b'ville charrette: stuart rochester responds

Part THREE in a series about last week's Burtonsville Community Legacy Plan Charrette. Check out parts ONE and TWO, where we discussed the charrette and plans to revitalize Route 198.


Wednesday's Gazette says there "seemed to be a consensus" for keeping Burtonsville more or less the same among residents at last week's charrette, but I don't think it was so cut-and-dry. I was disappointed that writer Amber Parcher couldn't find anyone - and there were quite a few - that endorsed more dramatic changes to Burtonsville's struggling village center.

That being said, I wanted to offer a different take on the revitalization of Burtonsville and the greater debate over how East County should grow. Local activist Stuart Rochester, who helped guide the 1997 Fairland Master Plan, was concerned about how he was portrayed in Part Two of our series on the charrette. He asked me to post the following responses, which I have not edited.

Dan: I have had a lot of respect for you until your recent characterization of my remarks at the Burtonsville charrette, which were inaccurate to the point of caricature. First of all, I was speaking at the charrette on behalf of my table; you may have offered your own opinions, but we were instructed to convey the consensus of our table, not our own individual views.

so much more AFTER THE JUMP . . .

Secondly, neither I nor anyone at my table used the word "undesirables," nor did was this even implied except in terms of an undesirable housing mix or jobs-housing ratio from the standpoint of PRECISELY a healthy, DIVERSIFIED community. (Nancy Navarro's reference in her blog comment to alleged use of code-words when she was not even present to hear the exchange was irresponsible, and I will let my disappointment with someone who aspires to be our councilmember taking a cheap shot in absentia go at that.)

Third, your characterization of me being "worried" as I approached you in the parking lot when in fact all I wanted to do was clear the air was the worst kind of racial profiling that you yourself rightfully find so offensive.

Finally, I stand by my position that communities and schools that work are ones that are balanced socio-economically and demographically; if you feel otherwise or want to argue, we could have a fair debate but if you feel otherwise or want to argue semantics, we could have a reasonable debate, but don't demonize or caricature views you do not agree with. I would appreciate your posting this as a response item on your blog, which I was not able to access to post. Thank you, and I hope we can continue a mutually respectful conversation on this important subject in the future.

Later, Stuart Rochester e-mailed me again with another response which elaborates on what we first talked about after the charrette ended Thursday night.

I appreciate your response to my concerns. To continue to have influence and credibility, you have an obligation to report accurately. I am not denying there is racism in our society, among some residents of Burtonsville as well.

But the argument I was making goes beyond race and even beyond references to "affordable housing." The thrust of my conversation was that too many RENTAL units, as has occurred on the east side of US 29, adversely affects the community and its schools, and not because people who live in apartments are somehow inherently bad or undesirable but because proportionately they are not as vested in the community and because they create a turnover/mobility problem that affects PTAs, the continuity and quality of instruction in the classroom, teacher load and morale, etc. And they are not as likely to improve and maintain the properties they inhabit, for understandable reasons (I mentioned Tom Friedman's point, that "no one ever washes a rental car").

Moreover, this is not to say we should not have rental housing in the area but that we should not have disproportionate concentrations, which result in exactly the kind of segregation that rightfully upsets you. So the situation, and my views, are much more complicated than you portrayed them.

What really disappointed me, angered me, was your gratuitous comments about getting into a "white Lexus" and approaching you "after dark" and "looking worried". That kind of racial profiling I find every bit as offensive as you would, and has no place in civilized discussion; I still do not even understand what you meant by that crap. So let's both try to do better to explain what are earnest, legitimate concerns on both sides.

Read more!

guest blog: district 4 unites

WHAT'S UP THE PIKE: Hearing for determining historical status of Falkland Chase postponed until July.

Just Up The Pike wasn't able to attend last Thursday's inaugural meeting for District4MC.org, a user-generated website for District 4 residents. We asked local activist and Aspen Hill resident Thomas Hardman, who created the website along with Burtonsville's Eileena York, to write a recap of the event, held at the Long and Foster branch office in Burtonsville Crossing.

On a clear June night, most of the members of the Burtonsville Business Association acted as hosts to visitors from other parts of the county. Aside from this writer, we had a delegation from the Northwood-Four Corners civic association. Ms. Barth, the president, gave out considerable information regarding the status of their mild feud with the County and Parks and Planning, which intend to convert their community park into a soccer field.

We also had an unaffiliated "drop in" from Colesville, who mentioned something about a strawberry festival this weekend, but didn't give more details. He helped start an interesting discussion on traffic issues, pedestrian safety, and hiker-biker trail plans.

As regards to the County and Planning's plans for the park, there has been longstanding contentions that the intended action will amount to spending tax money that nobody has for a project the locals don't want. The delegation was adamant that they've already invested considerable personal time, along the most ecologically sensible lines, to clear invasive species out of the area, and to promote a shared neighborhood space suitable for almost all uses other than field athletic sports.

so much more AFTER THE JUMP . . .

Thomas Hardman (this writer) had some questions about their experiences with respect to crime, inviting a contrast-and-compare examination of the respective approaches to cleaning up the parks pursuant to "crime prevention through environmental design." Ms. Barth pointed out that most of the overgrowth that obstructs a view of the parks - potentially creating a hiding place for crime - is in fact invasive vegetation. Indeed, this has been our experience at North Gate Park in Aspen Hill, at least at the edges of the park, where invasive vines created a mat that acted as a curtain. Simply removing the invasives over the last 5 years or so has resulted in much greater visibility in our park, and increased police activity in that area has made the park available again to the intended users, rather than a den of thieves.

