Why I won't sign the referendum petition, yet...

I have tried to keep an open mind about the referendum petition to repeal the downtown Columbia zoning legislation.  The “pop-up” group Taxpayers Against Giveaways has taken the lead on the petition signature gathering and state on their website that “Over the next several weeks we will detail how CB-59 grants huge tax windfalls to GGP, relieves GGP of infrastructure obligations typically incurred by other developers, substantially and permanently exacerbates traffic congestion, continues the exemption from State Forest Conservation requirements required of other developers, and fails to provide any environmental sustainability requirements for new construction.”

Well, it hasn’t been several weeks, but it has been more than a few.  So far, no details from the TAGs.  Have they lost steam?  I have no idea.  What I do know is that some of their arguments need some explaining before I can sign their petition, much less vote for a referendum this November.

One thing I believe is that TAG appears to be embellishing their claims. Two things that have stuck out for me has been TAG’s assertion that as a result of passing the legislation, the county “grants GGP a huge tax windfall,” and that the legislation “continues the exemption from State Forest Conservation requirements.” 

Property Tax Windfall?

Absent any concrete details from the TAGs, I started doing some of my own research.  The first claim I researched was the assertion that there is a special tax exemption in Council Bill CB-59.  I looked in the bill and could not find any specific language that provided a tax windfall to GGP.  None was found.  Getting a little frustrated, I searched the TAG website and found a link to a document called “Canvasser Flier.”  I would imagine this is flier intended to be handed out by canvassers as they ask for signatures.  This flier contains a bullet-point that states:

• Developer not taxed on increased land value for many years (probably decades)

That bullet point helped clear things up a little.  It appears that the TAGs are once again aiming at a state law that allows developers to pay property taxes as if their undeveloped acres were agricultural land.  The actual text of the law can be found in the Maryland Code of Regulations - Maryland Code – Tax-Property – Title 8. Valuation and Assessment – Subtitle 2. Assessment Procedures – Section 8-220.

Now the TAGs said they wanted to put the downtown Columbia zoning bill to a referendum vote this November because of density.  They have been emphatic that the petition drive is about density.  What we find in TAG’s literature are these references to State laws, not county laws.  The State laws deal with property taxes, not density.  To make the connection that passing a county zoning law could in any way affect the state property tax law is misleading and disingenuous.  This is a reason that the TAGs give (in written form) for people to sign the petition.

Forests

Simlarly, the TAGs have asserted that the new zoning bill (CB-59) “continues the exemption from State Forest Conservation requirements required of other developers.”  Once again, we go to the Maryland State Code of Regulations (COMAR) to find some answers.  Forest conservation is overseen by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the regulations for administering forest conservation can be found in Maryland Code of Regulations - Maryland Code – Natural Resources – Title 5. Forests and Parks – Subtitle 16. Forest Conservation – Section 5-1601.

Of particular interest of this part of the code is Section 5-1603(c)(3)(ii), which states:

A local forest conservation program, when approved by the Department, may allow clustering and other innovative land use techniques that protect and establish forests where open space is preserved, sensitive areas are protected, and development is physically concentrated. 

In developing their Forest Conservation Manual, the Howard County Government did look into innovative land use techniques used in the county and inserted the following text into the Howard County Forest Conservation Manual.

A planned unit development which has preliminary development plan approval and 50 percent or more of the land is recorded and substantially developed before December 31, 1992;

It is also interesting to note that this same language appears in the Howard County Code

Now the inclusion of the above text is not taken lightly by the Department of Natural Resources.  By law, DNR reviews the Howard County Forest Conservation Manual every two years to ensure forested areas are being preserved.  The last Howard County Forest Conservation Manual revision was June, 7, 1999.  Therefore, DNR has reviewed the document on five separate occasions and has deemed no changes are necessary.

So here we are again.  The County Council passes a zoning bill for downtown Columbia and the TAGs are up in arms about Forestry regulations that were passed in 1992 and have been endorsed (in their current form) by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources for almost a decade.  This also seems like piling on and has nothing to do with the density stated in CB-59.

All I’m asking for is some straight talk from TAG.  If you wish to circulate a petition to take a zoning bill to referendum this fall, please do.  But please make a convincing argument that, as you state, the density in the legislation is incorrect.  Make your case, suggest an alternative density, and support your alternative with rigorous facts and models.

Please do not intermingle legacy issues that have no tie to the recently passed legislation.  It cheapens your cause.  Implying that the newly enacted legislation provides a new tax break to GGP is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. How many people have signed this petition thinking that?  How can I sign a petition of someone who misrepresents facts? How do you sleep at night?

Piggybacking a twenty-year old regulation that you think falls short into this petition is equally onerous.  If there is concern about how the Forest Conservation Act is applied, why not advocate for changing the Howard County Forest Conservation Manual?  The number of trees in downtown Columbia and the future density are not directly linked.  Most of the new apartments and condos in downtown will be built on existing parking lots.  And why wasn't TAG out in front of the Forest Conservation Act during the Columbia Village Center legislation?  That legislation amended the same section of the zoning code that CB-59 does, but the Forest Conservation Act was not brought up at all during testimony on that bill.Howard County Forest Conservation Manual.  The number of trees in downtown Columbia and the future density are not directly linked.  Most of the new apartments and condos in downtown will be built on existing parking lots.  And why wasn’t TAG out in front of the Forest Conservation Act during the Columbia Village Center legislation?  That legislation amended the same section of the zoning code that CB-59 does, but yet the Forest Conservation Act was not brought up at all.

TAG it’s time for you to start discussing density and the real reasons you oppose the recently enacted zoning legislation.  Otherwise, your silence on density and the forwarding of arguments unrelated to CB-59 show your group to not be truthful and your petition drive to be less than honorable.

Forward Moving

Last Wednesday, the folks from General Growth Properties arrived at the CA boardroom to discuss downtown Columbia. Based on an agenda posted on the Columbia Association website, the topic of discussion was to be Symphony Woods. Upon arriving in the boardroom, it was clear that much more was going on. Easels were erected, festooned with large placards depicting Symphony Woods and other parts of downtown Columbia. A table had been placed in front of the CA Board of Directors “U-Shaped” dias, and chairs in the front row we reserved.

Minutes after the meeting began, it was clear that the 45 people in the audience were in for much more than a discussion of Symphony Woods. That afternoon, the ZRA for downtown Columbia had been submitted to the Howard County Government. Not only was Greg Hamm of GGP in attendance, but also Alan Ward (Sasaki and Associates) and Keith Bowers (Biohabitats).

Greg Hamm put out the larger points regarding the downtown plan, followed up by short presentations by Mr. Ward and Mr. Bowers. In the end, much of the evening did focus on Symphony Woods, but the announcement brought other aspects of downtown development in the discussion.

Much of this has been captured over on Wordbones blog.

A few points of which I would like to expand upon.

CA Board member Evan Coren (KC) and his mother, Ann Coren (OB Village Board member, but speaking as a resident) both displayed a passion for wildlife (both flora and fauna) and asked very good questions. In my opinion, Keith Bowers demonstrated a deep understanding of the issues and provided quality responses to their questions. It is clear that GGP and Biohabitats have clearly done their homework on issues regarding Symphony Woods.

