Following is the press release from the County Council.
Francoise Carrier Named New Chair of Montgomery County Planning Board
County Council Votes Unanimously for Rockville Resident
ROCKVILLE, Md., May 18, 2010—The Montgomery County Council on May 18 voted unanimously to name Francoise Carrier of Rockville to a four-year term as the new chair of the Montgomery County Planning Board. She will fill the seat of Royce Hanson, whose term will expire on June 14. Dr. Hanson did not apply for reappointment.
The appointment will now go to County Executive Isiah Leggett for approval. If approved, Ms. Carrier will take office on or after June 14.
Ms. Carrier is a director and hearing examiner with the Montgomery County Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings. She has worked for that office since 2001, carrying out the functions of an administrative law judge in land use and human rights cases, presiding over approximately 15-25 trial-type hearings per year and managing pre-hearing procedural matters. She issues detailed recommendations in cases decided by the County Council or another agency, and opinions in cases decided directly by the County’s hearing examiner.
A graduate of Stanford Law School with a background in economics and land use law, she previously worked for three Washington, D.C., law firms over a period of 17 years.
“This is a tremendous honor,” Ms. Carrier told the Council following her appointment. “I am excited about serving the County in this challenging position.”
Prior to appointing Ms. Carrier, the Council set the salary for the position at $160,000.
A total of 16 people originally applied for the position. In addition to Ms. Carrier, the Council also interviewed Peter Fosselman of Kensington, Tedi Osias of Chevy Chase and John Robinson of Kensington.
No more than three members of the Planning Board may be from the same political party, and all members must be residents and registered voters of Montgomery County when appointed. Members serve four-year terms and are limited to two full terms. The position could have been filled by a Democrat, a Republican; a voter who declined to affiliate with a party; or by a member of another party officially recognized by the Montgomery County Board of Elections.
Ms. Carrier is a Democrat. Other members of the Planning Board are Joseph Alfandre, Democrat; Norman Dreyfuss, a Republican; Amy Presley, a Republican; and Marye Wells-Harley, a Democrat.
The Planning Board serves as the Council’s principal adviser on land use planning and community planning. Planning Board members also serve as Commissioners of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
The Planning Board’s responsibilities with regard to planning include preparation and amendment of County General Plan; preparation and amendment of Master Plans and functional plans; formulation of subdivision regulations; preparation of or recommendations on text amendments to the County Zoning Ordinance; implementation of the subdivision process by reviewing and approving all preliminary plans, site plans and other plans for development; advice on the planning implication of capital facilities and programs of the County government, Montgomery College, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and Montgomery County Public Schools; commenting, under its Mandatory Referral authority, on plans for public facilities of local, state and federal agencies; and approval of the work program and the annual operating budget for the Planning Department and the Commission’s bi-county offices.
The Planning Board sits as the Park Commission and approves the annual Parks Department operating budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget; land acquisition contracts and major development contracts for parks; development plans for individual park facilities; policies for park operations; and park user fees.
The Montgomery County Planning Board meets all day every Thursday and often meets on one other evening a week. The entire Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission meets the third Wednesday of every month.
# # #
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Francoise Carrier Named as Next Planning Chair
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Carrier Aces Interview, Likely to be Next Planning Chair
Multiple council building sources report that Francoise Carrier, the Director of the county’s Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings, hit a home run in the interviews for Planning Board Chair yesterday. One Council Member said she was "head and shoulders" above the other three candidates, who are former Planning Board Member John Robinson, Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman and Housing and Opportunities Commission Member Tedi Osias.
"People are going to like her," said another Council Member. "People will see that the Planning Board will be in good hands." Yet another Council Member said, "It was off the charts how good she was." This person praised Carrier's offer to provide alternatives to the council along with master plan drafts, something which has not been done before. "She demonstrated that she would be our partner in that. She knows her job is to work with us."
At the moment, we believe Carrier has at least eight of the council's nine votes. The council will select the next Planning Chair on Tuesday.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Hanson Blasts Leggett’s Proposed Police Consolidation
In a blistering letter sent to the County Council, outgoing Planning Chair Royce Hanson is blasting a new proposal by County Executive Ike Leggett to consolidate the county’s Police Department with M-NCPPC’s Park Police. Hanson’s opposition to the proposal is not unusual, but the blunt language in his letter certainly is!
In his latest round of proposed budget cuts, Leggett estimated that “consolidated command, combined call dispatch and redeployment of Park Police officers” would save $2 million. Hanson disagrees, saying the proposal “is bad public policy and management,” “imperils the safety of park users, especially in down-county parks” and will not save any money. Hanson calls the proposal “another attempt by the Executive to wrest power over the park system and park land.” Hanson claims that the average cost of a Park Police work year is $101,000 compared to the $117,000-123,000 average cost of a county police work year. He says, “There has been no underlying analysis of the assumptions used to reach the purported savings nor any impact statement.” Translation: Hanson thinks the $2 million number is pure fiction.
Hanson summarizes his position with this statement:The proposal is a first step toward destruction of a great park system, and ultimately, the [Park and Planning] Commission. The Executive has made no secret of his interest in taking control of the parks. Even though it is clear that the only way money might be actually saved through a merger of Commission functions and County functions is through a merger of the [county’s] Department of Recreation into the [Commission’s] Department of Parks. Such a merger was accomplished 40 years ago in Prince George’s County. The result is a far richer recreation program than we have in Montgomery County. By dismembering the Park Police the predictable result will be a decline in park safety, which will then be used as an excuse for transferring the entire department and its management of all of the County’s parkland to the Executive. This will place 10% of the County’s land area that has been acquired over the years and dedicated to active and passive parks, conservation areas, and environmentally protected areas under direct political control, rather than in the trust of the independent Park and Planning Commission. This is a result that I shall oppose with every bit of energy and resolve I can muster.
We reproduce the entire letter below.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Next Planning Board Chair will Likely be a Woman (Updated)
Five candidates are vying to succeed Royce Hanson as Montgomery County’s next Planning Board Chair. We can not predict who will win, but our sources in Rockville lead us to believe that the County Council will make history by appointing the first woman ever to lead the Planning Department next month.
The two leading candidates at the moment are Tedi Osias, who is a lobbyist for the county’s Housing Opportunities Commission and has worked as Chief of Staff to former Council Member Howie Denis and with the Board of Appeals, and Francoise Carrier, who is the Director of the county’s Office of Zoning and Administrative Hearings. Both have experience with one of the most critical duties of the Planning Chair: dealing with community members on land-use issues. Both are well-known to Council Members because they have worked directly with them.
The other three candidates – Planning Board member and developer Joe Alfandre, former Planning Board Vice-Chair John Robinson and Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman – have been lobbying the council for the job for months. Robinson has wanted it for years. If any of these three had five votes, the council would not have extended the deadline in March.
