedGate Business Plan (Plan) Financial Update”, June 21, 2010 meeting of Mayor and Council, page G-2. The amounts are for FY 2009, but they are not likely to be much different for FY 2011. Together, they sum to $638,893, increasing the Swim Center’s total cost to taxpayers to $675,323.

This is the total taxpayer subsidy for the Swim Center. To calculate the subsidy per visit, you have to know the number of visits. In response to my request, the City Manager provided me by email with an estimate of the number of visits in FY 2010. ( Mayor and Council and Joe Jordan, Chair of the RedGate Advisory Committee, were copied.) The number includes 113,378 visits by people using membership cards, 53,206 paid visits, 57,002 for classes, 58,792 for the RMSC Swim Team and the Rockville Rays Swim Team, and some other odds and ends. Together they add to 296,251 visits. I’ll assume the same number for FY 2011.

When you divide the Swim Center deficit by the number of visits, you get a subsidy of $2.28. (For reference, the subsidy per visit in FY 2010 was approximately $2.50.)

To summarize, that’s $24 per visit to the Golf Course, $2.28 per visit to the Swim Center. That’s one-tenth the taxpayer subsidy per round of Golf Course.

Any way you look at it, that’s a lot of apples!

The next time someone uses the Swim Center to justify taxpayer subsidies for the Golf Course, remember these two numbers — $24 taxpayer subsidy per round of golf, which is 10 times greater than the Swim Center subsidy.

Art Stigile

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. 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!

Please also note that Rockville Central does not endorse candidates in election campaigns. Supporters of all candidates are encouraged to submit opinion pieces for consideration.

Reader Note by Kevin Brooks: Forehand Kagan…Pretty Simple

This Reader Note was submitted by Kevin Brooks about the District 17 race for State Senate between Jennie Forehand and Cheryl Kagan.

Just a quick tid bit to think about.

Why would we, as a disitrict, want to go from a strong, senior State Senator, with plenty of clout, ….to a freshman senator with little or NO clout to represent us in Annapolis?

I say give Jennie your vote and let her leave on her own terms…….

Kevin Brooks

This is a Reader’s Note. If you would like to contribute a Reader Note or other piece of writing, please send submissons to Rockville Central using our contact form. The more community voices, the better Rockville Central will be. Please remember that the views of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors.

Note: Rockville Central does not endorse candidates. We are encouraging towards all people who choose to run for office the city and try our best to make ourselves open to all. We actively encourage candidates to submit opinion pieces and other news. We don’t include every last bit, but we try to be fair to all and give useful information about what is happening.

Contributor Opinion by Frederick Beckner: Cheryl Kagan Helping to Keep Big Money Out of Politics

This Contributor Opinion is by Frederick S. Beckner.

The Supreme Court’s reversal of 100 years of campaign finance law in the Citizens United case not only set back the cause of reform, it has energized those of us who want to see big money out of politics. Bills are progressing in Congress to overturn the decision, and campaign finance is back on our political agenda in a big way.

On the local level, one candidate is not waiting for the law to change before changing the way she funds her campaign. Cheryl Kagan, candidate for the State Senate from District 17 (Rockville, Gaithersburg and Garrett Park), has voluntarily cut in half the maximum campaign donation she’ll accept. She unilaterally closed a loophole in campaign finance law that allows wealthy individuals with multiple bank accounts to avoid contribution caps altogether. This bold step is in keeping with her previous career representing District 17 in the House of Delegates, where she was a leader in campaign and ethics reform.

Democracy only works if people believe that a fat checkbook doesn’t amplify the importance of your speech. Cheryl Kagan understands this, and that’s why she deserves our support.

Frederick S. Beckner, Gaithersburg

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. 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!

Please also note that Rockville Central does not endorse candidates in election campaigns. Supporters of all candidates are encouraged to submit opinion pieces for consideration.

Contributor Opinion by Anne Goodman and Jim Farrelly: Redgate Golf Course Should Remain A Golf Course

Photo from Goodman and Farrelly of wildlife habitat which would be lost

This Contributor Opinion is by Anne Goodman and Jim Farrelly

Several proposals are on the table for future development RedGate golf course. Among them is one to build a 10,000 seat arena hosting 160 events a year. That is approximately one event every other day. Another is to build a low density housing development. A third is to let the property go back to nature. In my opinion, none of these proposals is acceptable.

