Downtown Zoning Change Submitted

This afternoon, Councilperson Mary Kay Sigaty filed a zoning regulation amendment that has been proposed by General Growth Properties. The proposal calls for 5,500 additional dwelling units, 5 million square feet of office space, 1.25 million square feet of retail space and 1,000 hotel rooms.

The amendment will first be reviewed by the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning.

This topic was discussed at length at tonight's CA Board meeting. I will have a recap of the meeting, and some discussion of the zoning in the next day or two, but right now I have some reading to do. In the meantime, here are two quick links:

Wordbones encouraged people that attended the CA Board meeting to email him thier take on the meeting, check his blog for comments.

GGP's Town Center Webpage has info on the zoning.

Symphony Woods History

I have been thinking about Symphony Woods lately. Actually, I have been thinking about Symphony Woods A LOT lately. Currently, General Growth Properties has suggested placing a Small Cities Institute, the Columbia Association Headquarters, and a Library on the site. As can be noted in the Letters to the Editor on the Explore Howard website, some are none too pleased about this proposal.

Here in Columbia, nearly everything was something else before it became something. I have heard and read many people (including CA) refer to the “natural” setting in Symphony Woods. I say not so. Before being purchased in the mid 1960’s, the land that is most of town center was owned by a man named Isadore Gudelsky. An account of Mr. Gudelsky can be found in the book Creating a New City, edited by Robert Tennenbaum. The following passage appears in the Chapter Land Acquisition: The Realtor’s Perspective and written by the realtor employed by Rouse, Robert Moxley.

The Gudelsky family was in the sand and gravel business (known as Contee) as well as the concrete and asphalt business. They owned thousands of acres of land between Baltimore and Washington, which they mined for the aggregate existing thereon.

They always bought land, but never sold any. They would, however, develop commercial buildings on it once the sand and gravel had been removed. Isadore Gudelsky was the administrator, so to speak, of all the family businesses while his brother, Homer, was in charge of operations. Another brother, Henry was in the concrete block business. Most of the Guldelsky land was titled in the family name or Contee or Percon, but it was all generally referred to as Contee property.

One of the parcels Contee owned was located on U.S. 29 in the very center of the targeted 15,000 acres being purchased by the Howard Research and Development Corporation (HRD), as the successor to CRD. Further, it was the planned location of the town center of the new city. Of course, Isadore Gudelsky was aware of the buying spree being conducted in Howard County, but he did not know for what purpose or by whom.

Another account of the land owned by Gudelsky can be found in the book Columbia and the New Cities, by Gurney Breckenfeld (1972):

“At last,” says Jack Jones, “we came to the Big Bear, Isidore Gudelsky. He wanted $5 million for his 1000 acres. By this time it was obvious that a big land assembly was going on, and he was a shrewd bargainer.” Moxley saw Gudelsky several times, usually in his auto, in a restaurant, or a drugstore. On Jones’s instructions, Moxley offered $1,750,000 in a property swap. Gudelsky allowed that maybe he’d take $4 million. “Finally,” says Jones, “I told Moxley that this deal had to be done.” It was an understatement. Unbeknown to him, Gudelsky held the key Columbia land: the town center, symphony hall, glade, lake site, and shopping district.

Based on these sources, it appears that the land that was used for Lake Kittamaquandi, the mall, and Symphony Woods was used as a surface mine prior to the purchase by Jim Rouse. Given the state of sand a gravel mines (full disclosure, in college I worked for a contractor at the site of the last remnants of the Contee empire, Laurel Sand and Gravel, off Van Dusen Road in Laurel, MD. I performed soil compaction tests to ensure the land was buildable for the future town of Konterra), there are very few trees or vegetation present. It’s mostly, sand and gravel.

My point here is that people who assume the current state of Symphony Woods as a natural setting is somewhat misplaced. Like much of Columbia, I believe, based on the sources above, that the grading and plant life in Symphony Woods may be an entirely man-made artifact. Some may argue that allowing much of the land to lay fallow for four decades has effectively returned the land to a natural state, but this is most likely not its history.

Moreover, although the Symphony Woods parcel appears large to human eyes, both on the ground and viewed on a map, it is a relatively small parcel in terms of an ecosystem. Because of this, the site must be actively managed to ensure a viable space.

Much to talk about, little time to do it

Two issues are on many minds this morning: The CA Board of Directors deliberations on Symphony Woods (I stayed until 10:30 PM last night, and still no decision had been made) and the Maryland Court of Special Appeals decision that Joel Broida has standing in his appeal of the Plaza Tower.

I have a big day today (cooling tower inspections, yea!!), so I will be putting something together on each subject this weekend. In the interim, maybe some of the anonymob can vent on either subject...

...and Speaking of CoFoCoDo...

Our friends at our favorite coalition have once again put out some poorly researched information. Currently featured on their website under the banner "CCD's Response," is the following:

"We are quite concerned that he [Greg Hamm] is insisting on proposing 5500 new residential units, three to four times the size of Wilde Lake"

Let us look past the "insisting on proposing" construct and move directly to the math. CoFoCoDo states that 5500 residential units is three to four times the size of Wilde Lake. That would put the number of residential units in Wilde Lake somewhere between 1375 and 1834 units.

One problem...it's totally false. According to the Columbia Association's 2007 Public Information Guide (page 18), Wilde Lake currently has 2618 residential units. Given that half the CA Board of Directors (Alex Hekemian (OM), Evan Coren (KC), Cynthia Coyle(HC), Michael Cornell (RH), and Phil Kirsch (WL)) are members of CoFoCoDo, maybe one of them could supply a copy of the Guide to the rest of CoFoCoDo.

Beyond the math error, I wonder what is really going on at CoFoCoDo. When I hear spokesperson Alan Klein make a speech, testify at County hearings, or speak out a community meetings; he sounds so confident, so forthright. Why is it that other parts of the organization succumb to embellishment or exaggeration (Columbia is the 2nd best city east of the Mississippi, 5500 units is four times the size of Wilde Lake) to make a point? It seems if they were right, the truth would suffice.