A concern regarding the Lake Kittamaquandi lakefront area, first brought up by CA Board member Cindy Coyle (HC), was raised a few times.

Oakland Mills resident Barbara Russell spoke during resident speakout, which (for a change) was done after the presentation. Barbara informed the board that if Columbia had been built as first proposed, two current members of the CA Board members from Dorsey Search and River Hill would not be sitting at the table. I suppose Barbara should take solace in the fact that Dorsey Search and River Hill were there because without their residents (and also the residents of the Kendall Ridge section of Long Reach), Columbia would need downtown residents to get to the proposed population of 100,000.

Liz Bobo was in the audience, and apparently left before the meeting ended.

Joel Yesley, speaking for the Alliance for a Better Columbia, indicated that the County has insisted that Symphony Woods be maintained in its current, pristine state. I need to take exception to this charge.

Howard County’s 2000 General Plan discusses downtown Columbia on pages 177-178. On these pages, you will find the following references to Symphony Woods:

Open Space. Enhance Downtown open space, such as the edges of Lake Kittamaqundi and Symphony Woods, to promote enjoyment by the growing numbers of Downtown residents and visitors.

Symphony Woods. Encourage measures that enhance Symphony Woods as an attractive, inviting open space resource for families and individuals to enjoy natural beauty within the urban setting.

It appears that the actual text calls for enhancing Symphony Woods, not maintaining a pristine state. As far as pristine is concerned, the GGP report on Symphony Woods and adjacent properties shows that invasive species have degraded the area.

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.

The 5500

5500. Sometimes, it’s a hard number to comprehend. I do not believe I have 5500 of anything in my house. (Blades of grass? Perhaps). My son has about 150 Lincoln Logs. Given how they look when spread out on the family room floor, I would loathe the thought of 5500 logs.

On the other hand, 5500 can, at times be put into perspective. Anyone who possesses a valid drivers license has certainly lived more than 5500 days. 5500 seconds passes by in just over 90 minutes. Most people will put 5500 miles on their car odometer in about six months.

The point here is that the number 5500 can seen as both a large or small number. In the recent past, we have heard some make outlandish claims about the perceived impact of 5500 units. Four times the size of Wilde Lake (uh, incorrect), more residential units than Wilde Lake and Oakland Mills combined (er, not quite). The largest project in Howard County since the approval of Columbia. Well, I’m not so sure.

Of the examples I have provided above, the odometer example is most telling. The 5500 miles could be characterized as driving approximately 20% around the equator. Or it could be characterized as six month of normal driving in this area. Both are valid, but each paints a different picture. What I believe is crucial in the odometer analogy (and the proposed housing units) is that both are described in terms of a magnitude and a time.

Moreover, if a temporal aspect is placed into the examples stated above, the 5500 pales in comparison; given that Wilde Lake and Oakland Mills were both 95% completed within ten years, and that combined both Oakland Mills and Wilde Lake are slightly more residential units than the proposed 5500. As stated, the 5500 time line is 30 years. So downtown development will create less units than Oakland Mills and Wilde Lake combined, and the proposed development will occur at a pace three times slower than that of Oakland Mills and Wilde Lake.

With respect to the largest project, this theory is on fairly shaky ground. Census data reveals that over 90% (92.43%) of the 92,818 housing units built in Howard County were built after 1960. So let’s compare. In the last 48 years, 85,790 housing units were built in Howard County (of which approximately 30,000 units are in Columbia). GGP proposes building 5500 units over the next 30 years.



Breaking this down by decade:

The entire downtown development proposal could have easily been accomplished during the 1960’s. Three downtowns could have been accommodated during the 1970’s, four downtowns in the 1990’s and five downtowns in the 1980’s.

Another way of looking at historical development in Howard County is by housing permits issued. I have charted data obtained from the Baltimore Metropolitan Council of Governments (Economic Outlook 2006) below:



To provide context, here are the terms of office of each of the Howard County Executives.

1969-1973 Omar J. Jones
1974-1978 Edward L. Cochran
1978-1986 J. Hugh Nichols
1986-1990 Elizabeth Bobo
1990-1998 Charles I. Ecker
1998-2006 James N. Robey

Certainly, each administration, since the creation of the Howard County Executive, issued enough permits during his/her tenure to allow for a downtown Columbia to be built.

In conclusion, 5500 as a number can appear to be very large. However, given its application over time, 5500 is not as big a number as some may perceive. Given the prolific construction of over 80,000 units in the last forty years, 5500 units in the next thirty is small by comparison. Moreover, each past administration has seen fit to approve housing permits well beyond the scale of the proposed downtown development.

Explore Howard Editorial Board Should Sit Down on Standing

This weeks editorial on the Explore Howard website focuses on the standing issue associated with the Downtown Columbia Plaza Tower mess. Taken in total, the editorial goes to great lengths to remove large parts of the issue and arrive at its conclusion:

“The merits of his argument aside…”

“However legally sound it might've been…”

“Leaving aside the notion …”

Moreover, the editorial creates a narrative separate from that actual record, and this narrative is (in my opinion) damaging to the future discussion of any development in Howard County.

Let’s start with the 3rd paragraph of the editorial:

However legally sound it might've been, a previous ruling by county Hearing Examiner Thomas Carbo, which the courts have now taken up, defied common sense. It held that the Plaza Residences would not "specially aggrieve" Broida and other Columbia residents seeking to prevent the project's construction, and that therefore the plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing to fight it through judicial or quasi-judicial channels.

That first sentence is particularly troubling. In the best of worlds, we would like all decisions rendered to be both legally sound and to make common sense. When the two are not coincident, it is important to review the case specifics. I believe this is where the editors have fallen down.

Referring back to the Hearing Examiner’s decision, it explains in detail the process and evidence presented. As stated in the decision:

Generally, the appellant must provide proof of aggrievement by showing that the impact of the decision on his property is different from the impact upon the general public. It is sufficient if the facts constituting aggrievement appear in the petition for appeal either by express allegation or by necessary implication.4 An exception to this rule applies if the appellant is an adjoining, confronting, or nearby property owner. In this case, the appellant is deemed, primae facie, to be specially damaged and therefore a person aggrieved. Bryniarsky, 230 A.2d at 294. In other words, an appellant is presumed to be aggrieved if he merely shows that he owns property “nearby.” What is “nearby” depends on the circumstances of the case, but it has been held that one who “owns any property located within sight or sound of the subject property is aggrieved.” Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission v. Rockville, 269 Md. 240, 305 A.2d 122, 127 (1973). Intervening topography or roadways, however, may support a finding that a complainant is not aggrieved. DuBay v. Crane, 240 Md. 180, 213 A.2d 487 (1965).

The presumption of standing for adjoining, confronting, or nearby property owners may be rebutted, however, by the opposing party. If the opposing party presents evidence that the appellant is not in fact aggrieved, the burden shifts back to the appellant to present facts to show that he is specially aggrieved by the decision. Bryniarsky, 230 A.2d at 294.

Therefore, standing can, and was, challenged by the opposing party, and then the appellants (Knowles, Stolley, Meskin, Broida) had the opportunity to provide supporting evidence and testimony to refute the rebuttal.

