In an email exchange widely circulated in Annapolis, Senator Jim Rosapepe (D-21) and Delegate Dereck Davis (D-25) hold a spirited duel on the issue of electricity reregulation. Davis is the Chair of the House Economic Matters Committee, which has jurisdiction over electric utilities, so he will be a big player in writing any electricity legislation. Come behind the closed doors of Annapolis and read on!
The duel began when Rosapepe sent out an email to many state legislators recruiting them to sign a letter to the Chair of the Public Services Commission (PSC) in support of reregulation.Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:17:21 -0400
Dereck Davis, who represents Prince George's County as does Rosapepe, wrote this response:
Subject: letter to PSC on Pepco and electric rates
From: Jim Rosapepe
To: State Legislators
I'm writing to invite you to join Senators Currie, Frosh, Peters, Madaleno, Muse, Kramer, Pinsky, Raskin, Harringon, Lennett, and me in supporting Governor O'Malley's efforts to reregulate electric rates and explaining how his efforts in the Constellation/EDF case will benefit Pepco customers, who we represent, as well.
Please call me on my cell at [number withheld] if you have questions, or let my staff know if you'd like to sign on.
Please let us know by 5:00pm on Wednesday.
Thanks!
--Jim
Dear Mr. Chairman:
We write to express our strong support for your efforts to protect Maryland consumers by reversing the dramatic failures of electric deregulation. In particular, we appreciate your work advising the legislature when the Senate passed the Governor's reregulation this year. This legislation advances new power plant construction and long term energy planning. We look forward to working with the Governor to pass it through both houses of the General Assembly in 2010.
Meantime, since our ratepayers are suffering from excessive rates for electricity produced by existing plants, we applaud your decision to review the Constellation/EDF transaction.
As you know, Governor O'Malley has proposed conditioning approval of this transaction on inclusion of several key protective measures for consumers, including lower rates for customers and launching the return to regulated rates for the future.
Understandably, BGE customers are enthusiastically backing the Governor's strong stance on behalf of ratepayers in this case. We write as elected representatives of Pepco customers to say that moving the Governor's agenda here is very important to us and our constituents as well. Here’s why:
First, the CEG/EDF case and the reregulation legislation we hope to pass in 2010 are aspects of the same battle for consumer rights and a return to fairness in the electric markets. Since Constellation was the major local proponent of deregulation in 1999 and remains its major defender to this day, prying Constellation away from this historic failure will create momentum for reform across the state.
Second, as your consultants demonstrated last fall, reregulation would save ratepayers billions of dollars, even if done in arm's length transactions. They showed how Pepco customers could save $1.6 billion. Deregulation defenders like Constellation have claimed that reregulating rates of existing power would be "too complicated." By restoring healthy regulation and oversight in the Constellation/EDF case, as the Governor has proposed, the PSC would demonstrate the feasibility and benefits of this approach, providing just the model we need for reducing Pepco’s inflated rates as well.
As you move forward in the Constellation/EDF case, we urge you to look for similar opportunities in the Pepco service area to reduce our constituents' electric bills by reregulating their rates. We recognize that such an opportunity may not appear immediately. But Pepco customers, like BGE and all other Maryland ratepayers, have suffered mightily from excessive electric rates. No opportunity to protect our people should be missed.
We thank you for your attention and urge you to continue in your important work.
Senators Currie, Frosh, Peters, Madaleno, Muse, Kramer, Pinsky, Raskin, Harringon, Lennett, & RosapepeFrom: Dereck Davis
And Rosapepe responded with this:
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:26 PM
To: Jim Rosapepe, State Legislators
Subject: RE: letter to PSC on Pepco and electric rates
Jim,
Thank you for the invitation to sign the letter below "supporting Governor O'Malley's efforts to reregulate electric rates". I appreciate your diligence and commitment to this most important issue facing our state. Respectfully, I have to decline this invitation on practical as well as philosophical grounds.
First of all, I strenuously disagree with your implied assertion that the enactment of SB 844 would lead to lower electric rates. Chairman Nazarian met with Delegate Brian McHale and myself on February 27th, immediately following the House floor session, to discuss this matter. During the course of this meeting, he very pointedly stated that even if we enacted this legislation "it would take years, if not decades, to fully reregulate" our electricity markets. He further stated that he could not guarantee that our constituents would realize lower rates in the near or the long term future. This admission was especially alarming to me because I had previously heard that it would cost approximately $16-20 billion to fully reregulate. As I know you are aware, utilities would be granted full cost recovery from the ratepayers for these new generation plants. That is a mighty big gamble for no guarantee of rate relief.
Secondly, I am confused by your statement that "Governor O'Malley has proposed conditioning approval of this transaction...". I may be misinformed but I thought that under the Public Utility Companies Article, this decision falls within the purview of the Maryland Public Service Commission. This may seem like a minor point to some but a significant part of the 2006 debate about electric rates centered on the lack of separation between the PSC and the Ehrlich Administration. Many Democrats, including both presiding officers, lamented the fact that there appeared to be a lack of independence being exhibited by an independent body. If what you are asserting is true, then isn't history just repeating itself? Shouldn't we allow the well-qualified, professional regulators to do their jobs without political interference? I am not suggesting we abdicate our responsibilities but by the same token, we should not over-extend our reach either.
Thirdly, I am extremely concerned about Maryland's business reputation. The General Assembly enacted SB 1013-08 after extended discussion among representatives of the governor, legislative leaders, PSC, and Constellation Energy Group(CEG). These discussions yielded numerous benefits for ratepayers within the Baltimore Gas & Electric service territory that totaled several hundred million dollars, including $18.6 million annually until 2016 for the decommissioning of Calvert Cliffs 1 and 2, a one time $187 million credit against residential customer electric bills, and $520 million from PSC Order 75757. It was understood by all parties that this would close the door on the 1999 matter and the state would move forward. It appears that just one year later, the spirit of that agreement is being violated.
In addition to the spirit of that agreement being violated, I am also taken aback by the methods we are employing relating to the CEG/EDF partnership. While I applaud the state's unrelenting commitment to affordable electricity, the end does not justify the means. Our methods and constantly changing energy policies are having a chilling effect on our utilities' bond ratings.
One question I have that no one has answered is what happens if this transaction doesn't go through? The proposed third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs is a major part of the state's future energy plans. If EDF pulls out of the deal or if the PSC denies the deal because certain concessions were not made, Constellation is back in a very tenuous financial position. Not only will this major component of our future energy plan be in jeopardy, a major employer in the state might go bankrupt. Who's going to accept responsibility for all those lost jobs and tax revenue?
Finally, I am interested in knowing the basis of your often stated opinion that Constellation "was the major local proponent of deregulation in 1999." With all due respect colleague, you were not a member of the General Assembly when this discussion took place. You resigned from the House of Delegates effective December 31, 1997, to become Ambassador to Romania. During your ambassadorship, I was a member of the House committee with jurisdiction (Environmental Matters), I served on the legislative taskforce that studied the issue, and I participated in many of the discussions involving the various details. Trust me when I tell you that the utilities, including BG&E, were opposed to changing the current system. They talked a brave game about not being afraid of competition but the fact of the matter is who would want to change a system where they were guaranteed cost recovery for their expenses as well as a guaranteed rate of return? The only entity that was really pushing this policy change was a multi-national corporation based in Houston, Texas.
The House Economic Matters Committee is diligently reviewing all the relevant issues and is committed to finding the best course of action. If the facts support reregulating, then we will lead the charge in that direction. If the facts do not support it, no amount of political pressure will lead us to implement a wrong decision.
DereckFrom: Jim Rosapepe
In reading the above exchange, we are struck by the frequency with which Rosapepe targets Constellation. The energy giant is certainly unpopular and is therefore an inviting political punching bag. That fact may count far more with the politicians than Dereck Davis's concerns over financial issues and business reputation. We are not as cynical as Blair Lee on the political positioning with regards to Constellation, but this exchange makes us wonder.
Date: Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Subject: PSC letter -- response to Chairman Davis' message
To: Dereck Davis
cc: State Legislators
Dereck --
Thanks so much for your long and thoughtful letter. Very impressive work -- and at 11:26 at night!
