My Opinion: Woodley Gardens Shopping Center Was Not In Need Of Rescue

>Monday morning, I got an email from a friend asking about whether the City was planning to rezone the Woodley Gardens shopping center — the one on Nelson Street with local landmarks Carmen’s and the Hard Times Cafe, among other neighborhood businesses. They’d heard that this would be discussed at Monday’s Mayor and Council meeting. I checked the agenda and found nothing on that subject.

But plans were in the offing. If you read the Gazette, you know that a number of residents came to Citizens Forum that night and spoke up about the idea of rezoning that shopping center from its current “C-1″ zone (which means it is commercial) to a possible mixed-use zone that will be called “MXNC”:

Residents of Woodley Gardens attended Monday night’s council meeting in droves to oppose what they thought was a decision to rezone their neighborhood shopping center on Nelson Street. . . . However, council members responded that while they had not yet voted on the issue, they support designating the shopping center as mixed-use commercial (MXC), which would allow for the same height and density that now exists, but with differing setbacks. . . .”That to me is a dead issue,” Councilman John B. Britton said Monday. “MXNC was already decided among my colleagues that that was not going to work.”

This gathering was evidently driven by an item that had appeared in the draft new zoning ordinance that the RORZOR committee developed.

Watching the video of the proceedings, the pleas from local residents as well as business owners were heartfelt, well-reasoned, and persuasive. The only problem is that the Mayor and Council had already heard about the issue and were definitely inclined to go along with the residents on this one. Their Civic Association president, Jim Reschovksy, had already testified to the Mayor and Council on the subject and won their hearts (and minds).

The Mayor and Council are charged with reviewing, amending, and finally adopting the new zoning ordinance. It is their responsibility, as the ones who are politically accountable, and they are going through the massive document line by line. This is taking time. In the meantime, they have made no decisions. (They are meeting in a worksession tonight to discuss the draft, and will devote the September 22 meeting to further discussion. They hope to adopt the ordinance on October 6. Furthermore, they may choose to reopen the public record on the ordinance — stay tuned.)

The group who testified appeared to have been organized and requested to attend — a flyer had been circulated and many speakers said they had just heard about the issue a couple of weeks earlier. Their talking points were all very similar. The whole thing appeared designed to convey a groundswell of support — which there was. But, sadly, the energy of this group appeared to have been activated without reason.

Says the Gazette: “‘Mr. Reschovsky represented your view well,’ [Mayor Susan] Hoffmann told the audience. ‘When [he] did, it certainly sealed the deal for me and I’m not surprised that the community prefers to keep the character of the shopping center.’”

My fear is that the citizens who took the time to come to City Hall and testify may now feel as if they were brought under false pretenses. The organizers, presumably, could have checked on the status of Woodley Gardens Shopping Center with a quick phone call and would have found that perhaps other important issues were more worthy of their time. This one already had been handled.

I hope that, next time there is an issue that demands community input and about which residents’ good energies are needed, that they are still willing to step forward as they did Monday night.

What do you think?

My Opinion: How Engaged Are We?

As I flipped through my latest >Gazette to see if there was anything important I had missed out on from the last week, I had a small chuckle when I spied the article about the continuing argument about the Mayor and Council’s closed-retreat-that-wasn’t-closed. It reminded me there was something I had been meaning to say.

In the open section of that meeting (of which there are now minutes to go along with my notes), one subject came up briefly that is close to my heart: community engagement.

According to the minutes, this is how it went:

“On the subject of the Vision category ‘Community Engagement,’ Councilmember Marcuccio observed that many people still do not have access to electronic media, and depend on Rockville Reports for news about the city. She said that citizen engagement with the City is lacking for those not connected with the city electronically. Councilmember Robbins stated that she witnessed significant community engagement in the Town Square. Mayor Hoffmann suggested that environment could provide an opportunity to promote engagement.”

That tracks with my recollection and notes.

I would like to encourage the Mayor and Council — indeed, the whole City staff — to think more broadly about what “engagement” might mean. This can be a hard discipline, but it will reward us all.

Often, when the subject of community engagement comes up, people quickly gravitate to ways to measure it. Understandably, they hit on the easy ones: How many people attend meetings? How much public comment is there? How many volunteers? These are important measures, but they do not tell the whole story.

Other times, the conversation goes to what is being done to increase engagement. Again, the easy answers are usually the ones that are discussed: a new website, better newsletters, more mailings — but again, something is missed.