With respect to Mr. Broida:

The Appellants contend that Mr. Broida is specially aggrieved because the proposed building will peculiarly block his view and sunlight, increase noise, increase traffic, reduce parking, and reduce the value of his residence.

Renaissance Centro Columbia (part of WCI Communities) rebutted Mr. Broida’s claim to standing and Mr. Broida presented evidence to challenge the rebuttal.

With respect to traffic and parking, Mr. Broida asserted that the proposed development will exacerbate an already hazardous situation. He claims that traffic is heavy now on Little Patuxent Parkway and Wincopin Circle, and that parking in the town center is hard to find on weekends. He asserted, without supporting evidence, that the proposed building does not provide sufficient parking. Much of the testimony presented by the Appellants on this point amounted only to unsupported opinions and general conclusions that the development will cause traffic and parking problems. Maryland courts instruct that the unsupported conclusions or fears of witnesses to the effect that a proposed use of property will or will not result in harm amount to nothing more than vague and general expressions of opinion which are lacking in probative value. Anderson v. Sawyer, 23 Md. App. 612, 329 A.2d 716 (1974). Because the Appellants’ testimony in this case was unsupported by any evidence that the anticipated harmful effects are likely to occur, I must afford it little weight.

Contrary to Mr. Broida’s assertions, the record indicates that both the proposed building and the Lakeside condominium building provide ample parking for all residents in parking garages within the respective buildings. The plans for the project provide 58 additional parking spaces off-site for patrons of the retail space, and Mr. Gutschick provided a parking analysis that shows that the area will have more than the required parking spaces for all uses (Appellee’s Exhibit 16). The residents’ entrance to the building will be from Little Patuxent Parkway, diverting this traffic away from Mr. Broida’s property. Road improvements and a traffic light are proposed along Wincopin Circle. In short, the preponderance of evidence presented suggests that the proposed development will have minimal adverse impact on traffic and parking for residents of the area.

With respect to noise, Mr. Broida again speculated that the proposed project will create additional noise that will affect him personally. The Appellants provided no basis or support for this assertion. Renaissance, however, presented evidence that deliveries and trash collection will take place within the proposed building, limiting the amount of noise they generate. As previously stated, residents will access the building from the west side, away from the Lakeside building. Indeed, the building itself will act as a noise barrier to traffic on Little Patuxent Parkway, potentially improving the noise conditions for Mr. Broida. Again, the preponderance of the evidence indicates Mr. Broida will not be specially damaged by the project with respect to noise.

Mr. Broida also asserts that the proposed building will block the pleasant view he currently enjoys from his living room and bedroom and will reduce the amount of sunlight coming through his windows in the late afternoons. There is little dispute that the erection of the proposed building will have this effect, and that the impact is peculiar to Mr. Broida and his neighbors on the west side of the Lakeside condominium. The mere loss of view and sunlight is not enough, however, to establish aggrievement.

[N]o such testimony or evidence was presented by the Appellants in this case. In fact, the record indicates that Mr. Broida had no reasonable expectation of preserving his view or light when he originally purchased his condominium unit in 2005. At that time, having been previously aware of two separate proposals to build high-rise building on or near the Property, he (twice) signed a purchase contract containing a provision in which he agreed that his right to a view was not guaranteed and that there may be improvements built on adjacent properties that might interfere with his present vista. Cleary, at the time of his purchase, the view from his unit was not a significant part of the value that Mr. Broida ascribed to his property. It is unlikely, therefore, that he can claim a diminution of value as result of the loss of that view.

My reading of the Maryland cases indicates that the Appellants must additionally show some economic impact resulting from the adverse condition–namely, a diminution of the value of the appellant’s property. See e.g., Committee for Responsible Development on 25th Street v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 137 Md. App. at 87 (“He presented no evidence that the pharmacy and its parking lot would cause his property to devaluate”); DuBay v. Crane, 213 A.2d at 490 (“And, which is more important, none of the appellants were able to show that the value of their respective property would be adversely affected”); Wilkinson v. Atkinson, 242 Md. at 234 (“There was no specific testimony as to any adverse effect upon the value of the Siegelhome.”). In Toomey v. Gomeringer, 235 Md. 456, 460 (1964), the Court found protestants to have standing where they presented evidence “that the value of their residential properties would be depreciated by the proposed reclassification .... There was in addition testimony by an experienced real estate broker and developer that, in his opinion, the reclassification of the property in question, at least if followed by the development and use of the property as planned by the applicants' contract purchaser, would eat into the existing residential community and would depreciate and depress the area.

Moreover, Renaissance provided ample contravening evidence that the proposed development would not devalue the nearby residences. Ronald Lipman, a real estate appraiser and consultant, testified that the building would present a slender and attractive design that would be well separated (170 feet) from the Broida unit (see Appellee’s Exhibit 9). The look and use of the development would be compatible to Lakeside and the other developments in the area. Most importantly, the proposed residential units will be larger and more expensive than the adjacent Lakeside units, which fact tends to cause the less expensive units to appreciate in value. Thus, Mr. Lipman offered, the proposed development could actually have a positive effect on Mr. Broida’s property value.

So to review, the Appellants indicated the Plaza Tower would specially aggrieve Mr. Broida because it would “block his view and sunlight, increase noise, increase traffic, reduce parking, and reduce the value of his residence.” The evidence submitted by each party is as follows:

Block View and Sunlight:

NOTE: View and Sunlight are not considered when determining standing.

Broida – Mr. Broida stated that his view and sunlight would be blocked.

Renaissance – Mr. Broida signed a waiver to views and sunlight (twice) when he purchased his home.

Increased Noise:

Broida – Stated his opinion that there would be increased noise from the Plaza Tower.

Renaissance - Presented evidence that deliveries and trash collection will take place within the proposed building, limiting the amount of noise they generate. Also stated that the Plaza Tower would shield and reduce noise generated from Little Patuxent Parkway.

Increased Traffic:

Broida – Stated his opinion that there would be more traffic that would particularly affect him.

Renaissance – Presented plans for a driveway located away from Mr. Broida’s residence and plans to improve Wincopin Circle to mitigate any other traffic.

Parking:

Broida - Stated his opinion that parking would be problematic.

Renaissance – Presented plans to indicate parking would not be a problem.

Reduce Value of Residence:

Broida – Presented no evidence or testimony.

Renaissance – Presented testimony by a real estate appraiser and consultant.

In short, the Hearing Examiner found that Mr. Broida did not have standing because he presented no evidence of being specially aggrieved to support his claim. He did not come prepared. In the words of the Hearing Examiner:

Mr. Broida lives in the “Lakeside” condominium development located directly across the street to the east side of the Property. His residence is indubitably within “sight and sound” of the proposed development. Renaissance does not contest, however, that Mr. Broida lives within sufficient proximity to the Property to qualify for the presumption of special aggrievement. Nonetheless, I find that Renaissance presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption by showing that Mr. Broida is not specially aggrieved. The Appellants failed to meet their countervailing burden.

I suppose now would be a good time to ask the editors, “Would it be common sense to go to a formal hearing without any prepared evidence or testimony to support your case?”

In addition, the editors state:

[o]ne could argue that Broida's partners in the legal fight against the Plaza live too far away from the site to be injured by it.

