Chevy Chase Election Heats Up

Elections in the Town of Chevy Chase have the reputation of being pretty genteel contests. Candidate often send out letters to town residents touting their accomplishments or listing a few ideas for the future and asking for a vote. The letter I received the other day from incumbent Mayor Linna Barnes was pretty standard in that regard.

Former Councilman Scott Orbach appears ready to break out of the pattern as part of his bid to return. His letter, which I received today, directly attacks the record of the current council:

I am running for our Town's council again because, like so many of you, I'm disturbed by the direction in which the current council is heading, and I'd like to make a difference. Amid all of the focus on stricter rules and regulations, and the resulting increase in variance requests, basic Town services are suffering, to the detriment of its residents.

Specifically, I was shocked to learn that our Town's budget has skyrocketed 50% in fiscal year 2008 (about $1 million) above 2007 expenditures. Legal fees alone have risen to $250,000, 20% more than 2007. Worst of all, consulting fees will rise 700%, to $400,000. That's $350,000 above 2007, and a staggering 1,300% above 2006. Meanwhile, the Council's new-found hunger for expensive consulting services has not extended to independent studies or gathering data that estimate the impact of proposed regulations before adopting them.

Despite this dramatic rise in the overall budget, monies allotted for public safety, sanitation, and public works will actually decrease.

I suspect that the consulting fees include the up to $250,000 that the Council allotted for a potential study of the Purple Line which have attracted a lot of attention. The Action Committee for Transit issued a hard-hitting press release attacking this interest on the part of the Town. The Gazette followed up with an article on the issue.

I happened to attend the meeting when the Council voted on this matter. The reality is that it is currently just a place marker in the budget. No money has to be actually spent or even contracted. It was clear from the discussion that the council members would be perfectly happy to spend less than this amount and want to consider further how best to examine the potential impact of the proposed light rail.

The Council now plans to hold a public hearing next month, after the election, to listen to viewpoints of Town residents on the proposed expenditure. However, I suspect that the portion of the letter which may attract the most attention is his major idea regarding the ever-controversial issue of development and McMansions:

Reviewing, and repairing, our many construction ordinances. Recently passed ordinances have done little to abate the problem of development. Old homes are still being torn down to make way for new, larger homes. In fact, they have resulted in unintended consequences that create hardships and burdens for growing families whose changing needs would be served by modest home improvements. Families should be encouraged to improve their homes instead of being forced to sell to developers. Construction requirements have become so cumbersome and onerous that private homeowners simply don't have the means to deal with all the red-tape: but developers do.

Essentially, Scott is arguing that the new regulations have not curbed developers but have made it expensive and difficult for homeowners to make reasonable expansions to their homes. So far, the people around me seem able to expand their homes. Indeed, two of my neighbors across the street have managed to construct additions to their home that, in my opinion, are very reasonable and fit in well with the character of the neighborhood.

At the same time, he is correct that the process for obtaining a variance is undoubtedly more formalized than in the past. I'd be curious to know to what extent people have found it either too bureaucratic, too expensive, or impeding reasonable development. How many people have actually sold their homes because of the new ordinances and why?

The question also arises to what extent that the homes constructed by developers would be even grander in the absence of the regulations. Indeed, some town residents may think that the solution is to do more, rather than less, on this issue. In short, to the extent that issues rather that personalities matter, this election may turn on on whether residents think that the Town's efforts to control development and construction have gone too far or whether it should continue on its current path, or even go further.

Some residents are concerned about crime and Scott wants to be more aggressive on that front. He favors:

o Upgrading, rather than downgrading public safety services. The Town could hire professional police officers and utilize their knowledge and experience instead of relying on low-paid security guards.

. . .

o Deliverying urgent alerts to our home phones, cell phones, e-mail, and text message accounts through an improved rapid communication system. The fact that we had to wait three days for printed letters to be delivered by the post office after public safety threats this year (when we were notified at all) is unacceptable in theis era of momentary dissemination.

o Providing better enforcement of our traffic laws to calm Town streets.

I think there is some rising concern about crime, especially in Elm Street Park, though most still probably feel that Chevy Chase remains a very safe place. I better finish this post so I can get to the candidate meet and greet in about fifteen minutes.