The Alan Klein Disinformation Campaign Hits Home

As we move toward Primary Election Day, I was a little surprised to receive a mailer from the Klein Campaign.  Looking it over, I have to say, I’m impressed.  On one side Alan has put together a pair of grainy black and white images showing traffic and tall buildings and inserted between them his characterization of the downtown Columbia plan.  Below this, he asserts what he believes was left out of the plan.  From a graphical presentation standpoint, it’s pretty good.  However, the actual text on the card is fraught with hyperbole, bad information, and flat out lies.  

If I had been sleeping for the last five years and had to make a decision on who to vote for based on this mailer, I too would engage in the invective and vituperation that has become barbaralynnerussell’s blog.

So in the public interest, let’s take a look at what Alan says and what is the truth:

Assertion:  Unbridled growth will ruin Columbia and Howard County

In addressing this assertion, I will take a page from CA Board member Phil Kirsh (WL), who shares with Alan Klein the endorsement of current State Delegate Bobo, and look some words up in the dictionary.  As defined by the Merriam-Webster website, unbridled is – unrestrained.  So the test here would be – are there any restraints on growth in downtown Columbia?

In examining the unanimously passed downtown zoning and General Plan Amendments, it appears that there are restraints placed on downtown development.  First, the number of dwelling units in downtown Columbia is limited (restrained) to 5500 units.  Moreover, the 5500-unit limit is a ceiling, and not a guarantee.  The units in downtown are further restrained by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, which restricts development based on traffic conditions and school capacity.  Lastly, future development is further restrained based on the delivery of downtown amenities that are to be provided by the developer.

Result:  The term “unbridled” is misplaced and a gross exaggeration.  There is significant evidence that growth is limited in several ways.  To characterize downtown Columbia planning as without restraint is misleading the electorate.

Assertion: Higher Taxes for Howard County Residents

This assertion is a broadside that, if candidate Klein was being responsible, would be further defined.  In fact, I find it surprising that he would include this in his literature given his repeated public shortcomings on understanding the County budget.

I will take liberty in assuming that Klein’s assertion is based on the cost of infrastructure (roads, traffic mitigation, etc), county taxes must increase.  This premise hangs in opposition to the language in the recently enacted Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.  This ordinance explicitly states that developers in downtown Columbia must pay the cost of roads and traffic mitigation.  So in the narrow definition based on my assumption, the stated assertion is a complete falsehood. 

Inherent in Mr. Klein’s campaign is his support of a position paper that calls for “about 1600 units” in downtown Columbia.  In his alternate development scenario, much of the road network that is to be constructed under the current plan would have to be constructed for his plan.  As I have stated above, the developer must pay for the infrastructure when downtown property is developed.  However, after development is completed, the maintenance, upkeep, and snow removal costs are transferred to the County, and therefore the taxpayers.

What Mr. Klein does not address is the balance of development, roughly 3900 units.  Given the amount of land in Howard County Councilmanic District 4 that has already been developed and transferred into private ownership, it is unlikely that any of the 3900 units would remain in District 4.  Therefore, Mr. Klein by default is advocating for the development of 3900 units in another Howard County district. 

If we once again limit the assumed increase in taxpayer costs to infrastructure costs, Mr. Klein’s plans will cost the taxpayer dearly.  In this part of the discussion it is also important to recognize that Mr. Klein (as stated in his position paper) does not favor buildings more than a few stories tall.  Therefore, I believe it is a safe assumption that a development on the scale of 3900 units that Mr. Klein would endorse would look something like a Columbia neighborhood or village.  I would remind the reader that the linear miles of road constructed in downtown Columbia would be equal under the approved plan or Klein’s vision.  Compare that road maintenance cost with the additional cost of maintaining a road network similar to another neighborhood or village.  I took it upon myself to utilize Google Maps and Google Earth to calculate the linear road miles of three areas of Columbia for comparison.  I would assume an error of 10% (plus or minus) in the linear miles calculation.  Dwelling unit numbers were obtained from the U.S Census (2000) for Kendall Ridge and the Columbia Association Public Information Guide for Dorsey’s Search and Kings Contrivance. 

• The neighborhood of Kendall Ridge is located in Long Reach, has 2,390 dwelling units and is supported by a road network of 15 miles. 
• The Village of Dorsey’s Search has 3,368 dwelling units and is supported by a road network of 16 miles. 
• The Village of Kings Contrivance has 4,025 dwelling units and is supported by a road network of 21 miles.

Given the above data, I believe it is a safe estimate that the 3,900 units that Klein does not account for would require a road network of 18 miles.  Taken over the thirty years of development, the added costs of road maintenance and snow removal would further burden the county budget beyond the downtown Columbia development.  In addition, it is a conservative estimate that roads would have to be resurfaced at least once during the development cycle.  According to data from the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the cost associated with milling and resurfacing a 4-lane road costs approximately $1.25 million per mile.  With a supporting road network of 18-miles, Klein’s unbuilt village would incur a resurfacing cost of $22.5 million to the county during the development period laid out in the downtown Columbia plan. 