I look forward to discussing these issues in detail with you, as we did early in the last session. It's terrific that the committee is taking up the issue in preparation for the next session.
For now, I'll just briefly respond to each of your points and questions.
First, I agree there are no guarantees in this life -- or in reregulation of electric rates. But Maryland tested regulation for decades and it produced reliable electricity and reasonable rates. Proponents of deregulation promised lower rates and more supply. Instead, in ten years, rates have gone up more than 70% and no new major generation has been built in the state. The governor believes that increasing supply with regulation will hold down rates in the long run, based on the simple economics of supply and demand. I agree with him.
Second, I agree with you that the PSC has the regulatory responsibility to approve or disapprove the EDF investment. But, as you know, the governor has provided strong leadership for consumers by making the state an official "intervenor" in the case and has proposed to Constellation a generous compromise to assure that the benefits of potential PSC approval are shared with struggling ratepayers, not just with Constellation CEO Mayo Shattuck, who is in line for an $87 million payout. The governor's proposal is available on the web and has been widely reported in the press.
Third, I share your concern about Maryland's business reputation. Deregulation made our state less competitive for all kinds of businesses, as well as residential consumers. Lower, more stable energy costs are always a competitive advantage for a business and for a state. The governor has proposed a business-like approach to Constellation's request for the PSC to allow it to be bailed out by EDF. As you know, the management of Constellation almost bankrupted the company, as so many Wall Street banks did, by taking bad financial risks in pursuit of excessive executive bonuses. Consumers have paid the price in higher electric rates. The governor is just seeking a fair deal for our constituents.
Fourth, if EDF decides to withdraw their offer, other investors would no doubt come behind them. As a result of President Obama's efforts, the financial markets have materially improved since last September. But, even at that time, when Constellation faced ratings downgrades because of mismanagement, it had TWO offers -- one from Warren Buffett and one from a consortium of EDF, KKR, and TPG.
Fifth, I agree that I was in Romania, not in Annapolis, when deregulation was passed and that ENRON was the major out-of-state proponent of deregulation. The basis of the letter's statement that Constellation was a supporter of deregulation in 1999 is the recollections of others who were there then, including signers of the letter. We can agree that memories of people of good will can differ. Nonetheless, I'm sure we can also agree that Constellation is today the state's biggest and most aggressive protector of deregulation.
Thanks for your serious attention to this issue and I look forward to working with you on it.
-- Jim
If the politicians really want to save us money, they should send our analysis of how we can save double digits off our power generation bill to their constituents right now. That blog post is one of the most popular items we have ever published.
Individual consumer action may not get politicians re-elected, but it can save Marylanders lots of money. Everyone in Annapolis should be asking themselves which of the two is more important.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Dereck Davis vs. Jim Rosapepe on Electricity Reregulation
Who Are You?
If you are a regular reader, you know that we go absolutely banana-cakes about statistics on this blog. And so over the past month, we have applied our preoccupation with numbers to a new subject: you.
Since this blog’s inception, we have used Sitemeter’s free statistical service to track our visits and page views. But that service, while issuing monthly counts of visits and views, is rather limited in giving us information about our readers. So we purchased a premium account from Statcounter on May 30 which gave us much more feedback about you. And now we are sharing what we have learned.
First, let’s keep in mind the definitions of site visits and page views. A site visit is a series of page views by one person with no more than 30 minutes in between page views. A page view is simply a hit on a particular page. There are always more page views than site visits because many visitors look at more than one page. On MPW, visitors usually average between 1.6 and 2.0 page views per visit.
Even though Sitemeter and Statcounter use similar definitions of site visits, they produce very different results. In June, Sitemeter stated that we had 14,976 visits. Statcounter said that we had 17,108 visits – 14.2% more. The two services were much closer on page views, with Sitemeter reporting 27,705 and Statcounter reporting 27,637 – only a 0.2% difference. Neither service tracks Google Reader subscribers to our content, who number 178 at the moment. All of our statistics thereby underestimate our readership.
This blog’s traffic is cyclical. We hit peaks in the spring of 2008, October and November of 2008, and in the months leading up to the 2009 District 4 special election. Those points correspond to regular sessions of the state legislature and elections. We typically experience lulls in the summer, when state and county news slows down and many readers go on vacation. But the long-term trend is unquestionably up. In June 2009, Sitemeter’s visit count (14,976) was 827% higher than in June 2007 (1,615).
Following is Statcounter’s report on our page views in June 2009. The site traffic at this time of year is about average for us because it does not coincide with a legislative session or an election, but it does not fall during prime vacation time. This data is far from exhaustive. For example, we cannot detect the identity of individual users, but we can detect the identities of some employers and institutions. This is about as close as we can get to answering the question of who MPW readers are.
Page View Distribution by County and State
Bear in mind that many people log in through their employers’ computers and that will affect this distribution. Many of the District of Columbia and Virginia views are probably coming from Marylanders who work in those places. Also, some employers with offices in this area may be branch offices of companies whose Internet service is provided in other states.
Montgomery County: 43.7%
Prince George’s County: 6.4%
Anne Arundel County: 5.7%
Baltimore City: 2.8%
Howard County: 1.5%
Baltimore County: 1.2%
Other Maryland: 2.8%
District of Columbia: 15.6%
Virginia: 6.1%
Other United States: 12.3%
International: 2.1%
Top Localities by Page Views
1. District of Columbia: 15.6%
2. Silver Spring: 14.8%
3. Rockville: 11.1%
4. Bethesda: 4.1%
5. Annapolis: 3.5%
6. Gaithersburg: 3.4%
7. Baltimore: 2.8%
8. Chevy Chase: 2.2%
9. Germantown: 2.1%
10. Arlington, VA: 2.1%
Top Internet Service Providers of Users by Page Views
1. Individuals with Verizon Accounts: 26.7%
2. Individuals with Comcast Accounts: 19.8%
3. Montgomery County Government: 7.1%
4. Individuals with RCN Accounts: 3.6%
5. State of Maryland: 3.1%
6. Individuals with Comcast Business Accounts: 2.1%
7. Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission: 1.3%
8. Individuals with AOL Accounts: 1.3%
9. Individuals with Research in Motion Accounts: 1.1%
10. The Washington Post: 1.0%
Most-Viewed Blog Posts in June
In June, 55.5% of our page views were direct entries onto the home page. The remainder were views of specific pages. These pages received the most views during the month, meaning they were the hottest ones on this blog.
1. Young Guns of MoCo, Part Two
2. Young Guns of MoCo, Part Four
3. Ten Random Questions
4. Is Leggett Undermining Navarro on Day One?
5. Kagan Sweetens Up District 17
6. Young Guns of MoCo, Part Three
7. What ACT is Not Telling You About Rich Madaleno
8. Young Guns of MoCo, Part One
9. Big Daddy Spanks Jack Johnson Over WSSC
10. Maryland Politics Watch: WSSC
Oldies But Goodies
These blog posts were written in 2008 or earlier but still received at least two views per day in June.
1. The Hucker Ballot
2. On Raskin v. Ruben in District 20
3. Who the Frick is Bill?
4. MoCo Most Influential 2008
The Most Downloaded Graphic in June
Now was this a big surprise? The House Majority Leader is almost as kind to this blog as MoCo’s cultural hero, Delegate Saqib Ali.
The user distribution was fairly stable throughout the month, but the specific pages’ popularity varied quite a bit. The Whispers of the At-Large race series once occupied a number of the top spots but was blown away by the Young Guns. We’ll report back on July’s hottest posts in a couple weeks!
Star Chambers of Annapolis
Maryland’s Open Meetings Act, originally passed in 1977, is one of the state’s greatest laws. The act requires multi-member public bodies with a quorum to open their meetings to the citizenry and give them reasonable advance notice of their date, location and time. The statute is generally observed at the state, county and municipal levels with occasional violations subject to investigation by a compliance board. But there is at least one institution in the state that often violates the spirit of the law with no consequence:
The committees of the General Assembly.
Maryland’s General Assembly operates under a strong committee system. Every state legislator is assigned to one committee. That committee’s Chair runs the meetings and schedules consideration and votes on bills. Some committees have sub-committees with their own Chairs. The committees are the location of much of the action in the legislature. They are where the bills are studied and debated, testimony is heard and amendments are usually considered (although floor amendments are also possible). Bills pass, change and fail in committee. If a bill cannot emerge from its committee with a favorable report, it almost always dies.