I’ve lived in and studied my fair share of places, and I can say that Rockville does a better job of communicating with its residents, of treating them like real people, than 90% of the places out there. We are phenomenally lucky to have political leadership and staff talent that is so devoted to staying connected with the citizenry.

And yet, I continue to hear an almost constant refrain from citizens that they do not feel well communicated with, that they feel shut out. The recent Beall’s Grant II meeting is an example: many people complained that they only just learned about the project, which had in fact been on the drawing boards and had been undergoing a formal neighborhood outreach process since 2006.

Who’s right? Both!

YES, the City does a great job communicating. NO, it is not enough. (I also agree with Joe Jordan’s point that Commissioners must take great pains to be respectful to the public, even when they are irked by what they hear.)

There are many ways to be engaged in the civic life of a city, ways that go beyond the “official” ways. So, when it comes time to discuss community engagement, I urge us all to think not of what new postcards we can send or what new web features we can offer (which are important) but instead, how can we welcome people who do not now step forward? Let’s not tut-tut that so few people show up at public meetings — let’s make the meetings feel more relevant. Let’s not say “we sent the notice postcard” — let’s try calling people or asking a neighborhood civic association to go door-to-door. Instead of giving everyone at a public hearing just three minutes to say their whole piece, let’s mix it up with different formats — maybe a roundtable, maybe a Mayor and Council meeting where the M&C don’t talk. Let’s have conversations, not presentations.

There are already a few efforts like this already ongoing. Mayor and Council meetings are being held throughout the City, which I applaud. Yes, they are being lightly attended, but I implore our leaders not to stop but instead to redouble their efforts to reach out. Get those neighborhood networks involved.

The more we know our leadership, and the more we know our City, the more we trust it and the more room we can give when it comes time to make hard decisions. I can imagine a time when people feel well enough connected that no one is really troubled by an informal dinner between what happens to be a quorum of Mayor and Council members. We’re not there yet, but we’re not so far, either.

That’s just my opinion, and I don’t mean to dismiss other people’s opinions on the subject. After all, this goes to the core of who we are as citizens — how we choose to go about the task of self-governance, which is the unique characteristic of our nation that has made it the longest running experiment in democracy on the planet.

What do you think?

Planning Commission To Consider Affordable Housing Wednesday

This article contains my personal opinion . . . so be warned!>

A friend has asked me to pass on the word that tomorrow night, the Planning Commission is set to consider (and likely grant the application for) a new affordable housing development that has been in the works for at least two years: Beall’s Grant II, which would be across Washington Street from the “pink bank,” at the beginning of Beall Ave’s residential stretch.

Montgomery Housing Partnership is behind the application.

Fellow Rockville Blogger Helen Triolo described the project back in April this way:

Rockville leads the way with affordable workforce housing once more with a new project in the works: Beall’s Grant II (PDF link). Undertaken by Montgomery Housing Partnership, this project will provide 109 units of mixed income rental housing in downtown Rockville, from studios to three-bedroom apartments, with a parking garage, on the site where the current Beall’s Grant apartments are, and extending out to Beall Avenue. It appears to be an ideal location: within walking distance of the metro, Giant, SuperFresh (when it opens), the post office, and all the other stores and businesses in downtown Rockville. Involving the renovation of an existing building and incorporating a wealth of green features, I imagine this is just the sort of affordable housing project Ike Leggett wants to promote throughout the county.

I agree and think it is a super addition to the neighborhood I call home. I am told the West End Civic Association and the Town Center Action Team support the enterprise.

Here’s what the West End Civic Association says about the proposal:

Beall’s Grant was bought and renovated by the Montgomery Housing Partnership over ten years ago. In that time, they have been good neighbors who create no problems or disruptions from our special part of the city we love. Montgomery Housing Partnership has been a responsible partner, whose staff is commited to being responsive to any concerns we have ever raised. Questions regarding school numbers, parking spaces, and environmental impact have all been answered in a timely and thorough manner.

There is a flier circulating, attempting to galvanize opposition to the project and urging people to show up at tomorrow night’s Planning Commission meeting. The flier strikes an alarming tone: “Do you know? . . . This high density, low income rental property will be placed at West End’s gateway to our new Town Center, in a residential area already saturated with subsidized housing?” [UPDATE: Here is the flyer.]

