Contributor Opinion By Anne Robbins: Employee Compensation Program Unwise And Inappropriate

>To All: For many, many months, I have fought this massive employee compensation, and it seemed that nobody, but Phyllis Marcuccio, our Rockville citizens, and members of other governments, have listened to me. Thank you, Randy Alton, for your recognition that residents have heard the call and will respond. Sadly, our friends in other governments, will think twice when Rockville needs a handout, and that day will come. Rockville taxpayers will pay higher fees and the 4th year of a property tax reduction rate has been scuttled, (I had hoped this would be an annual policy), to fund this unwise, untimely, and inappropriate $1.7 million dollar employee compensation plan. (I exempt our employees covered by a union contract, from any reduction, as I honor union contracts.)

Mayor [Susan] Hoffmann has written about ” punishing our hardworking staff” to not give this huge compensation to the Rockville employees; nothing could be further from the truth as I recognize and honor our superior work force, many of whom, I have known for years. I believe that it would give these employees a good feeling to join other governments in making a statement that, “we are all in the same boat”, recognizing that we are all living in the worst recession since after WWII.

Anne Robbins
City Council Member

This contributor opinion is by Council Member Anne Robbins. It is in response to a letter by Randy Alton published in the Gazette.

This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

Contributor Opinion By Mark Pierzchala: Support Closure Of Princeton Place Fence; Only Open When Smoking Areas Are Provided On Campus

>This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

One more note. Mark has announced that he is running for City Council. We do not know of other declared candidates yet; as we do, we will try to make sure we provide a balanced forum for all voices.

Dear College Garden Neighbors (via the College Gardens Forum ListServe),

Montgomery College has informed the City of Rockville that with respect to the Princeton Place access to Montgomery College, it plans to “modify and close the opening of the fence to provide immediate relief for the residents. College and city staff agree that immediate relief has to be provided to those residents most adversely affected by the College’s Tobacco Free Campus policy. The College expects to close the opening and erect a new fence beginning as soon as February 28, 2009.”


The information above comes from an internal City memorandum dated February 23, 2009. One of the action items on the memorandum is that there will be a stakeholder’s meeting on March 16 where various options will be presented and feedback from the stakeholders gathered.
Since I’m running for City Council some people including some neighbors would like me to reiterate my oft-stated position on this issue. There are two points: First, given the current Montgomery College policy of absolutely no smoking on campus, I support the closure of the fence to provide relief for the campus’s near neighbors on Princeton Place. The impacts on them have been severe and real. Second, I would support the re-opening of the fence but only if this is accompanied by the implementation of a smoking area on campus. I can’t see any other solution that would provide permanent relief to the Princeton Place residents while re-establishing access.

Please keep in mind that it is Montgomery College that has caused the problem. The Princeton Place residents are defending their children and their property; I can’t fault them for that. We should not allow unilateral action by Montgomery College to cause a rift in our neighborhoods.

With the current MC policy, either keeping the gate open or closing it, would have negative impacts on the community. This fact was clearly established in Citizen’s Forum to Mayor and Council and in testimony to the Planning Commission and the MC Board of Trustees the past several weeks. It is my opinion that the only unifying position for our community is if both College Gardens and Plymouth Woods rally around a position for the College to modify its policy and establish one smoking area on campus.

Other groups, such as the Rockville Bike Advisory Committee should also make the establishment of a campus smoking area central to their efforts to re-open access. Further, I call on Mayor and Council to formally state such a position by resolution. The facts are known and other so-called solutions have been proposed and found lacking. Though I recognize that individual council members have been vocally supportive, it is time for all our elected to go on record and to formally take a clear and strong stand in defense of its neighborhoods.

Yours,

Mark Pierzchala

Contributor Opinion By Art Stigile: Response To Redgate Golfers

>This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

The following contributor opinion is by Art Stigile.

I read with interest Joe Jordan’s recent contributor’s opinion about the RedGate Golf Course, and I listened closely to the statements made by many golfers at the recent Citizen’s Forum. Golf is not my game, but I understand and respect their passion. I think hockey is life. But if golf is your passion, I hope you can continue to enjoy playing at RedGate for many years.

