John and David

As the Columbia community begins to settle in with its new (insert your own “relationship analogy” here: partner, step-dad, drummer, etc..), John DeWolf; it may be instructive to look broadly at Howard Hughes Corporation.  This morning, HHC announced David Striph as the Senior Vice President position for its Hawaiian assets. 

This announcement is significant because, although half-a-world away, the HHC (nee GGP) owned Ward Centers, located in Honolulu’s Ala Moana District has progressed on a roughly parallel track with Columbia, Maryland.  During the mid-2000’s, then GGP embarked on a master planning process for both Columbia and the Ward Centers.  In each case, GGP needed zoning changes to realize the master plans.  In Hawaii, the Ward Center master plan was submitted to the Hawaii Community Development Authority.

Subsequent meetings generated dozens of supporters and many that opposed the Master Plan.  To get a bit of the flavor surrounding the master plan, here is a report from the October 16, 2008 Honolulu Star Bulletin:

There were people both in support and opposition to the plan, which demolishes most of the existing buildings at Ward over the next 20-plus years, transforming the skyline with up to 4,300 more residential units in the form of mid- and high-rises throughout the 60-acre neighborhood.

[A] group calling itself the Kakaako Coalition held a rally at Sheridan Community Park an hour and a half before yesterday's public hearing.

Carrying signs and wearing red T-shirts, the group's position was that HCDA should require an environmental impact statement and traffic study before considering approval of the plan.

[M]any stakeholders were concerned as well about preserving open space and view planes, which could be blocked by high-rises along Ala Moana.

In addition, Frierson said, the neighborhood needs more affordable housing and fewer upscale projects targeting second-home owners.

 

Sounds kind of familiar, doesn’t it?

Moreover, the Hawaii Community Development Authority approved the zoning (8-1) in January of 2009 and the Howard County Council approved local Columbia zoning (5-0) in February 2010. 

Another interesting point to consider is that although the Ward Centers is on 1/10^th the land of Downtown Columbia (60 acres v. approx 600 acres in Maryland), the magnitude of development is fairly similar.  In the press release announcing John DeWolf, the Downtown Columbia project is described as follows:

Columbia Town Center has an approved master plan to create up to 13 million square feet of mixed-used development. The plan includes up to 5,500 residential units, approximately one million square feet of retail, approximately five million square feet of commercial office space and 640 hotel rooms.

Whereas the Ward Centers described in the HHC press release for David Striph are described as:

Ward Centers is comprised of approximately 60 acres situated along Ala Moana Beach Park and is within one mile of Waikiki and downtown Honolulu. Ward Centers currently is a 550,000-square-foot shopping district containing six specialty centers and over 135 unique shops, a variety of restaurants and an entertainment center, which includes a 16-screen movie theater. In January 2009, the Hawaii Community Development Authority approved a 15-year master plan, which entitles a mixed-use development encompassing up to 9.3 million square feet, including up to 7.6 million square feet of residential (4,300 units), five million square feet of retail and four million square feet of office, commercial and other uses.

So is there any insight into Howard Hughes Corporation, given that they announced the hiring of two men (yes, I noticed that too) to carry out two master planned developments in the span of four days?  The jury is out (being that hiring announcements are a bit formulaic), but there are some clues in each announcement.

The introductory paragraph in each press release emphasizes the accomplishments of each Senior Vice-President.  For comparison, here is the background on John DeWolf:

Mr. DeWolf brings over 30 years of real estate experience to his new role. Most recently, Mr. DeWolf ran his own consulting practice leading real estate strategy, portfolio management and start-up guidance for multi-billion dollar businesses. Mr. DeWolf was Executive Vice President Real Estate/Strategic Initiatives for New York & Company where he oversaw the addition of 225 stores, the closing of 100 stores, and downsizing of over 250 stores. Additionally, as head of strategic initiatives he managed the development of two accessory store concepts and four new store prototypes. Previously, Mr. DeWolf had senior leadership roles with New England Development, Woolworth Corporation and The Disney Stores, Inc.

And the background on David Striph:

An industry veteran, Mr. Striph has financed and managed over two billion dollars worth of real estate assets during his career, including mixed-use, retail and high-end residential projects. Prior to joining Howard Hughes, Mr. Striph served as Senior Managing Director at Westmount Realty Capital, a Dallas, Texas-based real estate investor. Mr. Striph was also Managing Director at Fortress Investment Group, Vice President at Fremont Investment & Loan, and President of Amresco Capital Trust.

In addition, each press release provides complimentary quotes from Howard Hughes Corporation Leadership.  John DeWolf receives the following from HHC CEO David Weinreb:

"The Maryland Communities, Landmark and West Windsor are important strategic assets for the company. John brings the acumen and experience necessary to ensure that the full potential values of these key assets are realized, ” David R. Weinreb, Chief Executive Officer of The Howard Hughes Corporation, stated. “John’s appointment is a clear example of our dedication to identifying the best leaders for our management team, and our commitment to the time and exploration necessary to find the ideal leaders for each vital role.”

While David Striph is the recipient of accolades from Weinreb and HHC President Grant Herlitz:

"David’s multi-faceted background in commercial real estate makes him the ideal leader for our assets in Hawaii,” stated Grant Herlitz, President of The Howard Hughes Corporation.