A final consideration is that all fiscal studies performed in relation to downtown Columbia development has shown a net positive cash flow to the county.  One additional study should also be considered.  This study, written by Sarasota County Director of Smart Growth Peter Katz, compared traditional growth patterns to mixed use downtown development.  Mr. Katz found that when measured on a per-acre basis, mixed use development yields far more income to the local government than traditional suburban development.  As reported by Mary Newsom, traditional single family home development returned approximately $8200/acre to the local municipality.  Compare this with the following passage in the article:

Indeed, that three-quarters of an acre of in-town urban-style (14- to 16-story) development is worth more property tax revenue than a combination of the 21-acre WalMart Supercenter and the 32-acre Southgate Mall.

Even a mid rise (up to about seven stories) mixed use building brings in $560,000, and the low rise (up to three stories with residential over retail) brings in over $70,000 per acre — more than three times the return of Southgate Mall.

Now the tax structure in Sarasota, FL does not correlate directly with Howard County, MD, but the ratios do correlate.  It is also important to state that very few buildings in downtown Columbia will be in the 14-16 story variety and far more will be in the 0-7 story category.

In addition, Katz also calculated the infrastructure Return on Investment for both in-town mixed use and traditional suburban development.  If the 3900 that Klein does not discuss are built in downtown, the County should see a robust return on investment.  If the 3900 are built in another district, the return will be lower.  Again, from the article:

But Katz and the group that worked with him on the tax analysis, Public Interest Projects, Inc., in Asheville (http://www.pubintproj.com/index.php), N.C., went further than just the revenue analysis. It looked at the payback time, in tax revenue, for the infrastructure costs of various types of residential developments. The payback time for a mixed-use condominium building in the heart of downtown was three years. Want to guess the payback time for the residential portion of a multi-use development out at a highway interchange? It was a whopping 42 years.

It is also worth noting that Sarah covered this very well earlier this year.

Result:  Given the vague assertion that development would directly cause higher taxes, Mr. Klein gives no supporting evidence.  Compare this with fiscal studies performed by professionals that indicate the opposite; the county would see a net increase in revenue.  Mr. Klein also fails to fully explain how under his leadership how 5500 units built anywhere in the county would not increase the tax burden on residents.  Ultimately his assertion must be characterized at a minimum as unproven and more likely a falsehood.

Assertion: Developers given a tax free ride

This assertion certainly sounds like something to get stirred up about.  Why would developers get a free ride on taxes?  Quelle horreur!  But there are two big problems here.  The first is that a State law provides this particular tax break for developers, not county law.  So if Mr. Klein is asserting that the current County Councilperson could have done anything about this, he is dead wrong.  Moreover, if he thinks that he can change State law from the Howard County legislative chambers, he is sorely mistaken.  I wrote about this when Taxpayers Against Giveaways was pushing this misrepresentation, please click over  and take a look for details.  To her credit, current State Delegate Liz Bobo did introduce legislation to change this a few years ago, but failed to garner enough support for the bill to be passed.  If Mr. Klein is looking for blame for a preferential tax structure, he should look to his matriarch, not his competition.

Secondly, the tax break afforded developers is only on unimproved property.  Most of the land associated with downtown Columbia development has already been developed; therefore, any tax break that remains is small and will expire when a shovel goes in the ground.

Result:  This assertion has nothing to do with the County Council position and to imply the zoning decision resulted in an additional tax break for any developer is beyond falsehood, this is a “pants on fire” lie.

Assertion: The downtown Columbia plan did not “Provide sufficient open space”

Funny thing about this assertion.  Thirty years ago, the amount of open space in Town Center was not a concern.  As Town Center has developed over the years, trees were cleared for parking lots, office buildings, and residents.  Much of that development was enthusiastically backed by Alan Klein’s fervent supporters.  Bobo backed tearing down trees and converting open space into the Central Library and parking lot (even in the face of vocal opposition and sit-ins).  If you touch Cy Paumier, he is proud to say that it was his idea to convert the tree-covered commercial sites on the west side of the mall into condo units.  After the Evergreen was constructed (opposite Windstream Drive, along Governor Warfield Parkway), the discussion of open space went dormant.

The current downtown plan emphatically states that all open space in downtown Columbia must be preserved at current levels.  If any property owner wishes to construct anything on open space in downtown Columbia, they must purchase and place into open space an equivalent amount of land, in downtown.  A perfect example of this is the Symphony Woods Park plan that Mr. Klein whole-heartedly endorses.  The Symphony Woods Plan calls for more than an acre of parking (120-150 spaces) adjacent to the park.  Because parking lots are not considered open space, the Columbia Association will be required to purchase an equal amount of land and convert it to open space.

Beyond the general discussion of open space in downtown Columbia, Mr. Klein states on the opposite side of the same mailing card states that he will “Promote measures to…preserve open space” [emphasis mine].  So while he chastises others for “not providing sufficient open space,” he calls for “preserving open space.”  Not increasing open space.

Result:  In this assertion, Mr. Klein attempts to make a case that he himself has not committed to.  Moreover, he supports paving over some open space for a parking lot.  At best, this is a misdirection.