Unfortunately, nothing that I heard from golfers deals with one very important inconvenient truth. RedGate is drowning in a sea of red ink, and taxpayers are being asked to fork over increasingly large subsidies for as far as the eye can see. Over its first 28 years, golfers paid for all of RedGate’s operating and capital expenses. Since FY99, the golf course has operated in the red every year, except one, despite receiving $600,000 in taxpayers subsidies over the past three years. The current budget projects an FY09 deficit of $275,745 that grows to $388,479 in four years. By the end of FY13, RedGate’s cumulative deficit is expected to exceed $2 million – more than the expenses to run RedGate for one year. Red seems to be the appropriate color for the golf course.

Who’s paying for this? Taxpayers.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. In May 2006, Mayor and Council approved a Five Year Business Plan for RedGate. (See here.) The Plan promised to put RedGate “in the black” by FY09.

By any measure, the Plan has failed.

The Plan identified two key ingredients to success – average dollars spent per round, and total rounds played. Below are the Plan’s projections for both measures and results to date. Results have fallen far short of the Plan, and the results for FY09 will not be any better, given the sharp drop in rounds played last summer.


I have 2 questions for golfers. Why should we taxpayers subsidize golfers? How much subsidy is enough?

The closest thing to answer that I’ve heard is that the City subsidizes other recreation, so why shouldn’t it subsidize golfers? I’ll tell you why. I pay high taxes, with no complaints, to fund services that benefit all of us – a first-class police force, good roads, conservation of our natural resources, snow removal – and to provide opportunities to less fortunate folks who are struggling to stay afloat in the worst economy in 35 years. I don’t expect to pay high taxes to subsidize middle-class adults who can afford to pay for their favorite recreation.

If golfers disagree, if golfers feel they are entitled to a taxpayer subsidy, then I have a suggestion. The Community Services section of the Rockville budget provides funding to nonprofits that provide social services to the needy. Let’s add a line for Taxpayer Subsidies to Golfers. That way, golfers can come down to City Hall each year and explain to Mayor and Council and to all taxpayers why they have a higher priority than folks who are finding it hard to stay in their homes and pay for their kids’ health care.

Frankly, I’d rather spend my tax dollars helping the truly needy.

There is an alternative. Increase fees immediately by $7-8 per round of golf, and it would eliminate the annual deficit.

Art Stigile

Contributor Opinion By Joseph Jordan: Connect The Dots On Redgate

>This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central authors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

The following contributor opinion is by Joseph Jordan.

I have been hesitant to write an opinion piece on the controversy over how Redgate Golf Course will be managed. My hesitancy stemmed from weighing what might be best for the “factory”…the golf course itself, versus what would be best for the Redgate staff, residents of Rockville and the men, women and children that enjoy what Redgate offers. After Monday’s amazing outpouring, it is obvious to me, the City must keep management of Redgate with the City.

If you have been following the story in the Gazette and Sentinel, or watched the Council meeting Monday, you know the City is moving in the direction of turning the management of Redgate over to a third party, viz. the Montgomery County Revenue Authority. Brad Rourke covered the essence of what went on during Citizen Forum Monday. Over 60 people turned out in support of the City keeping management of the golf course within the City, and 25 to 30 of those spoke publicly to that point. While Brad did “..note that the depth of support did appear to move members of the Mayor and Council…”, it is my opinion all it did was maybe slow down an inevitable conclusion. Here is why I think that, and I welcome differing views.

First of all, it is extremely frustrating trying to get opinions made public because the Council has decided to meet every other week rather than weekly, and the Gazette and Sentinel are weekly publications. I love the idea of Rockville Central, but doubt it is seen by as many people that follow Council meetings or read the paper. So, here is what I want Rockville Central readers to do…please connect the dots on this Redgate business. I said from the very start that this was on a fast-track, a moving freight train that would be difficult to stop, or even slow down. However, as stated above, we did slow it down a bit this week. Why? Consider what was said by Councilmember [Piotr] Gajewski and Mayor [Susan] Hoffmann at Monday’s meeting..”…of course we will take public comment.”, “…we will of course have a hearing.”

Okay, now consider the facts stated by the City Manager, Scott Ullery, in this week’s Gazette. The target date to consummate the deal is April 1. The draft lease is expected to go before the council on March 23rd, which will be in general session. Without too much strain on the brain, one can deduce that, before the turnout Monday, the council will have had to vote on the decision that evening in order to meet the April 1 target date. To now say a public hearing will be held the following week, March 30th, and was always going to be held, is disingenuous at best. This, no doubt, would move the date for the Revenue Authority to take over because I assume the council will have to wait for the next council meeting to vote, which would be April 6th.

