Court House Construction: Dirt Mostly Gone

>While I was very sad to see the efforts to move the new District Court House away from its currently-planned site at the old public library fail, we’re not going to cry over spilt milk. Demolition is well under way and construction will soon begin.

Here is the latest update from the City on what’s happening:

95% of all the dirt has been exported and should be all cleared by the end of the week. Looking ahead, the west side of the retaining wall will be started within the next two weeks, starting from the south and working north.

Coakley Williams has hired a company that monitors the vibration coming from the construction site to protect the historic homes next door from vibration related damage. Readings so far have shown very little vibration. The State and the City are aware of the constant flow of trucks that must make their way around, and therefore have specific routes that all trucks must use to have as little impact as possible on the neighborhoods.

Coakley Williams and the State realize the amount of dirt and dust that falls on the street, and have hired a larger sweeper that will sweep more thoroughly. Coakley Williams also hoses down trucks before they leave the site to reduce the amount of dirt tracked on the streets. They will not be using water to clean the streets in below freezing temperature, so as not to have slippery roads during the cold season.

As previously mentioned, we are aware that the temporary sidewalk is a cause of concern due to the lack of visibility southbound on 28. We have passed our concerns to SHA, State and Highway Administration, and they are currently working on how to best caution drivers to slow down and be aware of the upcoming traffic light.. Safety is a top priority for everyone involved in the project.

As the City keeps us informed, we’ll pass it along.

State Board Approves New Court House On Old Library Site

>Rockville Central friend Roald Schrack attended an important Board of Public Works meeting yesterday and sent along the following report:

Yesterday, October 15, there was a meeting of the State Board of Public Works that I attended. The Board consists of Gov. Martin O’Malley, Treas. Nancy Kopp and Comptroller Peter Franchot. The Board must approve all public works in the state.

The board unanimously approved the construction of the planned courthouse in Rockville at its planned location on the old library site. The meeting was a public hearing with many items up for decision. Testimony in favor of the planned location was presented by former Mayor Rose Krasnow and [state senator] Jennie Forehand. Testimony against the courthouse construction was presented by Frank Anastasi. The members of the board spoke extensively about their decision and reviewed many points made by proponents and opponents. They consistently supported the construction of the courthouse in the library location. This hearing was the final step in approving the courthouse construction.

Thank you, Roald, for the update.

Listen To The Rockville Central Radio Replay!

In case you missed listening live, you can still listen to >today’s episode of Rockville Central Radio.

Today’s show featured Frank Anastasi, on the Move The Court House steering committee, discussing his group’s new report detailing a number of questions about how the State of Maryland handled the new District Court House that is planned for the old Rockville Library site. The report is based on documents it obtained through a Maryland Public Information Act request.

Frank gave a detailed rundown of what the group found in its investigation and talked about the conclusions the report draws.

From the Move The Court House press release announcing the report:

While MTC has always agreed that a new courthouse is needed in Rockville, it says now that the project as planned is a waste of taxpayers’ money. “We always asked, why can’t we build a better courthouse, at a better location, where adequate parking could be included? Until now, we didn’t realize that we could save money in the process,” said Bridget Newton, an MTC member, and Chair of Rockville’s Town Center Action Team for many years. MTC says that DGS data show the 171,200 square-foot Rockville courthouse as planned would cost $475 per square foot, fifty-four percent more per square foot than it cost to build the new Silver Spring Courthouse. That building was completed a few years ago for $27 million (about $309 per square foot).

MTC suggested to the Board, “… in this time of billion dollar budget deficits, the State can do better than spending more than $81 million on this ill-conceived, extravagant, monument to wasteful government spending.” It asked the Board to deny approval of the contract to demolish the old Rockville Library, which it says could save around $3 million. Another $7 million would come back to the State because Montgomery County would by the site back if the courthouse is not built there. The City of Rockville had offered to buy the site previously.

MTC believes that “tens of millions of dollars more could be saved by building a courthouse with a functional design and adequate facilities, at one of several nearby, available, and more-suitable sites.” The former Giant grocery site, and 255 Rockville Pike, located just outside the Circuit Court’s eastern doors, were two sites mentioned.

Rockville Central Radio will be back next week on Friday, October 10. Just go here to listen.

Rockville Central Radio Friday 10/2: City As Ark; New Court House Report

We hope you will be able to tune in tomorrow at noon to listen to >Rockville Central Radio because we have a fascinating show lined up!

First, we’ll hear from our good friend Ruth Hanessian about the ark that is Our Fair City.