Part of the reason for the council’s delay is that no one is seen as an ideal candidate to replace Hanson by many Council Members. When your author asked one Council Member who was looking good for the position, this person replied, “No one – on any level.” Another remarked, “None of the candidates have broad management skills which is a challenge with a $120M, 800+ person operation that has been operating too autonomously for too long.” Osias and Carrier are not managers while Fosselman hired a town manager to run Kensington.
Both Osias and Carrier have supporters but neither has locked it up. We believe that neither Alfandre nor Robinson has any support. Council Members are divided as to whether Fosselman is in the mix. Two said he was, another called him a “possible dark horse” and a fourth said, “Pete doesn’t stand a chance although he thinks he does.” Fosselman’s testimony on the Purple Line, which called for continued study of alternative routes to light rail on the Georgetown Branch, was spotlighted by rail opponents and may be a problem for some Council Members. Slow-growth civic activists have begun emailing the council on behalf of Carrier, which will bolster her in the eyes of some Council Members but hurt her in the eyes of others.
We believe the council is split down the middle between Osias and Carrier. At the moment, one Council Member favors Carrier, one favors Carrier with Fosselman as a second choice, two favor Osias, two see the job as between Osias and Carrier, one sees it as between Osias, Carrier and Fosselman and two have not indicated an opinion. That is about as up in the air as it gets.
Whoever gets the job as Planning Chair may regret it. The Department faces years of budget cuts, continuous demands for master plans, project reviews and growth policy reviews, a possible merger of its Parks Department with the county’s Department of Recreation and the ever-complicated relationships on the County Council. The council could very well make history by picking a woman as the next Planning Chair, but that does not mean the next chapter in the Department’s own history will be an easy one.
Update: We made a mistake in this post. One of our sources tells us that Caroline Freeland was Planning Chair from 1963 through 1971. So Osias or Carrier would be the first female chair in thirty-nine years.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
ACT Sends Questionnaire to Planning Board Chair Candidates
Following are the questions Action Committee for Transit (ACT) has for Planning Board Chair candidates. ACT is asking for responses by May 4. The County Council will pick the new Chair next month.
ACT Questionnaire for Candidates for Planning Board Chair
1) Do you support the Locally Preferred Alternative selected by Gov. O'Malley for the Purple Line, including an at-grade light rail line with a trail alongside it on the Georgetown Branch right of way between Bethesda and Silver Spring?
2) Would you support further study of alternatives to the Locally Preferred Alternative, such as heavy rail or single-tracking, which might delay the building of the Purple Line?
3) Do you support the current growth policy which ties development to the movement of motor vehicles, or would you replace the "PAMR" and "LATR" tests with a growth policy that gives transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel equal weight with automobiles?
4) Are minimum parking requirements, which make transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists pay for parking they don't use and thereby subsidize drivers, wise policy in places with good transit service?
5) The Parks Department's current policy is to clear snow only from roadways used by motor vehicles and not from roadways used exclusively by bicycles and pedestrians, even when the roadway used by bicycles and pedestrians carries far more people. Will you reverse this policy?
6) Will you end the Planning Department's use of biased language that treats only automobile travel as the norm, such as referring to an intersection widening that worsens pedestrian travel conditions as an "improvement" and describing non-automobile travel as "alternative" transportation?
Responses were requested by May 4 and will be posted here after that date.
Thursday, March 04, 2010
County Council Extends Deadline for Planning Board Chairman Applicants
The County Council has extended the deadline for applicants to apply for the Planning Board Chairman position from Monday, March 8 to Friday, April 2. This is a sure sign that the council has not coalesced around any of the three current contenders, who include Planning Board Member Joe Alfandre, former Planning Board Member John Robinson and current Mayor of Kensington Pete Fosselman. We reproduce the press release below.
Montgomery County Council Extends Deadline for Applicants for Chair of Montgomery County Planning Board
New Deadline for Applications Is 5 p.m., Friday, April 2
ROCKVILLE, Md., March 4, 2010—The Montgomery County Council has extended the deadline for applicants who are interested in filling the position on the Montgomery County Planning Board for the expiring term of Royce Hanson (Democrat). His term will expire on June 14, 2010. Dr. Hanson, who is chair of the Planning Board, has indicated that he will not apply for reappointment.
The Council expects to designate the appointee for this position as chair, with the chair serving on a full-time basis. In appointing a chairman for the board, the Council will establish the salary for the chairman within a range of $160,000 to $180,000. The deadline for applications to be received is now 5 p.m. on Friday, April 2.
No more than three members of the Planning Board may be from the same political party, and all members must be residents and registered voters of Montgomery County when appointed. Members serve four-year terms and are limited to two full terms. The position can be filled by a Democrat, Republican; a voter who declines to affiliate with a party; or by a member of another party officially recognized by the Montgomery County Board of Elections.
In addition to Dr. Hanson, current board members are Joseph Alfandre, a Democrat; Norman Dreyfuss, a Republican; Amy Presley, a Republican; and Marye Wells-Harley, a Democrat. Annual compensation for Board members is currently $30,000.
The Planning Board serves as the Council’s principal adviser on land use planning and community planning. Planning Board members also serve as Commissioners of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
The Planning Board’s responsibilities with regard to planning include preparation and amendment of County General Plan; preparation and amendment of Master Plans and functional plans; formulation of subdivision regulations; preparation of or recommendations on text amendments to the County Zoning Ordinance; implementation of the subdivision process by reviewing and approving all preliminary plans, site plans and other plans for development; advice on the planning implication of capital facilities and programs of the County government, Montgomery College, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and Montgomery County Public Schools; commenting, under its Mandatory Referral authority, on plans for public facilities of local, state and federal agencies; and approval of the work program and the annual operating budget for the Planning Department and the Commission’s bi-county offices.
The Planning Board sits as the Park Commission and approves the annual Parks Department operating budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget; land acquisition contracts and major development contracts for parks; development plans for individual park facilities; policies for park operations; and park user fees.
The Montgomery County Planning Board meets all day every Thursday and often meets on one other evening a week. The entire Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission meets the third Wednesday of every month.
Letters expressing interest, including a resume listing professional and civic experience, should be addressed to: Council President Nancy Floreen, County Council Office, Stella B. Werner Council Office Building, 100 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20850. Letters must be received no later than 5 p.m., Friday, April 2. It is the Council’s policy not to consider applications received after the deadline. After the April 2 closing date, Councilmembers will review the letters of application and select applicants for interviews.
Letters of application are made public as part of the appointment process. The names of all applicants are published and available for public review and interviews are conducted in public. A resume of professional and civic experience should be included with letters of application. A financial statement of assets, debts, income and family property interests will be required of all applicants. Council staff will contact applicants about the details of the financial statement. Only the candidate appointed will be required to make the financial statement available to the public.