Technically speaking, committee meetings are open to the public. But some committees discourage attendance at their work sessions, especially by bill advocates. It is common knowledge in the capital’s lobbying community that some Chairs will not hold votes or discussion on bills if their advocates are watching. There is never any official admonition, but merely a long-standing culture that direct observation of the legislative process is discouraged. One lobbyist tells us, “Anyone who operates in Annapolis does not recognize the difference between discouraged and forbidden.”
Those who violate the informal rule are sometimes met with an angry stare, a refusal to consider the bill in front of the violator or even a dead bill. One legislator laughs, “You can come, but you’ll be punished. They will exact street justice on you! It’s a control mechanism they use to allow bills to be killed without paying a political price.” Two old Annapolis veterans tell us it has been this way “forever.”
Another tactic used to discourage observers is snap meetings. Some committee Chairs announce their meetings on the floor, which is open to the public, but do it on short notice. Others just do it on the fly. Out-of-the-way rooms may be picked and agendas may or may not be released. Bill advocates sometimes do not know when their bills are considered and discover their fate after the fact. Subcommittee details can be even harder to discover. While committee votes are recorded (but not released on the Internet), subcommittee votes are not. Part of the lack of notice is due to the madhouse quality of some periods of the General Session, especially near the end. But some Chairs make no effort to inform the public of their committees’ activities ahead of time.
The consequences of access problems are significant. Committee votes may be recorded but deliberations are not. Lobbyists and advocates cannot witness the give and take between legislators as they discuss a bill. As one lobbyist puts it, “You don’t know who screwed you.” One legislator refers to the Chair’s “drawer,” a black hole in which doomed bills are deposited without the knowledge of their advocates. Another legislator tells us, “We have an open meetings act in Maryland for a reason and the committees should comply with its provisions. The unwritten policy of discouraging members of the public from watching voting sessions is more about protecting weak, spineless committee members than it is about serving any legitimate public interest.”
Not all committees operate in this way. We hear that some of the more open ones include Senate Finance (chaired by Senator Mac Middleton), Senate Budget and Taxation (chaired by Senator Ulysses Currie) and House Ways and Means (chaired by Delegate Sheila Hixson). Montgomery County Delegation meetings are open to the public and can be well-attended. The press go wherever they want, assuming they can find out where the committee meetings are and what they are working on.
Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39) was the only legislator to comment on these practices on-the-record. When I asked him whether some committees discouraged public attendance, he replied:It is true. It is one of the irksome things about Annapolis. At least now the House (but not the Senate) make videos of bill hearings available over the Intranet. But still, voting sessions are not available. And the presence of advocates or interested parties during voting sessions can often get a bill killed.
Another example for the legislature is the Montgomery County Council. All council and committee meeting agendas are posted on the council’s website, often a week or more in advance. All staff memos and documents are also posted on the website. Members of the public are never discouraged from attending. A bill advocate can follow legislation through committee all the way to the final vote with no pushback. It is simply the culture of the place.
We ought to be encouraging transparency and accountability, not discouraging it. The New York State Senate just launched a state-of-the-art new website that allows unprecedented public participation in the legislative process. We would do well to emulate them in this regard.... and that's about the ONLY thing we should copy about the New York State Senate!!
Ultimately, this issue comes down to whether the General Assembly will obey the spirit of Maryland’s Open Meetings Act and adhere to the values of free and fair democracy. Running a committee is a challenging job, especially in the last chaotic weeks of a General Session. Last-minute changes and quick meetings are inevitable. But the committee Chairs, and their supervisors in leadership, must make every effort to protect the right of the public to watch them deliberate at every level.
Dear readers, we are going to stay on this issue until we see some improvement. The state legislators should learn to enjoy the sunshine because, ray by ray, it will come in.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Beautiful Takedown of Steele
Post columnist Dana Milbank executed a beautiful takedown of Michael Steele today. You just have to appreciate this for the sheer artistry of it!
Lisa Fadden on Political Pulse on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County
Lisa Fadden, the Vice-President of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce, appears on the Political Pulse political talk show on:
Tues, July 21st at 9:30 p.m.
Wed, July 22nd at 6:30 p.m.
Thurs, July 23rd at 9:00 p.m.
Fri-Sun (July 24th-26th) at 6:00 p.m.
Ms. Fadden presents the Chamber's positions and takes tough questions on tax, transportation and budget issues in Montgomery County and discusses other matters as well.
Political Pulse is on Channel 16 TV in Montgomery County.
Ike Leggett on MoCo's Demographic "Problem"
The above clip is from the County Executive's interview on Political Pulse. This entire exchange is newsworthy, but here is a transcript of the County Executive’s remarks starting at 2:12 of the video.
But we haven’t lost large numbers of the affluent people leaving. It just simply has not grown as fast as it has grown in the past. What has happened, though, is that we’ve had a larger influx of people at the lower economic pendulum here, people who need the services I’ve just described. And when you have that, and you don’t have that mix that you want ideally, it will cause some challenges.Just a question: how will people at the "lower economic pendulum" feel knowing that we apparently don't want too many of them living here?
The problem that we have is that Montgomery County certainly should be a place where we welcome people of all diversified realms and experiences but we should not be a community where people come and the rest of the metropolitan area is not absorbing its share[?] of the demographic segment of the population. That’s not something Montgomery County should do. We should do our share, but we should not go beyond what I think is reasonable and oftentimes we have to try to balance that.
We want to provide the services but we do not want to become an attraction for people who move here simply because of the services and that we lose that sort of mix of economic groups throughout the county because otherwise we will have an impact on our taxes, impact on services and overall quality of life, I think, would suffer.
Snippety-Snip!
Michael Laris, the Post's new MoCo reporter, has written a delightful account of snip-snipping between the County Council and the MoCo Delegation. The genteel Ann Marimow would never have written such a gossipy piece. We think Laris is off to a great start and look forward to more guilty pleasures like this tidbit!
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.
D.C. Blog Misleads MoCo Residents on I-270
DuPont Circle resident Dave Alpert, founder of the pro-transit blog Greater Greater Washington, has launched a campaign against the widening of I-270. We usually agree with smart-growth advocates like Alpert and we admire much of his past work. But this time, he is basing the bulk of his case on misinformation. And as much as we dislike congestion and sprawl, we dislike misleading arguments even more.
Alpert’s fundamental premise is that the $3.8 billion cost of widening I-270 could be used instead for transit. The problem with this reasoning is that the extra lanes under consideration for most of the road’s length will probably charge tolls. Under the option preferred by the Montgomery County Council’s Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee, those lanes would be express toll lanes, which require vehicles to pay tolls that increase in times of great highway demand. Free-flowing toll lanes attract drivers who pay tolls until the speeds in those lanes fall to the same level as the speeds in general purpose lanes. Those tolls can be used to pay off toll-backed bonds, which can fund at least part of the cost of the project.
Greater Greater Washington calls the I-270 proposal “ICC 2.0.” In a prior post, we described how the ICC was financed:The project’s total cost is budgeted at $2.4 billion. Of that amount, $1.23 billion is from toll-backed revenue bonds, $750 million is from GARVEE bonds (which are backed by future federal aid), $264.9 million is from Maryland’s general fund, $180 million is from Maryland’s Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) and $18.5 million is from direct federal aid. That means that just $463.4 million, or 19% of the project’s cost, is coming from direct expenditures. The remainder consists of borrowed money (though some of that will draw from future federal aid).
So in the case of the ICC, over 80% of the money could not have been used for transit projects. While no one has yet proposed a financing plan for I-270, there is little reason to believe that it will not also include toll-backed bonds and highway GARVEE bonds – neither of which can be put towards transit.
Even more specious is the argument that the I-270 funding can be used to build a light-rail Corridor Cities Transitway. As we have previously explained, light rail on the CCT currently fails the federal cost-effectiveness test, thereby greatly reducing the project’s chances of obtaining federal funding. The only chance for improving the CCT’s cost effectiveness lies in accounting for increased density from the new Gaithersburg West master plan, but Alpert opposes that plan.