What is at issue is more than who manages Redgate. The issue is how our City government has chosen to do business. I continue to maintain things were done behind closed doors to prevent such outpourings as Monday and to get the deal closed as quickly as possible. The timeline was about as short as you could get it and still do business in a responsible fashion. I don’t want to see this swept under the carpet like other issues we still have no answers to, such as the Town Center pavers debacle. I believe we need to have all the facts on the evolution of this proposed deal. When did discussions start? Who was in those discussions? Who initiated the deal? Were RFP’s or RFQ’s sent to other golf course management companies? If not, why not; if not, were there even informal discussions with other management firms?

A public hearing is great, but to paraphrase the newly-former governor of Illinois…let’s hang him…wait, he’s entitled to a fair trial….right, let’s give him a trial then hang him.

Regardless of where you stand on whether or not Rockville should own and manage a golf course, please consider expressing your opinion at the public hearing on the 30th of March. You don’t have to a golfer. If you think the City should not run Redgate, come and tell them that and why. Likewise if you have an opposite view. But remember this, every Parks and Recreation facility and program is open to residents and non-residents, not only the golf course. Remember, every operation under Parks and Recreation gets taxpayer subsidies…not one I am aware of pays for itself, and Redgate is one that does (on a cash basis) or comes closest, and ask yourself why the golf course is the only amenity in the Parks and Rec department that remains an Enterprise Fund, exposing it like no other amenity, and not placed in the General Fund. I know it is a long way off, so write it on your calendars. Post your opinions here on Rockville Central. Watch a replay of Monday’s Council meeting on TRC 11, or at your convenience on the City website.

I won’t have many friends in City Hall these days, but I am passionate about this idea of openness and transparency. You should be too.

Joseph Jordan

Contributor Opinion By Temperance Blalock: Clean Up The Old Giant Parking Lot

>The following contributor opinion is by Temperance Blalock:

Saturday night I sprained my left ankle in the “Old Giant” parking lot on North Washington St. Despite the fact that I live across the street from that parking lot, work right next to it, and walk through it or past it every day, I didn’t realize how truly dangerous it can be until I stepped into a pothole in a spot with no overhead lighting. While the parking lot looks merely run down during the day, at night it becomes a treacherous derelict.

The “Old Giant” building has been empty for many years now, and once that store closed the parking lot passed into a vague status. The lot is very large, and presents an “empty” break in the line of sight in downtown Rockville. It has become a heavily trafficked route for automobiles, since drivers like to use it as a short-cut between Hungerford Drive and North Washington, bypassing Beall Ave. That isn’t too much of a problem during the day, but at night it becomes very dangerous because the traffic lanes are not clearly defined, and thus drivers casually careen through the lot, choosing their own route regardless of parked cars or pedestrians.

The businesses that operate out of the “parking lot building” next to Gateway Tower have become increasingly popular, particularly Bobs 66 Noodle restaurant, which has a great reputation throughout the large Asian community. The Beer/Wine/Deli is also always busy, though it doesn’t generate the same volume as Bobs 66. Last Saturday night there were scores of cars parked near those businesses, which is what forced me to park in the center of the lot. When I stepped out of my car, into the darkness, I stepped almost immediately into a pothole in the asphalt, and painfully twisted my ankle.

The asphalt surface of the parking lot is in terrible shape, full of potholes. The parking lot is not lit at night, meaning that drivers and pedestrians are in danger of collision with each other. The entire place looks trashy and run-down, diminishing the attraction of nearby Town Center.

I started working at Gateway Tower in the summer of 2001, and the old Giant store was closed about a year later. Since then, the status of that piece of land has doubtless been the subject of great controversy and negotiation, of which I know very little. All that I do know for sure is that seven years is an excessively long time to allow such a large piece of real estate to crumble and deteriorate. There is no sign that it will be developed in the near future, but in the meantime there is the potential for physical danger to the people who walk and drive in that lot, and the customers who patronize those businesses. It’s time that the owners or managers of that lot be held accountable for its appearance and physical condition.

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to contribute too! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Contributor Opinion By John Britton: State Of The City Reprise

>[Note: a draft version of this article was inadvertently published. Its content was the same, but formatting was not included. Here it is properly set-up. Sorry for the confusion.]

The following Contributor Opinion is by City Councilmember John Britton:

I am reminded of the old adage: “Never a dull moment in local politics.” Well maybe not so old and maybe not an adage just yet, but ever so true.