“Ward Centers is a key example of the untapped value within The Howard Hughes Corporation’s portfolio. We have the approvals to redevelop the property with up to 9.3 million square feet of mixed-use development,” stated David R. Weinreb, the company’s Chief Executive Officer. “This opportunity has the potential to include thousands of residential units with unobstructed ocean views and to materially enhance the property’s retail presence.”

In the end, it is all too early to make any judgments about either executive, but it will certainly be interesting the observe the trajectory of both projects as each of these individuals fulfill their roles in their respective communities.

Election Editorial Response

When my copy of the Columbia Flier arrived on my driveway early Thursday morning, I expected coverage of the recently completed Columbia elections.  A piece by Sara Toth on fellow Wilde Lake resident (and elected Wilde Lake Village Board member) Regina Clay has been up on the Explore Howard website for a few days.  Sara does a decent job covering the bases, but I was really insulted by the editorial regarding the Columbia Elections.  The editorial begins as follows:

Stop us if you've heard this one.

Eight years ago in this space we called upon the Columbia villages to put their heads together and standardize their election rules. It didn't happen.

Y’know, I love it when any entity gets up in front of the community and says “We told you to do something about this eight years ago,” and then for eight years does nothing to improve the situation.  It just shows the level of community commitment and professionalism in the organization.

Moreover, Explore Howard whitewashes a lot of Columbia election/Governance history between the 2^nd and 3^rd sentences quoted above. So to help set the record straight, let’s look at what did happen.

1^st, the history

It is a well-known fact that the differences between Villages on Columbia Election Day exist because voter eligibility is derived from the Covenants in each Village.  The Covenants vary from Village-to-Village, but the one thing that is constant is there exists a high bar to change the Covenants.  For example, the Wilde Lake Covenants can only be changed “by execution of an instrument signed by not less than 90% of the lot owners.”  So to change voter eligibility from “lot owners and tenants” to “all residents over the age of 18” would require 2,357 lot owners (90% of 2618 dwelling units. (Source, Columbia Association 2011 Public Information Guide, p. 23) to sign a petition (or similar) to approve the change. 

The term of office also varies by Village.  Some Villages have two-year terms.  Some Villages have one-year terms.  The term of office is not in the Covenants, it is spelled out in the Village Articles of Incorporation (aka Charter).  Again, using Wilde Lake as an example, the terms of office are as follows:

Beginning with the first annual meeting of the Association to be held on or before march 1, 1968, the members, at each such annual meeting, shall elect five (5) directors, at least two of whom shall be elected from among the membership of the Association, each for a term of one year.

It also states: 

“The members of the Association shall in each year elect from among the members thereof a representative to serve a one year term as a member of the Columbia Council.”

Now, amending the Articles of Incorporation requires first an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the Board of Directors (Village Board) and a majority of the members entitled to vote.  For those of you keeping score at home, that’s 1310 property owners and renters that would need to approve the change.

Now the intention here is that neither the Covenants nor the Articles of Incorporation are easy to change.  What has become the accepted “wisdom” is that it is nearly impossible to change either document.

Fast Forward to 2003

Let’s recall the events that provoked the Explore Howard editors all those years ago to call “upon the Columbia villages to put their heads together and standardize their election rules.”  Back in the Spring of 2003, then Howard County Councilperson David Rakes went to the Long Reach polling place (Stone House) to vote.  Mr. Rakes had previously lived in Oakland Mills, but within the last year rented an apartment in Long Reach.  Given that he was a renting an apartment, he was asked to provide a copy of his lease as proof of residence.  In a related article , Mr. Rakes stated, “This is nothing but a false barrier; it's discriminatory."  In the same edition of the Columbia Flier, the editors cobbled together an editorial that lamented the low voter turnout (this time Hickory Ridge did not reach a quorum) and the Rakes controversy.  Toward the end of the editorial, they stated:

“We call for an assembly of village officials _ a constitutional convention, if you will _ to establish in time for next year's village elections uniform rules governing the voting process that remove as many barriers to participation by residents as possible.”

Now for those whom have the time and energy, “standardize their election rules” (2011) does not exactly comport with “uniform rules governing the voting process that remove as many barriers to participation by residents as possible;” (2003) but we are going to stick to broad principles here.

The Last Great Governance Discussion

After the 2003 Columbia elections, the idea of election reform was not ignored.  In fact it was a topic of discussion amongst every Village Board.  Residents provided input.  Boards discussed how to change the unchangeable (Covenants).  Exo-Covenant and Supra-Covenant ideas were put forth and debated.  Lawyers were consulted.  The last great covenant discussion was unearthed and discussed at length.  Ultimately, the Columbia Association electeds convened a second Governance Committee, whose only task was to study election reform.  This committee studied four different reform proposals, took input from residents and village board members, and issued a report that can be found here:  NOTE:  links to appendices do not work.