Then we’ll turn to an issue that has been a little dormant of late but that may begin to pick up steam anew: the new District Court House. Frank Anastasi, a member of the Move The Courthouse group, will be on hand to discuss the results of the Freedom of Information Act request they filed back in April. The report they have drafted, I am told, sheds new light on the state’s decision to build a new district court house on the site of the old Rockville Public Library.

As I have consistently been upfront about, I have long been a Move The Courthouse supporter — which does not mean I am not open to hearing and publishing other views. So, please: call into our listener number at 646-200-3332 tomorrow at noon and let’s talk about it!

Just go here to listen on Friday at noon.

POTD: Meat Me At the Giant

>

‘Member that whole Move the Court House thingy? Well, it’s still going strong, I understand. I was just reminded of it whe nI took this photo, because this is the interior of the old Giant grocery store (the green pushpin on the map linked to) — you know, the one folks were suggesting might be a better court house site, instead of smack dab next to a school for young children.

Move The Courthouse Calls For Investigation

In an effort to continue their efforts to get the state to choose a different site for the new >district court house, the Move The Courthouse citizens’ group said Monday that it has asked Maryland’s attorney general and Montgomery County’s inspector general to look into whether the proper procedures were followed when it comes to the state’s decision to place the proposed new courthouse at the old library site.

According to the group’s press release:

The group has asked Maryland Attorney General Douglas Gansler and Montgomery County Inspector General Thomas Dagley to conduct investigations into the circumstances surrounding the State’s planned construction of the courthouse at 99 Maryland Avenue in Rockville. Move the Courthouse has asked for “the true facts concerning how the site was selected, and the subsequent alleged spending of more than $11 million to buy the site and design a courthouse”, according to its letter.

“We believe that due process was not followed, that taxpayers and lawmakers were mislead, and that former as well as current elected officials and public employees may have acted improperly in making ‘deals’ to ensure that the courthouse would be built at that location” the group wrote.

The full release has been posted at this link.

Civics Lessons In Council Chambers

I attended this evening’s meeting of the Mayor and Council mostly to hear citizens’ testimony on the budget — tonight being the last official opportunity for comment. Much of the testimony was by people who lead organizations who deliver the human services that far too many of our Rockville neighbors need to avail themselves of. Each cut of $3,000 to this or that program translates into a serious human impact and, when weighed against a budget in the tens of millions, does not feel like too much to put back in.>

One speaker pointed out that the amount of money the City spends on human services (such as emergency shelter for homeless people, or medical clinic services for uninsured) is far, far less than 1% — she expressed the desire, one day, that the City might reach 1%. “We could do a lot with that,” she said. (I am sorry I did not attribute that quote so I can’t say for sure who it was who said it.) (UPDATE: Piotr passed along that it was Agnez Saenz from Community Ministries of Rockville – Caregivers’ Coalition. Thanks Piotr!)

This came about 30 minutes after the ceremony officially designating April 25 as Arbor Day in Rockville, which is one of four criteria required for Our Fair City to earn recognition as a Tree City by the Arbor Day Foundation. One of the criteria is that the City spend at least $2 per resident on tree planting and maintenance (it is probably more involved than that, but that is the gist). With our approximately 60,000 residents, we need to spend at least $120,000 for the designation — turns out we spend upwards of $1 million. I don’t mean to get anyone upset, but maybe that’s somewhere we could look. I’m just sayin’.

Anyway, speaking of designations, of interest was an item that followed the budget. The City took up the question of whether to designate the old Rockville Library site as being of historic value. Many see this as an important move in the City’s overall effort to get the State decide to build its new court house elsewhere. The substantive argument for the designation is that this is one of the few examples of this kind of modern architecture in the City — and it most certainly is the only one facing imminent destruction.

Problem is, the City’s designation seems to have no formal power in this particular case, because the State is within its authority to ignore municipalities’ local ordinances.

Council member Piotr Gajewski twice voted alone in the minority, first against a procedural move that allowed the matter to come to a vote (instead of waiting for a week) and second against the measure itself.

In his comments, he referred to the result of the City making such a designation, in the face of the State’s authority to simply ignore it, as “sticking a finger in the eye” of the state.

Mayor Susan Hoffmann replied “My vote will not be to stick a finger in the eye of anyone.” She followed with an impassioned reminder that the State, County, and City are all different animals: “We are a separate and independent government, and we have every right” to do this, she said. I thought I was in a Frank Capra movie (and I mean that in a good way)!

