Jim Humphrey, who submits columns written by Montgomery County Civic Federation (MCCF) members to the Sentinel, sent us the following statement about a recent column on Gaithersburg West. The column, written by MCCF Land Use Chair Arnold Gordon, alleged racism on the part of Johns Hopkins because their development plan created jobs in Montgomery County rather than Baltimore.
Adam -
In 2004, the Montgomery Sentinel newspaper extended a generous invitation to the Montgomery County Civic Federation to submit a weekly column, which we titled the "Federation Corner." The MCCF makes this column space available to its members to weigh in on issues of importance to them. The following disclaimer appears at the end of the column: "The views expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect formal positions adopted by the Federation."
In a recent column ("Gaithersburg West plan is a monstrosity," October 1, 2009), author and MCCF delegate Arnold Gordon posed a question regarding the possible motives behind the Johns Hopkins University proposal to develop the Belward Farm which the Federation did not raise in its official position on the Gaithersburg West Sector Plan. As the current coordinator of "Federation Corner" column submissions, I defend Mr. Gordon's right to pose whatever question he thinks is relevant to the discussion. The MCCF firmly believes that such a vehicle for free speech is useful and needed, while at the same time we must remind readers that personal views expressed in this column should not be mischaracterized as those of the Federation.
Jim Humphrey
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Civic Fed: Accusation of Racism Against Johns Hopkins is Free Speech
Sunday, September 20, 2009
County Executive Comments on Growth Policy
Jim Humphrey, Chair of the Montgomery County Civic Federation's Land Use Committee, wrote this column in reference to the County Executive's comments on the new growth policy.
"Federation Corner" column
The Montgomery Sentinel - September 17, 2009
County Executive comments on growth policy
by Jim Humphrey, Chair, MCCF Planning and Land Use Committee
This week's Federation Corner is a follow-up to the column published last week ("County Executive silent on plans to improve traffic tests," Montgomery Sentinel--September 10, 2009). In that column, I asked why County Executive Ike Leggett had been so slow to weigh in on making improvements to the transportation test approved by the County Council as part of the growth policy two years ago, since at that time he declared it was not effective, reliable or easily understood.
This past Tuesday, September 15, Mr. Leggett transmitted a memo to Council containing his comments on the new round of changes to the growth policy being proposed by the Planning Board, and in that memo he reiterates his concern about the transportation test adopted in 2007.
"A key concern that I raised two years ago is that the test for transportation capacity, 'Policy Area Mobility Review' or 'PAMR,' is fundamentally flawed," Leggett states in his September 15 memo. "Despite Planning Board review of PAMR, they did not recommend an alternative to PAMR."
"Montgomery County needs a Growth Policy that results in achieving balance in the timing of private development and public infrastructure to avoid failure of our transportation system, overburdening of schools or economic stagnation through moratoria," the County Executive continued. "The importance of a sound Growth Policy is even more compelling with the recent action of the Council removing staging from the Germantown Employment Center Sector Plan. If staging of development is not to be included in Master Plans, then the role of the Growth Policy remains a key mechanism to ensure that there will be adequate public facilities to support new development."
Now that sounds like the same County Executive who summed up his concerns with the growth policy transportation test in a 2007 Washington Post editorial by stating "We need a new traffic test to ensure that adequate road and transit capacity is in place before development goes forward. Tests are not tests if everyone gets a passing grade. What we put on paper should reflect the reality that county residents experience on the roads every day. We should not adopt a policy that claims there is adequate transportation infrastructure to accommodate growth in any area where the traffic stacks up regularly."
I am still puzzled that Mr. Leggett has taken two years to work on an alternative to PAMR, something he said could and should be done by mid-2008. Still, I am pleased to note his resolve in completing that effort in the next six to nine months, and offering an improved transportation test to Council for their consideration by the middle of next year.
"We need an alternative to PAMR," Mr. Leggett forcefully states in his memo submitted to Council this week. "I have directed the Department of Transportation to hire a consultant who will work to develop a workable alternative to PAMR. Through that effort, which will include outreach to Planning Board and Council staffs, specific stakeholders and the general public, I expect we will have a series of policy discussions that should lead to a more transparent and easily understood Policy Area (Transportation) Review."