So Greater Greater Washington would have us believe that I-270’s toll-based funding – which after all, would not exist without a toll project – can be diverted to a rail project which probably cannot gain federal approval without increased density that they oppose. That is at best a failure of logic. At worst, it is misinformation. In either case, it is a poor basis to oppose the project.
The best arguments against the ICC were that it would lead to environmental damage, neighborhood destruction and auto-centric development. Whether they were right or wrong, those arguments were at least intellectually honest and they can be used fairly against the widening of I-270. The worst argument against the ICC was that its funding could be spent dollar-for-dollar on other projects. That claim was false as applied to the vast majority of the road’s financing, but opponents used it anyway. Greater Greater Washington’s campaign against I-270 follows that tradition.
So if you are inclined to oppose toll lanes on I-270, stand against them for honest reasons. Don’t assume that blocking road projects will help us get more transit, or that Montgomery County will turn into one big DuPont Circle as a result.
Monday, July 20, 2009
MTA Backs Off Spying (Updated)
The Maryland Transit Administration has told the Baltimore Sun that it has pulled back its audio surveillance proposal. Sun reporter Michael Dresser credits MPW guest blogger Paul Gordon for helping to generate this decision. Thanks, Paul and Mike!
Update: The Washington Post's article on this fails to mention that MPW broke this story and that the Sun's poking around caused MTA to withdraw its proposal. What class they have!
Chamber: Delay Vote on CCT, Support Toll Lanes on I-270
Following is the letter from the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce to the County Council.
July 20, 2009
Phil Andrews
President, Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850
Re: Corridor Cities Transitway and I-270 Recommendations
Dear President Andrews and Councilmembers:
As you prepare to make your recommendation to the Governor regarding the preferred alternatives for the I-270 Multimodal corridor study, the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce would like to take this opportunity to urge you to act in the best interest for the future economic development and vibrancy of this community. We must make wise investments in our infrastructure that will provide adequate support for our future generations of businesses and residents to thrive.
Corridor Cities Transitway Mode Selection: As we have emphasized in our previous testimony, light rail transit along the CCT alignment provides the strongest opportunity for economic development, and a permanent sense of transit commitment to the I-270 corridor. While we understand that Bus Rapid Transit may be the option that ultimately meets FTA standards for cost effectiveness, we do not believe this decision can adequately be made today without the benefit of approved master plans in Germantown and Gaithersburg West. The Maryland Transit Administration will study the impact of these increased densities on ridership regardless of the Council’s recommendation, which will delay the project 9 to 12 months. Therefore, no urgency exists for the Council to make a recommendation to the Governor until that data is presented. The Council should postpone making a recommendation on mode choice to the Governor until the ridership data includes critical master plans that could change the ridership dramatically. If the Council feels a recommendation must be made at this time, it should be a recommendation for light rail, demonstrating a commitment to making transit work in this very important growth center of the County.
I-270: We continue to urge the Council to select highway option 7, which provides for two additional express toll lanes in each direction on interstate 270. As you know, I-270 is a corridor planned for major job growth, and is already one of the most congested roads in the region. Companies cannot be expected to want to continue to locate in the I-270 Corridor as it simply grows more congested every day, and their employees are forced to sit in traffic. As the State Highway Administration informed the Council’s T&E Committee, widening I-270 will not only positively impact mobility, but will also positively impact the environment, contributing to a net improvement in air quality when cars aren’t spending time idling in congestion. The express toll lanes as provided in option 7 are not only needed for our future, they are long overdue. We urge you to move forward with option 7 so that future companies will select a vibrant I-270 corridor to be a part of, rather than avoid Montgomery County because of our traffic congestion challenges that negatively impact our quality of life.
Sincerely,
Georgette Godwin
President and CEO
Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce
Smart Growth Groups Oppose I-270 Widening
Following is the press release from Action Committee for Transit, the Audubon Naturalist Society, the Coalition for Smarter Growth and 1000 Friends of Maryland.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 20, 2009
Ben Ross, President
Action Committee for Transit
ben@disposalsafety.com
Dolores Milmoe, Conservation Associate
Audubon Naturalist Society
dmilmoe@audubonnaturalist.org
Cheryl Cort, Policy Director
Coalition for Smarter Growth
cheryl@smartergrowth.net
Dru Schmidt-Perkins, Executive Director
1000 Friends of Maryland
dru@friendsofmd.org
Proposed $4 Billion I-270 Expansion at Odds with Montgomery County’s Smart Growth and Climate Goals
The Montgomery County Planning Board recently recommended that taxpayers spend $4 billion on widening I-270 while it voted to deny public funding to a $70 million plan to rebuild Rockville Pike near White Flint Mall that would turn the highway into a pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly boulevard with center bus lanes, and would support a compact, sustainable redevelopment plan.
“We urge the County Council to reject the Planning Board’s misguided transportation recommendations, the result of which would be more cars on the highways and more traffic jams,” said Ben Ross, President of Action Committee for Transit, a Montgomery County citizens group. “The council should ask the State to evaluate some of the many possible transportation improvements for the corridor that don't involve more highway lanes. We cannot pave our way out of traffic congestion.”
Dolores Milmoe, Conservation Associate for the Audubon Naturalist Society, agrees. “Rather than waste $4 billion widening I-270,” said Milmoe, “the county should invest in light rail from Shady Grove to Kentlands; a fast, direct rail connection from Shady Grove to Germantown and Clarksburg; and all-day, two-way MARC service from Union Station to Frederick and Harper's Ferry.” (The latter is already in the state's plans, but remains unfunded.)
The groups, joined by other transportation activists in our area also prefer that part of the money go toward rebuilding Route 355.
“We support turning Rockville Pike into a walkable urban boulevard, beginning in the White Flint area and stretching to Rockville and Gaithersburg,” said Ross. “The people-first approach that has been designed for White Flint would serve as a model to improve accessibility along the rest of Route 355 in the future.”
“At what point in our history would the widening ever stop?” asked Cheryl Cort, Policy Director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, about the Planning Board’s I-270 recommendation. “Meeting the county and state smart growth goals, and reducing traffic, energy use and climate emissions, demands a very different and comprehensive approach -- making transit and walkable streets the top priority.”
"We urge the County Council to reject the Planning Board's misguided transportation recommendations and to ask the County and State to instead evaluate and adopt a comprehensive set of transportation and land use solutions for the corridor that don't involve never-ending highway widening,” said Milmoe. “We want the Council to make a statement against lanes as the solution to the corridor's needs and to adopt transportation solutions in keeping with their expressed commitments to fight climate change, reduce energy use, and implement smarter growth.”
The groups also endorsed the Sierra Club’s recent letter to the Montgomery County Council. The letter provides additional detail as to why all of the groups request a more comprehensive examination of alternatives.
Sierra Club Opposes I-270 Widening
Following is a letter from the Montgomery County Sierra Club to the County Council opposing I-270 widening.
July 19, 2009
Dear Councilmember ,
Re: Montgomery County Sierra Club Statement on I-270 / Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT) Project Planning Study
The plans for widening I-270 reflect a business-as-usual philosophy, a throw-back to a 1950s “roads first” approach rather than a forward-looking one that emphasizes transit and smart growth. We know now that increasing road capacity inevitably leads to greater car use, and then to car-centric residential and commercial construction alongside the new capacity.
We do recognize that I-270 is congested as far out as Frederick, including traffic caused by diffuse employment centers in Montgomery County. But road widening is not the way to solve it and the options the Council is being asked to choose among represent a false choice. Right now you can either choose the straw-man “no-build” option or select one of the remaining options that differ from each other largely in how many new lanes of highway are built and whether any of the lanes will charge dynamic tolls or not. The impact on I-270 congestion of making improvements to public transportation is limited to looking at the Corridor Cities Transitway. The possibility that more extensive and robust additions to the County’s public transit system (over and above the CCT) might be as effective at reducing traffic congestion on I-270 as adding more lanes is not even considered.
The consequences of reaching a wrong decision within the confines of a false choice are serious. The financial cost of any of the alternatives is in the billions of dollars. Just as important are the environmental costs of choosing an alternative that will add several additional lanes of traffic traveling the length of the county.