I honestly don’t know where to start with a remark like that. I love my neighborhood because it is not a bunch of similar high-end dwelling pods but instead a mixed-income neighborhood that grew up over time. There is a woefully inadequate amount of affordable housing in Rockville. We should welcome a development that has bent over backwards to “fit in” and to take the lead on being “green” — not shut the door and tell the poor folks to go live elsewhere.

You can see I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet over this. I understand others disagree. That’s OK, feel free to let folks know how you feel in the comments section.

So . . . what do you think?

Civics Lessons In Council Chambers

I attended this evening’s meeting of the Mayor and Council mostly to hear citizens’ testimony on the budget — tonight being the last official opportunity for comment. Much of the testimony was by people who lead organizations who deliver the human services that far too many of our Rockville neighbors need to avail themselves of. Each cut of $3,000 to this or that program translates into a serious human impact and, when weighed against a budget in the tens of millions, does not feel like too much to put back in.>

One speaker pointed out that the amount of money the City spends on human services (such as emergency shelter for homeless people, or medical clinic services for uninsured) is far, far less than 1% — she expressed the desire, one day, that the City might reach 1%. “We could do a lot with that,” she said. (I am sorry I did not attribute that quote so I can’t say for sure who it was who said it.) (UPDATE: Piotr passed along that it was Agnez Saenz from Community Ministries of Rockville – Caregivers’ Coalition. Thanks Piotr!)

This came about 30 minutes after the ceremony officially designating April 25 as Arbor Day in Rockville, which is one of four criteria required for Our Fair City to earn recognition as a Tree City by the Arbor Day Foundation. One of the criteria is that the City spend at least $2 per resident on tree planting and maintenance (it is probably more involved than that, but that is the gist). With our approximately 60,000 residents, we need to spend at least $120,000 for the designation — turns out we spend upwards of $1 million. I don’t mean to get anyone upset, but maybe that’s somewhere we could look. I’m just sayin’.

Anyway, speaking of designations, of interest was an item that followed the budget. The City took up the question of whether to designate the old Rockville Library site as being of historic value. Many see this as an important move in the City’s overall effort to get the State decide to build its new court house elsewhere. The substantive argument for the designation is that this is one of the few examples of this kind of modern architecture in the City — and it most certainly is the only one facing imminent destruction.

Problem is, the City’s designation seems to have no formal power in this particular case, because the State is within its authority to ignore municipalities’ local ordinances.

Council member Piotr Gajewski twice voted alone in the minority, first against a procedural move that allowed the matter to come to a vote (instead of waiting for a week) and second against the measure itself.

In his comments, he referred to the result of the City making such a designation, in the face of the State’s authority to simply ignore it, as “sticking a finger in the eye” of the state.

Mayor Susan Hoffmann replied “My vote will not be to stick a finger in the eye of anyone.” She followed with an impassioned reminder that the State, County, and City are all different animals: “We are a separate and independent government, and we have every right” to do this, she said. I thought I was in a Frank Capra movie (and I mean that in a good way)!

But, to my mind, fireworks aside, council member Phyllis Marcuccio reasonably offered what I felt the best substantive argument for voting for the historic designation even in the face of its possible anemic effect. She imagined a scenario in which, somehow, the state chose some other path for its courthouse. So the building goes to the County. Then, in this same scenario, the County chose not to do anything with the land but sold it to a private entity. So now it’s in the hands of a developer. “In that case,” said Phyllis, “I want the City to be protected.”

Which seemed like a very reasonable argument to me.

Just my opinion. What do you think?

A Constitutional Crisis?

That’s how council member >Piotr Gajewski jokingly referred to the situation facing the leadership of Our Fair City in a recent telephone call. We were discussing the apparent fact that the City’s governing body, the Mayor and Council, though charged in the City Charter to “pass rules and by-laws for its own government while in session,” evidently has not done so.

In fact, according to the Gazette, “City Attorney Paul Glasgow said the council has not adopted a formal set of operating guidelines since he began serving the city more than 25 years ago.”

My feeling: Since it’s a state of affairs that may have been going on for a quarter-century, “crisis” is probably the wrong word for it.

However, if it is true there’s no set of rules governing how the Mayor and Council conduct business, this ought to be remedied as soon as possible. For the most part, it may not be a big deal — but you never know when a decision that is particularly sensitive may come before the City.