Assertion:  The Columbia downtown plan did not “Create housing opportunities for all”

Mr. Klein has a mixed record on affordable housing, where it goes, and who pays for it.  As reported in the Baltimore Sun:

Klein's position on low-income housing in a rebuilt Wilde Lake Village Center appeared to vary somewhat from what he told a different audience during a forum sponsored Saturday by the African American Coalition at Mount Pisgah African Methodist Episcopal Church on Cedar Lane.

There, he and Sigaty said village residents believe there is already substantial subsidized housing in the community and are concerned that requiring it in new units built at the village center might create too great a concentration. "There's already a significant spectrum of housing in Wilde Lake," Klein said.

But Tuesday night, Klein added to his general criticism of the housing portion of the downtown plan by saying there is no requirement for affordable housing at the Wilde Lake center. He called the omissions "a violation of Columbia's values."

I also think the African Americans in Howard County letter to Explore Howard and posted by HoCoRising characterizes the issue far better than I could attempt to explain.

Result:  Klein has waffled on this subject and fails to connect his vision with a concrete plan.

Assertion:  The downtown Columbia plan does not “provide for schools sites, fire or police stations, build parking garages, adequate sidewalks and other infrastructure to support their projects”

Alan either has not read or is hoping no one will read what is actually in the downtown zoning or general plan amendment.  Infrastructure requirements (as he calls them) are built into the plan and Alan knows it.  He is trying to create a smokescreen of fear.  A clear example of this can be found on Columbia 2.0. 

Result:  This assertion goes to the core of what is wrong with Alan’s campaign.  Chalk up another lie for the man who lives in Hobbits Glen.

Conclusion:

As the primary campaign nears its end, Alan Klein continues to engage in lies, gross exaggerations, and otherwise conduct a campaign of fear in District 4.  It is becoming apparent that as the final hours tick away, Mr. Klein will resort to any means to secure a win.  It is my hope that the electorate in District 4 will turn away from this distasteful campaign.

Watching 10221 Wincopin – CA Budget Woes Strain Corporation’s Ability to Complete Projects

There’s a foreboding tone coming out of the Columbia Association these days.  There’s talk of lowered expectations.  There’s talk of asking for a county or state bailout.  The CA President is saying “We don’t want to ruin bond ratings.”

In a story posted this afternoon over at Explore Howard, Jennifer Broadwater details a meeting held last night.  The news is not good.  The cost of properly dredging Lake Kittamaquandi has swelled by an additional $2.25 million dollars.  This is on top of the $1.3 million dollars added to the budget to finish the dredging project at Lake Elkhorn.

A sub-committee of the CA Board of Directors has recommended an $1.3 million increase in funds for the project.  However, this will not remove all the accumulated sediment in Lake Kittamaquandi, it will only allow for critical areas to be dredged. 

CA Board member Alex Hekimian (OM) remarks in the article appear to be targeted toward local and state governments:

“What’s going on at Lake Kittamaqundi is not just a Columbia problem. This is not just Columbia’s downtown. This is Howard County’s downtown.”

And I am at a loss who CA Board Chair Coyle is addressing her remarks:

“We’re taking our responsibility very seriously to clean up the environment,” she said. “But you know we’re not solely responsible.”

However, she does have her sacred cow:

But Coyle said she is not comfortable with dipping into funding for Symphony Woods, the 38-acre downtown property where the association plans to add a fountain, paths and other park features to draw more visitors.

 “I am very worried about that,” Coyle said. “I’m completely against taking a nickel out of next year’s (Symphony Woods) budget.”

As we look at this mess, we should try to understand how bad this is.  It’s not Lehman Brothers bad, CA is not going away.  It’s not General Motors bad, CA will not be taken over by the State or County government. 

CA is just hard pressed right now to come up with the cash they need.  They have a lot of valuable assests.  They have a good revenue stream (we will collectively have to cough up another $30 million next July when we pay our liens).  CA doesn’t have a problem with insolvency, they have a problem with liquidity.  Which sounds a little bit like another major landowner in downtown Columbia.

Klein Yard Sign Campaign Sinks to New Lows

One of the low-wattage aspects of the current Democratic Primary race in Howard County District 4 has been the Klein campaign’s repeated violation of County sign laws.  If you drive around western Columbia, you will find Klein signs planted in the county right-of-ways, in median strips, and just about anywhere there is enough dirt to plant them.  Although the Klein campaign has been asked, more than once, to remove the signs from illegal locations, the practice continues.

It is my understanding that Alan Klein has weighed in on this himself, saying that because the county had said that it would not enforce laws this year, he can put signs just anywhere he chooses.  The laws that the county is not enforcing deal with elections.  That is to say, signs that exceed the regulated size restriction or the duration that they are up before the election will not be taken down.  However, laws regarding sign placement are still in effect.  Signs are not to be placed in right of ways.

The Klein sign above is especially troubling.  It is not only in the County right of way, it is blocking access to a fire hydrant, raising issues of the Klein’s disregard to public safety. And for those of you who think this is not a big deal, look again and think of your kitchen on fire, and how a firefighter explains to you that they may have gotten to the fire a minute or two earlier, but they had to remove a sign to gain access to the fire hydrant.

