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.

CoFoCoDo Advocates Agenda that is Counter to Rouse

The kind, well-intentioned, leaderless organization has been railing against the GGP downtown plan. One of the primary criticisms has been what CoFoCoDo “spokesman” Alan Klein calls phasing. “Spokesman” Klein was quoted recently on the Explore Howard blog (Groups weigh in on plan for downtown Columbia):

Klein said his group would like to see GGP’s plan broken into five-year phases rather than 10-year phases, which he said would ensure that each development stage is not approved unless certain goals are met.

A few days later, Alan Klein expanded on this theme via the HCCA Yahoo-Group:

In addition, it is vital that the additional density which GGP is asking for be phased in, through separate votes by the Council over time, rather than being granted up front, as they are asking for now.

What is intriguing about this stance by the “leaders” of CoFoCoDo is its hypocrisy. On the CoFoCoDo website, the “organization” states:

CCD wants to ensure that a vibrant Downtown Columbia emerges from the redevelopment planning process and that the plan remains true to the founder's vision for Columbia.

But let’s go back and look at the beginning. When Rouse first proposed Columbia, there was opposition to the project:

Still worse from Rouse’s standpoint, the [Howard County] commissioners issued a set of “guidelines” to the Howard County planning commission that sounded like flat rejection of several indispensable ingredients of the new city. The commissioners declared themselves opposed to row-house development. They warned that they would not “in any case” rezone the entire site for the city at one time. The commissioners were, they reiterated, committed to low-density development of Howard County.
Columbia and the New Cities, Gurney Brekenfeld, pp. 267-268, Ives Washburn Inc, New York, 1971

Sounds familiar?

Another interesting passage relating to the same discussion appears in “Creating a New City- Columbia, Maryland,” edited by Robert Tennenbaum:

[R]ouse contended that it was necessary for all of the property to be rezoned in order to obtain the financing for the project.

When the Commissioners began to deliberate after the close of the hearing, there were strong inclinations by Commissioners Force and Miller to rezone only the Town Center and the first village in order to provide a basis for a trail period.
Creating a New City – Columbia, Maryland, Robert Tennenbaum, p. 101, Perry Publishing, Columbia, 1996.

CoFoCoDo – 1965 is calling…

As Rouse insisted it was essential, the [Howard County] commissioners voted to rezone the entire property at once. [Attorney for the Howard County Commissioners Lewis] Nippard explained to me why, “We’ve had extremely good relations with these [Rouse] people, even though we’ve had differences. If we zoned less than the entire tract at once, they being practical people could take the stand that the county had hedged its bet and ‘we would have to do the same.’ We decided to indicate complete faith and let them develop at the pace the market will allow. Besides, wherever we drew a line, it wouldn’t be the right place.”
Columbia and the New Cities, Gurney Brekenfeld, p. 272, Ives Washburn Inc, New York, 1971

So on one hand, CoFoCoDo declares their intention “that the plan remains true to the founder's vision for Columbia,” while taking a position that was flatly rejected by Rouse.

Hopefully the CoFoCoDo “leadership” will reconsider their position and have “spokesman” Alan Klein re-issue a statement that CoFoCoDo supports the vision and actions of James Rouse.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Micro Multi-Modal

I have been thinking about the recently released downtown Columbia traffic study, and specifically how to mitigate increased traffic. My focus has been on little things; things that can be done for a moderate cost, in a short term time frame, and would provide at least the promise of a reduction in traffic.

That being said, I believe the volume of people coming into and out of downtown will continue to increase. The key here is to move some from cars to other means of transportation. One way that I believe we can get more cars out of downtown is to install bicycle racks (or even possibly bicycle lockers) adjacent to every bus shelter in the county. This would extend the effective range of people that could easily access bus shelters and the Howard Transit bus routes. Even using my tired old Diamond Back mountain bike, I can reduce a half-hour walk to under ten minutes. If a bus line is within ten minutes of any residence, the convenience of the bus system becomes greater. The greater the convenience, the more potential riders.

This is just one small project that can increase mass transportation use. The cost is relatively small and the program can be implemented fairly quickly. Taking these small steps now will help us transition from being the most car dependent locality (see Total Annual Vehicle Miles) in Maryland to a community that provides a variety of means of travel in the County.