The result of all this input was filtered through the Columbia Council/CA Board of Directors. There was general acceptance that Village Board elections were locked in by the Covenants and Articles of Incorporation of each Village and could not be changed.  The CA Board endorsed a plan in which Columbia residents would participate in two simultaneous elections.  Elections for Village Board and Columbia Council Representative would proceed as they always have.  But every other year, all village residents over the age of 18 would also vote for Village representation on the CA Board of Directors. Technically, this would achieve a standardized election for the CA Board of Directors. Residents in Dorsey's Search, Kings Contrivance, Long Reach, River Hill and Wilde Lake would vote in odd-numbered years, while those in Harper's Choice, Hickory Ridge, Oakland Mills, Owen Brown and Town Center would vote in even-numbered years.

Under this arrangement, the elected CA Board of Directors would be charged with carrying out the business of the Columbia Association, while the elected Columbia Council Representative would either be the same person (assuming they ran for both positions) or would be a “figurehead.”  This is the “2005 endorsement” that is mentioned in this week’s Explore Howard editorial.

To try and rectify any loose ends, CA’s legal staff created a “compact” to be signed by all the Village Board and Columbia Association.  Ultimately, this proposal was met with much resistance by many actors.  The Alliance for a Better Columbia exercised much hand waving and worried about potential lawsuits from corporations that would no longer have the same voting rights.  Villages currently under the one vote per property regime bristled at the prospect of having to maintain two sets of voter rolls.

Ultimately election reform collapsed under the weight of opposition, and the status-quo remained.

The Straw Man

Getting back to present day, the Explore Howard editors offer a straw man argument for poor election results:

It's a mobile society, and it's not uncommon for Columbia residents to move from one village to another. Young couples move from apartments to single-family houses. Empty-nesters downsize. Sometimes these crossover Columbians get blind-sided by a shift in the rules.

I have tried to find the source of this story and after some extensive searches on Explore Howard, the earliest mention I came across was in 2003 by then Columbia Council Representative Barbara Russell (OM):

“I think the time has come to set up a big meeting where all the 10 villages' board members could discuss such issues as voting rules," said Barbara Russell, the Oakland Mills representative to the CA board. "More uniformity is needed. People get confused, especially when they move from village to village."

To be fair, it may be entirely possible that in 2003 there was a noticeable internal migration of people throughout Columbia; however, given today’s economic climate, I am not so certain that this occurs in an appreciable amount.  I suggest that the folks at Explore Howard, a news organization, do a little research and find out how many people have moved from one village to another over the last five years.  In addition, the Explore Howard staff should interview these people and ascertain their voting records before and after the move.  Otherwise, the editors at Explore Howard should stop exploiting what most likely is a myth.

Future Thoughts, What will Elections be Like in 2019?

It is entirely possible that eight years from now, there may be a Village that does not meet a quorum, but we can collectively change that.  Some of the folks involved in the 2004-2005 CA governance debate are currently on the CA Board of Directors.

Absent another round of CA governance discussion, there are a few other things that can be done.  First, the folks at Explore Howard could do a better job of covering the Village Boards.  Maybe set for themselves a goal of a Village Board story in the paper/website every two weeks.  Another goal may be to write about each Village Board at least once every six months.  Lastly, if Explore Howard really believes that voter eligibility is a real problem and a true barrier to voter turnout, why not construct an infographic chart that depicts what elections take place in a particular year and who is eligible to vote?

The Villages need to work at this problem too.  Interestingly, the Villages of Owen Brown and Hickory Ridge often find it difficult to obtain a quorum.  If you ask the Village Association folks about this, they typically say that the low turnout is because their association site is not near the Village Shopping Center.  So during elections, a few people are spurred to vote in Oakland Mills or Harper’s Choice because as they go about their shopping, they are reminded by the elections and take a few extra minutes to vote.  In Owen Brown, voters need to take a separate trip to a different location to vote, and that difference of eight votes shy of a quorum this year most likely would have disappeared in another village.  So in particular Owen Brown and Hickory Ridge, but all Villages, should attempt to increase village resident traffic to their community building.  I also believe each Columbia Village should publish and hold an event every February on the “State of the Village.”  This would help clarify the issues for the upcoming elections and start to get people interested.

Lastly, residents need to get more involved.  The Ellicott City/Columbia area did not become “the number-two place to live in America” through a plethora of inaction.  It did so by the hard work of many people and it will not remain a highly desirable place to live unless people continue to be engaged.  One of the easiest ways to be engaged is to vote in the local Columbia elections.

The Evolving First Impression of Mr. John DeWolf

I recently had a chance to listen to a HoCoMoJo audio interview with John DeWolf, the Howard Hughes Corporation Senior Vice President of Development.  Mr. DeWolf will be the point person with regard to Columbia Downtown redevelopment.  I encourage everyone to listen to the audio for details.

The one thing I will say is that Mr. DeWolf does have a bit of a monotone (and in the interest of full disclosure, my intonation is pretty flat-lined too).  I would find it interesting from an acoustic perspective to sit in on a meeting between HHC's John DeWolf and CA's Phil Nelson.

Confessions of a 40-Something Pool Rat

Looking back on a lifetime spanning now six different decades (1960’s through 20-teens), there are few things that I can point to that have been part of my life throughout this time.  One of them has been a love for swimming, diving, swimming pools, and in general, being submerged in water.  I believe chlorine is in my blood.