In order to escape the confines of the false choice now before you, it is necessary to create and then analyze the impact on congestion of a comprehensive transit alternative serving the Corridor Cities and Frederick County. Such an alternative may cost less than widening I-270. A comprehensive transit solution would have a smaller environmental impact. It would support concentrated development at transit stations instead of promoting car-dependent, low-density development. It has the potential to help Montgomery County achieve the 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions called for in county legislation passed in 2008—something that having additional lanes of traffic on I-270 will never do.
We ask that you not select a Locally Preferred Alternative at the July 21st County Council meeting. Instead we request you postpone selecting a Locally Preferred Alternative until a comprehensive transit option is developed and its impact on projected congestion on I-270 is fully analyzed and compared to I-270 widening alternatives.
This is an opportunity for Montgomery County and Maryland to move away from the unsustainable approach of always responding to congestion by building more lanes of highway. At a time when destructive climate change seems increasingly likely in the not-so-distant future and rising oil prices affect our economic welfare today, we truly are at a fork in the road.
Sincerely,
David Hauck
Chair
Sierra Club, Montgomery County Group
301-270-5826
I-270 Opponents Risk Traffic Nightmare
By Richard Parsons.
The Montgomery County Council will soon have another opportunity to comment on long-standing regional transportation plans to add new HOV or managed-toll lanes along heavily congested sections of I-270 in Montgomery County. This is part of a region-wide effort to create a coherent HOV/express-toll lane network to help move interstate and regional through-traffic more efficiently on our major highways and to free up more capacity for local trips. The Council is now considering what comments to submit on the Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Assessment (AA/EA), the latest phase of the ongoing “I-270/US 15 Multimodal Corridor Study.” This study, which has been going on for over a decade, is examining the impact of adding up to two new lanes on I-270, from Shady Grove Road to Frederick, and the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), as either a light-rail or bus-rapid transit line from the Shady Grove Metro station north to Clarksburg.
The results of the AA/EA study clearly show the need for both the CCT and the new lanes on I-270. Together, they bring about a dramatic reduction in traffic congestion and the improvements, even compared to current conditions, will last all the way out to 2030 and beyond. The results also provide an alarming look at just how bad traffic conditions on I-270 would be without the new lanes (whether mass transit service is expanded or not).
The bottom line: Traffic conditions on I-270 under the “no-build” scenario would range from “horrific” to a full-blown “traffic nightmare” during both rush-hours. However, with a combination of new managed lanes and better transit service from a light-rail CCT, we can avoid this. These findings are not new: The Planning Board’s TPR Report reached exactly the same conclusions back in 2002, which is why this project was added to the County’s 10-year Transportation Plan at that time. This latest AA/EA document, on which the Council is now being asked to comment, confirms why the widening of I-270 was adopted by the Council without much controversy. All you need to do is look at the numbers from the table below to understand why:
Dramatic Traffic Relief
What jumps out of this table is the dramatic traffic relief these improvements deliver: A 61% reduction in congestion, and several segments that move from stop-and-go conditions at 5-10 mph (without the widening) to freeway speeds of 55 mph and above (with the new lanes). Overall, travel time is cut by 55% to 60% and travel speed increases by 70% to 87%. When travel speeds improve this significantly, not only do you help people get where they are going much faster (a good thing, last I checked), but you also save tons of wasted fuel and unnecessary auto emissions from over 200,000 cars per day stuck idling in stop-and-go conditions, which is the worst possible outcome for the environment (and exactly what the no-build Alternative produces).
State officials who testified before the T&E Committee indicated that most of these positive traffic relief impacts are due to the added capacity on I-270, but the addition of a dedicated alignment for the CCT, which is also included in both build-alternatives, also helps to a smaller degree. The CCT provides a valuable alternative to being stuck in traffic on I-270, but by itself, it does not deliver anything like these dramatic reductions in traffic or even keep things from getting dramatically worse over time. The best solution is clearly doing both, based on the study data.
How Bad it will Get Without the New Lanes
To drive home the point about just how bad conditions would be in 2030 under the No-build Alternative, and how much better travel conditions would be in 2030 with either Alternatives 7A or 7B, Table 2 breaks out the data on “Levels of Service” (LOS) and “Volume to Capacity” ratios (V/C). V/C ratios over 1.0 generally mean traffic is severely congested with actual volumes that exceed the design capacity of the roadway. The “No-build” shows several segments in the range of 1.31 to 1.57 in Montgomery County, which essentially means stop-and-go conditions and long delays. In fact, as you can see below, without the widening, the entire length of I-270 in Montgomery County would be either at LOS “E” or “F” and some segments are very deep into “F.” You can see the difference that adding two new lanes and the CCT will make very clearly in this table:
Adding new lanes makes a lot of these red segments turn green. A similar change happens in the PM rush-hour.
New Lanes Provide Enhanced Transit Service that Complements the CCT
A key point missing from this discussion has to do with transit service, both through the length of the CCT alignment from Shady Grove to Clarksburg, and from Clarksburg north to Frederick. The new lane capacity, especially in Alternative 7A, which provides barrier-separated express lanes, allows you to vastly improve transit service throughout the corridor. With that new capacity, you can run fast express busses from Frederick all the way down to key points like Clarksburg, Germantown, Metropolitan Grove and Shady Grove. With this plus the more local service provided along the dedicated CCT alignment, between Shady Grove and Clarksburg, you have a very robust, effective and efficient transit system offering both local and express service. Transit travel times from Clarksburg to Shady Grove drop by 40% under this scenario. But without the extra lanes on 270, you can forget about transit to Frederick, and you make "express bus" on 270 an oxymoron. And for those who have not been paying attention to the last two decades of studies on this point, rail to Frederick is not a viable option. Not now, not 20 years from now, not 40 years from now, maybe not ever. The numbers could not be clearer.
If the County Council wants to be serious about expanding transit service in this key smart-growth corridor, the plan the Council’s T&E Committee approved is the right approach, with one exception: They should have stood their ground for a light-rail CCT instead of Bus-Rapid-Transit (BRT). The state is going to have new numbers this Fall which may boost the cost-effectiveness data enough to win federal approval for light-rail, and the full Council should hold firm for light rail.
270 is Critical to a Sustainable Economic Future
The difference this project will make to Montgomery County employers located in the I-270 corridor is hard to overstate. It literally will make or break the I-270 corridor and its ability to attract and retain knowledge workers. The kind of traffic conditions shown in Table 2 for the no-build alternative will be the death-knell of our leading employment corridor. Those conditions are simply not sustainable, environmentally or economically. Without these new lanes, we will literally choke the life out of Maryland’s leading job creation engine, the I-270 Technology Corridor.
This would be the opposite of smart growth. Maryland’s landmark 1997 Smart Growth Act specifically calls for transportation improvements to be focused on limited-access highways and transit facilities that link smart growth centers together in existing, already developed corridors like this one. Both the CCT and the new managed lanes on I-270 would clearly fall within the letter and the intent of Maryland’s Smart Growth Act, as every one of the major job and population centers that would be served by this project has already been designated as a “Priority Funding Area” (the technical term for smart growth centers in Maryland).
THE REAL CHOICE HERE:
We all know travel conditions on most of I-270 will become virtually impassable without this project. The study results clearly show that both the new lanes and the CCT are needed. This is why Roger Berliner (hardly a pro-highway kind of guy) and Nancy Floreen (a huge supporter of the CCT) voted to support both the 270 widening and the CCT on the T&E Committee – a vote that was driven by some very compelling data.
The only real question before the Council is which “build-alternative” to support. Alternative 3 is recommended by the County Executive. Alternative 7A provides the most traffic relief and the greatest transit service in the corridor. The “no-build” scenario is simply not an option. Alternative 7A appears to be the best option based on the traffic relief it provides and the superior local and express transit service it provides for the entire corridor.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Buying Local in Maryland
By Eric Luedtke.
Maryland’s Buy Local Challenge week starts July 18th and runs through July 26th – and if you haven’t had a chance to try local food, now’s the time. The premise is simple; just eat one thing from a local farm every day during the week. That’s cake. I mean absolute cake. And once you’ve tried it and found out how simple it is, and how much great local produce there is, my guess is you’ll do it a lot more often than one week in July.