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the Council and Planning Board staff will work in earnest with the Executive Branch in crafting reliable, effective and easily understood tests for traffic and transit capacity to ensure there is adequate infrastructure before allowing new development projects to go forward. After all, that's the law in Montgomery County--the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. And the key purpose of the growth policy, as Mr. Leggett notes, is in implementing that law by staging the pace of growth to match the ability of the county government to provide supportive infrastructure to accommodate that growth.
In his September 15 memo, the County Executive included comments on several other changes to the Growth Policy which the Planning Board has recommended to the County Council. And a great many of those comments are in line with the Growth Policy position which the delegates to the Montgomery County Civic Federation adopted at our September 14 monthly meeting. We can only hope that the County Council will pay close attention to the County Executive, the Civic Federation, and county residents concerned about increasing traffic congestion, inadequate transit and overburdened schools, when they hold their hearing on the Growth Policy the evening of September 22.
The views expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect formal positions adopted by the Federation. To submit an 800-1000 word column for consideration, send as an email attachment to theelms518@earthlink.net
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Slow Growth Leader Calls Out Leggett
Jim Humphrey, the Chair of the Montgomery County Civic Federation's Land Use Committee and the intellectual leader of the county's slow growth movement, wrote the following Sentinel column last week. In it, he takes County Executive Ike Leggett to task for not taking a position on the transportation capacity test used to assess development projects, a key part of his inaugural speech. Without support from the slow-growth community, Leggett may not have become Executive. If anti-development activists sit on their hands next year and Leggett gets a decent challenger, what will happen?
"Federation Corner" column
The Montgomery Sentinel - September 10, 2009
County Executive silent on improving traffic test
by Jim Humphrey, Chair, Planning and Land Use Committee, Montgomery County Civic Federation
Two years ago, the County Council approved a new transportation test to identify areas of the county with unacceptably high levels of traffic congestion or insufficient transit service to handle commuter demand during weekday morning or evening rush hours. The test was named the Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR). The idea behind the test is that the Planning Board could approve more building projects in areas found to have inadequate transportation capacity, but only if the developers of those projects made contributions toward improving the roads or transit systems in the area.
Admittedly, aspects of the PAMR test are difficult for the average citizen to understand, so difficult that one Councilmember commented she would need a PhD to explain it to her constituency. Those of us who opposed the elimination of the old transportation test by the previous Council in 2003 were pleased to see a new test approved. But there were some, including County Executive Ike Leggett, who thought the new test should not be approved without improvements first being made.
In a memo to Council dated October 27, 2007, Mr. Leggett stated "I am concerned that the Policy Area Mobility Review proposed by the Planning Board provides results that do not accurately reflect actual transportation capacity, is difficult to understand and thus is not transparent to County residents. We need an approach that is understandable, that will yield results that truly model the impact of proposed development on our transportation system, and that reflects actual transportation policies of the County."
In the October 2007 memo, County Executive Leggett continued by asking the Council not to adopt a model with questionable results, but rather "take an additional six to nine months to develop an effective, reliable, and readily understood broader policy area review that will yield the results that we seek--achieving balance between Master Plan land uses and supporting transportation infrastructure. We need a transportation test that stages development based on the County's adopted Master Plans."
County Executive Leggett went on to suggest a process for improving the proposed PAMR test. "My staff, the Planning Board and County Council staff have a wealth of knowledge, understanding and expertise on these matters. They should work together over the next six months on a model that successfully stages growth and collectively come back to the Council with a plan that we know will be successful."
The Council forged ahead and approved PAMR in November 2007, against the wishes of Mr. Leggett, but requested a study be conducted by the Planning Board with the aid of the County Executive to evaluate alternatives to PAMR as a policy area level transportation test. The study was to have considered alternative methods to calculate the key components of PAMR, relative arterial mobility (that is, adequacy of roads) and relative transit mobility (adequacy of transit), and was due to be submitted to the Council by August 1, 2008. The study was submitted to the Council by the Board, but to the best of my knowledge it contained no suggestions from the County Executive for improving PAMR or replacing it with any alternative test.
The Council is once again preparing to consider possible changes to the county growth policy, as they do every two years in odd-numbered years. And once again, County Executive Leggett is urging that an alternative transportation test to PAMR be formulated and adopted by Council. But neither he nor his staff members are offering any concrete suggestions as to what that alternative should be. And, although the Council by law must adopt the growth policy for the upcoming two years prior to November 15, the County Executive's staff now claims they will are considering hiring a consultant to help develop an alternative to PAMR, and may have a suggestion to offer to Council in six to nine months.