2008-2009 CA Board Leadership Decided

Based on reports from the field, Tom O’Connor (DS) has been elected CA Board Chair for this year and Michael Cornell (RH) has been elected vice-chair. Congratulations to Tom and Mike.

Village Election Results – Unofficial

Initial reports indicate an elevated turnout for Village Board and CA Board elections. Nine of the ten Columbia Villages had elections for Village Board. Because the election in Owen Brown was not contested, Owen Brown did not have elections this year. Columbia Council Representative (aka CA Board Member) elections were held in Town Center, Wilde Lake, Oakland Mills, Hickory Ridge, and Harpers Choice.

In Oakland Mills, the CA Board contest proved to be quite close. The Alliance for a Better Columbia President Alex Heikmein defeated former Oakland Mills Board Member Phil Engelke by eight (8) votes. Voting in Oakland Mills was up over last year. I have no specific total from OM, but I believe it is in the neighborhood of 535 votes.

Town Center elected Suzanne Waller over Steve Meskin.

In Harper’s Choice, Cindy Coyle bested Lynda Maxwell 315-200, a more than 500 person turnout.

Early results from Hickory Ridge indicate a less than quorum turnout for the Village, and the lowest turnout (at lest in terms of percentage) in Columbia for an election with a CA Board position on the ballot.

In Wilde Lake, the CA Board position was a closely contested race between Linda Odum and Phil Kirsch. Phil took the day 260-225, with 499 people voting. Once again, this contest was overshadowed by Liz Bobo’s machine. Her emails, notes left on resident’s doorsteps, and an election day phone bank operated out of her house shows the level of dedication (or interference) that she holds for a Village that she does not even call home. Bobo asserts that her involvement in the Village elections stems from her ownership of rental property in Wilde Lake. Collectively, Bobo and her husband Lloyd Knowles are one of the largest property owners (in terms of number of units) in the Village of Wilde Lake. Anyhoo, her candidate Phil Kirsch, and the four Village Board members she backed won in the Wilde Lake election this year.

Incidentally, I received enough votes this year (thank you, brave people of Wilde Lake) to win the fifth spot on the Wilde Lake Village Board.

Thanks to everyone who ran and thanks to all that voted in Columbia.

Columbia Elections - Open Forum

Well, tomorrow is election day (and it has already started in Kings Contrivance). I would like to hear what people are thinking. Is there any juice about this year's election? Any races in your village that are interesting? Is there any particular candidate with new and interesting ideas? Anyone have any predictions?

Some topics to keep in mind on the CA level:

Hiring a new president.
Watershed management.
Downtown development.
Board infighting.

Let's hear what you think!

Ignorance

The CA Board of Directors recently approved the budget for 2008/2009 fiscal year. One of the casualties of the budget was the axing of funds to address maintenance and structural problems along the Kittamaquandi Lakefront. This budget item was removed over the protestation of the CA Open Space Division. Now, I understand that members of the highly influential Alliance for a Better Columbia (ABC) have been wailing for years that the CA Board should not give much weight to CA Staff requests, so I took some time the other day to assess the material condition of the lakefront.

One of the first things I noticed were the pylons at the Town Center Boat Docks and along the warf to the bell tower. Long ago, these pylons were decorated with vertical strips of wood (balusters). Today, not a single pylon has all of the wood intact.

Here is a picture of one that is nearly intact:



In addition, many of the pylons have a substantial coating of green mildew on the north side:



There are also several pylons that have the tops bored out:





On a related note, some of the lights attached to the pylons are in disrepair (safety issue?):







Over at the boat docks, mildew has become a prominent feature:





And it appears that this mud has been around long enough to allow for some of the dock to be reclaimed by nature:



Over at the bell tower (which, by the way, when I have the occasion to watch Baltimore TV news, I love the shot of the bell tower and the lakefront during the opening), this ramp looked a little odd to me:



Upon closer inspection (another safety issue?):



Moving on to the bell tower, I took a look at the wooden cross bracing, and found this:



And this:



It appears to me that the only thing that is holding this bracing to the tower is paint and hope. I would think that with no money for repairs in the budget for the next two years, there may (and hey, I have not run the wind loading numbers here, but really, look at the pictures) be a good chance that this thing could fall over within the next two years. And wouldn't THAT look good on the Baltimore evening news.

The Howard County Framework document calls the Kittamaquandi Lakefront “the heart of downtown Columbia,” and in my opinion, it is our front porch. It is along these lakefront promenades that Presidential Cabinet Secretaries and Royalty once strolled. Today, it is in a sad state of disrepair, has some serious safety issues associated with it, and has one of our landmarks in danger of falling into the lake. I think it is time for the CA Board of Directors to come down from their ivory tower of a board room and listen to their staff. There is a real need for corrective maintenance and repair now. I think the board should listen to Evan Coren (KC) who stated at a recent board meeting (paraphrasing here) “this isn’t the same thing as providing towels at the athletic club, ignoring these issues will get you voted out of office.”

Hmmm…there is an election coming up next month.

Oh, and I didn’t even mention the trash, I just wish we had a place to put it.

Call to Service 2008

It’s election season again in the Next American City. All Villages will hold elections for Village Board and CA Board elections will be held in Wilde Lake, Town Center, Hickory Ridge, Harpers Choice, Owen Brown and Oakland Mills. I encourage anyone who wants to contribute to their community to get a nominating petition, have your neighbors sign it, and run for office.

Clearly, each Village will have its own issues; the Village Center in Wilde Lake, Wegmans in nearby Owen Brown and Long Reach, revitalization and the recent departure of businesses in Oakland Mills.

The one issue I hope that does not come up this year is downtown Columbia. For the past few years, some candidates have made a career out of stating that downtown Columbia is the NUMBER ONE issue. I for one have not seen any results from any of these single-issue candidates. Years of service, and very little to show for it.

It seems to me that the downtown Columbia issue is a bit like a scary movie. Initially, there is a lot of buzz and excitement, and you go and see the movie (and it scares the crap out of you). People leave the theater genuinely scared, and some have bad dreams. When the sequel comes out, there is another big circus, and you buy the ticket again. But this time, the movie is not so bad, there are some unexpected moments, and you might even jump out of your seat. By the third time the movie comes around, you realize it is really just a sad guy in a hockey mask. So let’s hope this fear-mongering about downtown will subside this year.