Some of you may already be pretty familiar with the local food movement. It’s been around a long time, but has absolutely exploded over the last couple of years. In almost a perfect storm for the food industry, concerns about the chemicals and processing in store-bought food (see the movie Super Size Me if you haven’t yet), increasing recognition of how long-distance conventional agriculture can contribute to global warming, and the Food Network driven obsession with new and unique food experiences have combined to seriously ramp up the popularity of local foods. And the market has responded – there are now successful farmer’s markets in pretty much every corner of the county, and shares of Community Supported Agriculture operations sell out early each spring. [Pause for definition: Community Supported Agriculture, CSA for short, is where a consumer buys a ‘share’ of a farmer’s produce, the consumer gets a box of fresh, interesting produce each week and the farmer has a guaranteed income through good and bad years.]
I’ve become sort of an expert on living off of local food over the last year. My wife Emily and I are always up for a challenge, and last year after reading a book called The 100 Mile Diet about a couple’s attempts to live entirely off of local food in Vancouver, we decided on a bit of a whim to try out the 100 mile diet for ourselves. For about eight months, everything we ate with only a few exceptions came from within 100 miles of our home in Burtonsville. In some ways, it was a lot easier than we imagined. There are a tremendous number of local food producers within our 100 mile radius, which includes most of Maryland and large sections of northern Virginia and southern Pennsylvania. For practical reasons, we made some basic exceptions. We had a social rule, because when you’re going over to someone’s house for dinner it isn’t exactly polite to refuse to eat the food they make. We made exceptions for coffee (which neither of us can live without), spices (who wants bland food?), and baby food and formula (although we began making a lot of our own baby food out of local produce, and ended up using almost no store-bought food for Colin, our now 16 month old son). And still sticking with the spirit of the hundred mile diet, we ate local food as much as possible in places we went, which meant that the only time we had orange juice during that eight months was when we visited my in-laws in Florida.
But it absolutely forced us to rethink the way we eat – something we had taken for granted. We’ve always tried to buy good organic produce as much as possible, but eating entirely local forced us to give up the idea of instant gratification in food. Our modern food system can get us pretty much anything at any time we want – Strawberries in September, Broccoli in January – without paying much attention to what’s in season. On a purely local diet, we quickly found that we couldn’t have anything we wanted when we wanted it. Our angst about that lasted about a week, until we figured out that it’s pretty easy to preserve foods at home. We froze berries, corn, beets, green beans, and local meats. We bought a water-bath canner, which is surprisingly simple to use, and canned our own peaches, plums, tomatoes, tomato sauce, pickles, jam and jelly, applesauce, and rumtopf (a German preserve saved for winter where summer fruits are preserved in rum and sugar). We even air dried our own chilies – though if we had only had the good sense to spend a few bucks on a food dehydrator we could have made our own dried fruits and jerky as well. It also took some time to figure out how to work substitutions – you can use honey in place of sugar in some recipes, some local fruits in place of citrus, etc.
And we researched. A lot. If you look hard enough, the internet has a lot of information about where to get local foods. I like to bake and we ran out of our existing flour pretty quickly. It took us an exhaustive internet search to find Wade’s Mill, which is the closest working flour mill in our region, milling almost entirely local grain. We found and started going to farmer’s markets in Olney and Silver Spring. We signed up for a CSA – at the time we used Sandy Spring CSA but switched to Evensong Farms this year because we liked that the farmer there tries out more heirloom varieties of vegetables and unique things we hadn’t tried much before. We started going to pick your own places like Butler’s Orchard in Germantown, Larriland in Howard County, and Blueberry Gardens in Ashton. We learned about new foods we hadn’t tried but which we now love like ramps (a wild leek that tastes intensely of garlic and onions), gooseberries (which our son loves), and stinging nettle (which tastes a little like spinach and obviously needs to be handled very carefully). Even with that experimentation, there are local foods we never got the chance to try, like paw paw, a local native plant whose fruit supposedly tastes tropical. And we got to know producers personally, which was by far the best part about our experiment. Farmers are great people.
We gave up on the experiment mid-winter, when it became clear that we hadn’t preserved nearly enough food to last us through. But a lot of the habits have stuck with us, and the vast majority of our food is still local. We’ve become sort of local food evangelists among our friends, giving away our preserves and telling them about how fun pick-your-own is while they stare at us oddly. But, joking aside, a lot of people we know have started getting into local food as well, and all over the country. It’s an exciting time to be trying it out. In any case, one local food per day over the next week shouldn’t be too difficult, and I encourage you to give it a try. I’ve included some more links below to help you get started.
Farmer’s Market Directory: be sure to ask the farmer if food is local or organic – not all farmer’s market products are.
Pick Your Own Directory
The Montgomery County Farm Directory: a big pdf
USDA Guide to Home Food Preservation
Seasonal Food Calendar
Some of our favorite producers (not all are organic growers):
Apples – Heyser Farms (also carries local eggs and dairy, though not all produce is local)
Cheese – Firefly Farms
Flour – Wade’s Mill
Honey – The Bee Folks
Produce – Evensong Farm
Produce – Charlie Koiner
Thanksgiving Turkey – Maple Lawn Farms
Friday, July 17, 2009
Virginia Republican Advocates for "Bullet Box" Against "Tyranny"
Read more about it in this Post article.
Maryland Transit Administration Wants to Record Our Conversations
By Paul Gordon.
Imagine you’re sitting on the MARC train, having a conversation with someone you’re close to – your husband, maybe, or a close friend. You’re hardly talking about classified material, but you still don’t want people listening in to your private conversation. So you keep your voices down. You look around to make sure you have some space around you and as much privacy as you could reasonably expect in a public area. It’s the sort of thing that happens every day.
Except this time, without your knowledge, someone is listening in. Someone from the government. Because the state is recording your conversation on the train.
Personally, I find the idea of the state recording people’s conversations on public transportation creepy, something I would expect from the old Soviet Union.
But that’s exactly the scenario that came to mind when I read the Maryland Transit Administration’s request for the opinion of the Attorney General. Last Friday, the MTA submitted a letter asking for an opinion of the Attorney General on the following questions:
1. Can MTA lawfully make audio recordings of the conversations of passengers and employees on board public transit vehicles operated by or under contract to the MTA?
2. Does the Maryland Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Act,§§10-401 through 10-403 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, Annotated Code of Maryland, require MTA, when using audio recording devices on board transit vehicles operated by or under contract to it, to obtain the consent of passengers and employees before recording their conversations?
3. If the answer to Question 2, above is in the affirmative, through what means can consent be obtained, e.g. can MTA obtain passengers’ and employees’ consent by posting signage on board its vehicles containing words such as, “This car (or bus) is subject to video and audio surveillance?”
Now I am no expert on Maryland state law in this area. But I am an expert at being an American citizen living in a society where I don’t expect the government to be recording my every word. And from that perspective, I find the MTA letter alarming. The fact that a state agency wants to record passenger conversations – and is even asking if there’s a way to do it without our consent – makes my blood run cold.
Yes, it may help the government detect or prevent crimes. Who knows, it might even stop a terrorist. But that is not the only issue. If it were, we would not need the Bill of Rights. Putting limits on government power has always meant that not every crime will be stopped, and not every guilty person will be punished. That is the price of liberty.
Of course, the Attorney General can only address whether the MTA can record passenger conversations. Whether the MTA should do this is a matter for our elected officials in Annapolis to address.
The Reporting Life, Part Five
By Kathleen Miller.
6:30 to 7:30 p.m.
Now’s the time when you send your story over to an editor for review and let your mind rot a bit while you surf Facebook, Perez Hilton or Media Bistro Fishbowl D.C. - if you’re me. It’s also a good time to scan your competitor’s websites, make sure there was nothing major that broke and they’re already reporting while you wrote your story on something entirely different.
The editing process usually is fairly painless. The boss reviews your article, catches any glaring typos and asks you for more detail if they feel like there are some holes in your work.
Most days, I look at my stories afterwards and thank God for editors. The good ones will make your story flow 100 times better than it was before, slice out extraneous information and make sure you spelled George Leventhal’s last name as Leventhal, and not Levanthal.
There are bumps in the road, however, even with a good editor. A few years ago, I pitched a story about county fair woes, including the fact that they seem to attract gangs and nobody I know goes to fairs anymore. My editor loved it. He lived in Montgomery County and heard much of the same from his friends and neighbors, nobody takes their families to the fair anymore, largely because they’re worried about crime.