We also heard more from myself and from Eileena York (of the BBA and Citizens Involved) on the intentions of our project. Eileena handled the organizational aspects as to times, dates, general purpose. I tried to elaborate on the philosophy.

All across District 4, and probably much of the rest of the county, you might have a set of neighborhoods, separated only by a stream or a major road. On either side of the divide, the houses are much the same, the issues are the same, the problems are the same, just as the same sun and moon shine on all alike. Yet each of these communities seems to deal with the county government and to seek remedy - for the same things - as individual communities. Each would benefit by more understanding of the neighboring communities, as commonalities would be come evident, and with commonality, perhaps a more unified and much larger set of petitioners to the County. Rather than dealing with each community as an isolated group, potentially playing zero-sum games of setting one against the other in a scramble for programs and funding, the County could be dealing with an entire Council District that has decided amongst themselves what they want and don't want. This would be a return to self-governance, to unity as a people, and potentially could be a check and balance against the tendencies of one-party governments towards top-down and occasionally arbitrary impositions of policy on the governed.

We don't know when or where our next meeting might be, yet, but at least this is a start. We will see how all of this unfolds over the next few years, as this is a long-term project at the very least. At the very best, who knows? It's utterly grass-roots which ought to please a certain type of Democrats and Independents, and if it gets results and helps hold down taxes while putting more power in the People and less in the government, sensible centrist Republicans ought to get on board as well. But party or ideology isn't the issue: the issue is increasing awareness and communication, and forming common cause to the public benefit.

Read more!

east county in review: across the blogiverse

Blogs about blogs seem like a silly idea. But the Silver Spring Blogging Collective (as I like to call it) has been buzzing over the past couple of weeks. What's happening Up The . . . Blogiverse? Let's find out:

- Four Corners resident and parent Jessica has started aparentinsilverspring, an endeavor she hopes will "provide a fun, free and accessible resource for parents of little kids in Silver Spring, Maryland." Whether or not you have kids, you'll want to check out the giant "Activities" calendar at the top of her homepage. Follow it and your kids will have a full schedule until they turn 18.

- Adam Pagnucco, who's been writing guest blogs for JUTP since we were born, has landed a full-bloggership at Maryland Politics Watch. Highlights of Adam's brief tenure at MPW include "The Baroness of Montgomery," a satire of District 18 shenanigans, and a four-part series on Wheaton co-written with his wife Holly Olson, who sat on the Wheaton Redevelopment Advisory Committee.

- S. and Sparow of Down By The River, the only other blog hailing from Up The Pike, have moved to Rockville. I don't know how I missed their goodbye post two months ago in which S. says "the eastern most part of MoCo is so utterly fucked that we can't take it anymore."

While I don't think this area is as bad as they make it out to be - after all, I grew up here - the fact is that many people do leave East County searching for better schools, safer streets, etc. Many of my high school friends' families have already moved away. The east side has to become competitive with Rockville and the rest of Montgomery County, and it's as much a battle of test scores and crime rates as it is one of perception. People have to believe East County is a good place to live. And even if S. and Sparow decided not to say here, I think leaving only drives home their point that we have a long way to go. Read more!

hip hyattsville: arts district slideshow

WHAT'S UP THE PIKE: 100 displaced in early-morning fire at Calverton condominium complex.

Part TWO of a series on Hyattsville, the "Silver SprUng" of Prince George's County. For more on Hyattsville, you'll definitely also want to check out the Silver Spring Scene's "Sister to the East" report.

Take a look at this Flickr slideshow of Arts District Hyattsville, one of a slew of new developments near Route 1 in Prince George's County that could give Downtown Silver Spring a run for its money many years from now. Silver Spring's favorite photog, Chip Py, has taken a few shots of the Arts District, such as the one you see here. (I took the rest, though, and I don't have the same camera magic, but I think you'll get the idea.)

Tomorrow, we'll check out the model houses at the Arts District. Should you start packing your bags and putting your one-bedroom apartment on Craigslist? We'll find out. Read more!

what do horses have against downtown silver spring?

WHAT'S UP THE PIKE: New Growth Policy includes transit access in new development reviews; the Post profiles School of Rock on Colesville Road.

You'll definitely want to check out this and other photos of last Saturday's Thanksgiving Parade taken by Chip Py. A local photographer, Py's best known for his run-in with Downtown Silver Spring security last summer, which led to a protest for photo rights on the 4th of July.

Is it more than a little strange that mounted cops would let their horses pee wherever they are . . . especially in the center of the revitalized Downtown? What were they thinking? Read more!

guest blog: the "micro-neighborhood" of bonifant and thayer

The Crescent condos loom over Bonifant Street, one block south of the Downtown Silver Spring complex.

Spices, Santeria shops and saloons: it's just business as usual on Bonifant and Thayer streets, sitting in the shadow of the "new" Downtown Silver Spring. That may be threatened by the Purple Line, which could run straight through the neighborhood. Bonifant Street resident Elisabeth Higgins Null - who first appeared in Just Up The Pike last July - writes this guest post about what could be lost on her street.