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!

On First Blush

As the days of this abnormally dry (but otherwise pleasant) September have ticked away, the back of my mind has been politely reminding me that the County had promised to release to the public a downtown Columbia traffic study and draft master plan. That promise became a reality yesterday. The draft master plan, traffic study, a comment/feedback form and a calendar of events can all be viewed here.

The past two presidential administrations have conditioned me to be a bit sour and cynical of press releases that occur on Fridays. It seems at the Federal level, a Friday dump is tantamount to releasing information that does not get covered extensively in the press. Happily, my cynicism dissolved after downloading and reading the five part draft master plan. Moreover, coverage has been pretty quick. Both Hayduke and Columbia Council Representative Evan Coren have already put up blog posts on the subject, and the Baltimore Sun Howard section has a story in today’s paper.

From a broad prospective, the draft master plan looks great. The inclusion of artwork by Bob Tennenbaum, original renderings from early Columbia promotional material, and current day photographs are pleasing to the eye.

With respect to content, I have only had a chance for a quick read through, but a few things stand out:

The document lays out a three step process. The first step of this process is the release of the Draft Master Plan. From page 4 of the Draft Master Plan:

As part of the first step, the Department of Planning and Zoning offers this thematic document, which serves two purposes: (1) to describe a vision for Downtown Columbia, highlighting the themes that have emerged through public dialogue over the course of the past two years and (2) to establish a framework that will provide guidance for General Growth Properties (GGP), the major property owner in Downtown, as they prepare a downtown development master plan for public review and approval.

The second step will be the General Growth Properties plan.

The third step will be codifying the master plan through a legislative process. The legislative process is intended to involve two pieces of legislation: an amendment to the Howard County General Plan (GP) and amendments to the Howard County Zoning Regulations (ZRA). As stated in the Draft Master Plan Appendix:

The County Administration is proposing to utilize these two amendment processes, GP and ZRA, as the recommended approach for Downtown, because they are legislative processes. Legislative processes afford the public the maximum opportunity to interact with their elected officials. The other processes that could be utilized such as amendment to the Preliminary Development Plan or a rezoning case would be a quasi-judicial process, requiring that elected officials cannot speak with the public or anyone else about the case. With this [GP and ZRA amendment] legislative approach, elected officials are free to meet with the public and to discuss the amendments as much as they may find helpful.

The Draft Master Plan does expand on the framework in which General Growth Properties is to hang their master plan on. The framework focuses on five themes, three vision-based and two process-based:

This framework is organized around five themes that emerged from the extensive input by the public during the charrette, the Downtown Columbia Focus Group meetings and from independent groups and individual citizens who have contributed to the planning process. These groups include Howard County Citizens’ Association, Columbia Association, Town Center village board, Wilde Lake village board, Oakland Mills village board, Harper’s Choice village board, the Coalition for Columbia’s Downtown (CCD), Bring Back the Vision, Howard County Tomorrow and others.

Just a quick note here. I think it would have been appropriate to list the blogs in Howard County (as a general category) as a source of input. Although rarely unanimous, the blogs have been a source of research, opinion, and discussion related to downtown.

The themes are organized around two broad categories: Vision and Process. The first three serve as extensions of Jim Rouse’s original goals for Columbia – a reaffirmation of the community’s founding principles and shared values. The last two - the Process themes - outline a planning and development process necessary to achieving the vision for Downtown Columbia.

Making a Special Place [page 6]

Downtown Columbia will be a diverse, mixed-use, livable, physically distinctive and human-scaled place with a range of hous-ing choices and recreational, civic and cultural amenities.

Moving and Connecting People [page 6]

Downtown Columbia will enhance multimodal connectivity through a variety of safe, convenient and innovative transportation alternatives.

Sustaining the Environment [page 7]

Downtown Columbia’s natural resources will be protected and enhanced; a network of public spaces will provide places for individual contemplation and social gathering.

Balancing and Phasing Growth [page 7]

The development of Downtown Columbia will be served by public facilities provided in a timely manner.

Involving Everyone [page 8]

The community will be actively engaged in decisions concerning the evolution of Downtown.

The balance of the draft expands on these five themes.