# # #
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
On the Next Planning Board Chairman
Last week, Marc Korman wrote about the people who have served as Montgomery County Planning Board Chairmen in the past. The County Council will soon decide on the next occupant of that seat. We have a few thoughts on the qualifications of that person.
First, we should bear in mind the true functions of the position. Many people assume that the Planning Board Chairman sets policy for growth and development in the county. That is not entirely true. The Chairman certainly has a say on the Annual Growth Policy and, as one of five Planning Board Members, votes on zoning recommendations to the council as well as site plans. But the ultimate authority on growth policy is the County Council itself. The council votes on the Annual Growth Policy and sometimes changes it substantially from the wishes of the Planning Department (as they just did). They also vote on master plans, zoning text amendments and zoning changes. Changes in the County Council, not of Planning Board Chairmen, determine shifts in development rules.
The Planning Board Chairman has three critical functions.
1. Administration
The Montgomery County Parks and Planning Departments, which the Chairman oversees, have vast responsibilities. Their staff drafts Annual Growth Policy revisions and master plans. They review every new project for zoning conformance, traffic tests and site planning. They administer the county’s cherished park system. Their combined FY 2010 budget totals $115 million and they employ more than 1,000 people. The Planning Board Chairman must be a strong manager. That is particularly true in the wake of the Clarksburg scandal, after which Royce Hanson was brought in to establish law and order. The Chairman must also oversee the talented but tone-deaf Planning Director Rollin Stanley, who could flourish with steady guidance but will likely run wild without it.
2. Guardian of Process
In deciding on master plans, zoning recommendations, site plans and just about everything else, the Planning Board hears from a wide variety of parties including developers, property owners, civic associations and individuals. The board owes it to all of those parties to carefully consider their views regardless of its ultimate decision. The Chairman is the board’s leader and sets its tone. This is a very difficult job as parties who do not prevail before the board can become quite angry and hurl all sorts of irresponsible accusations. It takes a very secure and steady person to stand up to that pressure and treat everyone fairly under those circumstances. Weak personalities will fold.
3. Relationship with the County Council
The County Executive’s primary relationship with the Planning Department is in considering and proposing its budget to the County Council. The council, which sets that budget, votes on many recommendations by the board and appoints its members, is far more critical to the department. By all accounts, the council is rather fragmented at the moment and will stay that way at least through the 2010 elections. If all the incumbents return, their inability to work together could continue for a long time. Navigating the raging, shifting currents of Rockville will be a taxing but necessary task for the next Planning Board Chairman. The Chairman will have to know when to stand up, when to stand down and when to compromise – and with whom to do each of the above. Only a shrewd negotiator with stature and experience can get that done.
If the above requirements seem demanding, they are. But if the council does not find a truly exceptional person for the job, the entire county will suffer. The model for the kind of person it should not pick is Derick Berlage, a three-term County Council Member who applied to become Planning Board Chairman in 2002. The Chairman at that time was Arthur Holmes, who had assumed the position in 2001 due to the retirement of Bill Hussmann. Holmes wanted to serve as Chairman longer, but was disqualified due to term limits since he had served for almost two terms on the board. Berlage, who had already announced he was leaving the council, was a convenient pick in a contentious election year. According to the Gazette, five Council Members – Steve Silverman, Mike Subin, Blair Ewing, Phil Andrews and Ike Leggett – were “united by the theme that Berlage is the best they can do. Certainly in an election year, the fractionalized council would find it difficult to agree on any candidate clearly identified as either pro- or anti-growth.” Berlage turned out to have minimal management skills and was totally overwhelmed by the job. Three years later, the massive Clarksburg scandal erupted and the council had little choice but to bring back Royce Hanson to clean up the mess.
The problem is that Hanson’s job is not done. The Planning Department has been ravaged by turnover and budget cuts. Without strong leadership, it could easily lapse back into the drift and chaos of years past. The council must prioritize management skill, force of will and tenaciousness over mere likability or convenience. If the council takes the easy way out and finds another Berlage, it will only take the easy way back to Clarksburg.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
What It Takes: Montgomery County Planning Board Chairs from Hanson to Hanson
By Marc Korman.
Montgomery County Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson is not seeking reappointment and the Council has begun advertising the vacancy. Before looking forward, it might be helpful to look backwards at some Planning Board Chairs.
Hanson has served three terms as chair, with two from 1972 to 1981 and the current term. He has accomplished much in that time. In his initial stint, he helped establish the Agricultural Reserve. He was brought back in 2002 partly to get the County past the problems associated with Clarksburg. Under his leadership, the County is well on its way to moving White Flint, Gaithersburg West, and the Purple Line forward. But his successor will need to keep these on track, deal with the Policy Area Mobility Review that has been one of the centerpieces of the last two growth policies, and continue to navigate the tricky politics of growth.
There have been a few names in the running so far including Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman, former Planning Board member John Robinson, former Chair Gus Bauman, and a now debunked rumor about Councilman Mike Knapp.
To get a better idea of what the Council might be looking for, let’s take a look at the backgrounds of the recent Planning Chairs during what I will call the Hanson period, covering his first period as chairman until now.
Royce Hanson (1972-1981) - Before his first tour as Chairman, Hanson had an extensive political and academic background. Hanson ran for Congress in 1966 and 1968, managed a Judge’s campaign, and was a Democratic convention delegate. He was President of the Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies and a Professor at American University. He also served as a Board member for a year before becoming chair.
Norman Christeller (1981-1989) - Christeller was appointed to fill a vacancy on the County Council in 1972 and then elected in his own right in 1974. He resigned from the Council in 1978 for a presidential appointment to the Department of Agriculture which never occurred. He also served on the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee. Following his time as Chair, Christeller went on to organize and chair a nonprofit dedicated to promoting low income housing. He passed away in 1999 at 75.
Gus Bauman (1989-1993) - Bauman served as legal counsel to the Planning Board for four years in the 1970s. He went on to serve as litigation counsel for the National Association of Home Builders. He also worked at law firm Beveridge & Diamond in the 1980s, where he returned after his time as planning board chair and an unsuccessful campaign for County Executive.
William Hussman (1994-2001) - When Montgomery County elected James Gleason as its first County Executive in 1970, William Hussmann became the first Deputy Chief Administrative Officer. Hussman became CAO from 1972 to 1978. He held the position again in the early 1990s under County Executive Neal Potter. Hussman also served as Rockville City planning director and was, according to one Washington Post article, a developer at some point in his career.