To me, the largely minority- and immigrant-owned businesses of Bonifant and Thayer between Fenton and Georgia are the soul of the community I live in and depend on. My hairdresser is on Bonifant, my bookstore, my coffee shop and arts cafe. In this two-block micro-neighborhood, I can find cleaners, another coffee shop, multiple ethnic restaurants, an oriental spice store, a Thai grocery store, a key shop, autoparts store, soda shop, santeria supply store, balloon shop, tuxedo rental, prominent basement saloon, cobbler, body shops, picture framer, store front churches, nail salons and and a world-class comic and "oldies" record store. Paris never had such neighborhoods.

so much more AFTER THE JUMP . . .

As a writer and someone who works at home, I welcome the chance to get out at mid-day for a few hours in my neighborhood. I have a car, a handicapped permit, and a crutch. So far, they've suited me well. I've got it timed so that I can usually scoot into a metered parking space nearby to where I am going. This is my neighborhood -- you learn these things. I've been able to park outside a store while the clerk comes out to take my money and deliver packages. There are lots of people in my area like me, people who would like to grow old in their homes but who develop debilitating conditions even though they are not yet in wheelchairs. In the clustered parking garage, pedestrian megamall approach to civic revitalization, my kind of people are anomalies.

We have avoided confronting this problem in the revitalization of downtown. It has its pulsing, teeming hub, good for entertainment or an outing, but many of us also seek out the quieter charms of Thayer and Bonifant for local residents to go about their filling their needs. For many, this is the old-fashioned walkable town, and the population is stable enough so that relations develop between service providers and their customers. When I can't walk any further, I drop in for chat and maybe a shampoo at Cyncole's or ask Nani at the corner Citgo to call me a cab. Once or twice I've gotten a lift, more often I get a coffee and a little good conversation.

This kind of rapport grows slowly over time and small businesses like these are not transported to a new locale with their equipment and furniture. They embody trust and mutual experience between service provider and customer over time. These businesses are those that survived the bad times economically and stayed with us.

How tragic that they might be shoved out during plans for improving the economic and transportational vitality of our community. How tragic that I and older and partially handicapped citizens like myself might be shoved out for lack of close-up parking and/or a local traffic lane.

I beg the MTA to explore my concern about damage the Purple Line may do to the Bonifant/Fenton/Thayer commercial district. My needs and theirs are interdependent. Beyond this, they are a shining example of the American dream fulfilled.

Elisabeth Higgins Null

Read more!

purple line haze: a history lesson

The Purple Line won't be the first time some Downcounty neighborhoods see trains going through their backyards. Check out part ONE of a series on the Purple Line.

The Capital Crescent Trail in Chevy Chase was a former rail line. Check out this slideshow of the Purple Line route through Bethesda and Chevy Chase.

Twenty-five years ago, households in Bethesda and Chevy Chase already had trains running through their backyards. A few times a week, trains carrying coal would travel a single track, dubbed the Georgetown Branch, from Silver Spring to Georgetown. The coal was used to power over a hundred federal buildings.

"People would wave from their backyards" at passing trains, says activist Pam Browning. "They thought it was quaint."

When the freight trains stopped running, Montgomery County started looking at ways to use the land for transit. What we have today is the "future" Capital Crescent Trail, named as such because its completion hinges partially on the construction of the Purple Line.

so much more AFTER THE JUMP . . .

Guest blogger Adam Pagnucco explains:

In 1986, CSX decided to file for abandonment of its tracks. The county then passed the Georgetown Branch Master Plan Amendment in 11/86 designating the tracks as "a public right-of-way intended to be used for public purposes such as conservation, recreation, transportation and utilities." The amendment stated that "a transit facility could be an important element of the County's long-term transportation system."

This trestle bridge over Rock Creek was once used for freight trains.

In 1988, the county purchased the right-of-way from CSX for $10.5 million. Two years later, the county passed the Georgetown Branch Master Plan Amendment of 1990, which "designates the Silver Spring & Bethesda Trolley and the Capital Crescent Trail as suitable uses for the 4.4-mile portion of the Georgetown Branch right-of-way between Bethesda and Silver Spring."

The Bethesda-Chevy Chase Master Plan, also adopted in 1990, reinforces the intended right-of-way use for both trail and transit. It states, "Use of the route for transit would provide an alternative to driving on East-West Highway and Jones Bridge Road. It would assist those people who rely primarily on local public transit. The key to attractive, successful transit service is providing reliable, speedy service. The Georgetown Branch provides an existing travel corridor that could readily be adapted for transit use."

See the sector plan for further details - pages 103 and 104.

Newspaper articles from that time show that the county government intended transit use at the time they bought the CSX land. Chevy Chase residents reacted by first opposing possible residential development on the land and later by opposing rail service.

In 1989 the county council voted to accept state money to pay for most of the cost of what was then known as the trolley by a 6-1 vote. [Then-councilman] Ike Leggett was the sole dissenter. Two years later, the trolley line died because of rising cost estimates and state budget problems.

County Executive Ike Leggett explained his reasoning behind opposing the Georgetown Branch Trolley in this JUTP interview last February. The trolley would have used the same single track as the freight line, meaning that trains could only go one direction at a time.

"It would have taken forty-three minutes with single-track [there] and back," he says. "If you're on the platform in Silver Spring and the train just left, that's forty-three minutes you have to wait."

And while groups such as the Greater Bethesda-Chevy Chase Coalition already opposed that project, Leggett's push to make it more efficient - by having two tracks instead of one and extending the line east to New Carrollton - have only increased their opposition. The current trail is exactly as wide as the original rail. In order to fit two tracks, a trail, and the necessary separation of the two, most of the trees in the right-of-way would have to be taken down.