The greenlight was given. I started reporting and spent four days talking to police, fair operators and residents. The people I stopped on the streets of Rockville said exactly what my boss and I had predicted: essentially, “We don’t go to the fair anymore, we used to but our friends were robbed last time we went and it’s just not safe.”
Except I had a major problem: the stats didn’t back up that sentiment. In fact, the Montgomery County fair had record attendance the year before, and while police had detained an armed, known gang member outside the entrance gates, there hadn’t been a major incident inside the fairgrounds.
I had informed one supervisor of this, and said I was going to have to write the story differently, focusing on how despite record attendance there are new concerns for fairs. I.e., police have to be more vigilant about crime and with the economy tanking, many vendors can’t afford to travel to as many fairs as they used to do.
The other editor, however, read the final version of my story and found it totally unacceptable. He wanted the original idea we’d discussed. I told him I couldn’t write that because the facts didn’t back it up.
We fought. And fought and fought and fought. In a weaker moment, I walked outside and sat in a park near tears. There was no way I was going to let the story appear in print with my name on it if I didn’t agree with the underlying premise. On the other hand, he’s the boss. He has the final say.
I debated playing the reporter’s only trump card: I could pull my name from the story, tell him he was free to run it as he wished (which he can always do without my permission anyhow), but I didn’t want my byline attached to it. It’s an approach that makes everybody unhappy, but it is the last thing a reporter can do when battling with an editor.
I’d never done it before, and it didn’t get that far that day. I’m not sure either of us was ecstatic about the final version of the article, but I felt it was fair. We talked about the crime concerns, used anecdotes and quotes, but also noted the record attendance and that the biggest local incident had been averted by cops outside the Montgomery County fairgrounds.
There is often a natural tension between reporters and editors. We’re hired to write and report stories, and they’re hired to question them and improve them. It is literally their job to correct what we do. The system probably functions best when they’re comfortable challenging our work and we’re comfortable standing up for it, but it does require a thick skin on both ends.
Conclusion
Once the editing’s done, a reporter is free to go home - where, as I’ve noted, they’ll often continue compulsively checking facts long after the day is supposedly over.
Then, it’s time for bed, when the worries sink in that another publication will have a story you didn’t or have dug deeper than you on a given topic.
Trust me, there is nothing worse than getting beat on a story. It can happen in all sorts of ways. You can be flat-out oblivious to something. In my case, see Washington Post reporter Ann Marimow’s “County Executive to get $65,000 Bathroom” story. I was clueless there was any sort of bathroom brouhaha whatsoever. Or similarly Post reporter Miranda Spivack’s scoop “Report on Water Quality Withheld.”
You can be looped-in on a topic and miss a major development that another reporter catches. In my case, see Janel Davis’s “Disability Retirement Review Nets Another Employee.”
And, perhaps most painful of all, you can have the story but be holding out for one more comment, one more fact and lose the whole thing in the process. This happened to me in Marimow’s “Montgomery Disability Practices Under Fire.”
It works both ways, however - I received friendly emails from other local reporters congratulating me on a story I broke that there was a federal investigation into the disability retirement packages of two former Montgomery County assistant police chiefs.
This winter, other news outlets followed a story I broke at the AP about a congressman from the Bronx that had collected thousands of dollars in property tax credits over ten years by claiming his primary residence was in Montgomery County although he was registered to vote and drive in New York. Bloomberg and the Post followed the story shortly thereafter, noting that a high-ranking California congressman had similarly exploited the Homestead Property Tax credit for his Anne Arundel home.
Again, competition should work both ways - and when it does everybody benefits. Reporters work harder when they know somebody is chasing the same story, and the audience gets more-informed articles.
This area is lucky to have The Washington Post as the paper of record - however, that’s generated a sense of entitlement among many local folks that complain when the Post doesn’t cover this county issue or that county issue. The Post, like most media organizations, is dealing with financial strains that don't allow them to run every story their reporters pitch. In many newsrooms right now, there is a battle for space that pits reporters against other reporters and editors against editors at the same paper every day to score a spot for their article.
To those in the community who feel slighted, I say cry me a river - you’ve got plenty of other places to go to pitch stories and read local news.
Make use of them. The Gazette has dozens of reporters covering Maryland, the Examiner sets aside space for at least six Montgomery County stories a week. This blog itself is read by most insiders, activists and reporters in the area.
You never know. Bob Woodward got his start at the Sentinel, and Maureen Dowd covered some of the issues surrounding Robin Ficker’s first ballot referendum victories on landfills and sewage sludge for the now-defunct Washington Star.
If it’s a good story, it will capture the public’s attention no matter who covers it.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Senator Jennie Forehand Files for Re-Election
Rockville Central has her statement. Senator Forehand, who has served in the Senate since 1994, will be challenged by former Delegate Cheryl Kagan.
The Gaithersburg West Master Plan and the Magic Carpet
By Donna Baron.
The Gaithersburg West Master Plan is by all accounts unique among master plan nightmares. Not only has the Montgomery County Planning Board proposed to bury a large portion of the county in traffic, it is also permitting Johns Hopkins Real Estate to destroy one of the most beautiful Civil War-era farms left in the county, Belward Farm. In order to create a “Science City”, this plan will bring 40,000 more workers plus the residents of 5,000 multi-family housing units to an area that is less than two square miles, is already highly congested and is located five miles from the nearest Metro station.
Belward Farm
To justify these phenomenal numbers, the County and Johns Hopkins Real Estate announced that our established residential suburban community would become an urban “transit oriented development”. To effect this abrupt change, the County has rolled out 45-year-old plans for the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), a rapid-bus that will meander through the area. Granted, the CCT would be a nice addition to our transit options, but the County, the developers and the politicians portray it as the magic carpet that will solve all of our transportation problems while allowing unlimited increases in density.
However, many areas of Montgomery County offer special challenges to those who would seek to increase transit ridership. The Planning Board and the developers have spent the past 50 years creating auto-dependant subdivisions filled with cul-de-sacs and limited access to secondary roads. Residents cannot get out of their subdivisions without their cars, so in order to go anywhere they have to think about where they will park their cars.
Curly Streets and Cul-de-Sacs
To make matters worse, the Planning Board, in its infinite wisdom, has decided to limit parking near the CCT stations. If residents cannot get out of their subdivisions without their cars and then must drive to the CCT, where will they put their cars once they get there? My guess is that they will drive to their destination rather than to the CCT.
Another troubling aspect of the proposal for the CCT is that the County has said it will be necessary to propose the addition of approximately 50,000 people to the “Science City” in order to secure funding for the CCT. However, the CCT is only expected to carry 15% of the population leaving 85% of the added population in their cars. This works out to be about 42,500 additional cars destined for the already congested roads in Gaithersburg, North Potomac, Rockville and Potomac.
To handle the 42,500 extra cars, the Planning Board has proposed six- and eight-lane highways around and through the “Science City”, complete with multi-level highway interchanges. And the state is examining options for I-270 north of I-370. However, these super highways will do little to mitigate the traffic on the other roads throughout the area. There is no assurance that the two-lane roads and the rural roads won’t be hopelessly clogged with traffic. Further, there is no assurance that those who live in the many subdivisions will even be able to get out of their subdivisions given the greatly increased level of traffic on the secondary roads.
And to make matters even worse, Johns Hopkins Real Estate is using the “Science City” and the CCT to justify building monstrous high-rises for 15,000 people on the pristine 107-acre Belward Farm despite their promises to the former owner, and despite the deed restrictions they accepted in order to purchase the farm for a fraction of its value. Even though Belward Farm is immediately adjacent to three established residential neighborhoods, JHU’s proposed high-rise commercial complex will have the density of a downtown area near a Metro station complete with 150-foot buildings.
In a suburban area where it is highly unlikely that most of the residents will be able to stop driving their cars, how can the addition of 42,500 cars on six- and eight-lane highways, with multi-level highway interchanges, be called a transit oriented development even if there is access to a rapid-bus?