Let’s also hope that this election season will be about issues that can be addressed by the elected boards. Some topics might include those mentioned above and the high number of closed meetings at the CA level, the high CA legal fees, and the inability of the current CA board to get along with each other. Addressing these issues will allow Columbia to be better prepared for future.

CA Board of Directors Violates Bylaws, Watchdog Appear s Silent

The Columbia Association issued a press release yesterday announcing a Special Meeting scheduled for Monday, February 11, 2008:

The Columbia Association (CA) Board of Directors is inviting Columbia residents to attend a public forum on Monday, February 11 to share their thoughts on what background, experience and qualifications the next CA president should possess. The search for CA’s next president will soon begin and the Board is eager to receive community input to aid in creating the job description. Each resident will have three minutes to share their thoughts. The meeting will be held at 7:30pm at CA Headquarters, located at 10221 Wincopin Circle in Columbia.

Currently, this notice has been posted on the CA Website and has also been picked up by the Explore Howard website. A search of the Washington Post, Baltimore Examiner, and Baltimore Sun reveals no notice of this meeting. This is in direct contradiction to meeting notices as spelled out in the Columbia Association Bylaws, Section 2.07(a):

Section 2.07. (a) Notice of Meetings. Except in the case of a closed meeting as provided in paragraph (b) of this Section 2.07, notice of the place and time of every regular meeting and, if time permits, of every special meeting, shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in Columbia, Maryland at least one week prior to such meeting, and may state the business to be transacted thereat.

Given that the press release was issued after 3:30 PM on the afternoon of February 5, 2008, the February 11, 2008 meeting time is less than one week, even considering that it has not been placed in a newspaper as of yet.

Now, to be fair, the section does provide an “if time permits” caveat for Special Meetings. However, the selection of a new CA President is the most important issue this board will face. Public input on this issue is particularly critical, and to provide less notice for the meeting then is spelled out in their by-laws is bad form. I personally do not smell any foul play here, but a rigorous explanation of why a shorter period of notice is the least that the Board of Directors should provide. Even more appropriate would be for the Board of Directors to follow their by-laws and provide proper notice for the meeting.

Lastly, I am concerned that the Alliance for a Better Columbia (ABC) has not said anything on the matter. Granted, the press release is a little over 24-hours old, but in my opinion, ABC typically is quick to respond and loud in volume when CA is perceived to be violating their own rules. The HOA open meeting dust-up of last December comes to mind. I hope that ABC, with their considerable resources, comes out and denounces CA for violating their by-laws. On the other hand, if ABC remains silent, what is the public to think of a group that unevenly applies its voice?

Inflated Expectations

In the lead-up to General Growth Properties regional vice president Greg Hamm’s first public meeting with the CA Board of directors, the following was posted on the Chicago-based Baltimore Sun's website Explore Howard (23JAN08):

Although officials of the Chicago-based General Growth are working with a team of planners and architects to create a 30-year master plan for the redevelopment of downtown Columbia, Hamm will not make any specific presentation to the board on the emerging plan, according to CA officials.

However, the board is interested in learning from Hamm how the two organizations can work together on planning downtown’s future, said Barbara Russell, the board’s chairwoman, who represents Oakland Mills.

“The whole board wants to talk to General Growth about downtown and any plans they have that would involve (CA) land,” Russell said.

It is also important to note a similar press release was on the CA website, but has since been removed.

In reading June Arney’s report today (Hamm visits association board meeting – Members would have liked more information but appreciate first appearance by Columbia manager), I was puzzled by the following quote from CA Board member Phil Kirsch (WL):

"I thought it went all right for the first meeting," said Philip W. Kirsch, vice chairman of the board. "We were happy to see him. It would have been nice if he would have come with a few more details of what he wanted to talk with us about."

I am uncertain what details board member Kirsch was referencing. Although I arrived a little late, I attended the board meeting last week. Even after my arrival, it was clear that there had been a discussion of a watershed plan (Full Disclosure Notice: I am a member of the CA Watershed Resident Advisory Committee). This topic, at least in my mind, does reflect the expectations of the press release that preceded the meeting, considering that a good portion of the land that CA owns in downtown is under water.

With regard to detail, it seems that scheduling handcuffed any further discussion of watershed issues. Later that same night, the CA Board of Directors was scheduled to approve the Watershed Residents Advisory Committee charter. They were also scheduled to discuss two different letters (here and here) welcoming Mr. Hamm to Columbia.

I also find it interesting that during the Q&A portion of the discussion with Greg Hamm, no CA Board member specifically asked for more detail on downtown.

The inflated expectations of the evening spilled over to others present at the meeting. The Alliance for a Better Columbia President Alex Hekimian was quoted as saying:

"I think people were expecting more information than they got," he said. "There have been a lot of private meetings, and those people have gotten a lot more information than was available in public sessions. That's troubling. If the information was good enough for the private groups, why isn't it good enough for the public session?"

I always get concerned when Mr. Hekimian speaks in generalities. I am not sure which “people” he is talking about. I cannot understand how he (or the aforementioned “people”) could get confused by “Hamm will not make any specific presentation to the board on the emerging plan, according to CA officials.”

I am also uncertain as to how Mr. Hekimian can quantify what information was disseminated at the so-called private meetings. How many of these private meetings did Mr. Hekimian attend? If he has been to these meetings, why has he chosen to remain silent all these weeks?

In summary, I am concerned that “CA officials” state in a press release before the meeting that “no specific presentation” was to be made and CA Board Chair Barbara Russell (OM) states that the discussion will focus on how the two organizations can work together. Then after the meeting the Vice-Chair (Kirsch – WL) states that there was not enough detail. This is followed up by an officer of a local watchdog group stating that there was an expectation of more information, and an assertion that information was purposely kept from the meeting. If I were to give in to my cynical side, I would call that sandbagging.