"We don't think you could feasibly put a train and a trail here and not have it ruin the experience of the trail," says Mier Wolf, a Chevy Chase town councilman who proposed a town-led study of the Purple Line. "You don't get a [tree] canopy like this overnight."

Photos taken on the Capital Crescent Trail in Chevy Chase. Research by Adam Pagnucco; analysis by Dan Reed. Read more!

only the cable administrator can save us now . . .

This isn't my normal territory, but guest blogger Adam Pagnucco urged me to write about this, so here goes:

Last month, Comcast sent letters out to its hundreds of thousands of subscribers throughout the region stating that they had just changed their policy on resolving customer disputes, deciding to take matters that would otherwise be settled in the courts and give them to in-house arbitrators.

Of course, you were given until the end of July to opt out of that arrangement. But, in case you didn't - if you had a problem with Comcast, you would now longer able to file a lawsuit against them. Instead, Comcast's own guys would settle it for you.

Right to an attorney? Forget it.

so much more AFTER THE JUMP . . .

The story was covered in both yesterday's Gazette and Tuesday's Post, but neither does a complete job, says Adam. Comcast's letter came as part of your July bill. There was a time when someone called the Montgomery County Cable Administrator (are you surprised that there is such a position in a county that runs its own liquor stores?) would have to review that letter. If he or she had, a red flag would've gone up in Rockville; Ike Leggett would've raised hell; and this would've been a done deal.

But that wasn't the case. Last year, the County Council took away the Cable Administrator's duty to approve letters that go out from Comcast. In a transcript from that meeting, Councilwoman Marilyn Praisner (D-Calverton) admitted that the change in procedure would, indeed, screw over cable customers throughout the County, but that it was better not to watch over Comcast's shoulder:

". . . the company [Comcast] has a right to communicate with their customers, but we also know from a practical perspective that the phone calls, when those bills or notices or information hit the mailbox and hit some kitchen table, the phone calls are going to come to the cable office. And it would be better if the cable office knew about it ahead of time . . . but we have amended the language and I believe the Executive Branch is not opposed to the amendment."

As they say, ignorance is bliss. While the chances of You, the Individual, being thrown into some litigation with old Comcast is fairly slim, there may be other occasions in the future when a little County oversight could help you out. Long story short: we have to bring the Cable Administrator back.

This summer, we've already managed to overturn the parking meter increase and ensure First Amendment rights in Downtown Silver Spring. Sign this petition to tell Montgomery County and Comcast that your rights STILL aren't something to be toyed with.



Research, as always, done by Adam Pagnucco. Read more!

peterson backs down, but hassled photographers persist

SIDE NOTE: I was accosted by security this afternoon while attempting to photograph the atrium of an office building on 12th Street in Downtown D.C. - while at work there . . .

This morning, the Peterson Companies has offered an olive branch of sorts to the photographers and bloggers it has recently slighted in Silver Spring (a detailed play-by-play of which can be found at the Baltimore Sun):

"We welcome photography, videography and other filming at our Center. We permit all of these activities, as long as our patrons and tenants are neither harassed nor photographed or filmed over their objection. Also, any activity which would interfere with pedestrian or vehicular movement requires advance management approval. We continue to encourage patrons to report inappropriate behavior to police and security personnel. We reserve the right to modify this and other policies."

Peterson, owner of the Downtown Silver Spring complex, recently came under scrutiny for its "no photography" policy on Ellsworth Drive after security guards accosted photographer Chip Py two weeks ago. Py was unimpressed by the Peterson Companies' reversal. On the Free Our Streets blog, he said that the photographers' protest planned for July 4th on Ellsworth will go on as planned.

JUTP guest blogger Adam Pagnucco helped to broker the compromise between Peterson and the photographers. His take on the Peterson Companies' attempt to respond to community needs comes AFTER THE JUMP . . .

In evaluating the above policy, it is important to consider the exact legal status of Ellsworth. Ellsworth between Fenton and Georgia is owned by the county. However, it is leased by PFA, the partnership that built and now manages the development. The lease has a broad management rights clause for the partnership. However, it is also contingent on a public use easement that allows right of passage to the public and declares the street to be "public use space." More information on the exact language pertaining to the development can be found on Free Our Streets.

PFA has an option to buy the development outright. After ten years from the signing of its lease, the sale price will be one dollar. PFA could buy it now, but they would have to pay a higher price. The point is that this street could be 100% private property at any time.

PFA's new policy allows substantially the same photography practices that would prevail on a public street. The only difference is that PFA is not conceding that the First Amendment applies directly to what it considers to be its private property through its lease. Some believe that it should concede this right. I do not know of a real estate company that would surrender First Amendment rights on its private property without a court battle.

The organizers of Freeourstreets.org deserve credit for winning a much-improved photography policy from the company. The debate of the past week has also raised a compelling issue: what rights do citizens have on land controlled by public-private partnerships? Shouldn't those rights be addressed in detail in future agreements? The agreements applying to Ellsworth were negotiated prior to 9/11. We live in a different world now and we must closely examine the balance between commerce and liberty in our government's dealings with business.

PFA also deserves credit for acting in good faith and crafting a new policy that will prevent the sort of incident endured by Chip Py. PFA has told the Baltimore Sun that it will now welcome photographers rather than discourage them. PFA could have hired an army of lawyers and fought tooth-and-nail, but they instead chose to listen and change. As someone who has spent his life in the labor movement, I wish more businesses conducted their operations in that way.