One must ask why the County Executive has been so slow to weigh in on making improvements to a transportation test that two years ago he declared was not effective, reliable or easily understood, yet one which in the mean time is being applied to development approvals. And it's not as if Mr. Leggett fails to grasp that the residents of the county are concerned about increasing traffic congestion.
In his inaugural address, delivered in December 2006, Leggett stated that we had many problems to solve, and that unmonitored growth and traffic congestion continue to plague use. He noted, "The frustration of sitting in traffic is not anyone's idea of how they would like to spend their precious time." He continued, "There are going to be many decisions made—some that will be obvious and easy, and many that will be very difficult, some popular and some not so. But I assure you, during my tenure as County Executive, we will make the necessary decisions and they will be the right decisions for Montgomery County."
We need the assertive voice of the County Executive to weigh in on the growth policy, Mr. Leggett, and in a timely fashion prior to the November 15 deadline for Council action. Otherwise, the Council will make their decision without you.
NOTE: The program for the September 14 meeting of the Civic Federation is on the county growth policy, explaining recommendations from the Planning Board and alternative MCCF recommendations. The meeting will begin at 7:45 p.m. in the first floor auditorium of the County Council Building in Rockville.
The views expressed in this column do not necessarily reflect formal positions adopted by the Federation. To submit an 800-1000 word column for consideration, send as an email attachment to theelms518@earthlink.net
Thursday, April 30, 2009
On the Death of a Friend
By Jim Humphrey, Chair, Montgomery County Civic Federation Planning and Land Use Committee. Reprinted from the Montgomery Sentinel.
I was shocked and saddened this past Monday to learn that Wayne Goldstein, my friend and fellow civic activist, had died suddenly that morning. He had suffered a heart attack while walking in to the County Council Building in Rockville to participate in a hearing on expansion plans for Suburban Hospital. It is always a shock when someone so vibrant and lively is taken so suddenly. But how appropriate, I thought, that he had left us while engaged in the activity that he enjoyed so much and did so well--advocating, as an unpaid volunteer, on behalf of the residents of Montgomery County.
Marc Elrich and Wayne Goldstein.
After saying a silent prayer for his family and loved ones, my thoughts turned to the magnitude of the loss. Since the mid-1990s, Wayne had been a fixture in the civic community. The depth of his knowledge on issues ranging from land use and education, to the environment and historic preservation, and his experience in navigating the processes of local government were legendary.
Wayne would often call late in the evening to discuss some development project or zoning issue confronting one of the county's communities, usually after attending one or more public meetings earlier that evening. Who would I have those talks with now? If I was stumped as to what aspects of an issue should be focused on when drafting MCCF testimony for a hearing before the County Council or Planning Board, he always provided wise counsel, invariably suggesting an approach I had not considered. Who will provide that counsel now? And in those rare times of frustration, when the likelihood of a positive outcome on an issue made my involvement seem nearly pointless to me, Wayne was the person who had lifted my spirits and urged me to get back in the game. Who, I thought, will be my cheerleader now?
Over the past few days my phone line has been kept busy by community leaders from all over the county, calling to relate their shock and grief over the death of our friend and colleague. And in the sharing of stories with these callers, I came to realize that one of Wayne's most remarkable attributes was that each person I spoke with felt they had had a special relationship with Wayne...that their issues of importance had received particular attention from Wayne...that he had boosted their spirits at critical times by focusing solely on them. This quality was the more remarkable because he stayed so busy. As I would jokingly say to him, "wherever two or three county residents are gathered together to confront an issue that could negatively impact the quality of life in their neighborhood, you're there too--organizing, educating, and supporting their efforts."
And when Wayne was done for the day (attending all of the meetings or hearings he could cram into his schedule), and perhaps spent precious personal time visiting his mom or girlfriend, like many other civic activists I've known he would often stay up late into the night writing, researching, and responding to emails. I would sit amazed when receiving one of his research emails containing a list stretching yards in length of links to internet articles he'd found on a particular topic, with his personal notes tacked on each entry. A small example of the depth of his research was the 3-article series Wayne wrote as a Federation Corner columnist in January of this year on the problem of breaks in the pre-cast concrete water and sewer pipes used by WSSC. The knowledge he acquired helped educate both citizens and elected and appointed officials alike on a whole host of problems and their possible solutions.