Both an arena and low density housing would have adverse effects on one of the last areas in Rockville containing green space. RedGate houses kingfishers, several species of woodpeckers, blue herons, snowy egrets, and the Baltimore oriole, to name a few. Bald eagles have been sighted there. There are several wooded areas where other wildlife resides. There are plants that support insect life necessary for human life. Development would eliminate habitat for both plants and animals. As habitat is decreased, species are lost. The loss of wildlife habitat and its effects on our environment are presented forcefully in the book, “Bringing Nature Home” by Douglas W. Tallamy, 2009, Timber Press, Portland, OR, a book which we highly recommend.

Development would also adversely impact our local watersheds and, ultimately, the Chesapeake Bay. RedGate’s current impacts are significantly less than those of most golf clubs. We are informed that RedGate has adopted sound environmental practices, including the use of organic fertilizers and the collection and recycling of the City’s stormwater run-off. Not only does RedGate re-use the City’s stormwater runoff, it has in place processes to neutralize the effects of the contaminants contained in the runoff. The 140 acres of green space that RedGate occupies acts as a natural buffer between the City and Rock Creek Park. With the added imperviousness associated with development (construction of parking lots and sidewalks, reduction of many trees and understory plants), the run-off would enter surface waters more rapidly and contain more pollutants flowing into Rock Creek Park, the Potomac River, and, ultimately the Chesapeake.

While any development would impact habitat and water runoff, the arena would be a particular burden to the community. Just a few of the impacts would be increased traffic in an area already congested, noise, pollution, light, costs and extended responsibility for police and rescue, crime, and impervious surfaces that would increase stormwater runoff. Quality of life for residents near and far from the area would be reduced.

While the proposal to let RedGate “go back to nature” may sound good on the surface, it has its practical problems. Without some degree of maintenance, the course might be taken over by non-native invasive plants. We wouldn’t be surprised to see Bradford pears move in and take over.

In addition, although it has been argued that RedGate operates at a loss, it currently provides income for the City. A “back to nature” option would eliminate that revenue source, and the property would likely be sold for development, anyway.

In our view, the best option is to maintain the golf course and investigate ways by which income to the City can be increased.

The RedGate Advisory Commission is making a presentation to the Mayor and Council on Monday, Sept. 13. Please come and provide input to our City Council by participating in Citizens Forum. City Council will hold a work session on Sept. 20. It is possible that decisions will be made at that meeting.

The following are pictures of the golf course.

Site of the proposed arena. It is a wooded, hilly area that would have to be deforested and graded.

Photo from Goodman and Farrelly

Wildlife habitat. It would be lost.

Photo from Goodman and Farrelly

Anne Goodman and Jim Farrelly

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. 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!

Please also note that Rockville Central does not endorse candidates in election campaigns. Supporters of all candidates are encouraged to submit opinion pieces for consideration.

Contributor Opinion by Richard Arkin: Kagan Goes Negative

Click for larger image

This Contributor Opinion is by Richard Arkin.

I believe that many District 17 voters are having a difficult time choosing between incumbent State Sen. Jennie Forehand and her challenger, former Del. Cheryl Kagan. Both are center-left liberals with almost identical positions on the issues.

THE CANDIDATES

Sen. Forehand is a gentle, intelligent, competent, and well-respected 30-year veteran of the legislature who knows state and local issues well, has friendly relations with legislators on both sides of the aisle, has a reputation for getting things done, and has consistently delivered the goods for her district. Jennie’s supportiveness to her constituents, her friendly, civil, and cooperative bearing, and her genuine interest in ordinary people and their problems, have generated feelings of affection and loyalty among many district voters.

Kagan is a hard-charging,aggressive, attractive, and poised candidate who revels in public policy concerns and loves nitty-gritty politics. Cheryl, who has a background in advocacy, community organizing, and non-profit organization administration, served two terms in the House of Delegates more than a decade ago, and then surprised legislators and other observers by opting not to run for a third term. Cheryl is very bright, a fast-learner, and quick on her feet, and her incredible energy and attention to detail has won her many supporters.

THE CAMPAIGNS

Cheryl began her insurgent’s campaign over a year ago by raising a large amount of campaign cash from contributors in Maryland and around the country. Jennie has worked more quietly and has raised almost as much money as Cheryl, primarily from Maryland contributors. Cheryl has run an impressive, well-planned, professional, text book campaign. In contrast, Jennie’s campaign has been more low-key and traditional, eschewing the latest flashy campaign techiques.