Well, actually, Renaissance did argue (successfully) that Knowles, Stolley and Meskin did not have standing. Truth be told, Ms. Stolley was found to not have standing because she did not participate in any of the hearings before the appeal to the Hearing Examiner. The large stand of dense woods between Mr. Meskin and the Plaza Tower site were found to mitigate his standing claim. And Mr. Knowles was found to live too far from the site of the Plaza Tower. From the Hearing Examiner decision:

The evidence is undisputed that Mr. Knowles lives 1.8 miles to the west of the Property. Interposed between the Knowles residence and the Property are four major roads and numerous and large residential and commercial developments, including the 1.4 million square foot Columbia Mall. The unrefuted testimony of Carl Gutschick, a professional engineer, established that the proposed building could not be seen from the Knowles property. Clearly, Mr. Knowles’property is within neither sight nor sound of the Property.

However, Mr. Knowles did claim he had standing, siting the following case:

Hikmat v. Howard County, 148 Md. App. 502, 813 A.2d 306 (2002)

The Hearing Examiner addressed the issue of standing under Hikmat:

The Appellants contend, however, that the Bryniarsky standard does not apply in this case; rather, they urge that I apply the lower threshold for standing set forth in the Hikmat case. My examination of that case’s holding indicates, however, that it represents a narrow and unrelated exception to the general “aggrievement” rule. Hikmat involved an appeal by Howard County of a Board of Appeals decision reversing DPZ’s denial of a waiver request. The court first noted that governmental entities like Howard County generally cannot be “specially aggrieved” in the Bryniarsky sense. Based upon a series of cases arising from mandamus or certiorari actions, however, the court found that “the facts necessary to satisfy the aggrieved requirement, when the petitioner is a governmental entity, appear to be that it have an interest in interpreting, administering, and enforcing the laws in question in a given case.” 148 Md. App. at 520 (italics added). The Hikmat court decided to extend this exceptional standard for aggrievement to cases arising under a petition for judicial review. Nonetheless, the standard clearly applies only to governmental entities, and not to private individuals or parties.

I’m not certain (I’m not a lawyer), but if I’m reading this right, Mr. Knowles was arguing he had standing because he is a government entity (Lloydville? Knowlestown?).

In closing, a review of the hearing provides a bit more data, and better picture of the circumstances surrounding this case. Yes common sense is called for, and the best assessment would probably find that better common sense on all sides would have helped move this process immensely.

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...

Sometimes, you get what you ask for

As has been noted here and elsewhere, things have been somewhat quiet on the downtown development front. I believe this in part because the people at CoFoCoDo have been quietly popping champagne corks and celebrating a job well done.

The reason? In January 2007, CoFoCoDo set their terms for density.

From their position paper "Framing the Future of Downtown Columbia," page 5 [emphasis mine]:

We favor the continuing development of Downtown, but there are many models of diverse and vibrant downtowns. We offer Georgetown and Annapolis as examples of communities that do not rely on high density to provoke an exciting sense of place. These locations are especially interesting, and they exude excitement...

and on page 13, under the banner "Human Scale,"

We note that there are many models of diverse and vibrant downtowns. We offer Georgetown and Annapolis, not as models to copy – because Columbia does not need to copy anything - but as proof that communities do not need to rely on excessive density to have an exciting sense of place.

Well, a little research demonstrates how well informed the good people of CoFoCoDo are. According to the United States Census, Georgetown would fit nicely into the current downtown plan.

Georgetown:

• Area (acres): 676
• Dwelling Units: 4976
• Population: 8524

Columbia Town Center:

• Area (acres): 570
• Dwelling Units: 5500
• Population: 7000 - 10,000 (??)

Data for Georgetown was obtained from the US Census, District of Columbia Census Tracts 1 and 2.02. Columbia Town Center data obtained from the Howard County Government website and the GGP presentation.

Kudos to CoFoCoDo for leading the way on this issue. Sometimes it's so nice to get what you ask for.

Resident? Guess Again

Maybe it’s the monsoon-like rain. Maybe it’s the brilliant sunshine and clear skies. Maybe it’s the ebb and flow of the weather patterns over the last two weeks. The bottom line is, the Columbia Flier got it terribly wrong this week.

Of course, I am referring to the story, “Building Plans Worry Wilde Lake Residents,” that found itself on the front page of the Columbia Flier this week. After reading the story, one might get the impression that all the residents in Wilde Lake are named Lloyd Knowles.

But let’s not get too crazy here. Lloyd does get his name mentioned six times in the article (cha-ching). The reality; however, is that Lloyd does not live in Wilde Lake. He lives in an out-parcel (non-lien assessed property) in the middle of Harper’s Choice. The truth is, Lloyd and his wife (State Delegate Bobo) own a number of condos in Wilde Lake. I suppose the front page headline “Building Plans Worry Wilde Lake Landlords,” isn't as sexy.

The reality here is that Lloyd made a comment (he did not “testify”) that took up about two minutes of a two-hour event. What the Flier has discounted was many of the comments (that were positive with respect to downtown development) of residents that actually lay their heads on pillows in Wilde Lake.

Let’s hope in the future, there will be some balanced reporting, and maybe a correction next week.

Planning Board Approved most of Wegmans Plan

Last night the Howard County Planning Board held a worksession on the proposed Wegmans site development plan. The discussion, in front of a full house of onlookers, was marked by the serious tone of the board members and the wide range of topics covered. Ultimately, the Planning Board approved the SDP, but refused to allow a 92 foot clock tower.

The basis for denying the tower height lies within an apparent disconnect between New Town Zoning and the height restrictions in the Final Development Plan.

The Howard County Zoning Regulations, Section 125 – New Town District, Part E(4) states:

4. Adjustments to Bulk Regulations for Individual Lots

Upon the request of the owner of a particular lot, the Planning Board may approve parking, setback, height, lot coverage, or other bulk requirements for such lot or parcel which differ from those required by the applicable Final Development Plan, in accordance with the following procedures:

The procedures detail review in a public meeting, required drawings, and part C states:

In addition to the notice for public meetings required by the Planning Board’s Rules of Procedure, the property that is the subject of the application shall be posted with the date, time, and place of the meeting for at least 15 days immediately before the public meeting.

This was contrasted with the text regarding height in the Final Development Plan. The test states (and I am paraphrasing here):

The maximum height limit will be 50 feet, except that height determined by the Planning Board.

So the discussion by Planning Board members oscillated between the Zoning Regs and the Final Development Plan. Was a height limit beyond 50 feet on this lot different from what was required in the Final Development Plan? Ultimately, the Planning Board decided that signs should have been posted to allow a change in height.

So the Site Development Plan has been approved and (at least for now) the clock tower has been dis-allowed. I suppose moving forward, Wegmans will most likely seek building permits for the site. Meanwhile, the Final Development Plan change is on appeal and will be heard by the Howard County Hearing Examiner in the next few weeks.

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.