Within a few weeks of arriving in Columbia, my family found itself at the Running Brook Pool.  Equipped with the little 2”x2” pool passes pinned to our suits, we began the yearly ritual of escaping the heat of summer in the water.  After three short weeks of lessons, I found myself part of the Running Brook Swim Team.  Somewhere in my house I have a shoebox filled with decades-old swimming ribbons.  Small badges marking stroke, time and place from long ago.  I remember the maroon and white striped swimsuits were not all too protective from the sun, and resulted in alternating tan-and-not-tan stripes on my butt.  This was also my first introduction to Visine.

Summer days were filled with splashing in the 3ft and “taking the Nestea Plunge” in the 5ft (a maneuver that today would raise the ire of CA’s risk management overlords).  All of this periodically interrupted by the lifeguard’s long whistle trill signaling adult swim.  This provided time for us kids to find their way to the 7-eleven for Slurpees and the occasional purchase of Wacky-Packages or Odd Rod sticker packs (yes, thanks to the wonder of the internet, they are still available).  Those days ended back at home, with hair bleached by sun and chlorine to point of almost being translucent and total exhaustion.  Yes, we slept well on those summer nights.

As childhood blossomed into pre-teen and adolescence, Columbia’s aquatics grew to more than a dozen pools scattered throughout the city.  Toughskins cut-offs gave way to OP shorts and swimsuits.  Someone invented the boombox.  WPGC and WAVA went from the AOR format to pop-40.  Funk and R&B were provided equally by WOOK (OK-100) and the big ol’ funky V-103.  The word “lightsaber” entered the lexicon.

Back at the pool (now the Dasher Green pool), swimming proficiency expanded from freestyle to backstroke and then breaststroke to butterfly.  Splashing in the shallow end migrated to all kinds of merriment in the deep end. 

The 1-meter diving board, installed throughout the city, became a focus.  As with all things aquatic, it begins with learning:  Step out to the end, turn around and take three steps back.  Take two steps, and on the third step, hop; land with two feet and find yourself sprung into the air.  After that, what happens was up to you and your imagination.  And this is where it gets interesting.  No matter where you lived in Columbia, the types of dives, even when left to the imagination, efficiently whittled down to a few different types of dives.  The simple forward dive, the swan dive, the “jackknife.”  The forward flip, forward 1-1/2, and the hard to accomplish forward double.  The backflip, the back 1-1/2, the gainer.  Apart from the acrobatics existed a second type of dive – the “splash dive.”  The intent here is completely counter to the Olympic diving ideal: bounce off the board and displace as much water when you hit the surface.  The belly-flop, the cannonball, the can opener, wherein one leg is gripped by the arms combined with a falling-backward motion only after touching the water.  Hours were spent launching off the board, splashing, and then returning to the end of the line again to get the chance to refine and repeat the performance.

As middle school gave way to high school, the chance to work at the pool presented itself.  This required obtaining Red Cross lifeguard certification and was taught over-winter at the Columbia Swim Center.  For those who are old-dog Columbia lifeguards, you know who ran the lifeguard certification.  Kitty was an affable woman who embodied years of experience and wisdom with regard to water safety, first aid, and responsibility.  This course was unlike any other course for Columbia’s teens.  It required study and passing written and practical exams.  All those kind and friendly lifeguards that we had known through the years showed up to ensure that anyone taking the course was going to know how to keep the pool safe and how to rescue anyone in trouble.

Completion of the course and subsequent employment of the Columbia Association put pool operation in a whole new light.  Work involved not only shifts “in the chair” or at the front desk, but also included a needed knowledge of pool filtration, water chemistry, and a knowledge of pumping systems.  There was a lot of cleaning.  But there was a cadre of great people.  Suddenly your peer group was not limited to your neighborhood and high school, but expanded city wide.  Fast friendships were developed with Peter, Ellen and Larry from Atholton, Beth and Chris from Wilde Lake (although Beth lived in Clemens Crossing), Jen, John, Cindy, Mary, and Luke from Oakland Mills, Benny and Kim (and her younger brother Steve) from Centennial, Jimmy (and his brothers John and Dennis) and Rich from Mt. Hebron, and Judy, who lived in Catonsville, but found her way down to Columbia every summer.  Many of these friends are still close to this day.

During this time, CA expanded offerings at some of the pools.  Hot tubs were installed.  Volleyball went from “on grass,” to “on mulch,” to “on sand.”  Splashdown opened at the Columbia Swim Center.

It was at the end of this era that the imbalance occurred.  As with most forms of recreation, aquatics offerings evolve.  After two decades of pool operations, a different type of pool emerged in the late 1980’s; the “superpool.”  Let’s first go on record and say that at the time, the Columbia Association was correct in constructing superpools in Hawthorn, Dickenson, River Hill, and Kendall Ridge.  I take a little bit of exception to the construction of the Clary’s Forest superpool, given that it is less than a mile from Hawthorn.  Construction of those pools demonstrated that CA continued to be on the leading edge of aquatic recreation.

What also occurred at that time was that CA quietly changed the name of the non-indoor division from “Neighborhood Pools” to “Outdoor Pools.”  CA now claims that this change in nomenclature signaled that they would no longer pursue the Columbia Vision of having a pool in every Columbia neighborhood.