For all his hard work and dedication, however, Mr. Goldstein was not a man without humor. He always wore a hat, indoors or out, and often one themed to the event which he was attending. I remember well one Planning Board session where Wayne strode into the hearing room wearing boots and a white cowboy hat and announced in his testimony that he'd heard a new sheriff was needed in town to clean up the particular mess the Board was confronting that day. The twinkle in his eye and his customary Cheshire cat grin always gave one the impression that he knew some juicy bit of news he couldn't wait to share with you, or that he suspected you knew something which he couldn't wait to hear.
Another remarkable aspect to Wayne was that his ego was never at issue. He volunteered his time and abilities on behalf of the residents of the county without a care for personal gain. But, thankfully, his efforts did receive richly deserved recognition.
Wayne was awarded the 2008 Educational Excellence Award from the Maryland Historical Trust Board of Trustees, for planning the COMSAT charrette as a means of showing the developer/owner that it was possible to profitably redevelop the site while retaining and reusing the historic building on the property, which was designed by world-renowned architect Cesar Pelli. (And, when Wayne felt the success of the effort might be enhanced by Mr. Pelli's attendance, he simply contacted the architect who willingly agreed to travel to the county and participate.) Wayne served as MCCF Vice President from 2004 to 2006 and President from 2006 to 2008, and was awarded the Star Cup last May in recognition of his outstanding service to the Federation and the people of the county. And in a survey conducted by a local political blogger in the fall of last year, respondents voted Wayne one of the "most influential non-elected people in Montgomery County."
Wayne Goldstein was a one-of-a-kind personality and a truly gentle man. And he will be sorely missed.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Hijacking of Planning Underway
By Jim Humphrey, Chair, Montgomery County Civic Federation Planning and Land Use Committee.
In 1973, under authority granted by the State of Maryland, Montgomery County enacted its Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). This law requires that before new development or redevelopment is approved in an area of the county, the Planning Board must find that public schools in the area have the capacity to accommodate students who will move into any new housing, and that the roads, transit and public health and safety services in the area are sufficient to serve the jobs and housing which would be created.
Admittedly, this system has its flaws because it allows new development to be approved based on a five to six year projection of capital improvements--added schools, roads and transit capacity, and new or expanded police and fire/rescue facilities--which the county intends to fund. In some cases officials have misjudged the amount of additional infrastructure needed to support planned growth. And sometimes county budget cutbacks have dictated that infrastructure projects could not be funded and built on the proposed timetable.
But rather than fix these flaws in the current system, the Planning Department is proposing doing away with the capacity concept. In a January 30, 2009 memo to the Planning Board, Department Director Rollin Stanley recommends that we change the direction of the Growth Policy from "what you cannot do" (his words for the current system of matching development approval to infrastructure capacity) to "where and how we should be building, adding sustainability to the evaluation." Stanley proposes the four key elements of a new "sustainable" Growth Policy should be Connectivity, Diversity, Design and Environment.
These concepts may be worthy goals when updating our community master plans, which are the agreed-upon blueprints for WHAT elements we want to see in our communities as they are built out or redeveloped, and WHERE and HOW those elements are sited in relation to each other. But the Growth Policy must address HOW MUCH more density should be allowed--how many more dwelling units and how many more jobs--and WHEN that density should be approved to be built.
Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson is making the rounds, too, addressing community groups and peddling this misapplied design jargon as the newest fad in growth planning. This sounds like the development industry slogan "It's not how dense you make it, it's how you make it dense," which is nonsense. The crucial element of a Growth Policy is its control over how much new development is allowed.
Montgomery County now has close to a million people. And 160,000 more jobs could be created, and another 80,000 to 90,000 more housing units could be built, under existing zoning--enough to accommodate another 210,000 population. In addition, the three master plans the Planning Department is now revising for Council approval--White Flint, Germantown, and a new "Science City" west of Gaithersburg--would add another 33,000 housing units and 121,000 jobs to the numbers already allowed. But since our county policy has not established a limit for growth, also referred to as optimum scale, our planners are basically throwing darts at a blank wall and telling everyone they're hitting the target.
So why are Stanley and Hanson pushing so hard to steer us away from a Growth Policy that uses concrete formulas to calculate infrastructure needs? The answer is partly related to the Planning Department project to rewrite the county Zoning Ordinance. This effort proposes replacing all solely commercial or industrial zone categories with mixed-use zoning, relying on master plans to guide the mix of uses and density targeted for any given area. But as any resident knows, if they have tried to insure that development of a property in their community adhere to the master plan guidance for the site, a master plan is just a set of recommendations with only the zoning applied to properties being legally enforceable.