The question that touched off this exchange was whether the Mayor and Council ought to hold a meeting on April 7 — a meeting which has been canceled due to “insufficient business.” The motion, to hold the meeting, got a 2-0-2 vote (two abstentions, and council member John Britton was absent). The Mayor ruled that the motion did not carry, because it would have had to achieve three “yea” votes (a majority). However, an argument could be made that 2 yeas to 0 noes means the motion carries.

Having clear procedural rules would settle valid disputes such as this.

For my part, I agree with council members Gajewski and Phyllis Marcuccio, who pushed for the City to adopt, as an interim measure while legislation can be drafted, Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s is the “gold standard” when it comes to the way groups conduct business. (Their effort failed on a vote of 3-2, which would likely be held valid under any possible set of rules!)

I can see an argument for not moving precipitously to just adopt rules out of a sense of urgency. Adopt rules once, the argument goes, not twice. But, I urge the Mayor and Council to establish some set of rules with as little delay as possible.

There are issues facing the Mayor and Council that are emotionally charged in the minds of many Rockville citizens: How often to meet, the City’s response to the state’s efforts to place a new District Court House on the old Library site, how best to move forward with the creation of a new stormwater management utility, and the budget, to name just a few.

Good governance would seem to call for a stable, well-articulated set of rules under which to conduct the business of leading Our Fair City.

As I say — not a crisis, but definitely a situation to remedy. Indeed, Mayor Susan Hoffmann’s reassuring words are important to keep in mind: “I would not want anyone to get the impression that this governing body is spinning out of control because it does not have written rules.”

What do you think?

Want to talk about this? Call in and listen to Rockville Central Radio on Friday at noon: (646) 200-3332.

My Opinion: Valid Criticisms Of Sincere Efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

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?

Town Square Paid Parking To Begin March 10

As >Rockville Central readers know, charging for the currently-free Town Square parking was on the agenda at the last Mayor and Council meeting. The Gazette reports that the City has decided to begin charging $1.00 per hour for parking from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm on weekdays in the Town Square garages starting on March 10. Weekends will be free, and, under an already-existing deal, Library patrons park free too.

[UPDATE: Here's the City's just-issued press release on the subject.]

Councilmember Piotr Gajewski had originally proposed a more extensive plan, which would have charged for parking until later at night but which would have also taken advantage of a deal between the City and Montgomery County for the County to pay for parking.

(I was home during this meeting, cranking to finish a report for my actual job. I tried to watch the meeting. Let me take this opportunity to complain that The Rockville Channel’s stream was down — first it was audio-only and then I got bupkis. Tried multiple computers. Nuthin’. Grr.)

Needless to say, some Town Square business owners are concerned that the parking fees will drive away business. Deborah Simon, owner of the wonderful Waygoose Fine Crafts, testified in Citizen’s Forum, according to the Gazette:

‘‘We need the time to grow our businesses. . . . We need the time to grow our customers so that we can survive here. Because we will not be able to stay if we do not have that kind of support from the city.”

Personally, parking fees won’t keep me away from shopping. In fact, to my mind it has long been obviously too good to be true that free parking would continue for much longer at such a substantial shopping center as Town Square. So, each time I pulled into the lot behind Five Guys, I got a little shiver, like I was getting a free ride. Party’s over, and probably about time.

How about you? If you are already a patron of Town Square, will parking fees keep you away?

What do you think?

Those Twisty Bulbs

Those funky lightbulbs are all over my radar screen lately! You know the ones: they are all twisty, meant to replace the proper bulbs in your lamps. These curvy guys are called “CFL’s” — this stands for “Compact Fluorescent Bulbs.” They save energy (a 75-watt bulb actually draws more like 18 watts or thereabouts). Lots of people are trying to encourage others to use them as a conservation measure and, indirectly, as a way to stave of global warming one watt at a time.>In our household, we recently switched over to CFL’s. The main decision-makers on this issue differ over the reasons. One of us is trying to conserve. The other just likes that the CFL’s pretty much never burn out. I will leave it to you to figure out which character is a do-be and which is a don’t-be.

But two other things recently crossed my desk which seemed interesting on this subject.

First, my friend Jacquie Kubin sent a note that detailed a number of issues surrounding how to properly dispose of CFL’s — you see, you can’t just toss ‘em out. I’ve posted that note here.