From that point forward, not all Columbia pools were created equal.  Before the advent of the superpool, most aquatic facilities followed a predictable offering.  Each provided lanes for lap swimming, a diving board (with one or two exceptions), a roped-off shallow end, and a deeper end.  There were differences.  Some pools are 25 meters; some are 25 yards.  Some baby pools are round, others square.  Some bathhouses are little more than a small bathroom and shower.  Some bathhouses are more extensive.  Bryant Woods has perpetually shaded by trees (and some like that just fine).  Huntington and Dorsey’s Search have a lot of deck and not much grass.  All-in-all, the differences were not so large that a pool a little farther away was not so different than the one close by.  In fact, as I have lived these few decades in aquatic bliss, I have known many people that would just not go to another pool on the day of the week that their pool was closed.  The end result was that in the past, pools provided equal opportunity for relief from the heat and family fun, and the pool attending population was dispersed throughout the city.

In the current era, the superpools have quite a bit to offer: beach (or zero-depth) entry, fountains, snack bar, hot tubs (not at Dickensen), and sand volleyball courts.  By comparison, pools constructed before the superpools suffer from the lack of amenities.  This resulted in a concentrating of pool-goers at a few pools, with others seeing low attendance figures.

This brings me to the current relationship with Columbia’s pools.  As a parent, I have looked forward to introducing my kids to the water.  Over the last few summers, we have had a great time splashing around and learning how to swim.  My son loves the summer swim league, and I have had a great time participating in the master’s events.  Here is what has been our family experience with the summer pools:  If we get a chance to hit the water during the week, our number one priority is to get to the pool as fast as possible so that we can maximize our time in the water.  On the weekends, the focus shifts because we know that we will spend a significant time at the pool.  It is then that choices need to be made.  Do we want to spend time with classmates?  The local pool works well for this, but it is not absolute.  Our local elementary school is fed by children in four different Villages, so spending time in the water with classmates can lead us to four different locations.  The other driver is what can be done at the pool.  At the superpools, the kids can roam from the fountain to the diving board to the volleyball court and back, and that can’t be done at some of the local pools.  I have also found that the beach entry is very good for allowing the little one to gain confidence on her terms.  At our older neighborhood pool, it is pretty much a yes/no proposition. 

Looking forward, I can soon see a day when I can go to the pool with the kids and they will be self-sufficient.  Playing in the pool as I did all those years ago.  I look forward to watching them do their thing and then getting in a few hundred yards of exercise.  I look forward to the sing-song Marco-Polo games while I am still perfecting that forward 1-1/2 or cannonball.  And for the first time in my life, I look forward to adult swim, and I will send my son to 7-eleven to get me a cherry and coke (mixed) slurpee.

Speed Cameras Can be Fun

I’m not a fan of speed cameras, but I am resigned to the fact that they will be coming.  Some have stated speed cameras are a tax and certain Ford Mustang drivers have a lot to say about the subject.  For a great analysis of driver behavior, I strongly suggest checking out Sarah’s blog on the subject.  Behind all the discussion, I have been impressed by the approach the Ulman Administration has taken on this subject.  Rather that jumping into deployment, the administration conducted studies to quantify the problem.  Good idea to have the data to back your decision.  Personally, I would like to see the details broken down by school (and time of day), but the fact that 66% of drivers are speeding in school zones and nearly one-in-five motorists exceeded the speed limit by more than 12 mph, indicates a real problem.  The administration has also indicated as slow approach to deployment, using two cameras next year.  Contrasted with Baltimore County’s recent decision to expand their program, two cameras appears to be a measured first step.

Now let me share with you my personal experience, because, you see, I know speed cameras.  My place of employment is in College Park, Maryland; which is firmly ensconced with the bounds of Prince George’s County, Maryland.  The PGCo government started using speed cameras earlier this year.

What you see above is not the unlikely offspring of Number Five of the movie Short Circuit  and an Ingorsoll-Rand portable air compressor, it is a speed camera (although on some mornings, it does look self-aware).  This particular camera is located on the southbound side of U.S 1, a few hundred feet north of Greenbelt Road (MD-193).

This camera and a similar installation on Metzerott Road have been the subject of much discussion in my office building.  Few people were given notice that the cameras were active and the initial reaction was mild ire.  The protestations, the animated hand-waving about big brother and the general feeling of being coldly judged by technology all had their actors and places.  Over time, behaviors have changed and various levels of acceptance has grown.  From the admonition of fellow employees “watch your speed when you get out on Route 1, you know they’re watching,” to violators willingly posting tickets received on their cube wall or office door.  They are badges of dishonor proudly displayed to demonstrate “yes, I am human, I made a mistake.”

I provide this as background because if the speed cameras are installed, many people in Howard County can expect a similar reaction.

But it Doesn’t Have to Be This Way

Now let me be clear and say that I don’t like speed cameras; but I do like serendipity, I like innovative thinking, and I like (although cliché) win-win outcomes.  Some of you hipster savvy readers may be acquainted with The Fun Theory an initiative by Volkswagen.  A few more of you out in Compass Nation may not know Fun Theory by its name, but are still familiar with their award winners.

Late in 2010, just as some of the counties in the region began researching speed camera sites, the Fun Theory announced an award winner that involved speed cameras.  The theory at play here is to reward good behavior rather than only punishing bad behavior.  The New York Times “Wheels” blog has a pretty good post on the subject.