You Can Pick Your Friends…

But you can’t pick the next CA President. That is up to the Columbia Association Board of Directors. Hiring the next CA President will probably be the most important decision of the currently constituted board and the board elected this spring.

Did you want to provide input into the new CA President’s Job Description? Your last chance will be during the January CA Board Meeting (27JAN08). Currently, the CA Board has rejected public input beyond resident’s speakout. The draft job description can be read here. According to the CA Board of Directors timeline, this draft will be finalized in two weeks. Take a good look at the timeline. The only prescribed public input occurs when the field of candidates is narrowed to 2-4 people, one year from now.

I would think that a board that has positioned itself as the vanguard for openness and transparency would encourage public participation during each stage of the process. Apparently this is not the case.

Meetings, Terminology, and Precedent

Private, or Secret?

Public, or Membership?

These are some terms that, over the past month, have been used interchangeably to describe General Growth Properties (GGP) invitation to the CA Board of Directors and the Columbia Village Boards. The problem is that these words do indeed have different meanings and are by no means synonyms.

When news broke in early November that GGP had planned a series of private meetings to discuss preliminary plans for downtown, hand-wringing ensued and words were not used with great care. The first indication was an article written by June Arney of the Baltimore Sun (GGP is holding private meetings on Town Center) on November 14, 2007 (emphasis mine):

When the whole group [board of directors] meets, that constitutes a meeting of the board, which is covered by the Maryland Homeowners Association Act, Hekimian said. That act says that "all meetings of the homeowners association, including meetings of the board of directors or other governing body of the homeowners association or a committee of the homeowners association, shall be open to all members of the homeowners association or their agents." It spells out eight specific circumstances under which a meeting can be closed to the public. "I think the best thing for the village boards to do is to refuse to attend unless the public and the press is invited," Hekimian said. "Otherwise, they could very well be in violation of the Maryland Homeowners Association Act."

Note the use of the word members in the first quote and public in the second quote. The two are not necessarily coincident. The members of a Homeowners Association are defined in their Charter (aka Articles of Incorporation). The public is generally any interested party. It should also be noted that the members of the Columbia Association, as stated in their Charter, are the ten members of the CA Board of Directors.

Two weeks later, Alex Hekimian shows up in another June Arney article (Board asks General Growth to share downtown proposal at open forum) (emphasis mine):

Whether or not the private meetings are technically legal or not doesn't really matter, Hekimian said.

"It gives the appearance that GGP has something to hide and that they're doing some private lobbying," he said. "They're probably used to having secret meetings and getting by with that. A master plan is not an item for secret sessions."

Notice the interposition of private and secret. Private and secret are two distinct things. According to Merriam-Webster, private refers to “intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class” whereas secret refers to “kept from knowledge or view.” The location of a private residence may be known, but is intended for the use of those who have access to such residence. A secret hideaway is also intended for use by those who have access, but the location is also not known. The wish of GGP to hold private meetings is known, but for now, the meetings are restricted to particular groups. If GGP desired to have secret meetings, the public knowledge of their meetings beyond those invited would negate the secrecy.

While Oakland Mills resident Alex Hekimian was being quoted in the Baltimore Sun, Kings Contrivance resident Phil Marcus was submitting letters to the editor. First in the November 16, 2007 Columbia Flier (emphasis mine):

There is a move stirring to have Columbia Association board members or staff speak privately with General Growth Properties Inc. about downtown development, and it's wrongheaded.

[S]ecret talks beget both mistrust on the part of those barred and a tendency to make proposals that even if acted on in public have the force of a railroad locomotive on a track. And the full details don't always come out: It is human to try to "sell" what you have agreed to propose. Secrecy rules prevent the public getting the full discussion.

And then in the December 2, 2007 Baltimore Sun:

Everyone likes to be let in on a secret, even if it's one that will eventually become public. If you get to be part of the in-group, you gain some loyalty to whoever let you in. The same for someone who lets you in on a secret planning meeting.

Now, I do not believe Mr. Hekimian or Mr. Marcus interposed the words with malice. I believe at best, it may have been a collective Freudian slip.

So how do we resolve this issue? I believe the Oakland Mills Village Board provides the best example. Back in 2002, when the Village Centers were sold to Kimco (and the Oakland Mills Village Center was without a supermarket), the following was reported in the March 14, 2002 Columbia Flier (Kimco: Oakland Mills needs a supermarket) (emphasis mine):

"Another supermarket would be the type of tenant to revitalize the center like none other," he added.

But, as [executive vice president of Kimco Realty Corp. Thomas A.] Caputo cautioned Oakland Mills village officials during a private meeting Feb. 20, luring a grocery store _ or another retail anchor _ is going "to take a long time." Of all Columbia's retail centers, Oakland Mills is "the most difficult to fill because it's most off the beaten path," he said.

Village officials say they realize change won't happen overnight. But they're optimistic that Kimco, the nation's largest owner of strip shopping centers, is serious about reviving the center.

The fact that Caputo met with village officials was a positive first step, village board chairman David Hatch said.

There we have it. A Village Board met in private with the “nation’s largest owner of strip shopping centers” to discuss plans. The Village Board Chair stated it was a “positive first step.” No one was sued. It appears that there was no untoward influence.

So how different is it if the 2nd largest owner of shopping centers wants to meet with CA and Village officials in private? I believe the best person to ask is Barbara Russell. In 2002 she was a non-voting member of the Oakland Mills Village Board and she is currently on the CA Board of directors, maybe she could give us some insight into this situation.

What a difference (almost) half a decade makes…

Yesterday, I read with great surprise a letter to the editor printed in the Baltimore Sun. The letter, authored by former Columbia Council Representative Phil Marcus, addressed the General Growth Properties invitation to the CA board of directors and the ten Columbia village boards. In his letter, Phil states:

Everyone likes to be let in on a secret, even if it's one that will eventually become public. If you get to be part of the in-group, you gain some loyalty to whoever let you in. The same for someone who lets you in on a secret planning meeting.

General Growth Properties Inc. has invited members of the ten Columbia village boards to a closed-door meeting on 13 December. They should decline to attend. The Columbia Association Board has already declined a similar invitation, and as far as I know, the County Council has not been invited. The village board members should avoid the temptation to lend loyalty to GGP, since they were elected by the village residents and other property owners.