I think this reflects Klein’s approach to most topics.  Regardless of what the law says, or the county policy, it is his interpretation of that law and policy that matters.  In yesterday’s Columbia Flier, a fellow Wilde Lake resident spoke of hubris in this year’s primary.  I think the picture above demonstrates the hubris evident in this election much more clearly.

Incumbent Democrat Bobo Assails O’Malley Administration

As the media has designated Howard County as a bellweather for the upcoming election, recent statements by candidates have started to characterize how much the county is in play.  Last night at a candidate’s forum held in Columbia, Maryland, current State Delegate Bobo stated that she is an independent Democrat and is proud that she at times votes against the majority of Democrats in the State Legislature.  When asked about protecting the rights of whistleblowers, Delegate Bobo said that the O’Malley Administration had not done enough to protect whistleblowers and if elected she would introduce legislation to correct this deficiency.


On a related topic, Delegate Bobo said that she was going to lead a group called “Howard County Women for O’Malley” in the near future.

The Awakening

So its been a while.  Stay tuned, we're back in business....

2010 Census Update

The US Census Bureau has tallied the participant responses for the mail-in portion of the 2010 Census.  In addition, they have mapped the participation rates of most local areas.  Participation rates in the Columbia area are as follows:

A visual representation of the above data can be viewed by taking the following steps:

Click on the red "Census 2010" square in the Census widget to the right.

Click on light blue “view participation rates” box.

Enter Columbia zip code (i.e. 21045)

Click on “Find”

Click on “Local View”

Increasing Village Voter Turnout might be a Bread and Butter (and Cheese) Issue

I bring this to the Compass Nation with only a smidgen of seriousness.

As the reporting on the Village Elections begins to trickle in, the issue of voter turnout comes up.  In Wilde Lake, a competitive CA Board election helped drive a healthy turnout of 24%.  Meanwhile in Hickory Ridge, the Columbia Flier/Explore Howard product reports that not enough people voted to reach a quorum.

In most years, voter turnout has been an issue and many villages employ different means to increase the numbers.  Owen Brown and Kings Contrivance allow for voting to occur over two days.  Kings Contrivance typically also sponsors a fish at the National Aquarium based on kids votes (I like that!). 

Oakland Mills has a houseplant sale.  Other villages hold flea markets.

Yesterday I came across a report that might be lightning in the electoral bottle, or it may be a flop.  It turns out that the same weekend that Columbia Village Elections were held was also an event-filled weekend – in Los Angeles.

The event that I speak of is none other than the 1st 8th Annual Grilled Cheese Invitational (Not a typo).  Reports indicate that thousands of people thronged the invitational to sample derivations on the grilled cheese theme, with accompanying soups.  I personally would like to try the mozzarella with tomato and basil grilled cheese (a grilled caprece?) with a side of Italian wedding soup. 

So, if a village held a grilled cheese invitational the same day as the election, maybe voter turnout would skyrocket.  Most people I know love the bread-butter-cheese comfort food and maybe we could get a local restaurant to help out.  Although sometimes hot, the normally cool and cloudy April election weather would be the optimum type of weather for melted, gooey, slightly slippery triangles.

And lastly, grilled cheese is one of those normalizing foods.  You just can’t get worked up about things when you have a grilled cheese sandwich in your hands.

In the words of the Los Angeles Grilled Cheese Invitational:

BREAD – BUTTER – CHEESE – VICTORY

Election Correction

For the last five years, the CA/Village Board elections in Wilde Lake have been what could be politely termed, a “spirited” event.  In recent years Wilde Lake residents have seen campaign literature dropped on their doorsteps and arrive in their mailboxes.  Prominent officials elected to state office have sent emails, dropped personal notes on doors, and personally called residents.  And this year, we have seen yard signs popping up around the neighborhood.

With this as a backdrop, we find in Thursday’s Columbia Flier a few letters to the editor endorsing either Phil Kirsch or Linda Odum in this year’s race for Wilde Lake Columbia Council Representative.  These letters are often written by well meaning residents moved enough by the election issues to publicly espouse their support for one candidate or another.  Sometimes the letters portray the stance of a candidate in a negative light (as compared to the candidate of their choice).  For example, Wilde Lake resident Joyce Ardo takes incumbent Phil Kirsch to task regarding shoreline erosion on Wilde Lake.   However, those letters encouraging support for Phil Kirsch, published less than 100 hours before the polls open, raise some concerns.

Leaves

Wilde Lake resident Ethel Hill authored the first letter of concern.  Ethel is a long tenured Wilde Lake resident and has a long history of public involvement.  She has served on many boards and is a former Wilde Lake Village Board Chair.  Her dedication to the community is well known and stands above most.  We are lucky to have people like Ethel living in Wilde Lake. 

For many years, Ethel Hill has advocated for the Columbia Association to institute a Montgomery Village style leaf collection program.  Ms. Hill believes this would benefit all Columbia residents, and in particular those residents that choose to age in place.  Under this program, residents would push fallen leaves into the street and have the Columbia Association collect the leaves for disposal. 