As you may have heard, Mayor Susan Hoffmann will not be in attendance at the public gathering scheduled for Wednesday, February 11th. Alas, I think it unfortunate as we will miss her contributions to the public dialogue and other musings that may occur; one less perspective for the mix. The public will have to corner her another time! But, as they say (a la Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland), the show will go on. Councilmember Marcuccio and I still intend to carry on and present our perspectives on all things past, present and future, well at least those things that may be within City jurisdiction and reflect on the state of the city. And we hope our discourse can have some positive effect on the public weal. So, same place – first floor meeting room, Rockville Library; same time – February 11th, 7 p.m.; same issues – anything. All are welcome.

Remember: Buy Rockville! Save your appetites that evening for dining in Rockville Town Center either before or after the public gathering. Think of shopping a bit as well. And by all means, just don’t stop at the first floor of the library. Go inside and take advantage of our beautiful flagship library and check out a book, CD or DVD, or just enjoy the people and the surroundings.

Councilmember John Britton

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Further Information On Tonight's WECA Meeting

>The following is by Bridget Newton:

The meeting tonite is a meeting of the WECA Committee on Beall’s Grant II which includes representatives of MHP. It is not a Mayor and Council Meeting as is stated on their website (Meeting 3 – 09 February 5, 2009) nor is it a discussion between the Mayor and Council, WECA and MHP as was earlier announced on the city website.

To give an update on the status for tonite’s meeting, Councilmembers Robbins, Marcuccio and Britton have declined to attend. As there will no longer be a quorum, this meeting does not fall under the Maryland Public Meetings Act. Councilmember Britton has requested that the announcement of the meeting be removed from the city’s website as an official Mayor and Council meeting.

Tho our meetings are not “closed” meetings, we are a working committee and our charter is to “work with MHP to come up with a plan that is an asset to both the West End and MHP.” To date, we have made significant progress in defining our goals and principles for this important project. We have presented these principles to MHP and are looking forward to their response.

Unfortunately, the information recently published on Rockville Central misrepresents the process that we have tried to implement in the wake of earlier mishandling. By including verbiage from a Draft Agenda that Cheryl Kagen created and sent to the committee chairs, Dennis Cain and myself, Rockville Central is playing an unwitting role in the continuing drama in this already delicate situation. As Committee Chair, Dennis has responsibility for setting our agenda as he does each week. Tonite’s agenda does not include “community feedback” or a “mini-charette”. MHP is presenting their revised proposal to the Committee tonite. It would be premature and counterproductive to seek community feedback before the committee has had an opportunity to evaluate their proposal and how well it reflects the committee principles.

We had hoped to give an update on our progress at the January WECA meeting but that meeting was canceled. We look forward to giving the update in February and hope to be able to present the Committee’s recommendation to the WECA membership at a future General Membership meeting.

In the meantime, if any resident of the West End has questions about this project or the process, please feel free to contact either myself or Dennis Cain.

Respectfully,
Bridget Newton

Rockville Central welcomes contributions from all members of the Rockville community — including (and especially) ones that critique Rockville Central itself. Simply send them our way for consideration.

Contributor Opinion by John Britton: State Of The City And The Open Meetings Act

>The following Contributor Opinion is by City Councilmember John Britton:

A few points on the planned February 11, 2009 gathering and the Open Meetings Act:

1. As you may know, Mayor Hoffmann, Councilmember Marcuccio and I are proposing an open and public gathering on Wednesday, February 11th for a discussion of issues. This is not an official mayor and council meeting as there will be no business conducted nor will there be votes taken on any matter. Rather it is an open, public gathering to hear three perspectives (varying and probably divergent depending on the issue!) on the accomplishments (or lack thereof?!) of this mayor and council of the past year and of issues that the community members think the mayor and council may address in the next year. Although we may have brief introductory comments, the bulk of the time will be devoted to questions from the community members and, hopefully, thoughtful, relevant and insightful answers from us.

2. I stress that this is not an official meeting of the mayor and council. However, since at least a quorum of the mayor and council may be present, special rules and safeguards apply to the gathering as set out in the Maryland Open Meetings Act. These rules and safeguards implement public policy of the State and ensure public access to any gathering of a quorum. The Open Meetings Act requires that the public be provided with adequate notice of the time and location of the public gathering, that the location be reasonably accessible to individuals who would like to attend, and that minutes be prepared as soon as practicable after the public gathering.