But, to my mind, fireworks aside, council member Phyllis Marcuccio reasonably offered what I felt the best substantive argument for voting for the historic designation even in the face of its possible anemic effect. She imagined a scenario in which, somehow, the state chose some other path for its courthouse. So the building goes to the County. Then, in this same scenario, the County chose not to do anything with the land but sold it to a private entity. So now it’s in the hands of a developer. “In that case,” said Phyllis, “I want the City to be protected.”

Which seemed like a very reasonable argument to me.

Just my opinion. What do you think?

Cold Turkey On The Courthouse

Dear Readers:>

Lately, to some of you, this blog may seem to have become “all Court House, all the time!” Certainly the location of the District Court House is an important and contentious issue. People have strong views on both sides.

But, I believe at the moment just about all the arguments on both sides have been aired and those who are going to change their minds have done so. The issue has shifted from one where the chief tactic being deployed is reasoned argument to one where the tactics are more political. That does not make these tactics worse. But, it does mean that the opinion pieces about the court house have begun restating positions already taken, only more emphatically. I include myself in that; I am not criticizing anybody.

And so, I have made an editorial decision that for the time being Rockville Central is going to swear off of opinion pieces (by us here at the blog as well as contributor opinions) about the district court house.

As I have said repeatedly — because I believe it is an important transparency issue — I am personally opposed to the old library site for the court house. I think even if there was an agreement from the turn of the century to put it there, that now that there are other options possibly on the table, they ought to be looked at more closely and taken more seriously. I believe that there is nothing wrong with the affected neighborhoods, after having their protestations and complaints ignored for many years the apparatus of the state, to take the issue into a more combative arena. That’s just politics. That said, I also see arguments on the other side and am sympathetic to them. For me, they do not outweigh the neighborhood’s arguments, but they are valid and I have done my best to make sure they have a full airing in these “pages.”

This decision is not final for all time. If significant developments occur that seem important to weigh in on (or new voices come to the fore with important new arguments) we may well run them. But look to see far less on this subject for the time being.

This only applies to opinion pieces. If there is news on this issue, of course we will report it.

Here are some of what I think have been the most interesting arguments on this issue so far:

• Detail on the City’s official position.
• Council Member John Britton’s analysis of the issue, including the conclusion that there are many valiud reasons to oppose the court house at the old library site.
• Former Rockville Mayor Rose Krasnow’s contention that the City should honor its deal with the state to place the court house at the old library site.
• Letter by Brigitta Mullican in this week’s Gazette reiterating some of Krasnow’s points.
• Recap of the “timeline” of how this all unfolded, from 2001 to now, by Frank Anastasi.
• Argument that there’s wasn’t a deal with the state, or that it is not valid anymore, by Frank Anastasi.
• Montgomery County Bar Association Mary Ellen Flynn’s email and opinion piece recapping some of the state’s arguments
• Christ Episcopal Church’s statement of their opposition to the proposed location of the court house

These aren’t the only, or even necessarily the best, pieces on this issue. Just some of what I think have been the more interesting ones. I encourage you to follow this link and read to your heart’s content!

(The lovely oil painting of Blind Justice is by Doug Rugh.)

Contributor Opinion by Eileen McGuckian and Mary van Balgooy: Peerless Rockville Preserving Recent History

>The following contributor opinion is by Eileen McGuckian, Executive Director Emerita, and Mary van Balgooy, Executive Director, for Peerless Rockville:

Dear Rockville Citizens,

This is a response to a comment made by Roald Schrack in his recent opinion piece for Rockville Central. Toward the end of his discussion of the Mayor and Council’s actions regarding the location of the proposed District Courthouse, Roald wrote:

“In a parallel move to block the construction of the courthouse at the library site, there was an attempt to declare the old library a Historic Site and thus immune from destruction. The Planning Commission denied the request last week.”

Peerless Rockville has for almost 34 years followed its mission of preserving buildings, spaces, objects, and information important to Rockville’s heritage. To advance this mission, Peerless Rockville has utilized education, example, advocacy, and community involvement. There has never been an instance of Peerless Rockville viewing a proposal or initiating an action that does not conform to this mission.

In 2003, Peerless Rockville initiated a program entitled “Rockville’s Recent Past.” It is a pioneering study to create a database of information on buildings constructed in Rockville between 1914 and 1984, with particular emphasis on the post-WWII decades of the 1950s through the 1970s. The study has thus far produced a survey of 300 properties and has identified 50 or 60 of these, including the 1971 Rockville Regional Library, as of paramount importance to our community. This project also held a symposium on the Recent Past in October 2006, an outgrowth of which is a Recent Past Advisory Committee composed of residents, property owners, preservation professionals, academics, and others interested in this time period.