In the interest of full disclosure, I first became aware of Ethel Hill’s leaf collection idea in 2007.  In that year, I ran against Phil Kirsch for the Wilde Lake Columbia Council Representative position.  That spring Ethel penned a Columbia Flier letter to the editor that stated (in part):

For instance, some of the CA assessment could be used to provide sidewalk snow-removal services instead of opting to spend enormous sums to compete with better-positioned privately owned health clubs. For another, why not contract for leaf pickup, requiring only that residents sweep leaves to the sidewalk rather than bearing the onerous or impossible task (for some) of either bagging leaves or having the expense of paying someone to do it.

Three years later, her concerns still not addressed, Ethel Hill attended the Wilde Lake Candidates Night to again put the question to both Columbia Council Representative candidates.  Phil Kirsch, now addressing the question for the second time, expressed concern for Ethel’s plight and recalled a time when he was president of a group of single family homes in Bryant Woods.  He went on to say that by representing several houses in the community, he was able to obtain a favorable rate for leaf removal from a landscaping company.  Linda Odum responded by stating that there might be a greener, earth-friendly solution in that residents could, in cooperation with the county, establish leaf composting on their property; thereby eliminating the time and expense of bagging the leaves and also providing a source of nutrient rich compost product to be used by the property owner to fertilize existing shrubs and trees.

In her letter to the editor, Ethel recounts the exchange as follows:

Unfortunately, however, the Columbia Association remains stuck on attracting and providing for the interests and needs of younger residents and are ignoring quality-of-life issues important to "seasoned" people, especially those of us who are homeowners.

If you suspect there is a bee in my bonnet, you are absolutely right. One of them is the huge cost we incur for leaf removal alone. The least residents should be able to expect for the lien assessment we pay is a system whereby the leaves can be raked to the sidewalk for pickup. This is how it's done in Montgomery Village. If CA would behave like the homeowner's association it is intended to be, perhaps it wouldn't be so difficult to identify the resources to fund such relief.

When I raised this issue with Linda Odum, Phil's opponent in the race, she basically ignored my concern by responding that we should fix up our houses to sell because lots of young families are interested in buying them. Linda, I don't want to move!

I cannot in my mind reconcile how Ms. Hill leapt from “composting” to “fix up our houses to sell because lots of young families are interested in buying them.”  In the end, I appreciate that Ethel Hill took the time to write a letter to the editor.  It speaks to the resident-based activism that is alive and well in Wilde Lake.  With respect to the content, I am saddened that Ethel missed the point of Linda’s response.

Buildings

In a second letter to the editor, Wilde Lake resident Valerie Montague Gonlin also endorses Phil Kirsch.  Valerie is also a well-respected member community.  She has been active in the Downtown Columbia discussion and is the former President of the Wilde Lake High School PTSA.  As with other letters to the editor, Valerie builds the case for Phil Kirsch with supportive statements.  Toward the end of the letter, Valerie states:

Phil is a low-key, pragmatic leader who works steadfastly on our behalf, even in the face of criticism from some with vested interests. He made sure CA adopted a plan that will protect Symphony Woods and ensure that Columbia has a community park that is an attractive year-round gathering place. In contrast, his opponent has called for high-rises in that space.

Once again, the comments regarding Phil’s opponent are inconsistent with the record.  I have never heard anyone say that they wanted high-rise buildings in Symphony Woods.  I am pretty sure there is 100% opposition to high-rise buildings in Symphony Woods.  Moreover, no one has ever suggested high-rises in Symphony Woods, until Valerie suggested it.

Like Ethel Hill, it is great to hear Valerie’s voice this election season.  However, to include statements that were never made, and attributing them to Linda Odum is wrong.  It is my hope that Valerie will submit another letter to the editor stating that she had bad information and did not have the time to check it out before making outrageous statements.

As many of the Compass faithful know, I am currently a member of the Wilde Lake Village Board, and I am a candidate to be on next year’s board.  If you scroll way, way, way down to the bottom of the blog, you will find my disclaimer.  Over the years, I have made a conscientious effort to keep Wilde Lake business off of these pages.  In the end, I think both Linda and Phil care deeply about Wilde Lake and Columbia, and I look forward to working with the election winner.

What brought me to write this blog post, at this time, was that I felt it was unfair to attribute statements that were never said.  One of the key factors for me was I asked myself, “Would I write this post if these types of letters were written about people in another village election?”  My answer to that is unequivocally “Yes.”  The fact that I know all the people involved in this post makes it difficult, and painful.

It is up to the Wilde Lake electorate to find the differences in these two candidates and make an educated decision based on what was actually said by the candidates.  It is my hope that this blog post will help clear the air so that can happen.

Bloggers Making News in the Region

Over in Montgomery County, the Planning Department hosted an evening with five local bloggers as part of their “ReThink Montgomery”  series.  The topic of conversation was as follows:

Technology is changing the way we communicate.  Our news sources are shifting from print journalism to blogging. How does this transformation affect the field of planning?  Does blogging help bring in a broader pool of participants and ideals? Does it make planning more accessible and equitable? Join five local bloggers as we ReThink the way knowledge is shared in Montgomery County.