A Rhetorical Shotgun Blast

A recent post on the Hometown Columbia blog revealed an email circulating throughout the county. For the sake of discussion, the email is reproduced below:

As many of you know developers like GGP are gaining an
increasingly larger control over development in
Columbia, while Howard County Officials and the County
Council have turned a blind eye.
The County Planning Director and her staff have
recently approved several traffic studies that have
mistakes or are simply inaccurate. And even though
county planning staff admitted in internal documents
that the traffic study for the controversial Wegmans
big-box grocery store on Snowden River Pkwy had errors
in it, they refuse to demand a new study from the
 developer. It is no surprise that the county is
 siding with the developer, since it was GGP that
advocated for changing the zoning at this property.
Now GGP will wants us to accept and believe their
traffic studies for downtown Columbia when they won’t
even stand up and ensure that an accurate traffic
study is used on the Wegmans site. Regardless if you
support the proposed grocery store or not, we must all
demand that the county planning staff require honest 
traffic studies and accurate development plans. They
work for us, not GGP and other developers.
Please email or call - Barbara Nicklas and Gregory
Hamm at GGP and ask them to support accurate traffic
studies for downtown Columbia.
Barbara Nicklas - barbara.nicklas@ggp.com (410)
992-6262
Gregory Hamm - Gregory.Hamm@ggp.com
Be sure to include County Executive Ken Ulman’s Chief
of Staff, Aaron Greenfield, so the County knows that
residents are getting tired of the County putting
developers first.
Aaron Greenfield - agreenfield@howardcountymd.gov
Please to forward this email to your friends and
neighbors who care about over development and the
growing traffic problem in Columbia. We have to speak
up or nothing will ever change.

From the first sentence, there is a demonstrated lack of history. When shareholders of the Rouse Company willingly voted to be acquired by General Growth Properties (GGP), the development of properties in Howard County also transferred. In the months preceding the sale to GGP, the Rouse Company was engaged in a proposal to develop downtown Columbia. As I see it, GGP has continued in the tradition of Columbia development that the Rouse Company started over 40 years ago.

The assertion that the county has turned a blind eye to Columbia development is equally void. Since the turn of the century, the county has been actively engaged in the development process. It was a County Councilperson that initiated the changes in downtown Columbia to encourage mixed use. The county chartered a committee to look at Merriweather Post Pavilion’s viability. The county funded and sponsored the Charrette. The county worked hard to keep big box stores out of downtown. The county brought forth legislation to limit building heights in downtown Columbia. Sounds to me like the county has been pretty involved.

In the second paragraph, there is a reference to “several” traffic studies. Could these be named? Why not stipulate the number of traffic studies that are known to have mistakes? Why hide behind vagaries? In addition, what is the character of these “mistakes” and inaccuracies?” Are these pagination errors? Number transposition errors? What are the specifics? Do these errors amount to real concern? Said a different way, are these errors (in these “several” traffic studies) large enough to change the level of service in the study area?

The last sentence in the second paragraph marks the departure point from reality.

It is no surprise that the county is
 siding with the developer, since it was GGP that
 advocated for changing the zoning at this property.

A little history lesson for the author of the email: It is written in the Howard County Zoning Regulations that the Rouse Company (or its successor) is the only party that can ask the county to change any zoning in the New Town District. Before being acquired by GGP, it became known that the Rouse Company would charge companies money to make the request for a change. In fact, the Rouse Company had created a plan in which it would sell “development units” to future developers if it had gotten the density in Columbia changed.

This left a bad taste in many people’s mouths (myself included). Recently, a task force of Columbians sought to review New Town Zoning and made several recommendations. The chair of this task force was (to the best of my knowledge) Owen Brown resident (and Owen Brown Village Board Chair) Andy Stack. I believe Andy’s participation on the task force was as a resident of Columbia and not in his capacity as OBVB Chair.

Regardless, Andy has been a community leader since (I believe) I was in high school (Hammond, Class of 1984), and this task force recommended that GGP be taken completely out of the New Town process. Now, given the public backlash against the development unit scheme, and the New Town Zoning Task Force recommendation to remove GGP from the process (Executive Summary, Recommendation 3). GGP appears to have taken the position that if someone is looking for a change in a Final Development Plan, they are willing to fulfill their obligation to initiate the process. There is no evidence that GGP receives any benefit from this process and there is no evidence to suggest that GGP played any significant role in bringing Wegmans to Columbia. There is evidence that Wegmans has been talking to the property owner, Science Fiction, for some time.

Moreover, the change sought at the Wegmans sight was not a change in zoning. The land is still zoned for industrial use. The change sought was to amend the FDP such that a permitted use on the industrial land site was to include a large grocery store. These are two distinctly separate actions.

This half-baked logic continues on to the next paragraph in which the email states that:

Now GGP will wants us to accept and believe their 
traffic studies for downtown Columbia when they won’t
even stand up and ensure that an accurate traffic
study is used on the Wegmans site.

Not to belabor the point, but a review of recent history helps to clarify the issue. GGP did a traffic study for downtown Columbia in 2005 (Wells & Associates). The county then commissioned a second traffic study in 2006 (Glatting Jackson), and then commissioned a third traffic study in 2007 (Sabra Wang). So GGP and the county have commissioned three different reports, from three different firms, in three successive years regarding traffic in downtown. I have no supporting evidence, but it may well be that downtown Columbia traffic has been the most studied traffic area in the State of Maryland over the last five years.

I would like to close by saying that for all the flaws, I admire the folks who are sending this email around. That being said, the vagaries, inconsistencies, and lack of knowledge of history greatly diminish the impact of this letter. When it comes to trying to effect change, a lucid, rational argument will carry the day. Banging drums only makes noise. It is my hope that those at the county realize the distinction. If you agree with me, please contact the county and please tell them to ignore the noise.

Now You Can Hear “It Could Happen Here”

I recently came across a library of audio recordings on the web which has all of the featured speakers at the 1963 “Metropolitan Future Conference on the Metropolitan Future” from Berkeley, California. This conference is where James Rouse gave the “It Could Happen Here” speech.

Here is the link . Getting to the audio file takes a little bit of work, the conference audio files are pretty far down the page. You can scroll down until the scroll bar is about an inch off the bottom of the screen, and you will come upon the following:

The Metropolitan Future Conference on the Metropolitan Future ]1963 :
Berkeley, Calif.]).
Recorded on September 26, 1963 in the Peacock Court of the Mark Hopkins Hotel, San Francisco and on September 27, 1963 in Pauley Ballroom, Student Union, University of California, Berkeley.

There are 11 numbered files that follow, Jim Rouse can be heard on file 4:

4. The good environment--Introduction / by William M. Roth--Lessons from modern urban design / by Steen Eiler Rasmussen--The private developer / by James W.
Rouse.

Another quick way to find it on the page is to use the “Find” function in Microsoft Explorer (Control-F). Search for the term “Peacock”

Note: Audio files are in the RealAudio format and require a RealAudio player, the player can be downloaded for free online.

The Dimension of Scale

Over the past year, much has been made about downtown and “human scale.” This discussion of human scale is often in the context of building height. As many know, James Rouse is known for criticizing other communities (both cities and suburbs) for being out of scale with people. This post provides the background information to determine the context of Rouse’s comments and how he viewed scale. This research was first spurred on by a post on the Tales of Two Cities blog and Wordbones longtime friend Jim Binckley.