3. Rather than make up rules as we went along, as has been alleged, we were constrained by a rigid set of existing rules under the Open Meetings Act. Prior to initiating the process for this public gathering, a thorough review of the Open Meetings statute (State Government Article, Title 10, Subtitle 5) and the Open Meeting Acts Manual (Sixth Edition, October 2006) was warranted. This review established the framework for the public gathering. I also confirmed the requirements of the law and compliance thereto with the City Attorney. Our recognition of and adherence to the rules set out in the Open Meetings Act resulted in the following to ensure compliance with the law:

(a) Notice of the time, date, place, participants and agenda was sent to the Gazette for publication this week and placed on the RockvilleCentral and RockvilleLiving blogs. The City also distributed a press release with the same information. This notice also was copied to the City Attorney.

Contributor Opinion By Joseph Jordan: State Of The City

>The following Contributor Opinion is by Joseph Jordan:

The proposed State of the City meeting scheduled for February 11th tells me this City Council makes up the rules as they go along. From what I understand, two Council members and the Mayor decide to have a meeting, but don’t invite the other two Council members. They now have a quorum and intend to discuss city business, policy, ordinances, etc. Isn’t this considered an official Council meeting? I believe it is, and there are rules governing such meetings. I’d like to see the City Attorney weigh in on this.

I pushed back on this Council when they wanted to have work sessions off-camera, when they voted to eliminate responses at Citizen Forum, when they wanted to have quarterly “retreats” that would be closed, off-site meetings. Now they want to have something as important as a report on the State of the City, and have it in a library conference room…with only three Council members….with no cameras or recording devices so that residents that can’t make the meeting can at least see a playback? Give me a break…something is wrong here. If elected officials want to meet their constituents, then do what Mr. Gajewski does…have your own Town Hall meeting. If you want to present and discuss the State of the City, then do it in City Hall, with all council members and the City Manager present, with the cameras and recording devices rolling.

Joseph Jordan

Contributor Opinion By John Britton: Another Inaugural Observation

>The following contributor opinion is by Rockville City Council member John Britton:

It was not difficult to make the decision whether to stay at home and enjoy the inaugural events from the comfort and warmth of our living room or go to what promised to be a too-crowded, too frigid Mall to view the Inaugural events. A no-brainer; It was go from the beginning for all of us – Katherine, Eric , Anna and myself – to hear the Inaugural address directly, to see the people, to breathe the same air as President Obama and the other dignitaries, to insert ourselves into a moment of history. We did not have tickets to anything, so we were full into the common man thing which kept our expectations at a manageable level. To our great surprise, these expectations were exceeded.

We decided to head into downtown on Monday evening to spend the night in my office located within the security zone. Think camping without s’mores and mosquitoes; hotel without the beds! Apart from being in a room with a hyperactive motion detection light system, the accommodations were, well, accommodating. Being there gave us the strategic advantage of leaving the office in the morning by foot, destination anywhere on the Mall (with a quick stop in Starbucks for breakfast). We quickly learned of the mass of humanity travails at the east end of the Mall and worked our way from 7th Street, NW to 18th Street, NW before finding our access to the Mall. If nothing else, the trek across downtown DC – devoid of automobiles save for the occasional emergency vehicle — was worth the moment. Along the way were ad hoc vendors selling everything imaginable, restaurants with their offerings and urns of coffee set out on tables in the street and spontaneous celebrations at nearly every turn – as one pundit put it, “a block party of historic proportions”. By the time we encountered the snaking conga line led by someone dressed in a polar bear outfit singing tunes to Obama, we were no longer surprised by what downtown could offer that day.

After a minor stand-off with the National Guard who were woefully outnumbered by the masses (power to the people!), we worked our way onto the Mall and stood in the shadow of the Washington Monument. We arrived in plenty of time for the swearing-in ceremony, with a view of a jumbotron and clear, crisp audio projecting from the Capitol Building platform. There was an ever so slight but detectable disconnect between the movement of lips on the screen and the words that we heard – akin to watching one of those old B-rated, 1960’s era Japanese horror films. But certainly no distraction from the solemnity of the moment. After its obligatory booing and hissing in the beginning each time President Bush or Vice President Cheney appeared on the screen, the crowd fell into an incredible hush. To the dilemma of how to silence nearly 2 million people, evidently you need only a Barack Obama on the stage in front of them. And what a crowd – the mood and diversity made the scene the mother of all Pepsi commercials.