Second, my friend Ruth Hanessian, last time I was in buying crickets, waved a Pepco bill in my face. I did not understand and she had to spell it out for me. Seems there’s a program whereby ordinary mortals like you and me can purchase CFL’s at a reduced cost. Yay! Here’s what they say:

Pepco wants to help you save energy, save money and protect the environment.We’re discounting the price of select ENERGY STAR® qualified compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) for our Maryland customers. You’ll save $1.50 on each single bulb, and $3 on multipacks when you shop at The Home Depot and Costco stores participating in Maryland.

When compared to a standard incandescent, a CFL saves about $42 over the life of the bulb. That’s because CFLs use about 75 percent less energy and last up to 10 times longer than standard bulbs.

And since CFLs use less energy, they’re good for the environment. That means power plants will generate less electricity, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Lighting accounts for up to 20 percent of your home’s energy bill. So take advantage of our discount program and start saving energy and money now with compact fluorescent light bulbs.

“Cool,” I thought. Until Ruth showed me the fine print. Notwithstanding that Costco is a membership store, which means you need to actually pay to even shop there, there’s a surcharge that is planned for every Pepco customer designed to cover the costs of this program. So, in other words, whether I want to or not, I am subsidizing your CFL’s. It hurts even worse because I paid full-freight for mine.

Here’s what Pepco has to say about the surcharge business:

Will there be a charge on my bill to pay for this program?
Yes, Maryland residential customers will pay a minimal surcharge on their electric bills. The proposed amount of the surcharge will be $0.000039 per kilowatt-hour. For the typical Pepco residential customer who uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month, this charge will add around 4 cents to their bill each [month].

Why are Pepco Customers paying a surcharge for this program?
The Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC) approved the residential CFL program in the fall, which authorizes the recovery of implementation costs through a demand-side management surcharge. This program helps reduce overall energy use, environmental impact and helps meet Maryland’s goals for reducing the state’s energy use by 15 percent by the year 2015.

Will there be a separate line item on my bill?
Yes, the charge will be a separate line item on your bill. The charge will appear as “Demand Side Management Surcharge.”

I agree with Ruth that it seems an unfair tax, slipped in under the radar and cloaked in a bunch of green flag-waving. It’s not much money on an individual basis . . . but it’s the principle of the thing. That “Demand Side Management Surcharge” just seems like bureaucratic language designed to be sneaky. Note that the “why are we paying” question is answered with language that basically says: “because our regulators are letting us charge you!”

I do know others may disagree and say it’s a small price to pay to reduce energy usage. I am ambivalent myself.

What do you think?

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)

Longer Terms: What Do You Think?

There was more than >fireworks during the Citizens’ Forum portion of the last Mayor and Council meeting. There were some interesting proposals put forward, too.

One in particular stands out and I would like to highlight it.

Former City Council candidate Brigitta Mullican spoke, asking (among other things) for a few answers about the difficulties that beset the most recent election. Council Member Anne Robbins responded, and said that she does indeed have a point and deserves answers.

Council Member Robbins went on to describe how “big-time” politics has entered the hitherto-quiet election campaigns of Our Fair City: more money; outside interest groups; PACs; negative campaigning; and more. She described a symptom that has befallen many a growing city: the institution of the Permament Campaign (though she did not use those words). In such a politicized atmosphere, no sooner does someone take office than they must begin running for the next election.

Robbins raised the possibility of going to four-year, staggered terms (so that every year, citizens would be voting for a portion of the full Mayor and Council).

I have been thinking about some of these things myself, just from an observer’s standpoint. It does feel as if “big-time” politics is increasingly a part of Rockville’s scene. This is not necessarily a criticism, as one could well say that the reason politics is changing is that the stakes are increasing in their importance.

I think the specific idea of lengthening terms has much merit. I am aware that this and other issues have been brought up and discussed by the Charter Review Commission, which issued its recommendations in 2003.

Since I was only freshly settled in Rockville at that time, it is not engraved in my memory — after a question, one of my favorite City staffers, Clerk Claire Funkhouser, reminded me that a four-year term was placed on the ballot and failed. A shame, in my view, but I know there are good arguments on both sides. And there are a lot of other good ideas for changes, too.

What about you? Do you see things changing? Without necessarily pining for the past, what can we do moving forward to make sure politics really works for all Rockville citizens, and results in the governance we need?

What do you think?