The bloggers featured in this discussion were:

David Alpert, Greater Greater Washington

Cindy Cotte Griffiths, Rockville Central

Dan Reed, Just Up the Pike

Eric Robbins, Thayer Avenue

Barnaby Zall, Friends of White Flint

Each has a great blog and had great insight into the topic of discussion.  In fact, many othe topics discussed do translate well to the discussions we have here in Howard County.  If you have some time I would encourage everyone to click over to the Mongomery County website and watch the meeting.

Yesterday, Kojo Nnamdi had three Prince George’s County bloggers on to talk about blogging in their neighborhood:

It's one of the most dynamic suburban counties in our region-- home to diverse neighborhoods and the largest African American middle class community in the country. But Prince George's County doesn't always make it into the headlines of local newscasts and papers. We talk with local bloggers about their communities.

Audio of the show can be streamed here.  Again, the conversation was stimulating and the featured bloggers were impressive.  The PG Bloggers were:

Gary Stone, South Laurel News and Views

David Daddio, Rethink College Park

Charles Andrews, CHV Blog (Cheverly, MD)

As with most local bloggers, I work hard on my blog and I hold my fellow Howard County bloggers in very high esteem.  I believe that Howard County has one of the liveliest, thoughtful, intelligent and diverse blogging communities in Maryland, if not the United States.Hopefully, these types of discussions between bloggers, local government and the established media can be replicated in Howard County.  

Changing the View

I have been working on functionality here.  Notice the new picture in the banner, the Twitter feed, and I'm working on integrating Facebook.  I am also proud to note that I am the first blog in Howard County to track the 2010 US Census participation rate (c'mon Howard Countians! Carroll County is ahead of us as of 4/12/10!).

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.

Posting regularly helps...

Things have been too quiet over here in the Columbia Compass world.  It's all my fault.  I haven't posted in a long, long time. 

That's not to say I don't read the blogs.  HoCoRising is beginning to become a regular stop for me.  I have many other regulars that I visit frequently and I wanted to mention two:  Just Up the Pike, and Tales of Two Cities.  Dan Reed writes "Just Up the Pike" and focuses on issues in the Silver Spring/Rt. 29 corridor.  His stuff is always enlightening and his recent post links to a Maryland Politics Watch post on the most read blogs in Maryland.

Just Up the Pike ranks second and our good friend Wordbones comes in a close third (with a 186% increase in views Feb09 to Feb10).  Great job gentleman, I'll keep reading, and possibly start writing...again.

A not so ringing endorsement

With all our discussion of car-dependency in Columbia, the following assessment comes from Talking Heads founder David Byrne as reported in today’s Washington Post (emphasis added by Columbia Compass):

It's safe to say performer David Byrne loves cycling. The Talking Heads founder has ridden 'round the globe and written a book about it, "Bicycle Diaries."
Byrne (two-toned red shirt, gray coat, spiky hair) brought his experience to the Newseum on Tuesday night, joining a Brookings-sponsored panel on promoting alternative forms of transportation. He kicked things off with a slideshow of his bike travels: Portland, Ore.; Buenos Aires; Hong Kong ("Certainly no bike lanes" there, he said. "Man, that was the worst") -- even Adams Morgan. The first slide was an aerial shot of Columbia, Md.: "Where my parents live. If you don't drive, you're pretty much stranded there."

Byrne told us that he has "four or five" bikes and that he likes to lend them to friends who come visit in New York.
So how can more people be persuaded to bike? Safer roads (with more bike lanes) and simpler bikes (with fewer parts), Byrne says. "That takes part of the fear away."

Additional Columbia Development Details

For those that have not seen it yet, Wordbones put up a very interesting post regarding James Rouse (Jim Rouse was not an Oracle) and how Columbia was developed. In my research I have uncovered some information that supports his post.

With respect to General Electric, Wordbones provides us with these details:

When GE decided to abandon Columbia and consolidate manufacturing operations in Louisville, Kentucky, Rouse adjusted his plans. Realizing that Columbia’s labor force was changing from what he originally expected, the company exercised its option to buy back the industrial park from GE and created Columbia Gateway Corporate Park.

I would like to add the financial details of how General Electric first came to Columbia. The following is from pages 304-305 of the book Columbia and the New Cities.

Financing on a Giant Scale

In order to snare the GE facility, Rouse not only paid for a four-mile railroad spur, but expanded Columbia beyond its original borders. He bought 2139 acres of farms and gravel pits adjacent to the new town for a staggering $19 million, more than six times the price per acre that he had paid for the new city’s original land only five years earlier. Since its original acquisition of land for $23 million, Rouse had filled several of the “holes” in his “Swiss cheese” land-holding for $2 million. With addition of the acreage for G.E. and an adjacent rail-served industrial area, Rouse has bought 17,868 acres for his new city at a total cost of $44 million, an average of $2485 per acre. General Electric got a bargain. The company announced that it paid only $3.8 million for its 1100-acre factory and warehouse site. Columbia’s expansion will add to the city’s ultimate profit despite its high cost, Rouse told his stockholders at their 1969 meeting. But the G.E. deal forced Rouse to reshape the entire financial structure of his new town.

So with respect to General Electric, Rouse bought the land for $19M, sold half the land to GE for $3.8M, and then years later bought the land back from GE. Each time the Rouse Company had to alter the financial structure of the entire city.