The following excerpts were taken from four speeches made by James Rouse at Berkeley, California (1963), Chicago, Illinois (1965), before Congress (1966), and in San Juan, Puerto Rico (1967). These speeches are important because of their place in Columbia’s history. In each instance, James Rouse discusses scale as it relates to people.

The first excerpt of the speech comes from the James Rouse speech “It Could Happen Here.”

I believe that many of the most serious problems of our society flow from the fact that the city is out of scale with people; that it is too big for people to comprehend; to feel a part of; to feel responsible for; to feel important in. I believe this out-of-scaleness promotes loneliness, irresponsibility, superficial values.

“IT CAN HAPPEN HERE”
A Paper on Metropolitan Growth
By James W. Rouse
at Conference on The Metropolitan Future
University of California at Berkeley
September 23, 1963

Here, the term scale is introduced, but it is more aligned with feelings (loneliness) and social capital (to feel a part of) than any particular dimension or entity within a city. By this time, Rouse has already purchased most of the land in Howard County for Columbia, and within six weeks (November 1963), will have brought together the work group.

From Berkeley, we move on to Chicago, Illinois in the spring of 1965. During the intervening months between Berkeley and Chicago, James Rouse has been busy in Howard County. The work group has come and gone, he has presented his intentions to the Howard County Commissioners, and has worked with county officials for a year to get the zoning for Columbia.

At Chicaco, James Rouse spoke to a different audience. Rather than a conference on growth, this speech was presented to “The Annual Honor Awards Luncheon of the Chicago Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Chicago Chapter of the American Institute of Architects,” at a time when the John Hancock Center was approved for construction. This building has 100 floors and rises 1,127 feet in the air. Commenting on the building, Rouse said:

Of more immediate interest to all of us is this recent manifestation of happy wedlock between good business and good architecture – The John Hancock Center. So contagious is the Chicago spirit that it has infested a Washington developer, an international architectural firm, and, most important, a great New England life insurance company to bring to your city a new landmark that may well become one of America’s greatest buildings.

Later in the speech, Rouse comes back to Columbia, and the issue of scale:

Forgive this amateur excursion into architectural philosophy – this audience and this platform produced a temptation that was irresistible. I was invited to talk about the City and the City I know best is Columbia – one that doesn’t even exist, but which has already brought to those of us who are working towards it, experiences and hopes we yearn to share.

We were drawn to the idea of building a City by our intensive involvement in suburban sprawl. As mortgage bankers and developers, we have financed for others or built for our own account most of the components of a City – but they have been splattered over the countryside in the unrelated bits and pieces that mark the accidental, fractured growth of our cities.

We have seen, as has each of you, the desperate need for comprehensive planning in metropolitan growth. We have made speeches about the loneliness and sterility of stratified, incomplete suburban sprawl and pleaded for communities in scale with people and responsive to the need for beauty, space, nature, culture, education, entertainment, and involvement. We have mourned the annihilation of streams and forests; cursed the bulldozer; fretted over the lack of mass transit and wrung our hands in despair as our cities surge toward the infinite Los Angeles that we have come to call Megalopolis.

April 8, 1965 – Chicago, Illinois
Great Cities for a Great Society
The Annual Honor Awards Luncheon of the Chicago Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Chicago Chapter of the American Institute of Architects

Here, we find an expansion on the subject of scale and its relation to sprawl. Beyond the feelings and social capital, aspects of nature, mass transit, and civic purposes (education, culture, entertainment) are introduced. Moreover, scale is related to an “infinite” Los Angeles and Megalopolis. Even in the 1960’s, with the John Hancock building in Chicago and the World Trade Center in New York under construction, I do not believe the reference to infinite was in a vertical sense. Los Angeles is known for expanding far and wide across the California countryside. Similarly, the term Megalopolis refers to the merging of distant cities.


From 1965 Chicago, we move to Washington DC in 1966. During this year, James Rouse testified before Congress in support of the New Communities Section, Title II of the Housing Bill. The following quote comes from a paper written by Morton Hoppenfeld, “The Columbia Process – The Potential for New Towns,”

The following statement by James W. Rouse, the founder of Columbia, before a committee of Congress in support of the New Communities Section, Title II of the Housing Bill for 1966, expresses a real personal commitment on the part of the principal decision-maker in the effort to build a better city; his values are shared by the entire Columbia staff.‘

Our cities grow by accident, by the whim of the private developer and public…By this irrational process, non-communities are born – formless places, without order, beauty or reason, with no visible respect for people or the land…The vast formless spread of housing, pierced by the unrelated spotting of schools, churches, stores, creates areas so huge and irrational that they are out of scale with people – beyond their grasp and comprehension – too big for people to feel a part of, responsible for, important in…

From “The Columbia Process – The Potential for New Towns,” page 3,by Morton Hoppenfeld. The Garden City Press Limited, Letchworth Hertfordshire, England

Here we see a further evolution of the term scale. Scale is unequivocally equated with “the vast formless spread of housing.” Without question, Rouse has now identified development over large areas as the dimension of scale.

The final speech looked at here is the speech “Cities that Work for Man – Victory Ahead.” This speech was delivered in San Juan, Puerto Rico at the Lions International/University of Puerto Rico Symposium on “the City of the Future.”

[t]he bits and pieces of a city are splattered across the landscape. By this irrational process, non-communities are born – formless places without order, beauty or reason with no visible respect for people or the land. Thousands o’ small separate decisions made with little or no relationship to one another, nor their composite impact, produce a major decision about the future of our cities and our civilization – a decision we have come to label suburban sprawl. What nonsense this is! What reckless, irresponsible dissipation of nature’s endowment and of man’s hope for dignity, beauty, growth.

Sprawl is inefficient. It stretches out the distances people must travel to work, to shop, to worship, to play. It fails to relate these activities in ways the strengthen each and, thus, it suppresses values that orderly relationships and concentration of uses would stimulate.

Sprawl is ugly, oppressive, massively dull. It squanders the resources of nature – forests, streams, hillsides – and produces vast, monotonous armies of housing and graceless, tasteless clutter.

But worst of all, sprawl is inhuman. It is anti-human. The vast formless spread of housing pierced by the unrelated spotting of schools, churches, stores, creates areas so huge and irrational that they are out of scale with people – beyond their grasp and comprehension – too big for people to feel a part of, responsible for, important in.

[and later in the speech]

Sprawl is thought to be better than slum because it is greener, cleaner and less crowded. We accept the deficits of non-community; the scatterization of facilities, the frantic, fractured living, the loneliness amidst busyness, the rising delinquency among middle-class children, increasing neurosis, alcoholism, divorce; the destruction of nature and the dull monotonous man-made replacement. We accept it all as if it were a pre-ordained way of life beyond our capacity to significantly influence, shape or control. Lacking images of urban growth in communities that are in human scale and sensitive to both man and nature, we take what the developer gives us and we think we have to like it.

Cities that Work for Man – Victory Ahead
The Lions International/University of Puerto Rico Symposium on “The City of the Future”
San Juan, Puerto Rico
October 18, 1967

It is in this speech when it all comes together. James Rouse directly links “scale with people” with sprawl. The reference to loneliness recalls Berkeley. The reference to nature brings to memory Chicago.