It is easy to get lost in the circular reasoning used to justify the various and seemingly veiled objectives of the Gaithersburg West Master Plan. But it is clear that this plan needs to be rewritten in an honest, straight-forward manner with development that is in scale with our community, infrastructure that is appropriate for a suburban setting, and plans for Belward Farm that will respect and maintain the character of the farm. The opposition to this master plan is so widespread a website called www.scale-it-back.com has been created by civic and community organizations to voice our objections and offer alternatives.
Finally, to quote Royce Hanson, Chairman of the Planning Board, “Development of great centers need not occur at the expense of existing communities.” If only he and his Planning Board colleagues supported these words in deed.
Belward Farm and the "Science City" from a Presentation by Johns Hopkins Real Estate
Donna H. Baron, Coordinator
The Gaithersburg - North Potomac - Rockville Coalition
www.scale-it-back.com
The Reporting Life, Part Four
By Kathleen Miller.
5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Now it’s time to write. Everybody goes about this process differently.
The lede, or first sentence of an article, is arguably the most important part of a story. You’re trying to hook readers and summarize the story at once, typically in less than 40 words.
I personally prefer to dive in, throwing all my information onto the page and allowing the story to shake out as I write it. My boyfriend, who I’ve occasionally had to double byline stories with, takes the opposite approach. The kid will literally spend an hour visiting dictionary.com and using an online thesaurus to revise and rework every single word in the lede until he’s totally satisfied with it before thinking about the rest of the story.
I’m too anxious. Plus, I think while you’re writing the rest of the story, it often helps hone your lede and reminds you of what the overall point here is. That being said, his ledes are typically better than mine. But his stories are often late.
After the lede comes a nut graph, in which you put the whole story in context, generally referencing the background elements that led to the breaking news. For example, if council members voted to restrict homeowners’ rights to add-on to their homes, the nut graph may mention that “mansionization” has been an issue in Montgomery County for years as neighbors complain that some people’s massive reconstruction efforts block other people’s sunlight and intrude on their privacy.
It’s basically as simple as that typically, with the story filled out by quotes and insight from people on both sides of whatever issue is being covered.
There is a new school of thought in journalism championed by the AP’s Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier that says reporters should “cut through the clutter,” or essentially call bullshit as they see it.
I took a journalism ethics class in graduate school where we learned that during the McCarthy era, many reporters felt professionally restricted, only able to report exactly what McCarthy and his targets said, and not offer any independent insight or analysis about the situation. The press in those days, apparently, was often far less-educated than the people they covered, and there was a sort of hesitance to challenge authority or do anything other than basically act as stenographers.
Last summer, Fournier said in a memo to AP reporters that they should “write with authority.” “The AP's hard-earned reputation for fairness and nonpartisanship must not be used as an excuse for fuzzy language when a clear voice is demanded, nor should it force us to give both sides of a story equal play when one side is plainly wrong.”
Fourner said that shortly after Katrina struck, he had “dutifully reported” that President Bush had said nobody anticipated the breach of the levees, when, in actuality, many experts had actually predicted a major storm would bust New Orleans’ flood-control barriers.
“In the past, that’s all I would have written;” Fournier wrote in the memo. “Readers would get both sides of the story and then be expected to draw their own conclusion. This time, I went a step further and simply wrote: He was wrong. Why not? Why force the readers to read between carefully parsed lines when the facts are clear? Why not just get to the point? The president of the United States was wrong. The governor lied. The congressman broke his promise. The preacher, the CEO, the banker, the coach, or whomever, failed. Don’t mince words... Too often we depend on the government and its critics to tell us what happened, and we end up with he said/she said stories that never get to the bottom line.”
It’s an interesting concept. I think it’s both smart and dangerous. If you’ve covered an administration or an issue for years like Fournier or many of his team, you are probably an expert in your own right and deserve the power to call it like you see it.
You can’t use that style every day, in every story or on every topic, however, or you risk editorializing. There are some topics - for me, environmental policy - where at this stage of the game, I have no business calling BS or cutting through the clutter. I’m too green, (yikes - pun unintended) to take on that role. In others, like local immigration policy or WSSC drama, I feel like I’ve been in the weeds enough to cut through the crap on occasion.
Tomorrow: 6:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
District 20 Challenger Sends Out New Email
District 20 challenger Eli El sent out the following email last Tuesday night. He is making an early start in this campaign.
FRIENDS OF ELI
Hello Friend,
The Exploratory Committee for Eli El for Maryland State Delegate is very grassroots based. We rely on volunteers to help us accomplish our goals. Our campaign has been built one volunteer and one neighborhood at a time. Your help is critical to our victory. You can help provide the much needed resources to ensure that I am elected to the Maryland House of Delegates. The website has been updated, and you may now access the volunteer form by navigating to www.friendsofeli.com, then clicking on "volunteer".
Once we get started, your help will be absolutely critical to winning the campaign. It is the people of the great State of Maryland who keep us grounded, and you are the people I wish to serve. In the coming months, I want to listen to your ideas and desires for legislation because it is the people, not just the legislature who must live with the laws we will enact. Please take a moment to fill in the requested information and we will get in touch with you as soon as possible. We appreciate your support. With your help, we really can make a difference. Please e-mail and/or fax the form to: f: 866.783.2515 e: eli@friendsofeli.com
Feel free to forward this e-mail to your family, friends, and professional contacts.
Sign up to volunteer today!
Best Regards,
Eli El
--
Please Note:
This message was sent by Eli (eli@friendsofeli.com) from Friends of Eli El Exploratory Committee. To learn more about the Exploratory Committee, visit his website at www.friendsofeli.com or www.thisguyisreal.com Click here to be removed from our mailing list.
Exploratory Committee: eli@friendsofeli.com
7209 Flower Ave., #6; Takoma Park, Maryland USA
www.friendsofeli.com
Why At-Large?
By Marc Korman.
Back in June, MPW covered the rumored challengers for the at-large County Council seats. But with every incumbent expected to run for reelection, why are these candidates looking towards an at-large raced instead of district level runs?
Working off the list of ten rumored candidates previously discussed, here is each challenger and the district they live in:
Rumored Candidate and Council District
Jane De Winter: 1
Peter Fosselman: 5
Larry Giammo: 3
Guled Kassim: 4
Ben Kramer: 4
Cary Lamari: 4
Chris Paladino: 4
Hans Riemer: 5
Steve Silverman: 5
Becky Wagner: 1
Before launching into an analysis, a few caveats. One, some of these rumored candidates have said that they are not running, at least privately. But I kept everyone on the list used in earlier posts. Two, Adam did note in previous posts that Larry Giammo and Chris Paladino could also be candidates for district council races.
One motivation for running at-large could be political perception of where the weaknesses are. As has been covered at MPW, Duchy Trachtenberg has had difficulties with the coalition she brought together to win in 2006. Whether the broader voting public cares or if this will affect the mechanics of her campaign, I leave to others to speculate. Marc Elrich ran for the County Council numerous times before winning his seat in 2006. As of January, he had the least amount of funds raised or on hand of any of the at-large members. On the other hand, George Levanthal and Nancy Floreen are viewed as pretty safe, with $60,000 and $33,000 in the bank respectively. Levanthal was the top vote getter in the 2006 Democratic primary, while Floreen was the top vote getter in the general.
Another reason to run at-large is that many of the prospective candidates have tried and failed to win district seats in the past. Ben Kramer, Cary Lamari, Chris Paladino, and Hans Riemer have all run and lost (in Paladino’s case, he dropped out) in district County Council races at least once. Two other prospective candidates, Guled Kassim and Peter Fosselman, ran and lost a district level delegate race. Of course, that does not necessarily foreclose a later victory. Roger Berliner lost a special election for the district 1 seat in 2000 and came back six years later to knock off the guy who beat him.
Finally, for potential candidate Steve Silverman, an at-large seat would be a return to the office he previously held.
That means that of the rumored candidates strictly for at-large seats, only De Winter and Wagner do not have a previous election indicating they should be looking at an at-large slot over a district challenge.
Both of these candidates live in Roger Berliner’s district (Note: Councilman Berliner is my councilmember and I have worked with him through my capacity on the Montgomery County Democratic Central Committee). Will one or both of them decide to challenge Berliner instead of entering a crowded at-large field? Will Berliner have difficulty in a Democratic primary if there is no serious Republican candidate as there was in 2006?