Adam Pagnucco Read more!

guest blog: annual growth policy debate 2007 (part two)

It's pretty easy to be overwhelmed by the pace of growth. Maps like this from Trulia Hindsight show how rapidly East County has developed over the past few years - resulting in overcrowded schools and roads. So how do we pay for all of these things? Next month, the County Council will be holding its Annual Growth Policy debates, deciding not just how fast the County will grow but who foots the bill for that growth.

Last week, Guest blogger and pedestrian advocate Adam Pagnucco explained how the County decides where new development should go. This week, he's back to discuss impact taxes - the developer dough that goes to new schools and roads - and whether they're here to stay in Montgomery County.

Take it away, Adam:

Impact Taxes

Impact taxes are charges paid by developers of new projects to the county. The purpose of impact taxes is to pay for new infrastructure capacity, such as schools and roads, that is necessary to service new projects. Montgomery County first used transportation impact taxes for projects in East County and Germantown in 1986, and expanded them to Clarksburg in the mid-1990’s. In 2003, the County Council passed a package of development policy changes that raised transportation impact taxes, created new school impact taxes, and applied them to the entire county. The new taxes were intended to allow development to pay part of its own costs rather than be subject to moratoriums, several of which were then in effect around the county.

The current impact tax structure for schools and roads is:

SCHOOL IMPACT TAXES

Type of Unit	Tax per Unit
Single-Family Detached	$8,464
Single-Family Attached	$6,348
Multi-Family Residential (except High-Rise)	$4,232
High-Rise Residential	$1,693
Multi-Family Senior Residential	$0

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT TAXES (RESIDENTIAL)

Type of Unit	Tax per Unit
Single-Family Detached	$5,819
Single-Family Attached	$4,761
Multi-Family Residential (except High-Rise)	$3,703
High-Rise Residential	$2,645
Multi-Family Senior Residential	$1,058

TRANSPORTATION IMPACT TAXES (NON-RESIDENTIAL)

Commercial Use	Tax per Square Foot
Office	$5.30
Industrial	$2.65
Bioscience Facility	$0.00
Retail	$4.75
Place of Worship	$0.30
Private Elementary/Secondary Schools	$0.40
Hospital	$0.00
Other Non-Residential	$2.65

Transportation impact tax rates are lower in Metro Station Policy Areas and higher in Clarksburg. All impact tax rates are adjusted for inflation every two years.

The new rates have been in effect for two fiscal years: 2005 and 2006. The total volume of tax collections has been lower than expected. For example, the new school impact tax was expected to collect $24 million in 2005 and $28 million each year thereafter. Instead, it collected less than $8 million in 2005 and less than $7 million in 2006. These amounts are small compared to the $271 million in school capacity expansion the county is planning over the next six years.

The county’s planning staff recommends substantial increases in the impact tax rates. The staff calculated the actual cost of projected school construction through 2012 and divided it by the projected number of new housing units to be constructed over the same period of time to determine the impact tax rate necessary to actually pay for new schools. The new school impact tax rates advocated by the planners proved to be more than double the current rates. The staff performed a similar exercise for transportation. It recommended that transportation impact taxes be 40-60% higher for residences and 80%-120% higher for most commercial buildings (with retail rates going up by four times).

Several statistics put Montgomery County’s impact tax rates in perspective. Sixteen counties in Maryland charge impact taxes on development. On a per-unit basis, Montgomery County currently charges more per single-family detached dwelling ($14,283) than any other county except Prince George’s ($19,361). Last year, Prince George’s collected a much greater total volume of impact taxes ($43 million) than did Montgomery ($13 million). Frederick ($15 million) and Howard ($14 million) collected more impact taxes than Montgomery despite having lower per-unit rates. When impact taxes as a percentage of median home value is calculated, Montgomery’s ratio (1.8%) is lower than Richmond (1.9%), Prince George’s (4.4%), Frederick (3.2%), Charles (3.5%) and Jefferson County, West Virginia (6.6%).

The planning staff argues that their recommended higher impact tax levels are necessary to actually pay for the full cost of added schools and roads required by new development. Unless impact taxes were raised, the county would have to find another way to pay for new infrastructure – most likely through alternate taxes on existing residents. Developers predict that the higher impact tax rates would deter growth in the county through pushing up home and commercial building prices. Others argue that the entire concept of impact taxes is flawed because the revenues collected are not well channeled to actual infrastructure projects needed by specific developments. These are the questions to be decided soon in Rockville. Read more!

guest blog: annual growth policy debate 2007

BUT FIRST: There's new life in Rockville Town Square (with pictures!); JUTP sporting a new look in preparation for Sunday's article - more changes to come . . .

FINALLY: Using infrastructure (roads, schools, etc.) to determine where new development should go is pretty common. In Anne Arundel County, there's a boom in "active adult" housing because development that would add more kids to already-crowded schools is prohibited. Next month, the County Council will be holding its Annual Growth Policy debates, deciding how fast the County will grow and in what ways. How do we do that?

Guest blogger and pedestrian advocate Adam Pagnucco is back to explain the formulas used to decide where the infrastructure can handle new growth. Next week, he'll will discuss impact taxes, the almost-inevitable result of any decisions made by the County Council. Take it away, Adam:

Between the early 1980’s and 2004, new developments in Montgomery County were subject to two kinds of analysis for their impact on traffic: Policy Area Transportation Review (PATR) and Local Area Transportation Review (LATR). LATR examined the impact of development on traffic in a handful of intersections close to the project. PATR examined the impact of development on traffic in a large area surrounding the project called a “policy area.” The county had 21 of these policy areas in addition to 10 smaller “Metro Station Policy Areas” and “Town Center Policy Areas.”