Arthur Holmes (2001-2002) - Holmes had already served on the Planning Board for seven years when he was appointed Chairman. He was a retired Two Star Army General. He had been chief executive of a business in Silver Spring until 1995. He was also the Planning Board’s first, and so far only, African American Chair. Holmes currently serves as Director of the County Transportation Department.
Derick Berlage (2002-2006) - Berlage was elected to the County Council in 1990 and reelected in 1994 and 1998, where he chaired the Land Use Committee and the National Capital Transportation Planning Board. He also worked in the private sector as a real estate attorney. Berlage now serves as St. Mary’s County’s Director for the Department of Land Use and Growth Management.
Royce Hanson (2006-2010) - After his first two terms as Chairman, Hanson directed the Committee on National Urban Policy of the National Research Council. He was a professor at the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota and Dean of the School of Social Sciences at the University of Texas. He returned to Montgomery County in 1998 and taught at the University of Maryland and George Washington University.
The experience has been varied, with several having political experience and a mix of public and private job experience. They have also all been men, which based on the current rumors is a streak likely to continue. At least two of them, three if you count Hanson twice, previously served on the Planning Board.
Many MPW readers have long memories so if you think I’ve missed an important part of someone’s background or made another error, please post it in the comments.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Norman Dreyfuss selected to Montgomery County Planning Board
Following is the press release from the County Council.
Norman Dreyfuss Selected for Vacant Seat On Montgomery County Planning Board
ROCKVILLE, Md., February 9, 2010—Norman Dreyfuss, a developer of real estate ranging from residences to commercial shopping centers and a commissioner on the Montgomery County Housing Opportunities Commission, today was named by the County Council to a vacant position on the Montgomery County Planning Board. The vacancy was created by the passing of board member Jean Cryor on Nov. 3.
Mr. Dreyfuss, a Republican who has been a County resident for about 40 years, will fill Ms. Cryor’s term that expires on June 14, 2011.
Mr. Dreyfuss, who lives in Potomac, was selected by a 7-2 vote. Council President Nancy Floreen, Vice President Valerie Ervin and Councilmembers Roger Berliner, Mike Knapp, George Leventhal, Nancy Navarro and Duchy Trachtenberg supported the nomination of Mr. Dreyfuss. Councilmembers Phil Andrews and Marc Elrich supported applicant Kenneth Hurdle.
No more than three members of the Planning Board may be from the same political party, and all members must be residents and registered voters of Montgomery County when appointed. Members serve four-year terms and are limited to two full terms. Ms. Cryor was a Republican. The position had to be filled by a Republican.
The other board members are Chairman Royce Hanson, a Democrat; Joseph Alfandre, a Democrat; Amy Presley, a Republican and Marye Wells-Harley, a Democrat. Annual compensation for board members is currently $30,000.
Mr. Dreyfuss’s accomplishments include the development of the Leisure World senior living community in Silver Spring. It is the region’s largest age-restricted community with more than 8,000 residents.
In his letter of application, Mr. Dreyfuss said he “has formed and been president of at least 40 homeowner and condominium associations during that time period [that he has been a developer] and can honestly say we have never had a dispute which has not been resolved amicably regarding any homeowner issues.” He also wrote, “I believe in cooperative compliance and a consensus-building process which respects the various views of all the interested parties.”
The Planning Board serves as the Council’s principal adviser on land use planning and community planning. Planning Board members also serve as Commissioners of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
The Planning Board’s responsibilities with regard to planning include preparation and amendment of County General Plan; preparation and amendment of Master Plans and functional plans; formulation of subdivision regulations; preparation of or recommendations on text amendments to the County Zoning Ordinance; implementation of the subdivision process by reviewing and approving all preliminary plans, site plans and other plans for development; advice on the planning implication of capital facilities and programs of the County government, Montgomery College, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and Montgomery County Public Schools; commenting, under its Mandatory Referral authority, on plans for public facilities of local, state and federal agencies; and approval of the work program and the annual operating budget for the Planning Department and the Commission’s bi-county offices.
The Planning Board sits as the Park Commission and approves the annual Parks Department operating budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget; land acquisition contracts and major development contracts for parks; development plans for individual park facilities; policies for park operations; and park user fees.
# # #
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Ficker Applies for Planning Board... Again!
Robin Ficker is applying for the non-Democratic opening on the Planning Board. Given what happened the last time he did this, we could be in for a show!
The Planning Board has five seats, with no more than three allowed to be held by members of one political party. In practice, that means the board has three Democrats and two Republicans. Appointments to the board are voted on by the County Council. In 2008, Ficker applied for the seat formerly held by departing Planning Board Member and Republican Alison Bryant. (The seat ultimately went to Clarksburg civic activist Amy Presley.)
The County Council interviews Planning Board candidates in open meetings. Ficker attended both his interview as well as the interviews of other candidates held on the same day. Council Member George Leventhal found Ficker's watching the interviews of his rivals to be in "bad form" and "bad taste" and tried to have him expelled. Ficker was allowed to stay but filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Open Meetings Act. The Open Meetings Compliance Board ruled against him. Now Ficker is headed back to the council to seek former Planning Board Member Jean Cryor's seat.
Additionally, Ficker is running for County Council (although he has not specified which race he will enter) and is trying to get a charter amendment imposing term limits on county offices on the ballot. So Ficker is asking a group of people against whom he has filed a complaint, which includes at least one person against whom he will be running for office, and whom he is seeking to remove from office through term limits to appoint him to a high position. FAT CHANCE! But as with many things connected to Ficker, the entertainment value should be high.
We reprint his application below. We note that he uses a home address in Boyds, which settles the residency issue from the last special election.16711 Barnesville Rd.
Boyds, Md. 20841
Tel: 301-652-1500 (24 hrs)
Dear President Floreen:
Please consider my application for the Planning Board vacancy left by Jean Cryor.
I believe I am uniquely qualified for the Planning Board at a time when the Board has suffered an experience and brain drain by the departures of Jean Cryor and Royce Hanson. Allow me to list some reasons why you should at least grant me an interview for this job.
l. B.S. Engineering, Case Institute of Technology. Many of the concepts before the Board are based in engineering and mathematics.
2. Practicing attorney in Maryland since 1973 with over 25,000 cases completed. I know there are two sides to every question and would be able to discuss legal issues before the Board. University of Pennsylvania Law School and J.D. University of Baltimore Law School.
3. M.A. Public Administration, American University. Familiarity with concepts of administration before the Board.
4. Lifelong resident of Montgomery County, graduate of its public schools and witness to its growth in every nook and cranny.
5. Licensed Real Estate Broker and familiarity with issues in this vital industry. Scored highest possible score on Real Estate Broker exam.
6.Long-time activity in Montgomery County civic affairs having collected the signatures to place over 20 charter amendments on the county ballot since 1974 including the 2008 successful question to require 9 council votes to exceed the charter property tax limit.