Tis the Season to Give Teacher Presents

>

I remember a beautiful beehive honey pot tied in gold ribbon my mother chose for my third grade teacher. I always trusted her to know just what to give my teachers, who were always female and about my mother’s age. I knew figuring out how to select these gifts – Jean Nate body splash, gourmet honey, scarves – was just a small facet of the feminine wisdom my elegant mother would pass along to me one day.

Of course that was 1970 when kids had one teacher on whom to shower such annual holiday affection. Today, my two children have a total of 12 teachers, some of whom they only see once a week. This year, as once again I try to convince my 9 year-old that his teachers would prefer a Starbucks card over a big box of cheap chocolates I confess that neither inherited wisdom nor my pocket book have prepared me to show the appreciation our family feels for these people in my children’s lives.

So far we’re leaning towards Starbucks cards and homemade cookies in an attempt to straddle the useful (but crassly labeled dollar amount) and the heartfelt. Hmm, a tough straddle that cannot compare with the pride I felt walking into school with a beautifully wrapped honey pot – one of my first lessons in the joy of giving, rather than receiving.

How do you handle the teacher gift-giving season? What do you think?

My Opinion: Move The District Court

>(Warning: This is a long post. And it contains a lot of my own opinion. I am open to others though…respond in the comments!)

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). This week’s Gazette reports that outgoing Rockville mayor Larry Giammo has 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).

Trouble is, it seems there is just too much bureaucratic inertia behind the library site for anyone to want to move. State officials have made plans and made funding decisions based on the new District Court building being at the “old library” site.

What’s worse, some in the state legislative delegation from Montgomery County say they want it at the library, too. According to the Gazette article:

“I’m very much in support of having it at the library site,” State Sen. Jennie M. Forehand (D-Dist. 17) of Rockville said. “The entire delegation is. There’s a letter going to the governor in support of the library site. It was the right thing to do.”

And, Chief Judge of the District Court of Maryland, Ben C. Clyburn said, “They [the City] weren’t ignored,” Clyburn said. “It was their bright idea to come up with this site.”

Why the fuss? No one I talked to can say. I have a message in to Senator Forehand that was not returned yet (in her defense, it is in the middle of Special Session — if she does respond I will relay it to Rockville Central’s readers).

Mayor Giammo, referring to Judge Clyburn’s comment said, “We never suggested nor supported building the new district court on the library site. I can’t imagine what he’s referring to.” In fact, he pointed out that his 2001 campaign included a promise to work against such a move. “Had [Clyburn] bothered to pay any attention over the last six plus years, he’d know we never wanted the district court built on the library site.”

Indeed, according to a January 26, 2007 letter from the City to Governor O’Malley and County Executive Ike Leggett (and a follow-up to Governor O’Malley in April), the City raised issues with the “old library” site numerous times:

• On November 18, 2002, in a letter asking the state to take into consideration the inappropriateness of the location (backing as it does onto an historic district and a school), the lack of adequate parking, and pedestrian danger as they cross MD-28 on the way to court. Response: the state went ahead and bought the site from the County and started planning.

• On April 28, 2005, people from the Maryland Department of General Services held a meeting for proposed residents on the proposed design for the new District Court. Rockville residents loudly complained.
• On May 9, 2005, MDGS folks presented the plan to the Mayor and Council at a City Council meeting. “We strongly expressed these same concerns,” says the letter.

Later, in the April letter (at the same link; scroll down), the City says it would be willing to help out and “make the State whole” if moving to a different site resulted in new costs.

Now, it appears there is a bona fide new idea on the table. Using the Giant site would represent a great use of a parcel of land whose disposition otherwise is . . . well, it’s in doubt. And it would free up the old library for better uses, like better police quarters.

I admit, the reasons that have been expressed in opposition to using the Giant site are mystifying to me. I asked incoming Mayor Susan Hoffmann if she could imagine any real objection, and she put it this way:

The push back we are getting . . . is a concern that we might lose our place in line for a new and badly needed courthouse, that a new site will require a new design which could take up to 7 years, and that it will cost millions more to go to a new site. The State Department of General Services has done a preliminary analysis and indicates that the delay will be more like 6 months to a year for redesign and cost up to about $1 million more. In the statewide scheme of things, that is not a lot of money…and, in my estimation, certainly worth it to do the very best thing for our residents and our Town Center.