As shown above, rather than taking a photo of only those exceeding the speed limit, the speed camera takes a photo of every car that passes by.  Those who speed still get a speeding ticket and fine; however, the drivers who pass the camera and obey the speed limit have their picture taken and are automatically entered into lottery.  Each (you pick ‘em, week, month, etc) a drawing is held for those entered in the lottery and the winner is awarded a portion of the fines issued by that particular speed camera.

The folks at Fun Theory tested this on a street in Stockholm, Sweden with positive results:

Transforming theory into practice isn’t always a smooth process.  I can already see two issues that may have to be resolved before this kind of innovative thinking can be deployed in Howard County.  First, I believe the maximum fine that is allowed by law is $40.  This apparently covers the cost of operating the cameras and does not provide for much of a lottery prize.  Legislation may have to be enacted to raise the upper limit on the fine to make the lottery an alluring proposition.  I would think $60 vs. $40.

Secondly, because of the chance for monetary gain, this type of arrangement might have the unintended consequence of increasing traffic near schools.  I believe some study should be performed to look at this possibility.  At its worst, the increased traffic would be presumably moving at the speed limit in an attempt to gain entrance into the lottery.

Although the presentations from Fun Theory and my discussion above are pretty light in theme, I believe the speed camera lottery idea should be given serious consideration.  By rewarding good behavior the system holds the promise of greater compliance with the posted speed limits and shifts the attitude of the general public from an onerous infraction to a possible gain for doing what you were supposed to do anyway.  If PGCo had adopted this idea, the discussion around my office would have been very different.  I hope the leaders in Howard County will give this serious consideration.

A Great Love Story

 I am a big fan of the WNYC radio show “Radio Lab.”  Robert Krulwich and Jad Abumrad are master storytellers. This particular show first aired on January 25, 2011, but I came across it again on Monday.  The story I speak of is the third item in the podcast, and is referenced by the show editors as:

Finally, we turn to a very different kind of lost and found: a love story about running into a terrifying, and unexpected, fork in the road.

Radio Lab is a great show, so I recommend that you listen to the entire show, but I suggest you pay particular attention starting at about the 40:00 minute mark.  It’s only about twenty minutes of your time and I think anyone that listens will be rewarded with a beautifully told story.

HoCo Blogtail Party, Southeast Style

The every-so-often Howard County Blog Party made its first appearance in Savage last night at the Ram's Head in Savage Mill. The event brought out about 30-40 people who were gregarious and lively. Thanks to everyone I met and I look forward to seeing you all at the next one.

This Company is Getting Harder to Like

I really don’t like doing back-to-back blog posts on a single subject, but the chatter about Howard Hughes makes it difficult not to say something.

Recently I posted about the lack of a replacement for former GGP/HHC Vice President Greg Hamm.  Since then I have come to find out that there have been other vacancies at Howard Hughes.  Specifically the Chief Financial Officer position became vacant on January 31, 2011.  This did not come as a surprise to Howard Hughes, because the CFO was actually an interim CFO that was intended to leave on that date.  It was spelled out in the documents that formed the company back in November.

Instead of conducting a search and installing a new CFO by the January 31^st deadline, the Howard Hughes Board of Directors has installed Mr. Grant Herlitz as the CFO.  The board should be familiar with Mr. Herlitz, in that he is also the President of the Howard Hughes Corporation.  This news report indicates Howard Hughes is “conducting an executive search for a permanent Chief Financial Officer.”

Tonight, we hear of Howard Hughes activities in Houston, TX.

Executives with The Howard Hughes Corp. held a high-dollar launch party last week in Houston, complete with plenty of glitz to impress their new business contacts.

...Walls were covered with crushed velvet drapes. Large posters with historic pictures of Hughes were sprinkled throughout the space, each of which contained information on the legendary Houston-born entrepreneur.

Music from the 1920s set the scene, and cocktails flowed freely.

...David Weekley of David Weekley Homes was heard to say: “I didn’t know they had developer parties anymore.”

...Picture an ice sculpture, lots of beautiful flower arrangements, steak sliders and made-to-order stir-fry. Open bars surrounded the room. A dessert buffet beckoned in the back. And live musicians entertained as guests ate dinner.

Decorations included several small replicas of Hughes’ Spruce Goose airplane made specifically for the party.

...Howard Hughes executives who spoke included Grant Herlitz, president; and David Weinreb, CEO; and Peter Houghton, vice president of master-planned communities and general manager of Bridgeland.

It was Houghton’s idea to throw the party.

“The good ole days are back, folks,” Houghton told the crowd. 

Indeed.

I don’t know if they intend to take this party on the road, but I gently suggest that they accomplish something before they start celebrating.

Columbia still waits at the docks for new skipper to arrive.

These days, I don’t know anyone outside of Texas that understands what is going on with the Howard Hughes Corporation. Born out of a bankruptcy settlement, the corporation exists as a monument to potential; vested in a few master-planned communities and a handful of underperforming malls ripe for redevelopment.

Shortly after forming the corporation, senior management has made a number of moves that indicate Howard Hughes intends to make the most of this potential; and sooner rather than later. Throughout the country, Howard Hughes has shown their intent to move projects forward.