Moreover, Wordbones uses the General Electric transaction as an example of Rouse adapting to change. A few pages later in Columbia and the New Cities (p. 309) provides an equally compelling example:

As development progresses the differences between estimated costs and actual costs or between estimated and actual revenues force a constant rejuggling of decisions about when to invest, how much, and in which facilities. For example, when final cost estimates showed that Rouse would have to spend three million dollars more than was originally planned for one year in Columbia’s water system (even though the total cost of the system remained about where it had been figured), the increased interest cost on the extra three million dollars forced Rouse to defer several roads and put off other items of community facilities until later in Columbia’s life. Otherwise, he explained to me, in order to sustain his profit he would have been forced to crowd another six thousand dwelling units onto the land (which he could scarcely do under the zoning he had arranged.)

In a community that has been struggling with WWJRD, a partial answer is provided above. When confronted with unexpected, Jim Rouse considered increasing density and ultimately deferred road and public amenity construction. What is particularly interesting is those that oppose GGP plan before the county are loudly saying that regardless of what the future holds, the roads must be built and the amenities must be erected before any particular development phase is initiated. And to an extent, they have a point. Developing acres of farmland into a wondrous community allows a bit more latitude with respect to infrastructure and amenity phasing than a large infill development project. However, when confronted with WWJRD, they are clearly saying don’t do what Jim Rouse did.

Columbia and the New Cities. Breckenfeld, Gurney. Van Rees Press, New York. 1971

Hijacking the Community Interest

I am loathe to base a blog post on comments retrieved from the HCCA Yahoo-group; however, CoFoCoDo “spokesperson” Alan Klein has crossed several lines that spur comment.

In a message this weekend, Alan begins his comments on the New City Alliance with cynicism:

“I was waiting for this.”

He then remarks that the principals of the New City Alliance have some ties with groups such as Bring Back the Vision and Columbia 2.0. Alan states “They try to make themselves seem bigger than they are by creating multiple groups, but it is easy to see through the charade.”

I will let the folks at the New City Alliance speak to your broadsides Alan, but if what you say is true, you should be flattered. Is it possible to apply the same broad-brush strokes to the Howard County Community Association (HCCA), most of the CA Board of Directors, and CoFoCoDo?

Moreover, Alan displays the plumage of hubris by stating that those with a view that differs from his own are opponents of the “community’s vision” and wish to hijack the “community’s interest.” Having lived most of my life in this diverse community, I am wary of any one individual that speaks for “the community.”

Alan, for more than three years, CoFoCoDo’s steering committee has directed you to appear often, (and at great length) in a variety of settings to convey their message to the people of Columbia. Now is not the time to jeopardize all their hard “behind the scenes” work. Rather than criticizing other’s ideas, provide a compelling argument for the CoFoCoDo steering committee’s point of view.

A Call For Columbia's 2nd Generation

My brothers and sisters, if you grew up in Columbia during the 70's or 80's, please read this essay by Michael Chabon:

Maps and Legends

Now, if you had an experience anything like that, please make plans to be at the Columbia Archives on Wednesday October 14, 2009.

The Columbia Archives is holding a series of seminars this month based on Columbia's four founding principles. To address the principle of "a place for people to grow," the Archives is focusing on those of us that grew up in Columbia and invited author and American University Professor Cindy Gueli to speak. Cindy grew up in Columbia and is co-author of a soon to be published book: The Next America? A New Town's Social Experiment. This book takes a look at the first generation that grew up in Columbia.

It's about time we all got together and remembered, shared and just plain had fun.

Once again, if you still live in Columbia, or Howard County, or even near Howard County:

Call or email the Columbia Archives to register:

(410) 715-3103

columbia.archives@columbiaassociation.com

October 14, 2009

The American Cities Building

7:00 PM

Coffee and Conversation after at Lakeside Cafe.

Note: Michael Chabon lives in California and is not expected to be anywhere near this event.

Marco Polo Saved by the CA Board of Directors

Last night, the Columbia Association Board of Directors voted unanimously to keep the Faulkner Ridge, Locust Park, and Talbott Springs pools open. That being said, pool attendance numbers across the city are downright anemic. Attendance numbers are significantly down at almost every pool in Columbia, including the "super pools," as compared to 10 years ago (and even 20 years ago).

For those of us that are a certain age and grew up in Columbia during the 70's, 80's or 90's; this is a difficult reality. The entire pool system needs to be looked at, and solutions need to be found. I'm ready to (pardon the pun) take the plunge, anyone else?

Marco...Polo...Screw You

I received word from throughout the Next American City that the Columbia Association has proposed shutting down...forever...three pools in Columbia:

Faulkner Ridge

Locust Park

Talbott Springs

No word on why CA has decided to withdraw from these communities, or how they decided to target these areas.

Something to keep in mind is that this is a proposal, so kickboards don't need to be converted to headstones...yet.

I also seem to remember that the last time CA hired a president from outside, pool closures were high on the list (no offense Phil, it's possible this scheme was in the works before you got here).