Voters in this district who were hoping for an issues-oriented campaign have been disappointed, however. Jennie’s campaign literature has focused on her admirable record, the projects she’s brought to District 17, and her legislative victories in both the Senate and House of Delegates. Her literature also gives the reader an insight into her generally liberal approach to state and local issues, but does not paint a sharp picture of what she would like to accomplish in her next term, if she is re-elected.

Cheryl, in contrast, focuses on her education and background, while claiming credit for just about everything good that’s happened in the district and state, but really does not focus much on her voting record or what she accomplished in her terms in the House of Delegates. She talks about national and statewide issues, but says very little about the local issues that concern District 17 voters. She also does not paint a sharp picture of what she would like to accomplish in the Senate, should she be elected.

CHERYL GOES FOR THE JUGULAR

Until recently, the campaign, like most District 17 campaigns, has been relatively civil, marked by a flurry of positive advertisements from both Jennie and Cheryl. But this changed less than two weeks ago when Cheryl launched a series of negative attack ads against Jennie. Compare-and-contrast ads can be very useful to voters in comparing candidates records and views, but Cheryl decided instead, in the best “Swiftboat” tradition, to go for the jugular.

Cheryl started off her attack campaign with a clever-but-misleading mailer that totally mischaracterized one of Jennie’s less important concerns as being her “top issue,” asserting that Jennie was “missing in action” on unspecified Democratic issues, and falsely claiming that Jennie deserted Gov. Martin O’Malley in one of O’Malley’s “top priorities” by failing to vote when a death penalty bill “came up for a vote.” The mailer had impressive-looking footnotes, but these footnotes, when examined, did not support Cheryl’s allegations (a pattern she has since repeated).

The reality is that Jennie had supported and voted several times during the legislative process for O’Malley’s bill, which eventually passed with Jennie’s vote and which sharply limited imposition of the death penalty. Now Cheryl’s website claims that she really meant that Jennie missed “the key vote [that] was on an amendment sponsored by Sen. [James] Brochin.”

The key amendment votes actually were on an amendment offered by Sen. Robert Zirkin and a later amendment (the one that finally ended up as the final legislative language) by Sen. Brochin, which Jennie voted for.

Cheryl followed up with a broadside (repleat with footnotes that didn’t support any allegations) in which she claimed that Jennie cast “the deciding vote” on a “devastating tax on computer services” that “drove local firms…out of business.” At Gov. O’Malley’s request, Jennie voted for the Governor’s comprehensive tax bill at the November 2011 Special Session. The bill, which included a sales tax on computer services, was enacted and its passage prevented a total shutdown of Maryland government, which would have really been devastating for our economy. By voting “aye,” Jennie preserved, under somewhat arcane parliamentary rules, her right vote later to repeal the the computer services levy. Jennie was, infact, the leader of the successful effort two months later that repealed the computer services tax. The tax on computer services computer tax never went into effect, so it could not rationally have had any effect on any local firm.

Next, Cheryl accused Jennie of taking $16,000 in campaign contributions by “special interests” for opposing “common sense lead paint restrictions.” Bills about lead paint and other potentially toxic substances are often grist for the propagandist’s mill because they sound so good, but this bill did no more than alter “some existing requirements on property owners to satisfy certain lead risk reduction standards relating to certain changes in occupancy in certain properties.”

It is not clear that the minor changes this bill made were an improvement or actually weakened consumer protections. In any event, Cheryl’s footnote supposedly supporting her claims of special interest money did nothing more than cite the Election Board summary of Jennie’s last three dozen campaign disclosure reports from 1994 to date, each running as much as 150 pages or more. Cheryl just tossed a boatload of documents at the voters without any explanation of who the supposed “special interdsts” might have been or how much, if any, they contributed.

JENNIE RESPONDS

Cheryl Kagan’s rat-a-tat-tat volley of attack ads on Jennie Forehand loosed the dogs of [political] war.

In response to Cheryl’s flood of attack ads, Jennie sent out a negative mailer this week questioning Chery’s acceptance of some $2,000 in lobbyist gifts at a time when a number of lobbyist and influence peddling scandals had sullied Maryland’s reputation. Jennie pointed out that Cheryl had taken “more gifts from lobbyists than any other delegate in Maryland” and that Cheryl “was one of only four legislayors in the entire House of Delegates to vote against” a strong ethics reform bill. She added that the reform was supported by the Washington Post because it included necessary “strong new rules” to clean up ethics and prevent lobbyist corruption in the Maryland General Assembly. Jennie wrapped up by saying that the Associated Press had reported that Cheryl “was ‘at the top of the list of legislators named by lobbyists as recipients of food, drinks, and gifts.’”