• Houston, Texas 
• Las Vegas, Nevada 
• New York City

Sadly, one member of Howard Hughes’ senior development team has been fired during this initial push. Wordbones, wrote a great piece on Greg Hamm last week.  Greg Hamm oversaw operations here in Columbia, Maryland and did what I believe was a very good job of working with the community, local activists, and the Howard County Government as the Downtown Columbia zoning and General Plan amendments moved through the local legislative process. What makes his work all the more commendable is that he weathered an almost constant change in management above him at GGP. The man who hired him, Tom D’Alassandro IV, left GGP within a few months of Greg’s hire. Soon after, the GGP board of directors and senior leadership underwent many changes. It was only after exiting bankruptcy, and yet another round of leadership changes did the company fire Greg.

When the news broke that Greg was leaving, the newly formed Howard Hughes Corporation stated that they would find a replacement for Greg “within a month or two.” When I read that, I circled today on the calendar. It has now been two months.

The purpose of this blog post is not to inveigh against Howard Hughes about broken promises or failing to live up to their word. Rather, I suggest caution and provide the following analogy as they work through their selection process:

I look upon Howard Hughes Corporation’s Columbia dilemma as similar to an America’s Cup yacht race. A few years ago, Greg Hamm arrived here and put together a crew that successfully navigated through, and won, a Challenger’s Cup. Now, it is well within the rights of the yacht owner to remove the captain at any time, including after winning a Chellenger’s Cup. However, if such a move is made, the boat owner better bring in a new skipper that has already won a cup. Don’t bring in somebody that has won in Olympic Class racing or Open Ocean racing. Only a skipper that has already won the cup would be viewed to have a chance.

So I say to Howard Hughes, with respect, it has been two months. Bring in the new captain; and make sure this person has the requisite experience. Someone that has a resume long on greenfield single-family home development or office park development will not have the skills required to manage Columbia downtown development.

Local Census Data For Maryland (and Howard County) Released

Something to Think About

At the place of “It Can Happen Here,” what almost happened here, happened there.  Columbia, Maryland and Berkeley, California have been intertwined since Columbia’s founder, James Rouse, gave a speech at Berkeley detailing his basis for building Columbia.  Catherine Bauer, the woman who chaired the conference at which James Rouse spoke, taught both Bill Finley (Columbia’s Chief Planner) and Mort Hoppenfeld (Columbia’s Chief Architect) in graduate school. 

Both cities have a population of approximately 100,000.  Both are adjacent to two large cities; Berkeley has Oakland/San Francisco, Columbia has Baltimore and Washington.  Although the Lawrence-Berkeley National Lab is closer to downtown (approx. 1 mile) than NSA is to downtown Columbia (about 8 miles), both Federal centers employ many people in their respective communities.

Fast forward to today, and we find both Berkeley and Columbia looking at their downtowns.  The Berkeley City Council passed zoning legislation in the Summer of 2009 to redevelop their downtown and the Howard County Council passed zoning legislation in the Winter of 2010.  In both cases, residents opposed to the zoning mounted referendum petition drives.  In Columbia, the petition failed, in Berkeley, the petition succeeded and was placed on the ballot as “Measure R.”

Now Berkeley has an interesting structure to their referendum questions.  As part of the ballot process, the Measure is listed on the city website.  Also included on the website is an impartial analysis of the Measure by the City Attorney, as well as arguments for and against the Measure.

The short form of the Measure reads as follows:

Ballot Question

Shall the City of Berkeley adopt policies to revitalize the downtown and help make Berkeley one of the greenest cities in the United States by meeting our climate action goals; concentrating housing, jobs and cultural destinations near transit, shops and amenities; preserving historic resources; enhancing open space; promoting green buildings; and calling for 2 residential buildings and 1 hotel no taller than our existing 180 foot buildings and 2 smaller office buildings up to 120 feet?

As linked above, all of this is still on the City of Berkeley website, and provides a pretty-good understanding of the question.  I will leave it to your individual Google searches to fill in some of the background information, but one of the interesting parallels between the Columbia community and Berkeley community was the use of social media and new web tools.  As with Freemarket’s use of Xtranormal to highlight the Fox/Beams race, it appears that some enterprising folk in Berkeley used the same software.  This gave the virtual impression that although these races were a continent apart, Fox/Beams, and the Berkeley Resident/Nimby Robot were each having a discussion in front of the same virtual building.

I bring this up because, as with most elections, there has been quite a bit of navel gazing about what the election means.  Those that peruse the HoCo blogs have certainly read some of the search for meaning from the Republican point of view.  But there has also been some soul-searching amongst others in the community.  Voter apathy?  Federal workers?  Voters not understanding the message?

A recent column written by San Francisco columnist John King may shed some light on both communities.

Measure R hit all the buttons of 21st century urban environmentalism: The ballot question framed the issue at hand as "concentrating housing, jobs and cultural destinations near transit, shops and amenities" to "revitalize the downtown and help make Berkeley one of the greenest cities in the United States."

The measure also would make room for three buildings of 180 feet - equal to office buildings of the same height from 1925 and 1969 - and opponents responded as though Sears Tower was being shipped to Shattuck Avenue. The ballot arguments warned of "empty promises with destructive proposals" and "a developer-backed plan ... allowing outsized development to overwhelm surrounding neighborhoods." Man the barricades!