The idea behind both LATR and PATR was that if the new development caused traffic congestion to rise above a certain threshold in either a small immediate area around the project (LATR) or a large area around the project (PATR), the developer would be required to provide certain mitigation measures, such as additional road or transit capacity. If traffic conditions were extremely congested in a policy area (as measured by an average congestion index), a moratorium could be declared. In 2004, the last year PATR was in effect, the county had eight policy areas in moratorium for housing construction and six policy areas in moratorium for commercial construction.

In 2003, the County Council voted to abolish PATR, keep LATR and institute a combination of increased and new development impact taxes. The council’s reasoning at that time was that new development should pay for added infrastructure capacity (like roads and schools) rather than be subject to a moratorium until the county could construct the added infrastructure.

New developments would now be analyzed only for their traffic impact on immediate surrounding areas. For example, under the old system, a new development at the corner of Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen Road would be analyzed not only for its impact on that intersection and a couple others nearby (LATR), but also for its impact on the average congestion level for the Kensington-Wheaton policy area (PATR). Under the new system, only the impact on a small number of nearby intersections would be considered.

Critics of PATR’s abolition contended that it was unrealistic to believe that traffic impact from a new development would only spread for a couple blocks away from the site. After the 2006 County Council elections, the council called for an analysis of the county’s growth policy from the Planning Board and specifically requested a recommendation on whether to bring back PATR. The board’s response was to suggest instituting a similar, but not identical process called Project Area Mobility Review (PAMR).

Like PATR, PAMR also assesses the traffic impact of a project on a broad policy area. However, its methodology differs. PATR relied on an average congestion index to determine whether a policy area’s transportation infrastructure was “adequate” to handle additional traffic. PAMR calculates a tradeoff between auto congestion (termed “relative arterial mobility”) and transit capacity (termed “relative transit mobility”). If a policy area had low relative arterial mobility (meaning it had lots of auto congestion), it could still be judged as “adequate” if residents could use transit to get to destinations almost as fast as through car travel. Conversely, if a policy area had transit use that took substantially more time than car use, it could still be judged as “adequate” if auto congestion was low. If a policy area had both high auto congestion and transit options that were much slower than car use, it would be judged as “inadequate.”

Developers in adequate policy areas would not be required to provide mitigation measures under PAMR, though they might face requirements if nearby local intersections were found to be excessively congested under LATR. The planners contended this new system fairly reflected the tradeoffs that residents could make between cars and transit – for example, by switching to transit if car travel was too slow.

The planning staff used their new PAMR standard to calculate adequacy levels for each of the county’s 21 policy areas. In 2005, the staff concluded that every one of the county’s policy areas had adequate transportation capacity. In 2013, the staff projected that only two policy areas – Gaithersburg and Germantown East – would be inadequate. In 2030, the staff projected that only two policy areas – Fairland/White Oak and Potomac – would be inadequate, but that projection assumed that the Purple Line, Corridor Cities Transitway, I-270 widening and Midcounty Highway would all be in place.

Now the debate will begin. Should a new development’s traffic impact be assessed in only a small surrounding area through LATR, or should its impact over a large area also be assessed through policy area review? Are the adequacy judgments of the new policy area review system recommended by the planning board – including its assessment that every policy area in the county had “adequate transportation capacity” in 2005 – realistic? And should the county return to instituting moratoriums in policy areas or merely insist on mitigation measures, such as new roads and/or transit and impact taxes, to be paid by developers? These are the questions now being argued in Rockville. Read more!

the teachers vs. neighborspac (a guest blog)

Just Up The Pike is still busy combing the Post for stories that have the words "Montgomery County" in them, but until then, Adam Pagnucco is back with another guest piece. The responses to his guest blog on the Teachers Union were pretty staggering, so this week, he breaks down the County elections a little further.



The Teachers vs. Neighborspac

The reaction to my earlier guest blog (Teachers Union: the 800 lb. Gorilla of MoCo Politics) contained some agreement and some disagreement. Critics of my analysis question the relevance of the Apple Ballot, arguing that the county’s voters made their decisions on another basis, namely growth. I thought this comment was worthy of further examination.

Local politicians have two elementary tasks: A) develop and refine their message, and B) amplify it. Message content is the product of the politician’s beliefs and his or her opinion of the positions of the constituents. Message amplification is a logistical issue: the candidates need to spread their message to the greatest number of voters. In the 2006 primary election, amplification was a critical determinant of electoral success.

Message amplification is affected by the way in which voters obtain political information. “Passive consumption” involves television coverage, newspaper articles, campaign literature and advertisements. These sources are easily available, quickly consumed, and require no sacrifice or time adjustments by voters. “Active consumption” involves attendance at campaign events, writing letters and emails, and actual meetings with candidates and surrogates – sometimes at the voters’ initiative. These activities require considerably more time and effort for voters, and so they are far less frequently used than passive consumption.

In national races, passive consumption is often enough to allow voters to make relatively informed decisions. The current U.S. Senate race in Virginia is one example. Voters can read many newspaper articles and view frequent television coverage to form their opinions of George Allen and Jim Webb. They do not have to actually hear each candidate speak in person to learn their positions on, for example, the war in Iraq. Each candidate can additionally draw on a party apparatus and many surrogates to press his case for election.