I find this particularly interesting because when Phil was a Columbia Council Representative candidate (back in March 2003), he wrote this letter to the Columbia Flier (scroll to the bottom):

Accepting political aid does not mean being 'bought'

Recently Mr. Kirk Halpin, who represents Kings Contrivance on the Columbia Council, wrote to the Village newspaper, the Crown Prints. He asked people to run for village board or to succeed him on the council. Fine, so far.

It also contained this curious sentence, "In the past, there has been an issue with individual candidates pledging their support to an organization in exchange for promises of financial and campaign assistance." (It's a toned-down version of Mr. Halpin's piece in the same Crown Prints last fall, complaining about a mythical "ZIT party.")

Human beings get together and help each other, including in elections. Everyone knows that. Just because someone accepts political aid does not mean they are obligated. They would not get help unless they had views similar to those of their friends and will have those views after the election as well. Mr. Halpin, of course, fully understands that.

As a candidate to succeed Mr. Halpin as representative from Kings Contrivance, I should probably take offense at the idea that because I have political friends willing to help me I have been bought. The notion is too silly to take seriously.

Phil Marcus
Kings Contrivance

It seems that the intervening years has worn on Phil’s philosophy. It appears that in Phil’s world, an elected representative will be mystically bound to a “loyalty” by simply attending an information session, but political aid during a campaign, and its possible effects, is a “notion too silly to be taken seriously.”

I have always found Phil to be a thoughtful, intelligent person, but I am curious as to what has happened in the intervening years to place him on both sides of his argument.

Money Well Spent? - Updated

----------
Note: I have had a few conversations with folks who support the Compass, and there has been some concern that my math in the post below is not exact. Specifically, the cost associated with getting a letter to the County involved more than just a stamp. There are costs associated with composing, transcribing, reviewing, and of course, printing a letter. I believe that many of these costs also come into play when sending a letter as an advertisement. That aside, the concerns of my friends led me to post this update. So please, keepin mind that the numbers are not exact, but are best estimates.

Thank you dear readers.
----------

After a series of hastily scheduled meetings, the Columbia Association has gone on a spending spree to directly advertise its stated position on the Howard County document "Downtown Columbia: A Community Vision." In the past five days, the Columbia Association has published the letter (in the form of an ad) in the Columbia Flier, the Baltimore Examiner, and the Baltimore Sun. Content aside, I’m wondering why the Columbia Association decided to spend thousands of dollars on publicizing a letter to the Howard County government. Let’s face it; the letter could have been mailed at a cost of 41 cents ($0.41). I checked the open ad rates at the Flier, Examiner, and Sun; the cost to run full page ads in each are (respectively), $2778, $1711, and $3150. That adds up to more than $7500, or approximately 18,000 times more than the cost of a stamp to convey their message.

What was the motivation? What was the justification? What benefit was derived? I encourage all to contact the Columbia Association Board of Directors for answers.


If anyone in the HoCo Blogosphere has an idea, all comments and insight are welcome.

When asking others for specifics, CA Board is short on specifics

Two articles today feature CA Board members focusing on who should pay rather than what is being paid for. In an article published this morning in the Baltimore Examiner, reporter Sara Michael (Downtown work costs questioned) indirectly quotes CA Board member, onetime blogger, and Bagel Bin Meeting Announcer Evan Coren (KC)

At the center of this question is the Columbia Association, and how much the
landowner and community organization is expected to contribute.
[O]ne concern
raised is that the Columbia Association stands to make millions of dollars from
the annual property assessment, and some residents say the board expects General
Growth to bear most of the costs.
“It brings money to CA and it brings
responsibility,” said former CA board member Jud Malone, adding that the board
has not been cooperating with the developer.
However, Coren contends the
costs of providing additional services could be more than the assessment will
bring in and the money should come from General Growth Properties.

It would be refreshing if Evan and his fellow board members would define what these possible “additional services” are. Clearly, the introduction of more residences and businesses in the downtown area will increase the revenue CA sees from its lien assessment. It is unclear what imagined “additional services” Evan is talking about.

Turning to the afternoon newspaper, the Columbia Flier published an article written by Andrai Blakely (CA Chairwoman wonders who will pay).

The chairwoman of the Columbia Association board of directors is concerned that
taxpayers might have to help pay for new roads and the maintenance of public
areas in a redeveloped downtown Columbia.
New residential and business
growth in Town Center would necessitate the construction of new infrastructure,
which in turn could lead to hikes in the county property tax rate and the annual
fees Columbia homeowners pay CA, to cover the cost of that construction, said
Barbara Russell, of Oakland Mills.
For that reason, she hopes that the a
30-year master plan to guide downtown's redevelopment that officials are
drafting contains specific information about who would pay for downtown's new
roads, water and sewer lines, and maintaining that infrastructure, Russell said
last week.

Here, Barbara is specific. Regrettably, her specific concerns show how little she knows about the process. The County is very specific on who pays for roads when development occurs. The developer does. As for water and sewer, I don’t know if Barbara knows this, but there already is water and sewer available in downtown Columbia. Planned (and funded) upgrades to the sewer lines will have sufficient capacity to allow for downtown development.

Now, if I were completely cynical, I would think that Barbara Russell is raising the specter of increased taxes and increased lien assessments to instill fear in the population, but Barbara has never seemed to be that way.

I suppose Barbara is confusing this type of development with her plan to expand the water and sewer service area farther west. Her plan would certainly be orders of magnitude more expensive (at least in terms of infrastructure support) than any development downtown. So I suppose her concern about infrastructure costs and taxes are good reasons to not pursue her plan and to instead support the downtown plan. Later on in the Columbia Flier article, Barbara does venture into the void of vagaries:

She [Barbara Russell] pointed out that CA owns substantial property downtown and
is responsible for providing recreational services to Columbia, adding that the
association might not be able to afford providing new services without hiking
the annual fee it charges property owners.

Once again, just “recreational services,” not anything specific. What specific service is so expensive that CA Board members cannot even say its name?