At the risk of being hyperbolic – actually there is no such risk in this situation – the experience was exhilarating, majestic, stunning, breathtaking [insert superlative here]. Put simply, it was awesome. Even through the slightly harrowing situation of 1.8 million people implementing the same exit strategy at the same time (when even the words “yes we can” presumed herculean efforts!), the day’s experience could not be diminished. We now proudly carry the right to say for all time, “We were there!”

John Britton

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Contributor Opinion By Carl Henn: Car Free Contract For Beall's Grant II The Way To Go

>The following Contributor Opinion is by Carl Henn:

The recent decision by the City Council not to support the Beall’s Grant II project isn’t the end of the story. Regardless of how it turns out there will be consequences. Montgomery Housing Partnership may cut the size of the project significantly to meet neighborhood concerns. While this would reduce the impact of the project on the neighborhood, it would also decrease the number of people that it can serve while nearly everyone concedes that we have a tremendous need for affordable housing. Or perhaps MHP and the neighborhood won’t be able to find a workable compromise. This could result in an even worse outcome. If MHP finds that they can build more affordable housing for the same money elsewhere, they may sell the lot and the Rockville site will be built for the standard commercial market. The neighborhood impacts may be nearly the same as the current proposal, but without creating significant additional affordable housing. A commercial development wouldn’t require council approval, so would be less constrained by neighborhood interests.

Both sides have reason to compromise. What they need is better ideas on how to compromise. I believe that Car-Free by Contract housing, supported by investment in transportation alternatives such as car sharing, bicycles, grocery delivery, and transit can make this alternative work. Instead of building a 212 car parking garage and a 17 space surface lot, they could build a 200 bicycle parking garage and a 17 space surface lot with 10 shared cars provided and a free bike with each apartment.

The concept of Car-Free by Contract is that the project is given permission to build far less parking than is usually required in exchange for implementing a plan to ensure that the parking isn’t needed. Residents sign a contract agreeing not to own or use a car while living there. The contract establishes that they will be evicted if they are found to be keeping a car, with loss of security deposit.

Car free living isn’t for everyone and doesn’t work everywhere. But this is a circumstance and place where it can work. Beall’s Grant II will be primarily affordable housing. So many people are waiting for affordable housing that finding 100 households willing and able to get by without a car is very workable. Moreover, Beall’s Grant is within walking distance of Metro, several bus routes and plenty of stores.

The advantages for the neighborhood and city include far less traffic and a smaller building footprint. It is also likely that by selecting people who are able to live without cars that the number of additional students brought into Beall Elementary will be reduced. The arrangement is inherently more environmentally sustainable – car free living uses less energy. But it also opens up new opportunities. The smaller footprint can allow space for a community garden. The money saved by not building parking can instead pay for more advanced environmental features.

Let’s consider the math: Structured parking costs around $20,000 per space. Eliminating the 212 space garage saves $4,240,000. Providing a basic but fully outfitted bike (lights, fenders, panniers, helmet, lock) should cost around $500 each. One hundred would total $50,000. You can fit 12 bikes in the space of one car parking space. If it cost the same as structured car parking, we could provide 200 bike parking spaces for $333,333.

Providing a car sharing service is central to making this concept work. By providing a fleet of cars to share, people can have the use of a car for occasional use, but can share the expense with their neighbors. A fleet of ten cars for 100 households would provide a car when needed at only a tenth of the cost of maintaining a car for each household. Even if brand new cars were purchased for cash up front, this would cost far less then the money saved by not building a 212 car garage. Ten cars at $20,000 each is $200,000. My newest car cost me $5,000 – we don’t need to buy all new for this concept to work. Car sharing is already working in our area through Zipcar, or a non profit co-op can be created to manage it, ranging from a large successful venture in Vancouver to a small community startup.

This still leaves plenty of money left over to provide solar water heating for the complex. A laundromat/car wash in Massachusetts built in solar water heating for $55,000. A similar approach would keep the energy costs lower for this apartment throughout its life.

The cost of the car sharing, bicycles, bike parking and solar water heating comes up to $3.6 million less than the cost of the car parking that they forgo.

In Vienna, a Car-Free by Contract apartment building arrangement allowed an apartment complex of 244 units to provide only 20 parking spaces.

Making this work at the Beall’s Grant II site would solve a vexing problem. Beyond that it points the way to a more sustainable future. While this approach has worked elsewhere, this isn’t an off the shelf, cookie cutter model. This process, even after the fundamental agreement is reached, will take a lot of thought. Is it better for car sharing to happen through Zipcar, an MHP program or some other approach? How can bike lessons be provided to residents, and how will that be arranged? Can free deliveries from PeaPod or their competitors be arranged if a given number of residents agree to a particular delivery schedule? What exact language should be used in the Car-Free contract?