What we do not find is any reference to scale and building height. It may well be that at sometime in future history a document may surface that spells out James Rouse’s position on height, but for now there should be little doubt that Rouse equated scale and sprawl, not height.

Company Town

Last week Martin Berdit of Harpers Choice had the following letter “What fills vacuum as county forfeits planning function?” published in the Columbia Flier. I submitted a response that was published this week “County, developer should collaborate on downtown” (scroll all the way down ). Please share your thoughts on the issues raised in these two letters…

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.

Columbia Town Center Info

General Growth Properties has activated their Columbia Town Center website. Not much functionality so far, but the site is back up, and would expect more to follow after the Howard County framework is updated.

Take a look, share a thought….

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.

Sound Familiar?

WARNING: PLAGERISM ALERT

Bad news: Unless the experts are wrong, Howard County suburbs will continue to sprawl beyond the horizon.

The threat of global warming pales next to the allure of a backyard sliver of green. Two-hour commutes are tough, but it's even tougher to persuade an older suburb to allow dense new housing downtown.

***************************************************

Most of the above words are not mine. They are the words of San Francisco Chronicle columnist John King. He writes a column entitled “Place” that appears in the Tuesday Chronicle. If you replace the words “Howard County” with “California,” the quote becomes his. They are taken from his Tuesday, October 9, 2007 piece, “California suburbs will continue to sprawl.”

John King recalls a recent debate at the annual conference of the California chapter of the American Planning Association. At this conference, six planners debated the ability to implement smart growth in front of an audience of 150. I encourage all to read the column, but here are some tidbits:

The debate occurred last week in San Jose during the annual conference of the
California chapter of the American Planning Association. And it truly was a
debate; the two teams jabbed within a tight time frame over the topic:
"Resolved, that California is ready for complex urban development."

[F]or those of you who don't read planning journals for fun, "complex urban development" is a new synonym for "smart growth." The premise is that we need to steer new growth into older areas, mix in mass transit and not be afraid to stack a few floors of housing on top of shops and small offices.

[W]e have no other choice, and we are ready," argued Al Zelinka of RBF Consulting in Irvine. He talked of how Orange County has downtown housing and condo towers taking root. "Green" buildings now are touted by developers and demanded by governments. "We're at the tipping point. ... Suburbanization will continue, but the wave will be in urbanization."

[I]t's spectacular delusional hubris to think that good sense will prevail," proclaimed developer John Anderson of Chico. "People feel entitled to their fantasy."

[B]ut the real world is a local political stew where the loudest voices are the ones who want the status quo preserved at all cost. Statewide planning regulations, meanwhile, look great in press releases but often are disconnected from daily life.

Which puts me on the side of the cons: The small victories for more livable regions seem to be no match for the larger forces that want things the way they are. I sure hope we're wrong.

Comment?

Espera

The title of this blog post came to me last night as my family was grocery shopping. My son and I were at one end of the store, and we caught site of my wife halfway towards the other end. Being four, my son was proud to be pushing the shopping cart (with a little guidance from his dad) through the store. When he saw my wife, he took off with the shopping cart and started shouting “mommy, espera!” It took hearing it a second time for it to register, but yes, my son was shouting in Spanish for his mom to wait for us. It brought a HUGE smile to my face.

With that thought logged fresh in my mind this morning, I began the review of the local papers. Susan DeFord writes in the Washington Post Metro section (Council Member Tables Legislation in Push to Compromise):

The Howard County Council member who sought height restrictions for a controversial high-rise project in Columbia said she'll table her legislation in the hopes of forging a compromise.
The announcement from Mary Kay Sigaty (D-West Columbia) came after a closed Friday session attended by county leaders, community activists and representatives of the developer that plans to build the Plaza Residences, a 22-story condominium tower that would rise 275 feet along Little Patuxent Parkway.

[A]fter Friday's discussion, Sigaty said that "people wanted to come back to the table and keep talking. I was always in support of a compromise.
"I will be tabling my legislation for a month to allow the conversation to continue," she said.
Details of Friday's meeting, according to participants and those following the matter, dealt with lowering the height of the tower and possibly offering additional incentives, such as money for affordable housing.

Over at the Baltimore Sun (Talks on tower advance), reporter June Arney writes today:

The sponsor of legislation intended to block construction of a 23-story tower in downtown Columbia plans to ask the County Council to table her bills for 30 days in hopes that a compromise can be reached, after a lengthy, closed-door meeting of interested parties.
"There was agreement in the room that it had been a productive day and we needed to talk some more," Councilwoman Mary Kay Sigaty said after Friday's meeting. Sigaty represents the district where the 160-unit Plaza Residences is being built and is the sponsor of the two bills.
Another meeting of all parties is planned for Friday, she said.

[C]ouncilwoman Courtney Watson, who did not attend the meeting, said Friday that she had reservations about delaying a decision.
"I would be opposed to tabling it without some reassurance that there was a serious effort on the part of the parties to reach a compromise," she said. Watson said she planned to talk with people over the weekend to determine how close a compromise might be.
Among the key players not at the table Friday were four plaintiffs who had filed a court action trying to stop the project. But their attorney was able to attend the latter part of the meeting.
In a letter sent to Ulman, E. Alexander Adams, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, said he could not be at the meeting because of a court commitment and that he had recommended his clients not attend without counsel.
"My clients, as always, have been receptive to a resolution that addresses this problem of the illegal land use classification, while being cognizant of the overall community interest in the long overdue re-zoning of Town Center," Adams wrote in his letter. "There are important issues in this case and important processes critical to the future of New Town realizing its rightful integral place in this County's social, cultural, community and economic mosaic."

I have to say, I believe Mr. Adams statement “My clients, as always, have been receptive to a resolution that addresses this problem of the illegal land use classification…” missed the point. The zoning amendments before the County Council deal specifically with building height, not the construction of apartments. The legislation makes no distinction between residential (i.e. apartments) or commercial buildings. In fact, it has been stated that the arbitrary limit of 150 feet is derived from a commercial building that contains no apartments. If Mr. Adams is at the table to discuss a compromise, he should be focused on the issue of building height.

So it appears with respect to zoning amendments restricting building heights in downtown, we will all have to wait. Espera. But there is something more to this wonderful Spanish verb, esperar. The verb not only means “to wait,” but it equally means “to hope for.” Through one of those idiomatic quirks, both meanings of Espera can be applied to our current situation.

Hasta Noviembre!

The Tower of Babble

Well its been one Plaza-riffic week! I will save my impression of the whole thing until the end, but first, lets take a look at how the two days of testimony was reported. Dave Wissing at the Hedgehog Report was first out the gate with some great impressions of Monday night. The Baltimore Sun led off with a report by Larry Carson on September 19, 2007 (Tower fans, critics heard). Mr. Carson’s leadoff paragraph pretty much set the stage:

Like practiced players in a long-running drama, scores of people trying to block or defend a proposed 23-story condominium tower in Columbia descended on a Howard County Council public hearing Monday night for what turned out to be two days of testimony about two bills that could derail the project.

The report in the Baltimore Sun was followed by articles published in the Washington Post, Baltimore Examiner and Columbia Flier on September 20, 2007. Both the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun quoted testimony from CoFoCoDo’s Alan Klein.