Traffic Study

Once again, only a first impression, but there is a lot to digest here. The traffic study is well written, and goes to some length to explain the terms involved. The traffic study breaks up traffic improvements into near term (present to 2014) and long term traffic flow (2014-2037). In the near term, few traffic modifications are recommended to kep traffic flowing and adding development. Beyond 2014, three scenarios are considered: no development, with a 1% yearly increase in traffic flow (based conservatively on traffic data collected over the last few years), a low development increase, and the projected development that was presented in the initial draft development plan. In all three cases, intersections downtown are predicted to fail.

One point that the slow growth/no growth contingent may latch onto is the middle growth scenario will produce 40% less traffic than the full growth scenario. However, as the report shows, both development scenarios would result in about the same amount of failing intersections. This indicates that there is not a statistically significant correlation between development and traffic. There are many recommendations, but we will save them for another post.

Looking at the calendar, the following draft master plan events are scheduled:

10OCT07 - Downtown Focus Group Meeting 4-6 pm
Oakland Mills, Other Barn
(they’re getting the band back together! And, as typical, during normal working hours to keep us work-a-day people away)

11OCT07 – Traffic Study Report 7-9 pm
Harpers Choice, Kahler Hall

20OCT07 – CA and Village Boards 10-12 noon
Howard Building

20OCT07 – DPZ Open House 1-3 pm
Howard Building

25OCT07 – DPZ Open House 7-9 pm
Wilde Lake High School

30OCT07 – Public Forum 7-9 pm
Oakland Mills High School

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?

To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to?

It looks to me that the Plaza Tower and Wegmans are becoming a planning and zoning Scylla and Charybdis visited upon our fine community. The opposition mounted (mostly by labor unions) to the Wegmans is starting to sound awful similar to the path blazed by the friends of the community Knowles/Broida/Meskin/Stolley.

At the heart of both opposition movements is text amendment changes to Final Development Plans (FDPs). In fact, in each case, the FDP change dealt with adding a permitted use. In the case of the Plaza Tower, apartments were permitted on a site zoned for Employment Center/Commercial. In the case of Wegmans, a grocery store (generally considered a commercial use) was permitted on a site zoned as industrial.

It is also of note that both parties have stated the Planning Board decisions are in opposition to the original intent of Columbia, with CoFoCoDo-ists pouring over early pictures of Columbia promotional concept models to count building floors and Wegmans opposers stating that the proposed huge grocery store would threaten the Village Centers as they are currently configured.

Knowles/Broida/Meskin/Stolley appealed to the Board of Appeals, and the Wegmans opposition currently intends to follow the same course. As these cases wind through the appeals and courts, it will certainly be interesting. It may even be possible that both cases could be before the Maryland Court of Special Appeals by this time next year.

And if this zoning situation detaches from reality and falls into the realm of the unbelievable, the Wegmans opposition could put pressure on elected officials to introduce zoning amendments to prohibit construction of a grocery store greater than 60,000 square feet (including those grocery stores undergoing judicial review) until a master plan is developed for the Sieling Industrial Park.

That kind of thing couldn’t happen, could it?

One true, one not, both strange

The confluence of a rainy day and internet connectivity (via my Apple Mac Book Pro and lunch at Panera Bread) Have provided two interesting results. Up front, I will give a bit of each story; decide in your head which is factual and which is fiction:

When the affluent suburban community north of Atlanta won its independence in
2005 -- after complaining for years that its taxes subsidized poor communities
to the south -- it became Georgia's first new city since the 1950s. And rather
than set up a city hall, the city chose to outsource the bulk of the
administration to a private corporation.

And:

Though the amulet had long been dismissed as urban legend, a mythical ideal of
zoning perfection handed down from city planner to city planner, LaMere became
convinced that not only was it real, but that it had been used to lay out the cities of Ur, Atlantis, and Inver Grove Heights, MN.

LaMere credited the amulet with the overnight renovation of the Monroe County Public Library, and the recent redesignation of a Southern Rochester area from "commercial" to "single-family residential use for detached and semi-detached structures." Many Rochester citizens believe the amulet is responsible for the fully stocked ocean aquarium that materialized in the city center Sunday, and the gleaming new Friendly's restaurant that rose serenely over the banks of the Genesee River late Monday afternoon.

