important things

Thursday, October 19, 2006

it's the thought that counts

A NOTE FROM DAN:I like to make sure the long pieces I write are as good as possible, so I took down the Fairland View piece from Tuesday because I didn't feel comfortable with it. Look out for a more coherent form of it later on.
" . . . there's a discrepancy between where these people believe growth should occur and where the trends and projections are expected." - Jason K. Sartori, Consultant

No matter how many groundbreakings Bobby Haircut has for the ICC, the tide may be turning on suburban, auto-oriented development in Maryland. The Post reports on Reality Check Plus, a series of "envisioning sessions" over the summer where a cross-section of "business, civic and elected leaders" throughout the state were given the task of deciding where new growth should take place.

And despite the attitudes of a few cranky stay-at-home parents and a possible NIMBY County Executive, it turns out that Marylanders, or at least the ones who participated in both the statewide and the Washington-area version of Reality Check, support sustainable, denser development near transit and existing job centers.

It is a contrast, though, to the slow-growth 'mandate' MoCo voters supposedly sent last month. So do people want smart growth or not? I mean, people like Bethesda Row (pictured). But, of course, talk about building another Bethesda Row somewhere else and you'll hear "overdevelopment!" and "traffic!"

Either way, it's the thought that counts. Thanks, Maryland, for having the right idea.

5 comments:

  1. Not only does this story is completely anti-growth biased but also displays discrimative hatred towards economic/business growth and Upscale Development for the state of Maryland in favor for more federal spending for intense development, economic/business/job growth, and Highways/Rapid Transportation building in Northern Virginia.

    ReplyDelete
  2. thecourtyard, are you aware of the (catastrophic) 1981 Eastern Montgomery County Master Plan? It covered Cloverly, Fairland and White Oak.

    It was about "reducing auto
    dependency." It was "based on
    a concept of transit
    serviceability" (this was before
    the term Smart Growth had been invented). It was about
    "preserving" the Montgomery
    County Ag Preserve.

    It was also a total, complete
    failure.
    It was so bad that the
    M-NCP&PC and the County Council had to admit failure and pass a trip reduction amendment less than 10 years after the 1981 Plan was approved.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Zilliacus - I like how you keep beating the hell out of that one example when there are so many communities (such as our own Silver Spring) that have embraced Smart Growth and have flourished.

    Okay, so East County couldn't do it the first time around. That was 25 years ago - the circumstances have changed dramatically. It wouldn't hurt to try again.

    ReplyDelete
  4. > Mr. Zilliacus - I like how you
    > keep beating the hell out of
    > that one example when there
    > are so many communities (such
    > as our own Silver Spring)
    > that have embraced Smart
    > Growth and have flourished.

    Not one example - three master
    plan areas
    and thousands
    of residents. And the bad
    results of the 1981 Master Plan
    and its misplaced emphasis on residential densification and
    mass transit remain - consider
    Castle Boulevard in Fairland
    and Stewart Lane in White Oak
    for starters.

    As for Smart Growth having
    "flourished," then perhaps you
    can explain the steady exodus
    of employment from Silver
    Spring since 1978, when
    the Metrorail Red Line
    arrived?

    High-tech employers that have
    moved away (frequently to
    Fairfax County or other
    suburban locations) such as
    Orkand Corp. (a Silver Spring original), Vitro, Computer
    Sciences Corp. (they used to
    own the large building on the
    west side of Colesville Road
    between Fenton and Cameron
    Streets).

    > Okay, so East County couldn't
    > do it the first time around.
    > That was 25 years ago - the
    > circumstances have changed
    > dramatically.

    In what ways?

    > It wouldn't hurt to try again.

    You can destroy your own
    neighborhood with row after
    row of garden apartments if
    you like - Fairland residents
    are now always on the alert when
    it comes to proposals from
    the Sierra Club or the Coalition
    for Smarter Growth or
    Environmental Defense to
    further densify our
    neighborhoods. I think it's safe
    to say that most residents of
    Montgomery County are here for the following reasons:

    It's suburban.
    It has a relatively decent school system.
    It has no compulsory school busing for racial integration.
    It's not the District of Columbia.
    It's (in relative terms) affordable.

    Most residents of the county are
    not here for Smart
    Growth - nor do a vast majority
    of them take mass transit - and
    a Purple Line is not likely
    to change that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your assertions about Montgomery County residents are unfounded. There are over a dozen Metro stations in this county, including Silver Spring, which has the highest ridership in the state. Home price near Metro stops are ridiculously high. You think that's just due to the schools? Not quite.

    And I'm curious what you're inferring by saying MoCo residents are avoiding mandatory busing. I know you get queasy seeing all the "undesirables" in our schools (they come from Briggs Chaney and White Oak, right? In all those "disastrous" apartments, right?) but I get the feeling most MoCo residents aren't so worried.

    ReplyDelete