Questions Regarding Symphony Woods

The Columbia Association has put a lot of effort in promoting their plans for Symphony Woods. Through a series of public events, a website, local press, editorials and blog commentaries (here, here, and here) the Cy Paumier design has created a buzz around town. And what’s not to love; bringing sunshine into the park, an interactive fountain for the kids (and kids at heart), a place to have a coffee – maybe a sandwich (day or night). What I have heard, both at a public meeting and among friends and neighbors has been that the design is “nice.” Not amazing, not innovative, but a full-throated “it’s ok.”

What concerns me about the design is not so much the elements presented, but the unanswered questions the design creates.

The first question regarding Symphony Woods is the question of use. Given that Symphony Woods is underutilized, what is the appropriate amount of human activity? The Columbia Association/Cy Paumier plan does not currently address this question. This is not to say that this question has not been asked about parklands and forests. The United States Forest Service has been asking this question since 1936. As recommended reading, the United States Forest Service puts forth the book Parks and Carrying Capacity – Commons Without Tragedy. This book is authored by Robert E. Manning (published 2007) and retails for $35.

Closer to home, the Maryland State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) employs the concept of carrying capacity in managing Deep Creek Lake. In their assessment of Deep Creek Lake, DNR defined carrying capacity as follows:

Carrying capacity relates to the ability of the lake or buffer strip to support various uses by people. There are two types of carrying capacity. Social carrying capacity relates to a level of use beyond which the recreational user's expectation of a quality experience is not realized. Physical carrying capacity relates to the level of use which the resource can sustain, beyond which irreversible biological or physical damage occurs to the point that the resource is no longer suitable or attractive for recreational or other uses. The optimum carrying capacity is the level of use that does not exceed an area's physical or social carrying capacity.

Given this rich, and heretofore ignored, field of study, the question regarding Symphony Woods becomes, “What is the optimum carrying capacity of Symphony Woods?” The data related to answering this question is scarce.

Currently, Symphony Woods can be characterized as a wooded parcel, generally in poor condition, which requires continuous maintenance to retain its artificial structure. In the area where the park is planned, the (current) preferred groundcover is grass. The establishment of underbrush and understory tree canopy is actively discouraged; thereby preventing a healthy forest environment.

The only data point known regarding overuse is related to the Wine in the Woods festival. If thousands of people in the woods, over several days, is detrimental to the trees, how many people can visit the park daily without damaging the trees? This question is a subset of the carrying capacity question and has not been answered in any manner by the Columbia Association or the Symphony Woods Park design team.

If there is little data on the environmental carrying capacity of Symphony Woods, there is less data related to social carrying capacity. Social carrying capacity is also more complex, in that if a park drops below a minimum number of people, new visitors may have anxiety entering an empty, or nearly empty park. The effect is that visitors may be discouraged to use the park because, of all things, lack of use. At the opposite end of the spectrum would be a park populated to the point that visitors perceive it as overcrowded and are discouraged from entering.

The social carrying capacity is critical because the proposed design elements are targeted toward increasing the social carrying capacity in Symphony Woods; however, the magnitude of the effects are either not known or not well communicated. John Slater, a member of Cy Paumier’s design team has called the design elements “magnets” that will attract people. The obvious question is, “How strong are those magnets?” How does “magnetic field strength” translate into carrying capacity? If the trees are cleared, the grass planted, the fountain, café, and parking lot constructed; will there be enough people attracted to the park to sustain it as a gathering place?

I bring these questions to the table because they speak to the basis of the park design. If the Columbia Association wants to increase usage in Symphony Woods, and the Cy Paumier design brings in a dozen people a day, could that be construed as exceeding expectations? For an improvement of general open space in Columbia, Cy’s plan may be exactly the type of planning needed. Given the location of Symphony Woods in downtown Columbia, it is a very important piece of real estate. For me, the criteria for success would be as follows: At some future date, after the park is constructed I call a friend of mine and we are trying to find a place to get our families together. A place where the adults can hang out and the kids can play. If my friend says to me (or vice-versa) “Why don’t we meet over in Symphony Woods Park? Then the place is a success.

Sign of the Times

Has anyone noticed the new Owen Brown Village signs?

These signs are maintained by the Columbia Association. Over time, they have been replacing signs in the city. Sometimes the new signs closely approximate the original design. For instance, here is one of the original Running Brook Signs:

Compare the above sign with this sign that was installed last year:

In other cases, the new sign is completely different from the old sign. For example, this sign outside the Locust Park Neighborhood Center is consistent with the original neighborhood stucco-and-brown-board-with-white-lettering signage in Long Reach.

The Long Reach neighborhood signs have all been replaced with the following style:

The Columbia Association has also been placing a standardized sign indicating different amenities throughout Columbia:

Although some signs are not very well maintained:

At times, there have been stumbles. The Town Center sign below was originally pink:

That's where I am right now with the Owen Brown signs. There is something about them that seems a little bit off.

The white lettering on a deep blue background, a hint of red...maybe it was a departure from the the earth tones that dominate our sign-scape. I thought about it, but that wasn't the problem. There is something about the white-on-blue with red piping...and framed in gray.

The other day I was in Laurel, and it all came together.