In local races, passive consumption is less practical. Television coverage of the Montgomery County Executive race was scanty and perfunct. The print media was better, but Washington Post voters had to dig into the Metro section to read about the executive candidates. Television and print coverage of the county council and statehouse races was very sparse. The candidates’ literature and websites were hardly more informative. Every one of the Democratic candidates say that they support education, oppose traffic congestion, support diversity and will work on behalf of their constituents. No candidate proclaims their support for unfettered development. As a result, passive consumption – the preferred information receipt mechanism of most voters – is not sufficient to allow them to differentiate between local candidates. The sole useful source of passive consumption may be the Apple Ballot, which comes from a trusted source (the Teachers) and is delivered just outside the voting precinct.

As for active consumption, I practiced it during this election cycle. I met eleven candidates running for county office and almost every statehouse candidate in my district. I attended one debate, three campaign coffees, and several community events where candidates appeared. By September 12th, I felt I had learned enough to cast an informed vote. But how many voters actually apply this much energy to determining their choice in local races? A few thousand in the entire county? If this is the case, then where did the tens of thousands of votes necessary to elect winning at-large council candidates come from?

Faced with the limited usefulness of passive consumption and the infrequent practice of active consumption, the candidates must work very hard to reach out to voters. One aspect of this is fund-raising; an often-detested job that most candidates regard as a necessary evil. Another aspect is endorsements – especially from organizations that can deploy volunteers. Many candidates regard election-day volunteers as a more valuable resource than dollars since enthusiastic bodies are much more scarce than money. I personally witnessed a half-dozen candidates show up at my precinct to lobby last-minute voters. Two sent their wives.

The critical advantage of the Teachers Union in the 2006 Democratic primary relates to its epic ability to mobilize large numbers of election-day volunteers. I saw at least four carriers of the Teachers’ “Apple Ballot” at my voting precinct. This projects to over 800 “Apple” volunteers across the county if the union’s efforts were evenly spread. I have not heard of either Neighbors for a Better Montgomery (a group favoring development restrictions) or the Washington Post endorsement staff fielding a similar number of volunteers across the county. And of course, the Teachers’ mobilization capacity was substantially aided by the closing of the public schools on primary day. Distribution of the Apple Ballot may have been the most effective information consumption technique of the entire campaign, passive or active, by any organization or candidate.

The Apple volunteers were able to sway the opinions of many of the last-minute voters in my precinct by appealing to them to consider the opinions of “teachers” – not the “Teachers Union.” In my thirteen hours outside my precinct, I saw over a hundred voters read the Apple, occasionally while sitting on a bench outside the door and away from the electioneers, before heading into the voting building. The fact that the union’s endorsees won 27 of 30 contested races at the state and county levels testifies to the success of its efforts.

Four years ago, two of the Teachers’ endorsees were losing at-large candidates Blair Ewing and Marc Elrich. So far this year, none of the Teachers’ county-level endorsees have lost, including the phoenix-like Elrich. In fact, the Teachers’ at-large county council candidates (George Leventhal, Elrich and Duchy Trachtenberg) finished first, second and third, while two incumbents the Teachers did not endorse, Nancy Floreen and Mike Subin, finished fourth and fifth. Not being foolish, the Teachers declined to endorse the opponents of council members Phil Andrews (District 3) and Marilyn Praisner (District 4), each of whom was sure to crush their opposition.

As my critics argue, growth was certainly a big issue in this race. It had a significant impact on the County Executive contest, in which MCEA made no endorsement. And it was also a factor in the county council races, as any observer of one of the candidate debates would conclude. But compare the electoral record of the Teachers with that of Neighbors for a Better Montgomery (aka Neighborspac), a citizens organization arguing for limits on development. MCEA endorsed five candidates in contested county council primaries: Mike Knapp (District 2), Valerie Ervin (District 5), and Leventhal, Trachtenberg and Elrich (at-large). All of those candidates won. (The fate of Republican Howard Denis, who represents District 1 and was endorsed by both the Teachers and Neighborspac, will be decided in the general election.)

Neighborspac endorsed nine candidates in contested county primaries: Of those, six won. The group’s at-large candidates finished second, third, seventh and eleventh, while MCEA’s picks finished first, second and third. Neighborspac took more risks than the Teachers, choosing to oppose four incumbents, three of whom won despite the group’s opposition. (Subin, a target of both the Teachers and Neighborspac, was the only defeated incumbent.) MCEA was more conservative, choosing to endorse three rather than four at-large council candidates, leaving room for one of its non-endorsed incumbents to win. And while the Teachers clearly disliked Andrews and Praisner (criticizing them as “fiscal conservatives”), they did not support their opponents.

Neighborspac and MCEA faced off against each other on incumbent at-large council member and 2006 council president George Leventhal. Neighborspac criticized Leventhal for accepting 43% of his campaign contributions from developers, a charge the council member disputed. The group even depicted Leventhal as a puppet dancing on developer-controlled strings in its infamous “County Council Can-Can” internet animation.

The Teachers rallied to Leventhal’s defense. In endorsing him, MCEA wrote, “He championed the ‘Montgomery Cares’ program, which makes health care accessible for poor, uninsured county residents. George is seen as one of the more reliable pro-labor members of the council, consistently supporting negotiated contracts and the revenue proposals necessary to fund them.”