7. Registered with Republican party now, although was registered Independent in 2006, thus meeting the registration requirement for Ms. Cryor's vacancy.
8. Resident of the Agricultural Reserve. No Planning Board or Council members currently live there.
9. Former member of the Maryland Legislature.
10. As one who attended U.S.M.A. at West Point with the Class of 1964 and whose father-in-law was a Lieutenant General, I could easily work with the military on BRAC issues.
If you or any Members of the Council have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at any time; for I always answer the phone. 301-652-1500.
Robin Ficker
Monday, December 21, 2009
Royce Hanson is Stepping Down, Council Seeks Replacement
Following is the press release from the County Council.
The Montgomery County Council is seeking applicants to fill a position on the Montgomery County Planning Board for the expiring term of Royce Hanson (Democrat). His term will expire on June 14, 2010. Dr. Hanson has indicated that he will not apply for reappointment. The Council expects to designate the appointee as chairman. In appointing a chairman for the board, the Council will establish the salary for the chairman within a range of $160,000 to $180,000. Applications must be received no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, March 8.
FOR INFORMATION: Justina Ferber 240-777-7938
Montgomery County Council Seeks Applicants for the Position of Chairman of Montgomery County Planning Board
Deadline for Applications Is 5 p.m., Monday, March 8
ROCKVILLE, Md., December 21, 2009—The Montgomery County Council is seeking applicants to fill a position on the Montgomery County Planning Board for the expiring term of Royce Hanson (Democrat). His term will expire on June 14, 2010. Dr. Hanson has indicated that he will not apply for reappointment.
The Council expects to designate the appointee as chairman. In appointing a chairman for the board, the Council will establish the salary for the chairman within a range of $160,000 to $180,000. Applications must be received no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, March 8.
No more than three members of the Planning Board may be from the same political party, and all members must be residents and registered voters of Montgomery County when appointed. Members serve four-year terms and are limited to two full terms. The position can be filled by a Democrat, Republican; a voter who declines to affiliate with a party; or by a member of another party officially recognized by the Montgomery County Board of Elections.
In addition to Dr. Hanson, current board members are Joseph Alfandre, a Democrat; Amy Presley, a Republican and Marye Wells-Harley, a Democrat. Annual compensation for Board members is currently $30,000 (The deadline for applying for the vacancy created by the passing of board member Jean Cryor, a Republican, is 5 p.m., on Wednesday, Jan. 13.)
The Planning Board serves as the Council’s principal adviser on land use planning and community planning. Planning Board members also serve as Commissioners of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
The Planning Board’s responsibilities with regard to planning include preparation and amendment of County General Plan; preparation and amendment of Master Plans and functional plans; formulation of subdivision regulations; preparation of or recommendations on text amendments to the County Zoning Ordinance; implementation of the subdivision process by reviewing and approving all preliminary plans, site plans and other plans for development; advice on the planning implication of capital facilities and programs of the County government, Montgomery College, the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission and Montgomery County Public Schools; commenting, under its Mandatory Referral authority, on plans for public facilities of local, state and federal agencies; and approval of the work program and the annual operating budget for the Planning Department and the Commission’s bi-county offices.
The Planning Board sits as the Park Commission and approves the annual Parks Department operating budget and Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget; land acquisition contracts and major development contracts for parks; development plans for individual park facilities; policies for park operations; and park user fees.
The Montgomery County Planning Board meets all day every Thursday and often meets on one other evening a week. The entire Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission meets the third Wednesday of every month. On average, a Planning Board member can expect to spend at least two full days a week in scheduled and informal meetings. Additionally, substantial time is required for preparatory work and other activities related to Planning Board responsibilities.
Letters expressing interest, including a resume listing professional and civic experience, should be addressed to: Council President Nancy Floreen, County Council Office, Stella B. Werner Council Office Building, 100 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20850. Letters must be received no later than 5 p.m., Monday, March 8. It is the Council’s policy not to consider applications received after the deadline. After the March 8 closing date, Councilmembers will review the letters of application and select applicants for interviews to be held April 8 or soon thereafter.
Letters of application are made public as part of the appointment process. The names of all applicants are published and available for public review and interviews are conducted in public. A resume of professional and civic experience should be included with letters of application. A financial statement of assets, debts, income and family property interests will be required of all applicants. Council staff will contact applicants about the details of the financial statement. Only the candidate appointed will be required to make the financial statement available to the public.
# # #
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Rollin Stanley: Problem and Potential, Part Two
Rollin Stanley, Montgomery County’s star planning director, favors channeling growth to walkable downtowns, encouraging mixed-use development with significant density and even using congestion to force people onto transit. Furthermore, he is not a patient man when pursuing his goals. Both his philosophy and his tactics are drawing resistance.
Few county residents will agree with Stanley’s statement that “congestion is a good thing.” Voters here will never accept an approach that gives up on congestion relief. Only seven years ago, a County Council slate called “End Gridlock” won a majority by promising to build the ICC and other transportation improvements. There are a variety of proposals for easing congestion circulating in the county, including the Purple Line and the CCT, widening I-270 and Marc Elrich’s BRT system proposal. Advocates of some of these projects may disagree with each other, but all of them are marketed to some extent as congestion relief. No serious county politician will ever echo Stanley’s position in public.
But Stanley’s bigger problem is that he shows no respect for the county’s system of dealing with development and growth. For decades, the county’s politics have revolved around a tension between prosperity and quality of life. Prosperity furthers economic well-being, but it also creates traffic, density and change. Quality of life depends in part on prosperity, but it erodes when the externalities of excessive growth gridlock roads and crowd schools. Small battles between developers and neighbors over individual projects have fueled opposing political ideologies, creating a swinging pendulum over many election cycles.
For all the debate over growth, the county has kept a lid on all-out civil war by fashioning a system to balance competing interests at the project level and the macro level (especially on growth policy). That system involves abundant input from all sides, intense analysis of issues by planning staff and hearing examiners, avoidance of any appearance of impropriety and, above all, the impartial enforcement of lots and lots of rules. Stanley, a smart man in a hurry, cares nothing about any of this.
Our sources are quick to elaborate. One spy says, “He’s a bull in a china shop. He has a get it done attitude (a good thing) and little patience for rules, regulations and process that get in his way (not such a good thing in this county). He has some great ideas but an even greater ego.” Another informant complains, “Most arrogant man on the planet. Has pulled projects from staff when they wouldn’t write it his way, and wrote reports himself. Told staffers not to attend meetings so they couldn’t be questioned, hates citizen groups and constructed Master Plan committees to minimize citizen input and maximize developer input. Convenes citizen groups to use them as paper dressing, then ignores their input… Views residents as obstacles to the planners’ efforts to build the perfect world which will resolve all our ills.”