And why is CA Board member Gail Broida (TC) silent on this issue? Granted we could have a day-long discussion about the CA Board being responsible for all of Columbia versus just representing individual villages. However, the Village residents elect the Columbia Council Representatives (which in turn become CA Board members).

I believe that if some CA Board members (hypothetically) singled out neighborhoods, such as Thunder Hill or Longfellow, and said that CA would not support any amenities in these areas, the CA Board members that represent those neighborhoods would vehemently defend them. In this case, Gail appears to be content with letting the future lien assessments to be taken from Town Center residents and applied to any other part of the community except downtown.

Maybe she could join Evan Coren and Barbara Russell, take those liens when they come in, and build an outdoor ice rink (scroll way down).

[t]here was not majority support for a new outdoor skating rink in Oakland Mills, however Ms. Russell and Mr. Coren stated another rink was warranted. According to CA, the current rink loses $450,000/year.

My Remarks to the CA Board of Directors – 01NOV07

Last night the CA Board of Directors provided a venue for residents to comment on development in Downtown Columbia. Below are my prepared remarks. Keep in mind that at the podium, I did not strictly adhere to the prepared text, but I think I got my point across.

Good evening, my name if Bill Santos, a resident of Wilde Lake and a 30-year resident of Columbia and Howard County. I am here to say that I support the Howard County framework document, the traffic study, and the proposed county process.

One particular item I wish to address tonight is the issue of traffic. In the last two weeks, CA Board member Evan Coren has twice stated that the reduction of level of service for our downtown road system from level D to E will adversely impact the quality of life of Columbians and others that visit the downtown area. During the Saturday, October 20, 2007 meeting between the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning and the combined CA Board and Village Boards, Mr. Coren went as far to state that increased waits at traffic lights in downtown Columbia is counter to James Rouse’s vision. I stand here tonight in opposition to this line of thinking.

I believe downtown Columbia should not be primarily viewed through a windshield. Downtown, the lakefront, the mall, and Symphony woods should be experienced on two feet. Currently, downtown Columbia is configured for automobile dominance. As development occurs in downtown, I want to see the role of the automobile diminished and the downtown area become a walkable, pedestrian friendly environment. If this means that car travel in downtown becomes slower and less convenient, so be it.

As a group, Howard Countains are addicted to cars. Data from the Baltimore Metropolitan Council of Governments show that although Howard County is 1/3 the population of Baltimore City, we drive more miles per year than Baltimore. Moreover, Howard County has the highest annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per registered vehicle in the entire Baltimore region.

In a self deprecating analogy (I am a little bit north of 250 lbs), future traffic problems in Howard County is a bit like me going to the movies and asking for wider seat. I would imagine the manager would tell me that he would rather see me “push away from the table a little bit sooner” and “take a lap” before he would redesign the theatre. In the same way, our driving habits are horrible, and we need to change our behavior; not just change the roads.

It is my hope that in the future, downtown Columbia will be safe for pedestrians. When my 4-year old son is grown and has kids of his own, I want him to be able to take his kids downtown, and allow them to walk through downtown without fear of being run over in a mall parking lot.

The People of Maryland are at odds with the CA Board Chair

Two stories in last week’s Baltimore Sun demonstrate how out of touch CA Board Chairwoman Barbara Russell is with residents in the State of Maryland. To be fair, Chair Russell’s heart is in the right place.

In an October 14, 2007 article published in the Baltimore Sun (Village says it's tired of subsidized housing) Barbara Russell is quoted as follows:

Russell is advocating what until now has been political heresy in Howard: allowing public water and sewer lines west of the current boundary to permit more townhouses and apartments to be built farther west. The ban on public utilities in the western county was meant to preserve farmland, she said, but instead of doing that, it has merely allowed hundreds of large homes on 3-acre lots.

"I think we should look at where else in the county we can develop housing of any kind," she said.

It is important to know that the last time Barbara Russell spoke about this publicly was while she was campaigning and just prior to her extended vacation in the Hawaiian Islands (I often wonder how many votes she would have gotten if she was upfront with the residents of Oakland Mills and disclosed that she would miss two months of service while on vacation).

On October 18, 2007, the Baltimore Sun published an article that featured a poll conducted by the 1000 Friends of Maryland (Sprawl too much, too fast, poll finds). The poll shows that Marylanders are concerned about the pace of growth in the Freestate:

Overall, respondents said they consider traffic, housing costs, loss of farmland and poorly planned growth as some of the most serious problems facing Maryland.
Traffic ranked near the top of respondents' concerns, with 66 percent calling it an "extremely" or "very serious" problem.

More voters rated traffic as a "very serious" problem than said the same for public education, the cost of health insurance, or taxes. Fifty-six percent rated loss of farmland and poorly planned growth and development as "extremely" or "very serious" problems.

Now, inspection of the survey results shows the remarks of Barbara Russell are in close agreement with those responding to the survey. All parties are concerned about the pace, quality, and effects of growth. It is Russell’s proposed solutions that are at odds.

While Russell would like to see the water and sewer service expanded into the rural western part of Howard County (to allow for construction of townhouses and apartment complexes), 80% of respondents to the 1000 Friends survey stated that the loss of farmland was at least a “somewhat serious” concern.

Moreover, because there are not many jobs or basic shopping needs in the west, nearly all residents of the Russell townhouses and apartments would need a car to meet basic daily needs. This would increase the traffic on the roads. Conversely, 89% of survey respondents felt that traffic congestion is at least a “somewhat serious” problem. It is also important to note that Howard County’s population, with approximately 1/3 the population of Baltimore, logs more vehicle miles on the road annually than the population of Charm City.

Lastly, diverting projects to the west will not, in the long run, solve the problems that face the county today. A westward expansion would just extend a low intensity use of land. Traffic will not abate and the low density settlements will preclude any investment in mass transit. Nothing in the eastern section of the county will change, and because of additional development in the west, the amount of impervious surface will increase, thereby increasing the detrimental effects of stormwater runoff in the Patuxent Watershed. This is in effect poor planning. 83% of survey respondents indicated that poorly planned growth and development was a problem in Maryland.