And there’s a new development. There is a recent letter from Department of Budget and Land Secretary T. Eloise Foster to some members of the state legislative delegation on the subject. She writes:

“[S]hould the legislative delegation and the local leadership come to a consensus agreement that an alternative site should be pursued, the Governor would certainly be supportive of that decision.” She goes on to say that regardless of what site is chosen the state will “work with local stakeholders to ensure that the project continues to move forward.”

In other words, the location of the District Court, and the fate of the old library, is in the hands of our representatives to the Maryland State Legislature.

A local group of citizens called the Town Center Action Team has been working on this issue for two years now. With the recent news that approval for the old library site has been given, resident Bridget Newton is spreadi
ng word of a meeting coming up at City Hall to discuss the issue. City Manager Scott Ullery will be on hand:

• WHEN: Tuesday, November 20, 2007
• WHERE: City Hall Red Maple Room (downstairs next to Public Works)
• TIME: 7:00pm

My opinion, if it is not yet obvious, is that the old Giant site is perfect and that a one-year startup delay is a small price to pay for a building that will need to last.

What about you? What do you think? Where should the new District Court go? Why?

Please Help Us Decide

Dear Readers:>

I am trying to decide something and you can help me. As you know, we have the campaign finance reports for all of the city candidates. There is no online repository for such public information; people need to physically go to City Hall and order copies made at $.10 per page. With three mayoral and eleven city council candidates, that gets pricey and time-consuming.

So, I am considering posting PDF files of the candidate finance reports here at Rockville Central. However, I am not sure about whether I should or not. I would like to hear arguments pro and con.

First of all, according to the City, it would not violate any city election laws. These are public records, required by law to be submitted by each candidate on a set schedule. They include details on candidates’ finances as well as the names and addresses of their contributors.

That’s the thing. While surely everyone who gives money to a candidate knows it is a public record, they may not necessarily be comfortable that their neighbors can find out with a couple of mouseclicks who they are giving to and how much. There is a strong argument on both sides. On the one hand, this is useful information that should be out there. On the other, how easily accessible ought it to be, in an age when privacy is less and less available to anyone? There is something to be said for a few simple barriers.

My own bias is towards transparency when at all possible, so I lean towards posting the information. But I may not do so. I really want to hear from others. Please post comments or send me emails if you have opinions. I am happy to keep your thoughts confidential, but I would prefer this debate be out in public. I am especially interested in hearing from candidates and donors on this.

What do you think?

Hang On, It's Going To Be A Bumpy Night in Montgomery County

>It’s no secret we live in an area where there is, shall we say, a good bit of affluence. Mansions still seem to pop up everywhere and numerous folks say that, if they had to buy their house all over again, they’d be priced out of the area.

Two stories underscore that. The first is in today’s Gazette, which points out that the rates for “jumbo” mortgages (mortgages for more than $417,000) have been going up, up, up, while fixed rate, regular mortgage rates are going down, down down.

And, the Gazette points out:

The average home sales price in Montgomery increased to more than $600,000 last month, according to Metropolitan Regional Information Systems. Counties with higher-priced homes are particularly affected by the change in jumbo mortgages, experts say.

Yes, that seems to make sense. Yet, so many people have been moving in over the last few years. where are they coming from? They don’t all seem rich. How are they getting into their homes?

Many are able to purchase homes through “subprime” loans (typically at high rates designed to mitigate some buyers’ less-than-creditworthiness). These are the same mortgages at the root of much of the market meltdown we have been experiencing (until the Fed propped things up for the time being).

The New Montgomery County Progressive, who does not really seem very progressive on a number of issues, has performed a back-of-the-envelope analysis of subprime loans and foreclosures in Montgomery County and the findings are sobering:

Most of the houses that are in foreclosure in Montgomery County (or that have completed foreclosure) were purchased using subprime loans. The most significant (and surprising) news is that nearly all of the foreclosed properties were still in the (artificially low) “initial rate” period of an adjustable rate loan. This means that the purchasers have lost or are losing their homes because they could not afford to pay their mortgages at the initial “low” rate, and not because their mortgage payments had increased due to a change in the interest rate. . . .

[T]he effect of subprime mortgages has just barely begun to affect Montgomery County. Most of the effect of subprime mortgage lending isn’t going to affect Montgomery County housing until 2008, when interest rates on subprime loans begin to increase because the “initial low rate” period has ended. At that point, we should see a massive increase in foreclosures, along with a significant decrease in real estate prices in low and mid-priced homes.

Stay tuned, and hang on.

What do you think?