Cheryl’s website reply did not dispute the facts in Forehand’s mailer, but instead gave the excuse that she had been “dating a lobbyist” and had fully disclosed the many gifts of financial value that her lobbyist boyfriend had given her. Cheryl explained that she had “dated a guy who happened to be a lobbyist” and that his gifts to her had “made her the #1 gift recipient in the House for one year, ” adding that of three “legislator/lobbyist couples,” she and “her then-boyfriend” were the only ones to disclose everything.

As Cheryl certainly knows, it is not a violation of law in Maryland for a legislator to date a lobbyist, as long as all gifts from the lobbyist to the legislator that are of financial value are disclosed. But disclosure is not a cure-all, by any means. The problem is that the mere existence of a legislator-lobbyist boyfriend or legislator-lobbyist girlfriend relationship creates an appearance of conflict-of-interest that is essentially impossible for the legislator to escape. This is especially true in state politics.

So, for example, when it was learned this year that Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan (D) had been dating lobbyist Shanna Wycoff, the appearance of impropriety led to a huge scandal. Similarly, last year’s revelation of a romantic relationship between California Assembly Rep. Michael D. Duvall (R) and lobbyist girlfriend Heidi DeJong Barsuglia led to a scandal.

And the story goes on. Take, for example, the romantic relationship between Tennessee Rep. Philip Pinion (D) and his girlfriend, lobbyist Velma Jones, which became a scandal when its existence became public in 2007. And it’s difficult to ignore the huge scandal that erupted in 2005 when a romantic relationship between Georgia Rep. David Graves (R) and girlfriend/lobbyist Julie Windom became public.

IN SUM…

The match-up between Sen. Jennie Forehand and challenger Cheryl Kagan, two well-matched candidates, should have been good for politics in District 17 and Maryland. If it could not have been an issue-oriented campaign or, conversely, a contest between generations, it could at least have been a test-case pitting the familiar against the new, or perhaps the tried-and-true against the shiney-and-clever. But that’s not what’s happening.

Cheryl’s sudden lurch to the negative, truly a departure for this district, obviously threw Jennie off-guard. Jennie clearly did not anticipate a negative campaign by Cheryl and Jennie’s responses, while effective, come late in the campaign. And while either could prevail, negative campaigning, if nothing else, really tends to obscure real issues rather than defining them.

Jennie could still pull this out, but Cheryl’s attack tactics may well win the day for her. But such a win for Cheryl would come at a terrible cost to the community.

Richard Arkin, Gaithersburg

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces for consideration — the more voices the better. Simply send them to [email protected]. 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!

Please also note that Rockville Central does not endorse candidates in election campaigns. Supporters of all candidates are encouraged to submit opinion pieces for consideration.

Editorial Opinion by Cindy Cotte Griffiths: Board of Appeals Brought To Court

Originally, back in March 2010, the Rockville City Council voted to instruct the City Attorney not to represent the Board of Appeals when they were petitioned by 15 members of the community for a court review concerning their decision to approve a Special Exemption for Victory Court, an 86-unit affordable senior housing development planned for property owned by Montgomery County on Fleet Street. (For the record: Phyllis Marcuccio, Bridget Newton and Piotr Gajewski voted against representing the volunteer Board while John Britton and Mark Pierzchala voted to allow the salaried City Attorney to represent the Board.)

Obviously as the Chair of one of our City’s Commissions, I was tremendously concerned about how these volunteers were treated. Roy Deitchman, a member of the Board of Appeals for seven years resigned over the matter. At the time, I could only put myself in the Board’s shoes and imagine being left alone to defend my Commission against this group in court.

In April when Montgomery County assigned an attorney to respond to the Petition for Judicial Review, the Mayor and Council reversed their decision in a 4-1 vote with Bridget Newton continuing to oppose the representation. The minutes from the April 12, 2010 meeting state “Councilmember Newton said she did feel the Board’s decision was flawed and would vote to not go forward with the City’s response.”

The members of the Board of Appeals dedicate many hours of service without compensation. I strongly believe the City they serve should represent them. One of the City Attorney’s duties is to “Defend challenges to decisions/actions of the Mayor and Council, Boards and Commissions, and staff.” The majority of our elected officials eventually did the right thing.

Yesterday I went to Judge Greenberg’s Circuit Courtroom to see what would happen with this Petition brought by Alice Lui and 14 others. Mayor Phyllis Marcuccio and Councilmember Bridget Newton were in attendance along with Alice Liu and Noreen Bryan.