In closing, page 5 of the poll summary document indicates the amount of support for possible policies to mitigate the problems associated with growth. One policy, the “steering of new development to towns and cities rather than outlying suburbs” received 72% support by respondents.

It is my hope that Chairperson Russell will rethink her position.

Baltimore Examiner Declares War on Columbia, Maryland

No, not really; but given the Examiner’s proclivity for misleading headlines, why not join the party? What we have today is poorly constructed editorial from the Baltimore Examiner. It’s headline “Columbia Association milks homeowners” seems to only tangentially enter into the body of their piece. Ostensibly, the topic of the editorial is the recently released salary data for the top positions at the Columbia Association.

“If only government employees were paid as handsomely as Columbia Association
officers. Heck, if mere residents all could make as much, what a happy place
Columbia would be.”

This lead-off sentence promises much to come, but little follows. Yes, if only government employees were paid as much as Columbia Association (CA) officers. But CA is not a government, so why make the comparison? Even more troubling is the second statement, trying to relate senior management salary to all Columbia residents. If all Columbia residents were senior officers of corporations, then yes, there would be a valid comparison, but as we all know, not everyone in Columbia is the President of a Corporation, a CFO, etc…Lord knows I am not. (and by-the-way, I find Columbia, day-in and day-out a pretty happy place to be, regardless of salary.)

Rather than lobbing ill constructed arguments, such as:

"As The Examiner reported last week, five of the seven top officers at the homeowner’s association earned more than $100,000 in fiscal 2007; President
Maggie Brown earned $207,973 with her bonus.

The average adult in Columbia makes about $41,000 a year, according to 2006 Mapinfo/AnySite Demographics. "

The Examiner staff should have done some research (it is, from what I am told, a newspaper) to find out what other executives that live in Columbia make. This would give an apples to apples comparison. Or maybe they could look into what executives at other non-profit organizations, with revenues in the $25M-$50M range make. Or what the salaries of executives at other quasi-governmental organizations make (WSSC comes to mind). Otherwise, to state the average adult makes $41K seems to imply that the President of a corporation should make $41K. Bad idea.

The editorial does mention one salary:

As members of a quasi-governmental group, homeowners have a right to think
salaries would align with those of Howard County government employees.

But they don’t. The chief administrative officer in the county makes $154,000 a
year.

I also find it interesting that the Examiner editorial staff seems to go out of their way to demonstrate how relatively “poor” Columbians are, when just five days ago they were trumpeting the comparative wealth of the State of Maryland and Howard County.

Now, I agree that homeowners “have a right to think salaries would align with those of Howard County government employees,” but how about some supporting evidence? What other organization locks their senior staff's salary to government pay? Anyone? How far should this mimicking of governmental parity go? The Howard County government does see its way to pay council members on the order of $50K/yr. Should CA start paying the board of directors above the average Howard County salary (as sourced by the Examiner editorial board) for their services?

The Examiner then goes on to detail Howard County property taxes and the CA lien/assessment:

"As Howard County residents, Columbia homeowners pay $1.01 in property taxes for every $100 of assessed value. On top of that they must also pay a base “fee” to
the Columbia Association.

That tax is $0.68 per $100 of assessed value on half of the property or about $1,579 on a home valued at $464,294, the average selling price of a home in Howard County in July. If you want more than CA’s basic services you pay more.

With that kind of fee only the wealthy can afford to live in Columbia. "

I find this particularly interesting. The Examiner states that the average annual salary in Columbia is $41K, then states the average home is valued at $464,294, and then comes to the conclusion that the CA fee is the reason folks cannot afford to live in Columbia. Let me first say, if a home costs ten times your salary, it is not the CA fee that is going to stop you from making your payments.

This type of argument also hides another reality. Given the data of a selling price of $464,294 in July 2007 seems to imply that most people are paying a lien (and a property tax) on an assessed value of more than $450K. This is not so. As we know in Howard County, the amount of your assessment can only increase by a small percentage each year. So if a homeowner purchased a home 5, 10, 20 or 40 years ago, the value can only increase incrementally year to year. A few years ago, CA implemented a similar regimen (with some involvement from the Maryland General Assembly)

So the home that now sells for $464,294 today may have sold for $190K - $200K a few years ago. That means that people are not paying the $1579 stated in the editorial, they are paying less. It is only the people that purchased in July 2007 that would be paying that rate.

The Examiner editorial then adds:

CA spokesman Steve Sattler said the association uses consultants to determine
salaries. Who cares. Common sense says the pay scale is out of whack with both
equivalent jobs and community values.

I find this conclusion especially dangerous. "Who cares?" I believe a lot of people care. That in fact would be one of the reasons to write an editorial as such. Moreover, boiling down an argument to “common sense” is just another way of saying there is no supporting, credible evidence to support their argument.

As for equivalent jobs, once again, only one job title was cited, that of a government position. CA is not a government, it is a private corporation. Comparables of other private corporations, both for profit and non-profit should be used. The salaries of other large homeowner associations should be used. The salaries of other quasi-governmental organizations (such as WSSC or the NYNJPA) should be used. And, if any can be found, any other organization of similar size that voluntarily uses a local government pay scale should be used. The Examiner provides none of this data.

As far as community values, this comes from a media organization with women in bikinis adorned with “I survived roe v. wade” and "Imagine No Liberals" t-shirts on their website.

The Examiner editorial closes with the following two paragraphs:

"Columbia homeowners should demand pay cuts from Columbia Association officers.
They must also demand that the group post employee salaries and its budget online in an easily accessible portion of the Web site to allow for better oversight of the association.