MCEA won this clash as Leventhal finished first in the at-large race. Additionally, MCEA endorsee and incumbent Mike Knapp (District 2) defeated Neighborspac endorsee and challenger Sharon Dooley by nearly 30 points. If growth was the dominant issue in the election and Neighborspac the most influential group, how can the victories of Leventhal and Knapp be explained? Overall, MCEA’s 5-0 record compares favorably to Neighborspac’s 6-3 record.

Neighborspac has two of the three elements required for a successful citizens’ pressure group: a research-backed policy agenda and political allies. It lacks the third element: a large number of volunteers, particularly election-day volunteers. The group should consider developing an election-day “Neighbors Ballot,” assuming it can round up 800+ volunteers to distribute it. Until Neighborspac assembles this kind of volunteer network, it will not match the power of the Teachers Union. Still, with a council lineup including at least five endorsees in addition to new County Executive Ike Leggett, Neighborpac is poised for success in obtaining at least some of its goals.

The Teachers, with a so-far perfect electoral record in this year’s county council contests, a professional and experienced leadership, and an army of election-day volunteers, should score many of their legislative wins by heftier margins than a mere five votes. Their power will soon be put to the test as their current contract expires next summer.

- Adam Pagnucco, Silver Spring Read more!

teachers union: the 800-lb gorilla of moco politics (a guest blog)

Just Up The Pike is taking a little time off this weekend, but in my place, I offer a very different take on the MoCo election results from Adam Pagnucco, who worked at the polls on Tuesday. You may remember Adam from last month, when he called into NewsTalk and asked Valerie Ervin and Hans Riemer about the proposed pedestrian tunnel under Georgia Avenue. So - have a great weekend, and enjoy Adam Pagnucco. He's a bit more well-read than I tend to be.

Teachers Union: The 800-lb Gorilla of MoCo Politics

The mainstream media and the blogs are characterizing the 2006 Democratic primary in Maryland’s Montgomery County as the year that voters turned against growth. After all, many of the county-level winners – especially Ike Leggett, Marc Elrich, Duchy Trachtenberg and Valerie Ervin – ran on slow (or slower) growth platforms. So-called pro-growth candidates like Steve Silverman did not do as well. There is some truth to this story. However, to understand the results completely, we must realize that 2006 is the year the Teachers Union became the 800 pound gorilla of Montgomery County politics.

I first realized this while I was working at the polls on primary day. I spent all day at my precinct circulating a petition to build an east-side Metro entrance at Georgia and Forest Glen. I talked to all the political volunteers who showed up. Many candidates sent volunteers: county executive candidates Silverman and Leggett, county council candidates Ervin and Hans Riemer, and six of the eight District 18 state delegate candidates. Many candidates also showed up in person for parts of the day. The volunteers behaved pretty much the same way: chasing voters and giving them their candidates’ literature. Some voters took it while others didn’t. In many cases, the volunteers seemed to neutralize each other.

However, the candidates were not the only ones who sent volunteers. For almost the entire day, volunteers with the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA) were present at the precinct. These volunteers distributed the MCEA’s “Apple Ballot” – a district-customized endorsement list appearing on a red, apple-shaped handout. The MCEA volunteers did not tell voters that the Apple Ballot candidates were endorsed by the Teachers Union. Instead, they asked them, “Would you like to know who teachers are voting for?” The majority of the voters said yes, took the ballot, and read it before entering the booth. The fact that the public schools were closed on primary day no doubt helped the MCEA field an army of these volunteers across the county.

Many voters had pre-conceived opinions about some of the top-ticket races, especially Cardin-Mfume for U.S. Senate and Leggett-Silverman for County Executive (both races in which the Teachers made no endorsements). However, most had no opinion on the down-ticket races such as county council, state legislature and school board. That is where the Apple Ballot made the biggest difference. After all, who wants to vote against teachers?

The MCEA endorsed 41 county, statehouse and school board candidates. Of those candidates, 30 had contested races. Apple Ballot candidates won 27 races and lost 3. That’s an astounding 90% success rate.

The Teachers had decisive impacts on the following races:


At-Large County Council

Montgomery County has four at-large county council seats, and all were up for election. Three incumbents were running: George Leventhal, Nancy Floreen and Mike Subin. Ten challengers were also running, of whom the strongest were Marc Elrich and Duchy Trachtenberg. Conventional wisdom would dictate that the three incumbents would cruise to victory as the ten challengers diluted each other’s votes. But the Teachers had other ideas.

MCEA was upset that Floreen and Subin had supported delaying a 2003 cost-of-living increase that was due to teachers under their contract because of budget problems. As a result, Leventhal and challengers Elrich and Trachtenberg made the Apple Ballot, while incumbents Floreen and Subin were excluded. The Apple candidates won the top three slots, while Floreen earned the fourth seat and Subin lost. Subin’s loss was particularly notable because he was a 20-year council veteran and the long-time head of the council’s education committee.

District 5 County Council

Two candidates were running for this Silver Spring-Takoma Park-Wheaton-Kensington seat: school board member and council staffer Valerie Ervin, and Rock the Vote political director Hans Riemer. Ervin had the endorsements of most Montgomery County organizations and the advantages of council connections and a long residency. Riemer outraised Ervin $118,000 to $57, 000 – far outpacing Ervin in individual contributions – and knocked on at least three times as many doors. Most bloggers were calling this a close race. But the Apple was telling voters to support Erv