The first story is most definitely real, and comes courtesy of an August 17, 2007 article in the Los Angeles Times (An experiment in government). It seems that a few unincorporated communities outside of Atlanta have finally become municipalities, but rather than start a completely new layer of government, they have contracted out most of their governmental—administrative services to…the Denver-based engineering firm CH2M-Hill Inc.

For 30 years, residents of Sandy Springs fought a Democratic-controlled
Legislature for cityhood, with legislators refusing to change a law that made it difficult for new cities to be formed. Republicans gained control of the Legislature in 2004 and changed the rules. When Sandy Springs held its referendum on cityhood, 94% of voters approved.

[W]hen the affluent suburban community north of Atlanta won its independence in 2005 -- after complaining for years that its taxes subsidized poor communities to the south -- it became Georgia's first new city since the 1950s. And rather than set up a city hall, the city chose to outsource the bulk of the administration to a private
corporation.

[Y]et the movement's aim does not appear to be lowering taxes or unraveling bureaucracy. Despite their differences, the new cities all seem to share a desire for greater regulation, particularly when it comes to zoning.In Sandy Springs, a highly developed suburban area with 87,000 residents, this means regulating adult entertainment businesses and updating or replacing older commercial buildings. To the south, in Chattahoochee Hill Country, a less-developed area and home to fewer than 2,200, the focus is on preserving most of the land as rural, with the occasional hamlet.

With phenomenal growth around Atlanta, each city is concerned with who controls development and what gets built, said Douglas C. Bachtel, a demographer at the University of Georgia."A lot of people who move in want to see new development," he said. "But everyone wants to be the last person in."

Sounds kind of familiar; a middle-aged unincorporated city pushing near 100,000 people, a pre-occupation with zoning, dissatisfaction with the county government…

Even if the movement of new local governments is successful in local terms, demographer Bachtel said, it could lead to a broader impasse across the region:"The jury is still out.

There are more people in the stewpot now, elbowing for more power. We might be headed toward an ungovernable area with all these little fiefdoms."

This has also had effects at the county government level:

The dramatic and rapid shift toward an all-city county has sent shock waves through county government.With potentially no unincorporated areas, county commissioners are, among other things, considering replacing the Sheriff's Department with a privately contracted jailer. And they are looking at replacing the seven county commissioners with a five-member panel.

Fulton County would continue to collect taxes and provide countywide services such as courts, health centers and senior services.

Could it happen here? I do not think so, but there may be some out there that think this is just what Howard County needs.

On to Fiction

Our second story comes from the August 25, 2005 (yes, it is two years old) edition of the on-line satire vehicle, The Onion (City Councilman Unearths Magical Zoning Amulet). In this fantastical story, one of the Rochester, NY city council members finds an amulet with mysterious zoning powers. Although not based in reality, it is a well written story in a “Harry Potter meets the Howard County Council” kind of way and provides some chuckles.

Although the Rochester City Zoning Board controls all decisions related to city planning, sources at City Hall say that, as long as LaMere's powerful zoning wizardry is performed for the good of the city, they "see no reason to deny him what seems to be his destiny."

"Two weeks ago, the biggest news in Rochester was our huge public garage sale," said William A. Johnson, Rochester's mayor. "Our city center was still a moribund tax burden with small businesses in big buildings and families moving to the suburbs in droves. Now, with a wave of his mighty amulet, Councilman LaMere can designate matter-of-right medium-density development, with limited offices for non-profit organizations, trade associations, and professionals permitted as a special exception requiring approval of the RCZA."

Despite the potential improvements to Rochester's civic landscape, some residents remain wary of LaMere's apparent bureaucratic invincibility.

"It's wonderful that someone's finally doing something to revitalize this town, even if it is someone who can commune with church gargoyles," said local baker Wendy Kittner, whose business was mystically placed on the National Register Of Historic Places last week despite being housed in a building erected in 1981. "He frightens me, and my concern is that if I defy him, I may be turned to stone."

I came across the zoning amulet via the Cyburbia website and their Planning Site of the Day/Humor page. There are several Onion links that poke fun at the world of planning and zoning (fair warning, some mature content).