The City Attorney was present to represent the City of Rockville. Montgomery County, the owner of the property, and Victory Housing, the developer, both had attorneys present. The Board of Appeals was represented by Alan Sternstein a member of the Board of Appeals, who pointed out that he was not being compensated.

Judge Greenberg held the hearing to a one-hour time limit and explained he had read all the documents submitted. Since the attorney representing Montgomery County decided not to speak, this left 15 minutes for each of the other attorneys. Obviously what was heard in the courtroom was not the full argument on either side. I’m sure someone with a legal background could find fault with my descriptions since the words spoken quickly in a limited time period might not have been as accurate as all the many stacks of evidence in this matter. Regardless, I am going to attempt to portray what occurred in the courtroom because this issue is important to our City.

The attorney, Mr. Chen, representing the petitioners in this matter attempted to list issues, reusing numbers in his description. He stated that the deciding agency did not render defining reasons and there was an absence of evidence. He was also concerned about how the amended decision evolved, which he believed was eligible for review. He also stated that the Board of Appeals was required by State Code 66B to go over and above anything in our City’s Zoning Ordinance to make sure that a special exemption would not adversely affect the health of the neighborhood. A development cannot change the character of a neighborhood. He also stated that the “neighborhood” was not properly defined. Notices were sent to everyone in a ¼ mile radius of the property but the Board of Appeals never legally defined the area in their decision. There is also concern about what is planned in the 59-foot buffer area especially the parking. When he mentioned that the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Rockville stated affordable housing must be scattered-site, the Judge asked about whether this was a recommendation rather than a requirement. He responded that the State Statute 66B requires it to be “complied with” so scattered means scattered. Using the ¼ mile radius area, it is overly impacted by affordable housing. The Board of Appeals did not address this situation. Another issue mentioned was that adequate accessibility to public transportation, medical services, shopping and recreational/community services had to be determined since the proposed housing would serve people with disabilities. The petitioners believe there was no attempt to do so by Victory Housing other than to say all of these existed “in Rockville”.

Personally, I do not discriminate on the basis of income. Having neighbors (who might not make as much money as the people living in the townhouses of Courthouse Square or the single-family houses on South Washington and Argyle Street) living in apartments does not lower housing values or adversely affect our neighborhood. To believe otherwise is discrimination. I say this with my house being less than a block from the Victory Court site and a stone’s throw from those bringing this petition. Also, the Victory Court location is across the street from City Hall, a few blocks from Town Square and the Metro, with bus stops and sidewalks surrounding it. I love my neighborhood because it is so close to everything, an excellent location for all of the amenities mentioned.

Now, let me review the responses from the other attorneys.

The City’s Attorney indicated that she had fully responded in writing. Ms. Daniel used her time to explain that the concerns over the “flat roof” were unjustified. Throughout the body of the Board’s original decision, a flat roof was mentioned three times, which she detailed. Clearly the intention was to approve a flat roof. About the concern that the amendment signed by all three Board members after the January hearing should have required an additional meeting, she stated the document evidenced what occurred in the January hearing and did not require another hearing since it simply corrected the decision. There is nothing in the law requiring a new hearing. Even if the Court found an error, there would still not need to be a hearing. She stated that the only reason everyone was in Court was because these neighbors were not happy with the decision. As to the area used for this case, other legal cases have clarified that it need not be “strictly defined in any way”. She explained that no one was confused as to the area used in this case. The petitioners never raised the issue and said, “Hey, I don’t know what neighborhood you are talking about.” The City and neighborhood all had the same area in mind when the development was discussed.

When representing the Board of Appeals, Mr. Sternstein stated that to contend that there was some other design other than a flat roof was inconsistent since it was always very clear it was a flat roof. When the 39-foot roof was specified to comply with City’s Zoning, it actually gave the developer even less leeway because it could be higher. He pointed out that Ms. Liu testified that the 39-foot height was moving the project in the right direction and Ms. Bryan stated it went a long way to fit into the neighborhood. He added that their attorney stated the Board was in fact responsive. No harm to the petitioners’ properties was ever defined. He also wanted comment about the photos provided by the petitioners showing a balloon raised to the height of the building. A citizen demonstrated to him exactly how the photo had been cropped and manipulated. He had actually been present when the balloon was raised so he urged the Court to be careful.