For those Democrats that live in District 4, some of the above passage may sound like pieces of mail that began showing up late this summer.  Mr. King goes on to present an interesting hypothesis that may provide some insight here in Howard County.  His column begins:

"Generation gap" is a phrase past its prime, like a guy who thinks he's still hip because Levi's are still his look.

But it rings true in the Bay Area of 2010, especially with regard to attitudes about the shape our cities and suburbs should take.

More and more, there's a disconnect between the established view of how we should grow, and the values of people who weren't even born when activists first battled "Manhattanization." The (mostly) gray-haired guardians who radiate the certainty that They Know Best have dominated the debate for decades, but they can't defy the calendar. With every passing year, the old certainties look a bit more ... old.

Broadly speaking, I think Mr. King might be onto something; however, I do not believe that theories on how cities can sustainably evolve break down solely along generational lines.  What is now clear is that there is more than one viable theory on how a city can grow responsibly.  Mr. King closes with that in mind:

This shift rubs some old-school environmentalists the wrong way, Madsen admits. But as the Berkeley vote shows, it's in sync with younger people who like the idea of filling "their" downtowns with people and life.

"The options aren't the cul-de-sac or Manhattan," Madsen suggests. "What you see in Berkeley is a bit of what we see happening all over the Bay Area. ... People are saying there's a different urban form they'd like to see come to fruition."

I don't want to oversell the transition now under way.

There always will be growth-wary neighbors, at times justifiably so. Some people in their 60s love towers; some people in their 20s loathe them. Nor do I buy the premise that every additional housing unit in San Francisco or Berkeley means one fewer home on distant farmland. Families don't choose between a McMansion in Brentwood or a 20th-floor condo on Rincon Hill.

But here's the difference: This generation of activists has moved beyond the simplistic mind-set that change is to be resisted. Its definition of urbanity doesn't start with the notion that the essence of San Francisco as a place - how it should look, how tall it should rise - was defined once and for all in 1969 or 1984.

One veteran who accepts the shift is John Kriken, a longtime urban designer with the international firm Skidmore Owing & Merrill who also now teaches at UC Berkeley's College of Environmental Design.

"Kids today have grown up with a much greater awareness of sustainability issues and the role that density plays in protecting land from indiscriminate use," Kriken says. "They see the bigger buildings, and they're not fearful of them."

This doesn't mean today's younger activists are right and the ones of Kriken's era were wrong. It's that - news flash! - times change.

"For every generation that chooses the city, the beginning point is now," Kriken says. "The 'real San Francisco' is today. They don't carry the images in their head that I have in mine, or that my friends have in theirs. They don't have the baggage of all the past battles."

And you know what? That's a good thing.

Gateway Overlook Shopping Center Sold for $90M.

As General Growth Properties exits bankruptcy, the local effects are felt almost immediately.  According to this Reuters news story, General Growth Properties has sold the Gateway Overlook Shopping Center for $90-million.  The identity of the buyer has not been released.

The Video Connection

In the end, I blame Michael Nesmith.  The quixotic son of the inventor of liquid paper and former Monkees band member invented the music video and started the company that eventually became MTV.

MTV announced itself to the world when I was a freshman in high school.  Over the last three decades, I never cared much for the other programming on the MTV network, but I did watch the videos.  In particular, I have fond memories of the early Dire Straits’ “Money for Nothing” and A-Ha’s “Take on Me” videos.  Over time, the videos have evolved, with some breaking more ground than others.

Recently, the band Arcade Fire changed everything with their new interactive video, “The Wilderness Downtown”  This video was released in conjunction with their new album (I guess I’m old enough to call new music releases “albums.”) “The Suburbs.”

The video exists on the internet and prompts the viewer to enter the address of the house they grew up in before viewing.  After an address is entered (from just about anywhere in the world), the video begins to play, and incorporates Google Earth images of that address into the video as Arcade Fire’s song “We Used to Wait” plays in the background.

As with Michael Nesmith’s ground breaking “Elephant Parts,” Arcade Fire’s “The Wilderness Downtown” is not flawless, but it represents such a leap forward that any discernible shortcomings are quickly forgiven.  In particular, the video imagery relies (in part) on Google street views.  If you enter a street address that Google has not driven down, there is less material to work with.  With respect to Columbia, Google has street views of all major roads and some collector roads (think Cradlerock Way or Phelps Luck Drive).

What is also interesting is that the viewer quickly realizes that although the intent of the video is to bring the viewer back to his/her childhood, any address can be used.  I found the video using the Wilde Lake Village Center address (10400 Cross Fox Lane) interesting.

One last word of caution.  This video is resource intensive.  Make sure you use a broadband connection.  “The Wilderness Downtown” can be experienced here.

If you find an address that is particularly cool to view, please post it in the comments section.

Asian Invasion Redux

Just a quick post here.  I was wondering, what is worse, the snakehead fish invasion or the stinkbug invasion.  And could we work on the lexicon, I am hoping the next invasive species that shows up has a much better name; something like the "rainbow weevil" or the "flower lizard."  Your comments are encouraged.

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.