Still another observer says, “Attitude is everything and Rollin’s sucks. If he weren’t condescending and dismissive, including to elected officials and his staff, he could probably get stuff done. Seriously, personality and relationships is 95% of success, and he just doesn’t care.” And one more informant claims that Stanley gets involved in the aesthetic details of projects, an activity that goes far beyond the bounds of his job. “He’s like a developer with no money and he imposes his personal preferences on what you should build.” This source claims that Stanley will go so far as to draw building sketches on napkins to instruct developers on what they should do. “They don’t know their roles. They don’t follow the rules and they don’t stay within the boundaries of their roles.”
And one of the county’s most knowledgeable growth experts said this:My personal view is that he’s an arrogant egotist and apparently, based on what the Post and Examiner reported, he thinks he’s above the rules. Unfortunately, if he considers himself and his staff above the rules established for internal M-NCPPC audit investigations, then I hold out little hope that he will aid in transitioning the Planning Department and Board toward what residents hoped would be a more transparent and citizen-inclusive process. And [Planning Board Chairman Royce] Hanson appears to be shielding Stanley, which is probably encouraging his bad behavior.
Not all our sources are so hard on Stanley. One says he is “Extremely sharp and forward thinking . Probably frustrated with the lack of political will to adopt new ideas and think as creatively as he does.” Another says:I think he is very talented and can provide some really good ideas. Royce is kind of running interference for him which is hurting him. It doesn’t allow him to hear what people are saying, he’s not getting a good feel for the community, and he’s not learning how to deal with all of the different factions in the County. As a result, I don’t think he is getting as rooted in the community as he needs to be to be successful. I also think this makes him a little tone deaf to issues. All solvable issues which is the good thing.
Stanley’s methods were on full display during the Bethesda Metro Center 4 controversy last year. A developer wanted to build a new 16-story office tower on top of the Bethesda Metro Station in close proximity to two other buildings. The problem with the proposal was that the floor area ratio for the tract contained in the area’s Master Plan did not permit enough density to allow the project to go forward. Stanley favored the project anyway, criticized its opponents in public and reversed a recommendation by his staff to oppose it. The problem was that Stanley advocated changing how floor area ratio is calculated to get this one project through, a sweeping alteration that would have allowed more density on sprawl projects everywhere else in the county. The Planning Board unanimously denied approval.
These sorts of activities are generating considerable pushback in both the development and civic communities. They may also be creating tensions within the planning staff, who are the likely sources for Post reporter Miranda Spivack’s long series of negative articles about Stanley’s credit card issues. Ethical questions can hurt in process-obsessed Montgomery County.
It’s not too late for Rollin Stanley to turn around his fortunes and nudge the county towards its smart growth future. Here are a few things he should do.
1. Don’t get too involved in individual projects. It’s beneath the role of the planning director. Leave the little stuff to the staff. It’s their job to deal with it.
2. Focus on a few big priorities. How about redeveloping Wheaton, updating the other central business district master plans and laying out a framework for building a truly countywide transit system?
3. Go out and listen. Stanley is known to be a great speaker, but the county is full of speakers who are tired of hearing each other talk. The people who have lived and operated businesses in the county know more about our transportation and growth challenges than any planner with less than three years residency. And who knows? Some of them may be able to show Stanley a good idea or two he has yet to see in his travels.
4. Settle down and build relationships. This is the most important skill for a politician, and it is also extremely important for an administrator. This means engaging in give-and-take, admitting when you’re wrong and occasionally cutting your losses for the benefit of better relations down the road.
If Stanley can do these things, he will realize his potential and the county will be better off. If not, he won’t last. We’ll probably know which way this is going by the summer of 2011, a year after Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson’s successor takes office and determines whether Stanley should stay or go.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Rollin Stanley: Problem and Potential, Part One
Montgomery County Planning Director Rollin Stanley is starting to hit a wall. That’s a problem – not only for him, but also for the county that depends on him.
Rollin Stanley is not an ordinary public servant. He is the choice of legendary Montgomery County Planning Chairman Royce Hanson to be the leader of the county’s planning staff. That is a hugely important position given the fact that the staff writes master plans that guide future development, drafts revisions to the growth policy every two years and reviews individual development projects for conformance with the county’s tests and standards. When Hanson hired Stanley in December 2007, many believed he was a visionary super star. And maybe he is.
Stanley is not a bureaucrat or administrator. He is a big thinker and a change agent in a county that says it values those qualities but does not reward them. In his prior positions as a staffer in Toronto’s planning department and as the chief planner in St. Louis for six years, Stanley worked for the ideal of walkable, interesting and revitalized urban neighborhoods.
The River Front Times wrote a lengthy profile of Stanley in 2004, more than two years into his tenure as the planning head in St. Louis. The Times summarized Stanley’s goals this way:Rollin Stanley has bold plans for St. Louis. If he had his way, downtown’s one-way streets would be eliminated, buildings would have to retrofit their basements to include showers for bicyclists, and bike lanes would meander alongside major thoroughfares. Stanley envisions a pedestrian paradise where workers, residents and visitors can window-shop and run errands. He also wants more teeth put in Missouri’s planning and zoning laws; currently, his department isn't required by law to examine, approve -- or see -- any proposed deviation from the zoning guidelines and comprehensive land-use plan.
The Times said this about Stanley’s advocacy for mixed-use redevelopment in downtowns:Then Stanley moves on to the future of residential downtown developments, in crumbling districts and in thriving areas like the Central West End. He stresses the importance of mixed-use developments, buildings with ground-level retail and residential above. His favorite residential development is the Louderman Lofts on Locust. His office is across the street. “I can walk out and, within two blocks, I can go to the hardware store, I can have lunch, I can go to the dry cleaners; just down the street I can go to the pharmacy. I can go to a restaurant. I can go to Famous-Barr. I can go to a men’s clothing store, and the list goes on and on. I can do all those things because that’s such an urban building.”
Montgomery County has an influential and growing smart growth community that would agree with Stanley’s outlook. Downtown Bethesda, Downtown Silver Spring and Rockville Town Square are all popular residential, retail and employment locations. But while quite a few people may want to see more transit-oriented development in flourishing downtowns, Stanley has advocated some provocative ways to get there.
New high-rises, he said, should offer a wide range of units that are affordable, not only to empty-nesters with money to burn, but to twentysomethings with a craving to live in the city.
“When I first came here,” he says, “I couldn’t believe the size of the units people were building. What created a market in places like Denver or Toronto was smaller units -- first-home buyers. And nobody’s hitting that market. Nobody.” Developers tend to balk, he says, at middle-income condos. “They say, ‘Well, I’m not sure. They’re only making $40,000.’ But they’re buying a unit from you! What are they going to do, go upstairs and steal somebody’s TV? No. They’re going to be vested in the property. And that’s going to be a wonderful thing for the city, because instead of living in O’Fallon in a townhome, they’ll be able to walk to work.”