Pulling this together is an exciting and worthy challenge. The active engagement of the neighborhood, MHP and the City will be needed. The seven month delay necessitated by the Council’s decision not to move forward at this time provides the time needed to completely revise the proposed development. Car-free by Contract housing is the tool that can break our current deadlock and create a positive outcome for everyone involved.

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Contributor Opinion By Susan Hoffmann: MHP Worked With Community

>The following Contributor Opinion is by Rockville mayor Susan R. Hoffmann. It is a reprint, by permission of the author, of her email response to this message sent to the Mayor and Council.

With all due respect, I believe that [Larry Giammo is] omitting one very important fact: [Montgomery Housing Partnership] has been working with the community, represented by the West End Citizens Association, since 2006. It is only very recently that the opposition started paying attention and that we began to hear from them. That does not diminish their right to be concerned, but it is simply not factual to claim that the steps . . . laid out weren’t followed. The steps were followed and WECA offered no objection. In point of fact, WECA welcomed and endorsed the project, writing a letter in support. I hope that everyone will continue to discuss Bealls Grant II in good faith and that we can find a good outcome for all involved.

Susan R. Hoffmann
Mayor, City of Rockville

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Contributor Opinion By Larry Giammo: Differences Between Beall's Grant 2 And Other Successful Developments

>The following Contributor Opinion is by former Rockville mayor Larry Giammo. It is a reprint, by permission and suggestion of the author, of a message he sent to the Mayor and Council on November 26, 2008.

Mayor and Council,

I watched the segments of the most recent city council meeting having to do with the proposed Beall’s Grant II development and related matters. I think the question of how the Beall’s Grant II development has ended up at the center of what is a troubling situation is worth serious thought and discussion.

If you look back at some of the most significant development projects approved in Rockville over recent years, there are at least several that had the potential to become sources of widespread concern and intractable opposition – but, instead, stand out as having in the end garnered widespread support among nearby residents. Examples that come to mind include Legacy at Lincoln Park, Twinbrook Commons, and Chestnut Lodge – to name a few.

Why did projects like these not end up in the unfortunate situation that we, as a community, now face with Beall’s Grant II? Three fundamental differences are apparent:

1 – Process: In each case, the developer engaged nearby residents in a series of multiple meetings to discuss the potential development. The series of meetings began well before a date had even been set for the development application to be formally considered for approval. The meetings were inclusive, interactive, substantive, constructive and productive. In each case, the result of the series of meetings was a project plan that a) had evolved significantly from what had originally been proposed, and b) both the developer and most of the nearby residents were comfortable with. By the time the actual development application came up for formal consideration for approval, any question of community opposition had, for the most part, already been addressed and put to rest.

2 – Developer’s Attitude and Intent: In each case, the developer made a good faith and significant effort to inform, engage and work collaboratively with nearby residents. And, the city government’s expectation was made very clear to the developers: unless and until they did in fact make a good faith and significant effort to inform, engage and work collaboratively with nearby residents, their project was highly unlikely to be approved.

3 – City Government’s Role: In each case, the city government monitored the progress of the discussions between the developer and nearby residents, in order to be able to informatively and independently assess whether both sides were truly making a good faith effort at collaborative problem solving. At the same time – and this is critical – the city government stood ready to step in at the appropriate time to represent the interests of nearby residents, based on the premise that it would be inappropriate and unfair to put the residents in a position of having to “negotiate” completely on their own, since they lack the resources and experience with zoning, planning, design, etc. that each developer has at their disposal.

So, back to Beall’s Grant II. Objectively speaking, what’s transpired in regard to Beall’s Grant II bears little, if any, resemblance to what was experienced with those other development projects, especially in regard to the three points outlined above.

The question for you now, most fundamentally, is whether you believe it’s worthwhile to move the process for Beall’s Grant II back a few steps so that there’d be the opportunity to apply what’s outlined above to Beall’s Grant II. If you do make that choice, it’ll likely take a couple of months to potentially achieve a positive outcome similar to that of the other projects, in terms of developing a project plan that is much more widely accepted and supported. At that point, the letter of support needed by the developer could then be put to a vote.

