Montgomery County Development Watch

The Montgomery County Council approved increasing fees on developers in two test votes yesterday:

In test votes on proposed revisions to the county's growth policy, designed to get a sense of the nine-member council, a majority supported increasing fees on new development to help cover the cost of more students and classrooms. For a public elementary school, for instance, the fee would increase from $12,500 to $19,514, far less than the $32,524 recommended by the Planning Board.

However, the Council was tightly divided over a proposed amendment allowing developers off the hook if they include more affordable housing:

"Adding significant costs will have remarkable implications, if not death-toll implications, for affordable housing," said council member Nancy Floreen (D-At Large), who was joined by George L. Leventhal (D-At Large), Michael Knapp (D-Upcounty) and Valerie Ervin (D-Silver Spring).

Council member Marc Elrich (D-At Large) criticized some of his colleagues' focus on moderately priced housing. "To hang this process around affordable housing is a joke. What this county does is next to nothing," he said.

The amendment was rejected by Elrich, Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville), Roger Berliner (D-Potomac-Bethesda), Marilyn Praisner (D-Eastern County) and Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large).

My guess is this battle is just a preview for the critical fight over how traffic congestion is measured. In growth-policy speak, these are called the Local Area Transportation Review (LATR) and the Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR). The Council won't take test votes on that until next Tuesday. Developers are clearly unhappy about those proposed changes as well, though residents have consistently expressed anger over the lax standards at public meetings on the topic.

The Action Committee for Transit (ACT) and Coalition for Smarter Growth sent out a press release (not posted to either website yet) opposing the proposed changes which would tighten the policy (read: inch these measures a tad closer to measuring the real level of traffic). Indeed, the press release made it quite clear that ACT wants to push the pedal to the metal on development around Metro stops, claiming that development does not increase traffic in those area, using Rosslyn and Ballston as examples.

I imagine many in the County would be surprised to learn that Bethesda and Silver Spring are not experiencing sufficient development or increases in density. In any case, this press release demonstrates the close alliance between ACT, the Coalition, and development interests. Moreover, failing to tighten the LATR would hardly combat sprawl as it would allow more development not just by Metro but everywhere in the County.

The press release also doesn't mention one key fact: both the existing and the proposed policy already allow for substantially higher congestion by Metro stops. Even if the LATR changes are approved, density will still continue to increase around Metro stops at a rapid pace. Indeed, people on the other side of the debate argue that the controls still don't measure the impact of development on congestion in a realistic manner.

The County did approve measures related to tighten school capacity requirements. Existing rules allow developers to build new homes even if the schools are full by borrowing school capacity from neighboring school districts. According to the Post, the Council approved tighter restrictions than recommended by the Planning Board but did not go as far as County Executive Leggett suggested.