Transparency is a key way to ensure those charged with supervising Columbia reflect the priorities – and incomes – of the homeowners paying their salaries. "

Interesting. Without making a case that a quasi-governmental organization should be paid at a local government scale, the Examiner puts forth that the population of Columbia should demand paycuts of the executives. It appears that this suggestion separates performance from pay and is an invitation to chaos. Moreover, demanding pay cuts from CA officers demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Columbia Association by the Baltimore Examiner. The CA Board decides the compensation for the CA President directly. Indirectly, the CA Board decides staff compensation by approving the operations budget. The CA President determines senior staff compensation directly. If anyone is to be implicated, the CA Board should be the stating place. Keep in mind, the CA Board recently approved an increase in the CA President’s salary. After awarding the CA President a $7,000 pay increase this year, CA Board member Gail Broida (TC) was quoted in the Columbia Flier saying:

"I feel that Mrs. Brown will do her absolute best under her current contract to
lead the organization forward and the board working with Mrs. Brown will be
successful in advancing our policies," she said.

After the Alliance for a Better Columbia released CA salary data, the following CA Board members were quoted in the local media:

The whole salary issue has always been very difficult," Russell said, because the association is much larger and responsible for more than the typical homeowners' association. It's neither a private, profit-making company nor a full-fledged government. – Barbara Russell (OM)


I feel like the executives are paid a reasonable fee,” she said, adding they don’t receive benefits comparable to government employees. – Cynthia Coyle (HC)


I would also encourage the Examiner to post its local and corporate officer’s salaries and compensation, and their budget, on their website. It certainly would be transparent.

In closing, let us all agree that more research needs to be done. The CA Board is about to embark on its third salary compensation study since 1999. When this data becomes available, we will all be able to see what the market bears for the executive staff. To tie staff pay to local government pay without any substantive argument is foolish. Topics such as executive pay and compensation are a serious subjects and should not be exposed to the whims of “what feels right.”

Taking a long view, reducing pay based without justification will create morale problems and will provide yet another signal to the most talented out there to stay away from Columbia. As the search for a new CA President begins, some of the most talented available will take the time to review the previous year of half the CA Board asking for the CA President to be dismissed. Following that up with unsubstantiated pay reductions will only drive highly qualified candidates farther away.

Waging a War of Wages

It seems that Alex Hekimian (and for the uninitiated, that’s “eye-key-me-an”), a long time Oakland Mills resident and current President of the Alliance for a Better Columbia (ABC) is upset about Columbia Association senior staff salaries. His concern made it into both the Baltimore Examiner and Baltimore Sun newspapers today.

Sara Michaels from the Baltimore Examiner reports:

Five of the seven top Columbia Association officers are pulling in six-figure salaries, and one residents group is questioning how salaries and bonuses are rewarded.

“We don’t think money is being spent wisely,” said Alex Hekimian, head of the watchdog group Alliance for a Better Columbia, who received the compensation data from the CA and provided it to The Examiner.

[C]A doesn’t make these compensation decisions in a vacuum,” CA spokesman Steve Sattler said. The organization relies on consultants to determine average wages. A salary study conducted six years ago, which did not include benefits, showed the salaries were too low, he said. Another study of Brown’s compensation in 2006 showed her pay was also low, and in April she was given a $7,000 raise.

CA is planning another salary study, which will include salary and benefits. However, Hekimian rejected the idea for a salary study, saying it’s a “way to justify raising salaries higher.”

The wages should be compared with state and county government employees, Hekimian said, since the homeowners association is quasi-governmental.

Simlarly, Larry Carson of the Baltimore Sun reports:

The Columbia Association's top officials got hefty cash bonuses on top of
salaries that are higher than those of most county and state employees, and a
local watchdog group wants to know why.

Alex Hekimian, president of the Alliance for a Better Columbia and a longtime gadfly and critic of association management, said the salaries are far too high. "They're into
bonuses," Hekimian said. "We'd like to find out why."

He said county officials typically make less than Columbia Association officers, who manage an annual budget of about $50 million, compared with the county's $1.2 billion spending plan.

"It just seems out of line because of the way CA operates," Hekimian said. "This is a homeowners association."

Other than Mr. Hekimian’s overly confrontational tone (“They’re into bonuses, we’d like to find out why.”), I think his assertion that CA is a homeowners association is exactly the reason why the pay at CA is different from traditional forms of government. Regardless of the quasi-governmental dogma put out by any organization, State and Federal courts have repeatedly held homeowners associations outside of government. The most recent example has been the Twin Rivers, New Jersey case (be warned, your constitutional rights may not apply).

What do the neighbors make?

Perhaps ABC’s press release was serendipitously ill timed. Also in the paper this morning was a story from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. Statistical estimates for 2006 puts Maryland as the richest state (as measured by a median income of $65,144) and Howard County as the richest County (median income of $94,260) in the richest state (overall, third richest in the nation, behind Fairfax and Loudoun Counties in Virginia). Given that the average income in the county is about to push five figures, the fact that some at CA have salaries in that range would not be surprising.

Looking at the whole picture

Let me say I agree in principle with ABC that CA staff should not be over compensated for the work they do. However, I believe one of the best tools available for determining appropriate compensation is comparable studies. As mentioned in both the Baltimore Examiner and Baltimore Sun, two studies have been performed in the recent past and one is currently ongoing. The most recent study of CA President compensation is available on line (scroll down to the last sentence on the page) and was performed by the Singer Group. This study, submitted in 2006, cites comparable salaries for other large homeowners associations (The Woodlands (TX), Reston (VA), Montgomery Village (MD), and Ocean Pines(MD)). The study also looked at salaries for not-for profit organizations in the $25-50M range and city manager positions in the region. All comparables showed that the CA President salary was either on par with or lower than others. It is also important to note that with respect to homeowners association presidents and city managers, all comparables cites (though in my opinion otherwise valid) were for resident populations much smaller than Columbia.

In my opinion, this study seems to better describe the comparables to the CA president than ABC’s simple statement that in terms of pay, quasi-government should equal government. Moreover, Mr. Hekimian’s statement

[H]ekimian rejected the idea for a salary study, saying it’s a “way to justify raising salaries higher.”

Allows for no other recourse for justification of salary other than what his organization “thinks” is appropriate. Indeed, if Mr. Hekimian rejects salary studies as a means to justify pay, I would like to see his organization provide data on homeowners associations that have linked their staff’s pay to surrounding government pay. I am not aware of any homeowner association that agrees with that philosophy. In the interim, the “just because” excuses for assailing the pay of staff is insufficient.