The Washington Post reported:

Community activist Alan Klein said he wouldn't respond to comments from "special interests," but, his voice rising, he called to task each of the five council members.
"The council candidates announced their support for height limits. You said so publicly," he said, reciting statements attributed to members during their election campaigns. "You know why you should pass these bills."

And the Baltimore Sun:

But Alan Klein of the Coalition for Columbia's Downtown, a group trying to block the tower, which they see as large building that will dwarf the rest of Town Center, said his group has "almost 400 supporters" who "have no vested interest in the decision other than the quality of life."
He urged the council members to "protect the human scale of Columbia" and not "bow to special interests." He quoted each council member expressing doubt or opposition to the tower's height during last year's election campaigns.

In my opinion, I thought Alan’s testimony was particularly damaging to his cause. I was in the audience, sitting about fifty feet from Alan when he gave his testimony, and I was shocked. As stated by both the Sun and the Post, Alan did provide quotes from each of the council members and read them back to them. It seemed that with each quote, Alan’s voice got louder and more shrill. Alan’s verbal escalation peaked as he stated that many of the Council were in fact members of CoFoCoDo and quoted from their white paper regarding building height. After which, and I’m paraphrasing here, it appeared he commanded the council to adhere to the CoFoCoDo white paper and pass the building height bills. The room got noticeably quiet after Alan completed his testimony.

I suppose a lesson learned here is that if you are a supporter of CoFoCoDo, keep in mind your signing on may be viewed more as an oath, rather than an affirmation of their broad recommendations.

From the side opposing the legislation, Attorney Richard Talkin was widely quoted:

From the Baltimore Examiner:

“There is a rift in the community, and it’s getting wider. We need to resolve this case,” said Richard Talkin, attorney representing the developer of the Plaza Residences, WCI Communities Inc. “We have been willing to compromise.”

From the Columbia Flier:

Richard Talkin, an attorney representing Florida-based WCI Communities Inc., the developer of the planned 22-story condominium on Wincopin Circle, said the company is willing to compromise on the building's height and make other concessions to speed the project along.

[T]here is a rift in the community (over the project) and it's getting wider as the case goes on ... we have to move forward together," Talkin told the County Council at a Sept. 18 hearing on a pair of zoning amendments introduced by Council member Mary Kay Sigaty, a Columbia Democrat.

In contrast to Alan Klein, Mr. Talkin appeared calm both during his testimony and during a short Q&A with Council members.

Compromise?

Both the Baltimore Examiner and the Columbia Flier touched on the issue of a possible compromise. I think all parties involved would like to see some compromise worked out rather than continuing with the high stakes rhetoric. However, as I see it, hope on this front is somewhat bleak. It appears that WCI is willing to talk about at least changing the building height as part of a compromise, and may even be willing to do other things. However, they are committed to building on the site in downtown. In some respects, I can’t blame them for holding to their particular site. They received Planning Board approval for their site plan and also received building permits for that particular site. They played by all the rules and met all the requirements. Now they are talking about compromising even further. They may want to drop the height to 150 feet, but they are at least talking about some reduction in height.

On the other side, State Delegate Liz Bobo believes the first step in compromise is to build no building at all. The honorable former County Executive believes WCI should be compensated, and no building erected. Depending on who you are, this might appear to be a buyout or a property taking.

From my point of view, I believe that a buyout of WCI is a non-starter. By analogy, my neighbor and I have been talking about how to reduce our carbon footprints. One of the topics we have discussed is our vehicles. We both recognize that there are more fuel efficient vehicles on the market, and we are each considering purchasing one in the future. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that my neighbor decides that to reduce his carbon footprint, he decides to buy a motorcycle. I talk to my neighbor and say that the motorcycle will be loud and disruptive in the neighborhood. He states that the motorcycle is on order and offers to not start the motorcycle early in the morning, or drive at low throttle to minimize the noise (ostensibly the WCI position). I reply to him that I believe the motorcycle dealership should buy the motorcycle from him (after all, the dealership can afford to do that, right?), and he explore another, fuel efficient means of getting around town.

Does that make sense?

My Two Cents

With regard to the building height legislation, I am in opposition to both bills. Generally stated, Council Bill 64 is the one that applies building height legislation to those projects under appeal. I believe that the County would be in legal jeopardy if this bill is passed. Primarily because, as stated in the May 2007 Howard Business Monthly (Planning Board Hearing on Plaza Residences Tower Sparks Debate),

Two zoning regulation amendments targeting a controversial 23-story mixed-use high-rise approved for Columbia Town Center sparked a large turnout and lively debate at the Howard County Planning Board's late April hearing.
County Councilwoman Mary Kay Sigaty (D-Dist. 4), who introduced the amendments, said she did so to respond to significant community concern about height limits triggered by the board's approval of The Plaza Residences at Columbia Town Center, a 275-foot-tall tower planned by Florida developer WCI Communities. The project would include ground level retail shops and 160 luxury condominiums.
"As the planning process went forward there was a real concern [in the community] that other buildings might slip in during the planning process," Sigaty told the board. "There was concern that this building would set a precedent that would be a negative precedent. ... In addition, though, there is also a very strong desire for real change in downtown."
According to a review of county regulations, Sigaty said, all districts have height limits except for New Town and those with MXT zoning. "I feel it is in the community's best interest for us to introduce an interim height limit of 150 feet [in New Town]," she said, noting that the limit reflects the height of the Merrill Lynch building, the county's tallest.
Her intent, Sigaty added, is to "calm fears about what could happen ... and hopefully engage people in the appropriate conversation necessary to help create a vibrant, exciting downtown."


So Councilperson Sigaty’s own words clearly place the zoning amendments (now Council Bills) as a response to one project. In addition, both the Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning and the Howard County Planning Board have recommended against the retroactive nature of CB 64. So to enact legislation against a single project and willfully ignore both the recommendations of DPZ and the Planning Board puts the Council, and the County, in a bad position.

With respect to CB 63, which sets a 150 foot height limit in New Town I have two concerns with this bill. First, passing this bill elevates (pardon the pun) 150 feet above any other height to be considered in the future. As the discussion and debate about downtown Columbia evolves, if 150 feet is passed by the County Council, someone will most likely defend the 150 feet by stating that the Council must have passed it for some reason. Passage of CB 63 sets an arbitrary standard. Moreover, by passing a height limit now, limits further creativity as we discuss downtown. In my opinion, what should be held constant at the outset is the amount of developable square footage in downtown. From that constant value, a robust discussion of traffic volumes, building heights, and density can occur. To the County’s credit, this is precisely what they have done since the charrette.

Suggestions:

As we move into the final week before these bills are decided, there need to be some solutions offered. I only have a few, but would welcome any that are pinging around the blogosphere.

The first suggestion I have is to add the word “arbitrary” to CB 63. Clearly, most people believe that this height limit was not arrived at by any empirical, historical, or even sentimental means. It is in fact an arbitrary limit, so why not say so in the bill?

Secondly, I have heard some say “since CB 63 is temporary, what would it hurt to pass it?” Well, if this is true, that no harm will come from passing a temporary building height, why not limit the height to ten (10) feet? I mean, it’s only temporary, so what could it hurt? Right?