If only the standards imposed by the zoning are enforceable, then how can the county plan for adequate public facilities and services to support development if no one knows what will be built under flexible zoning? We won't have long to wait to find out because the revised Twinbrook Sector Plan, approved by the County Council in December 2008, applied just such flexible zoning to 491 acres of property.
In a December 2007 memo to the Planning Board regarding the Twinbrook Sector Plan revision then underway, Planning Department staff wrote "the estimate of (housing) units is a moving target because it is hard to judge future market demand, and this is compounded in the flexible environment of a mixed-use zone." Staffers in what might more appropriately be called the "Guessing Department" have decided that up to 3,777 housing units might be built in mixed-use projects in a part of the Twinbrook area that currently has no housing, enough to generate up to 430 school-age children. But, should the market be better for residential development than office and retail space, developers could seek approval of 3 to 4 times more housing. The county won't know what will be built in Twinbrook until the projects are approved by the Planning Board, and will then scramble to provide the needed infrastructure.
A related problem is being created by the Planning Department as it undertakes the revision of the master plans for Germantown and "Science City." Planners are proposing increased density in these two areas due to "proximity to transit," but the Corridor Cities Transitway stations in these communities may not be built for 15 to 20 years. Still, the development approvals could start right away, if these master plan revisions are approved by Council. Transit-oriented levels of density being proposed by so-called expert planners for areas where there is no significant mass transit system, nor will be for some time? Nothing about this scheme deserves to be called good planning. No wonder Stanley and Hanson want to dump the current Growth Policy which insists on adequate public facilities before development can proceed. They can't show off their superior planning skills if constrained by a little thing like the APFO.
No county resident should be lulled into complacency by thinking that this is happening somewhere else, not to them and not in their community. As Director Stanley wrote in his January 30 memo, "Every strip mall in the County, or large surface parking lot, should be considered a potential site for mixed use development of appropriate scale." Planning staff are already plotting the revision of the Wheaton and Kensington master plans; and, White Oak, Glenmont, Westbard, Ashton, Langley Park and even the undeveloped 204 acre Mess property northeast of Olney have been targeted as growth areas. The 400 to 500 foot tall buildings which could soon be built at the White Flint Metro Station might be proposed for these communities next.
This year, as it does every two years, the County Council will consider possible revision of the County Growth Policy as part of the re-approval process. We must hope that our representatives understand the importance of a land use process that lets the county government decide what growth will occur and when, not one that forces it to respond to the shifting trends of a profit-driven development industry. It's just good planning.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
On Political Pulse
Jim Humphrey, the Chairman of the Montgomery County Civic Federations Planning & Land Use Committee, will be on Political Pulse on:
Thursday, November 8th at 9 p.m. and
Tuesday, November 13th at 9:30 p.m.
to talk about the County Council's vote next week on the development growth policy in the County. This is a hot topic and Jim Humphrey is quite knowledgeable.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Growth Policy and School Capacity
School capacity is a very sensitive topic in Montgomery County. People concerned that their schools are already overcrowded will want to watch upcoming County Council decisions on revisions to the County's growth policy carefully. Jim Humphrey sent me the following information which explains why fees for development may increase if their is crowding in schools but development may nonetheless continue:
If the final vote on the growth policy, now scheduled to take place on November 13, mirrors the straw vote of the majority of Councilmembers on Tuesday, October 30, then the Schools Test will change a bit from the Planning Board's recommendation. The vote supported setting 105% of MCPS program capacity as the point at which a Schools Facility Payment would be required of a developer--a fee for each student generated by a new residential project on the grade level (elementary, middle, high school) that was over the 105% level in that cluster. A majority voted to set 120% of program capacity as the cap above which development approval theoretically stops, however a developer could offer to build additional classroom capacity to accommodate students from their projects on the grade level over threshold OR PAY A FEE EQUAL TO THE COST.
Long story short, if a cluster is either over the 105% or 120% level a developer might still get approval of a new project if they agree to pay a sufficient amount. Of course, the additional classroom capacity might not be built for years, since MCPS rarely approves capacity increase projects of less than 4 classrooms at a time. So meanwhile our schools could become more and more overcrowded while project approvals generate revenue for MCPS that does not result in the timely provision of increased classroom capacity.