“All those things are baby steps to success,” Stanley concludes. “Now you’ve got bikes downtown, and you’ve got people walking, you start to see people thinking differently about the street patterns. But there’s tremendous resistance down there.”
“Congestion is a good thing,” Stanley once told a planning forum in St. Louis. “Some people might not believe that. But think about any city that you like and compare it to here. Chicago is congested. Boston, Seattle, they’re all congested. You’ve got to look at the street patterns, and one-way streets are a disaster. They kill retail… density, to some people in St. Louis, is a four-letter word.”
Stanley later told a planning forum in Montgomery County a similar message according to the Washington Business Journal: “We’ve added 195,000 people since 1988 and they took up 40,000 acres of land. We don't have that for the next 195,000 people,” Stanley said, adding that the only land the county has left is 8,000 acres of surface parking lots, 14,000 acres of non-continuous vacant land, and 10,500 acres of land around Metro stations.
The idea of using congestion to push people towards transit is shared by some in the smart growth community. To be fair, Stanley’s recommended growth policy does not merely do that. The policy combined relieving developers of some traffic mitigation requirements, relaxing congestion standards, encouraging development in town centers (some of which are far from transit) and encouraging more density near strip malls to enable shorter car trips. Your author questioned whether all of these recommendations were really smart growth – especially those allowing more development away from transit – and the County Council expressed its reservations by defeating or deferring most of them.
Pointing to a decline in two parent homes in Montgomery County - from 50 percent in 1970 to 26 percent in 2006 - Stanley said there is less of a need for 3,000-square-foot homes. “People don’t think kids can live in high-rises, but they can and they do. Not everyone wants to live in a single family home with a lawn to mow,” he said.
“In Montgomery County, two factors influence development - schools and road capacity,” Stanley said. “That pushes development to where there is no congestion, but it should go the other way, because congestion will force people onto public transportation.”
Despite Stanley’s visionary capacity – or perhaps, because of it – he faces some stiff challenges in Montgomery County. We’ll explore them in Part Two.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
ACLU Reaches Interim Agreement Allowing Free Speech in Parks
The Maryland ACLU has reached an interim agreement with Park and Planning allowing political campaigning in parks. The new agreement suspends rules requiring permits for gathering petition signatures, interviewing people or carrying signs on parkland. County Council candidate Robin Ficker and the ACLU challenged those rules after Ficker was stopped by Park Police while campaigning on July 4. We reprint the interim agreement below.
Notice 09-__
Indefinite Suspension of Enforcement of Certain Park Rules and Regulations
Date: October 20, 2009
I. Declaration of Suspended Enforcement
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (“Commission”) has suspended all administrative, civil or criminal enforcement actions or activities predicated on the provisions of certain Commission Park Rules and Regulations (the “Regulations”) enumerated as follows:
A) Chapter III, Section 3.A (2) (Permits):
No permit shall be required for the solicitation of petition signatures outside of any park structure or building; provided such solicitation does not obstruct, delay or interfere with the free movements of any other person, seek to coerce or physically disturb any other person, or hamper or impede the conduct of any authorized business or activity on any Commission property.
B) Chapter III, Section 3.A (4) (Permits):
No permit shall be required for conducting surveys, interviews or polls outside of any park structure or building for any non-commercial purpose; provided such conduct does not obstruct, delay or interfere with the free movements of any other person, seek to coerce or physically disturb any other person, or hamper or impede the conduct of any authorized business or activity on any Commission property.
C) Chapter V, Section 10 (Carrying Signs and Picketing):
No permit shall be required for carrying signs or picketing by 25 or less individuals outside of any park structure or building; provided the signs do not obstruct, delay or interfere with the free movements of any other person, seek to coerce or physically disturb any other person, or hamper or impede the conduct of any authorized business or activity on any Commission property.
Note: Attaching or posting of notices, signs, or any other objects on Commission Property is prohibited except by permit.
II. Authority.
This notice is issued jointly by the Executive Director pursuant to the authority of Commission Practice No. ____, by the Director of the Montgomery County Department of Parks, and by the Director of the Prince George’s County Department of Parks and Recreation, respectively, pursuant to the authority under the Regulations at Section 2 (B).
III. Effective Date.
This Notice is effective immediately and until further notice issued to modify, supersede or revoke it.
_________________________________
Oscar Rodriguez
Executive Director
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
_________________________________
Mary _. Bradford
Director
Montgomery County Department of Parks
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
_________________________________
Ronnie Gathers
Director
Prince George’s Department of Parks and Recreation
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Monday, October 12, 2009
Ficker, ACLU Challenge Restrictions on Free Speech in Parks
County Council candidate and anti-tax activist Robin Ficker was threatened with arrest by Park Police for campaigning in a Montgomery County park on July 4. The Maryland ACLU has risen to his defense, and the defense of all political candidates, in an effort to protect free speech in public places.
According to the ACLU, Ficker, who was accompanied by a volunteer carrying a campaign sign, spoke to voters in the Germantown Regional Park on July 4. Ficker was told to cease his activity by Park Police, who cited an M-NCPPC rule that forbids carrying signs without a permit. M-NCPPC has another rule that requires a permit for "solicitation of contributions, signatures or moneys." The ACLU contends that the rules are unconstitutional because they broadly prohibit protected speech, lack any standards for permit issuance and grant park officials "unbridled discretion" to deny a permit. The ACLU has written to M-NCPPC asking them to stop enforcing the rules.
Like many of you, your author has repeatedly witnessed political campaigning in parks, including distribution of literature, buttons and stickers. The imposition of rules forbidding one type of speech while many other kinds have proceeded in unabated fashion for years strikes us as inexplicable and unfair. Parks are indisputably part of the public square. Robin Ficker, and any other people seeking to practice political speech, should not be denied their constitutional rights on public property.
Following is the press release from the ACLU and their letter to M-NCPPC.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Marye Wells-Harley Named to Planning Board
Former Prince George's County Director of Parks and Recreation Marye Wells-Harley has been named to the Montgomery County Planning Board by a 7-1 vote. Council Member George Leventhal voted for Roberto Pinero. Wells-Harley received two votes when she applied for the Planning Board last year. She is a Silver Spring resident and was named one of Maryland's Top 100 Women by the Daily Record in 2004.