If, on the other hand, you’d rather not slow the developer down and choose to put the needed letter of support to a vote now, the numerous community members who already feel concerned, frustrated and disenfranchised will only feel even more concerned, more frustrated and more disenfranchised as a result – and arguably legitimately so, given how other development projects with potentially significant community impact have been handled in the city in the past.

Sincerely,
Larry Giammo

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Contributor Opinion By Tim Gilday: Beall's Grant Embodies Core U.S. Values

>The following Contributor Opinion is by Tim Gilday:

It’s been my privilege living at Beall’s Grant over the past year: the residence provides warmth, exceptional convenience and a decent, welcome atmosphere. Certainly no place is perfect, but the management team noticeably strives to maintain and continuously improve the facilities, all while keeping an admirable rate of communication with its residents about changes and issues. I’d go so far as to say that the most expensive neighboring apartments and condos would do well to have such an active team tending to them. My (relatively) wealthy friend complained about the difficulty of obtaining service on a leak under his sink for 6 days. I don’t recall seeing more than one or two business days pass for my requests here.

What prompted this letter, then, was a feeling that there exists a certain lack of awareness and a few unfortunate misconceptions held by local community members about the quality of the residents at Beall’s Grant. The only vague truism that could honestly be thrown is that those living in non-free-market-rent apartments likely earn less than the average community member (myself included). And I grant there is little doubt that a meta-study focusing on income and its relations to crime would probably reveal statistically significant results; so that being said, I have empathy and no ill feeling towards those opposing Beall’s Grant II. Nonetheless, it is a broad leap to some of the assumptions I’ve heard made about us and about what will occur to the neighborhood if Beall’s Grant II is successfully constructed. The only desire I have is to allow them to see through my eyes what Beall’s Grant and its residents truly represent.

Thanks to the careful selection of Cliff Bailey and team, the residents of Beall’s Grant are composed of an extremely diverse cross-section of individuals. I’ve met people from all walks of life, some with thick accents and the aroma of their country’s food wafting through their door. If a thick accent and an exotic smell are indicative of anything, I’d say it’s progress. If people want privacy, they close their doors and keep to themselves. But if they care to associate with others, then all I’ve ever met are people working their way through life: some in continuing education, some working tough evening hours, even one woman with a baby who has to travel two hours each way by mass transit to get to her nursing job in Baltimore and back to study and take care of her child. If you want to put it poetically, I see a lot of inspiration.

So, to make a long story short: if one desires to maintain a strong, healthy neighborhood, they need not exclude those who exhibit the core values that the United States was founded on. The only thing we need to do is make sure we check ourselves from time to time to make sure WE are still upholding those values while enabling the betterment of others.

My appreciation,

Tim Gilday

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.

Contributor Opinion By John Britton: Collective Action Can Help Achieve Environmental Goals

>The following contributor opinion is by Rockville City Council member John Britton. (Hyperlinks have been added.) This Friday’s Rockville Central Radio show will focus on sustainability and the environment, so this piece is particularly timely!

On November 12, 2008, the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) adopted the National Capital Region Climate Change Report. The Report offers recommendations and voluntary commitments for the local, county and state jurisdictions in the metropolitan Washington region for the reduction of our region’s carbon footprint and greenhouse gases. It is a Report that focuses on the macro trends of housing, land use, transportation and energy generation and their profound impacts on the environment and, by extension, our public health. The COG staff presented a few weeks ago a briefing on the Report to a joint meeting of the Rockville and Gaithersburg mayors and councils.

The Report is a worthwhile, albeit possibly daunting, read. There is one section in the Report that should be of particular interest to our residents and businesses — Table 5 “Household/Business Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” It identifies no cost, low cost, medium cost and high cost activities that we can undertake to achieve certain greenhouse gas reduction benefits.

The no cost activities include such things as: recycling; change thermostat settings in both winter and summer; set computers to energy-saving setting; drive 10 fewer miles per week; set water heater thermostat no higher than 120 degrees; wash clothes in cold water. A low cost suggestion: change incandescent lighting to compact fluorescent (maybe Rockville should sponsor a change-your-light bulb day). A medium cost activity is to conduct an energy audit of your home. Such an audit could reduce greenhouse gases, create green jobs and, in the long term, put dollars back into the pockets of our homeowners.

The above may seem like trivial activities but if you believe, as I do, in the efficacy of collective action, then they become a significant contribution to our environmental goals.

Councilmember John Britton

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors as well as other guest columns. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. We encourage you to join the growing list of contributors! To submit your piece for consideration, contact us.