The attorney for Victory Housing, Mr. Kline, addressed the issue that “the case before you is the absence of evidence”. He believed the evidence in this appeal was the most he had ever seen. Everybody had a chance to put into the record everything they had to say. These hearings occurred on four Saturdays and lasted all day, one even from 9:30 AM until 5:30 PM. There is a substantial body of evidence. It’s all in the record and the questions were all asked. With so much evidence, it puts it in the “fairly debatable category” but a decision had to be made by the Board. He defended the use of a 59-foot buffer which is landscaped. The City Staff determined it was adequate. With evidence on both sides, the presumption goes to the Board of Appeals. When you get into the issues, the petitioners have “no basis for them.” In Maryland a Board can correct a decision without a public hearing and there was no change from what was stated in the public hearing.

The attorney for the petitioners spoke again in response, stating that if facts were discussed after the January hearing and before the Board issued their corrected decision, then there should have been another hearing. Even if his petitioners benefitted from the clarification that the roof was to be 39-feet high, they had a right to know what was going on. He said they need to see what is in the Board’s emails to make sure the decision was exclusive to the Board of Appeals and that there were no emails sent by City Staff or the developer.

Judge Greenberg ended by stating “Thank you very much for this well-briefed case.” Then he said it wouldn’t be very long until he gave his written opinion.

This is my first time attending a court case and attempting to describe it to our readers. Obviously, this housing project for seniors is in my neighborhood and I have a special interest because I volunteer on one of our City’s Commissions. I strongly believe we all volunteer to make our City a better place. I hope this incident does not deter others from coming forward to serve. 

Contributor Opinion by Temperance Blalock: Why I Love The Census

>When you look at the “fine print” on your 2010 census form, regarding privacy, you may notice that it says that your census data will be kept private for 72 years. You may wonder what is the origin of that interval, and it’s mostly due to the expected lifespan for an American, combined with the expectation that the data can eventually be available for family genealogy purposes.

I did extensive genealogy research for about a decade, and by far the best resource was federal census records. Before the advent of the internet, genealogy was an esoteric, secretive endeavor, usually performed by a small cabal of researchers, most of whom worked on getting people the proper documentation for membership in societies like the Daughters of the American Revolution. A lot of the research materials for sale to the layman were little more than collections of surnames from the phone books of major cities, but at least that was something concrete for people who were looking, sometimes blindly, for a connection to their ancestors and distant relatives.

Then the web came into being, and suddenly people could make instantaneous connections that they could never have hoped to make from their own limited knowledge, and there was a great revolution in genealogy. It had its drawbacks, though, including the propagation of a lot of incorrect data, but that was overwhelmed by the great benefit of being able to share information. Family trees could be organized in software databases and shared on websites, and people could access census data from sources like Genealogy.com and Ancestry.com.

I was especially fortunate to live in the DC area, so I could go down to the National Archives (back when it was open in the evenings and on Saturdays) and get immediate access to all of the federal census microfilms, from 1790 up to 1920. I transcribed thousands of census records for a book I was planning to write about Civil War pensioners in Tennessee, and I learned to love census records with a passion. It was so fascinating to see the evolution of a family, every ten years, to watch children being born and married off, to watch assets like land being accumulated, to watch names and ages mysteriously change, and to bring those individuals to life in my mind and my database.

Because so many of my Blalock family were living in the hills of Tennessee from the early 19th century, I was especially impressed at how thoroughly the census collectors were able to track down almost everyone. In the course of collecting those thousands of individual records, it was very rare that I completely “lost” someone in a census year: granted, it might take a lot of sleuthing to eventually find them, but the success rate was very high. I try to imagine the journeys of those census takers, traveling through wilderness and rough weather, tracking down homes and families, often met with hostility or suspicion. It makes it seem almost paradoxical, to me, that in our wired-up world it could be equally hard to track down everyone. But, the modern world has its own limitations.

I was really excited when the 1930 census was released eight years ago, because that was the first time that one of my parents was alive. I found my infant father living with his parents in Oklahoma, and was astonished to read that his name was recorded as “Murray Blalock”. WHAT?? I had never heard of this before. My father’s legal name was Richard, but growing up he was called Culmer. Where could “Murray” have come from? I had no idea - Dad died in 1992, and so sadly I couldn’t ask him. Thus, I am eagerly awaiting the release of the 1940 census in a few years, so that I can find out what he was called as a boy. And this is only one of the fascinating mysteries I have encountered in my travels through the census.

Why don’t you take advantage of that access and do some research yourself? Learning about the census is exciting, believe it or not.

Temperance Blalock

This is a Contributor Opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such pieces 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: 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!