This may be the end of the road for Alan Bowser, who has unsuccessfully applied for the Planning Board this year and in 2006, 2007 and 2008. He also unsuccesfully applied for a WSSC appointment in 2007. When the Post's Ann Marimow reported on Bowser's failure to get the appointment last year, her Maryland Moment entry was deluged with angry anonymous comments slamming the Council for not appointing him.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Park and Planning Lobbies District 4 Candidates
In an unprecedented move, officials inside the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) have begun lobbying District 4 candidates on behalf of their priorities. One of those priorities concerns one of the district’s most controversial issues: the plan to add a soccer field at North Four Corners Local Park.
Multiple campaigns confirm being contacted by Joyce P. Coleman, a special assistant to the Planning Board. Coleman has attempted to arrange “briefings” with some candidates and has sent them budgetary information on several projects including the East Norbeck Local Park Expansion, the Rock Creek Trail Pedestrian Bridge, the Woodlawn Barn Visitors Center, the soccer field at North Four Corners and Ballfield Initiatives around the county. We hear that at least one candidate received a personal briefing on these issues from Planning Board Chairman Royce Hanson. By far the most contentious of these projects involves North Four Corners, the site of a raging dispute between M-NCPPC and the Northwood-Four Corners Civic Association.
In 2003, Park and Planning began advocating for the installation of a soccer field at the tree-filled North Four Corners Local Park, a 14-acre bit of green space just north of the horrendous University Boulevard-US 29 intersection. The community mobilized against the project and gathered 26 letters and 650 petition signatures against it by February 2008. That same month, bulldozers showed up at the park to take down trees, provoking an uprising in the neighborhood. Park and Planning said the work was intended to remove “invasive species.” The civic association held a District 4 debate in April and made their case to all the candidates who came. Steve Kanstoroom, a long-time anti-M-NCPPC activist, won the precinct but Don Praisner, the winner, did not attend the debate and made no promises on the issue.
By May 2008, the County Council had agreed to add the soccer project to the county’s capital plan. But spending for planning is scheduled to start in FY 12 and actual construction is scheduled for FY 14, so the community still has a hypothetical chance of getting it deleted. In any case, the issue still radiates in the neighborhood like a leaky tank of plutonium. And the civic association scheduled a debate for April 8, 2009 at which the park would surely be raised.
That caused Park and Planning to spring into action and start calling District 4 candidates. Here are the two documents they sent the candidates about North Four Corners Local Park:
Note how the first document, a “background memo” prepared for the candidates, says this:Contrary to wishes of the local community, but based on long-term unmet needs for athletic fields in the “down-county” area, park staff included one additional full-sized rectangular athletic field in the approved facility plan.
The timing of the information delivery and the language of the memo lay bare the intent of M-NCPPC. Park and Planning was lobbying the candidates to agree with its position on the park prior to their hearing from the neighbors. Clearly, Park and Planning did not want the candidates to make promises to the residents about stopping the soccer field that they would feel compelled to honor later on. M-NCPPC is certainly entitled to communicate its positions to the County Executive and the County Council, but this is its first attempt that we can recall to influence the positions of candidates even before they are elected.
This episode will surely feed the cynicism held by civic activists of Park and Planning and county government in general. M-NCPPC owes the residents an immediate apology and a promise to never do this again.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Gaithersburg Tax Cut
Last Thursday, I attended the Montgomery County Senate delegation meeting which was taken up by a piece of local legislation advocated by Sen. Jennie Forehand (D-17) and the City of Gaithersburg. The legislation is geared toward correcting a tax anomaly created by Gaithersburg's expansion and poorly crafted legislation.
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) is funded by a local tax. Several municipalities in northern Montgomery, including Rockville and Gaithersburg, do not pay the tax on the grounds that they fund their own parks. However, the areas annexed by the municipalities since the creation of the M-NCPPC since its creation some 41 years ago are in limbo. They haven't been charged the tax but are legally required to pay it because they live outside the boundaries of Gaithersburg at the time the law went into effect.
This problem affects some 19,000 homes in Gaithersburg and only around 30 in Rockville, though the number in Rockville is projected to rise substantially based on construction unless the problem is fixed. The proposed local legislation would change the law governing the tax used to fund the M-NCPPC so that the areas annexed by the municipalities don't have to pay it. and the County can't go after the residents for retroactive taxes.
M-NCPPC argues that several park facilities are really county facilities and the municipalities should pay a large portion of the tax. Mayor Sidney Katz, assisted by staff from the City, strenuously argued that Gaithersburg residents should have to pay no more than 10 percent of the tax as Gaithersburg funds it own parks and there is a provision for reciprocal park use among Gaithersburg and Montgomery residents.
Several senators raised the issue of inequity among county residents if Gaithersburg residents are totally exempt from the tax. Sen. Jamie Raskin (D-20) pointed out that Takoma Park residents pay the tax even though they also fund their own park facilities. Sen. P.J. Hogan (D-39) noted that he pays homeowner association fees to fund facilities in his Upcounty neighborhood on top of the M-NCPPC tax. M-NCPPC representatives argued that several facilities in the County are unique and used by people from all over the County.
Gaithersburg countered that exempting all of Gaithersburg from the tax would simply make de jure the de facto situation before it was discovered that many homes in Gaithersburg are liable for the tax. Gaithersberg reps agreed that the County needed to negotiate with all municipalities about the share of the tax that their residents would pay in order to achieve equity across the County. However, the M-NCPPC and Gaithersburg are far apart in what they consider an equitable tax rate for the City of Gaithersburg.
After a long discussion, the bill gained the support of the Montgomery County senators.
In truth, this bill is utterly unnecessary. County Executive Leggett backed the bill but also made clear that he had no intention of collecting this tax. Gaithersburg even successfully fought off a proposal to place a time limit of two years on the exemption of all Gaithersburg residents, arguing that this provision would discourage the County from negotiating in good faith with Gaithersburg and other municipalities.
Hogwash. The County Executive and County Council would have to be politically brain dead to even consider angering such a large block of residents unnecessarily. They would certainly want negotiations brought to a conclusion acceptable to the County and the City. In contrast, Gaithersburg's pursuit of a permanent exemption from the M-NCPPC tax gives the City absolutely no incentive to negotiate in good faith because they already don't pay any tax but can use all of the County facilities.
The reciprocity norm will likely see this bill through to final passage. Undoubtedly, Montgomery senators do not want to annoy Sen. Forehand, not just because she has a reputation of being extremely nice but because they may need her support on a bill affecting their own districts some day. House of Delegates Majority Leader Kumar Barve personally lobbied the Senate delegation to support the bill. It's hard to turn him down too.
Unfortunately, as I believe Sen. Rich Madaleno pointed out, this means that the County delegation will likely have to revisit this issue in order to achieve greater equity. The next time the issue appear, the delegation may not have the luxury of simply ratifying an agreement between municipalities and the County as this proposal appears to make such an agreement much less likely. And state legislators would be unwise to simply let the issue rest as it allows a major inequity between municipalities to continue.