It is incorrect to frame Peerless Rockville’s motives in the context of the current controversy about the location of the new courthouse. Simply, Peerless Rockville has been at this for a long time, and the information about the 1971 Library has been around for years. Our staff has featured it in presentations and newsletters and in education and outreach programs, some of which have been televised on The Rockville Channel and made available to a wide public audience.

In May of 2007, Peerless Rockville proceeded with the nomination to the Historic District Commission because our research demonstrated that the Library is significant. Historically, it is our City’s first full-service, purpose-built library. Completed in 1971, it was the culmination of a century-long odyssey to build a permanent facility for library services in Rockville. It is an emblem of the City’s post-war emergence as a major suburban center. Architecturally, it is the only International Style library in Montgomery County and is one of Rockville’s best-known modernist buildings.

Peerless Rockville’s objective is not to block anything but to do what Peerless has always done. Following our nomination nearly a year ago, the Historic District Commission held two public hearings and open discussions, then in June 2007 voted that the property meets the criteria for designation and recommended it to the Mayor and Council. This nomination sat in the City Manager’s office while the District Courthouse issue was heating up. The Mayor and Council unanimously agreed to take up the nomination by its action on March 3 to authorize filing of the Map Amendment.

The Recent Past is the Rockville we know today. Increasingly citizens, institutions, and local governments, including the Planning Commission, are coming to the realization that buildings of the mid-20th century are an important part of our heritage, equally important as the Victorian architecture Peerless has espoused and protected since the 1970s.

Peerless Rockville shares the concerns of the citizens against the courthouse in the context of our mission. We are deeply concerned about the negative impacts the proposed structure would have on the existing adjacent Historic Districts. On Washington Street and in Courthouse Square are 12 significant buildings that were listed in the National Register of Historic Places and in a Rockville designated Historic District two decades ago.

Lastly, let me remind you of the process of historic designation in Rockville, the same as in the rest of Maryland. A property is nominated, the Historic District Commission and Planning Commission make recommendations, and the governing body (the Mayor and Council) makes the decision. It is the same process as a Map Amendment. And, unfortunately, nothing is ever immune from destruction. Buildings designated as Rockville Historic Districts have been demolished in the past, and they will be in the future. As has been discussed and reported, State actions and wishes trump those of the local jurisdiction.

So in the end, the question that will come before the Mayor and Council at the public hearing on this Map Amendment on March 31 is whether the 1971 Rockville Regional Library meets the criteria for designation as a Rockville Historic District.

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 Roald Schrack: Report On Court House Activities

>The following contributor opinion is by Roald Schrack. It is a report he wrote for the members of the Alliance of Rockville Citizens:

I have struggled about how to report the Mayor and Council activities about the Courthouse location. First let me disclose that I, personally, do not think there are adequate reasons to block the construction of the courthouse in the current location. In large measure I see this conflict in the same light that I see the way the trash issue developed as the work of a very vocal minority to impose its position on the city. But the real problem I have is the way that the Mayor and Council went about it. I am very sorry to say that people that I strongly backed for election to the M&C have acted in what I consider is a very unfortunate manner.

The meeting of the M&C on March 3 was a calculated effort to justify the desires of the West End Citizens Association (WECA). Known only to the activists in WECA and its allies a plan was made to pass a motion that night. There was nothing on the agenda to warn supporters of the library site location that there would be action taken. But WECA and its allies arranged that people supporting their position should be there to testify in behalf of moving the courthouse location. Meanwhile it was necessary to have a motion prepared in advance to vote on. To have any political effect in Annapolis, such a motion must have unanimous support. It took a number of emails back and forth to all the councilmembers to achieve a wording that was acceptable to all the members of the M&C. Finally, on the afternoon of March 3 the final version was crafted.

The following wording of the motion was read by John Britton at the M&C meeting:

“While the Mayor and Council are committed to the construction of a District Courthouse in the City of Rockville, the Mayor and City Council, and the City of Rockville oppose the location of the District Courthouse in its currently proposed configuration at the Southwest corner of East Jefferson Street and Maryland Ave. and desire to have it relocated. In furtherance of this position, the Mayor and Council authorize its representative to testify on behalf of the Mayor and Council before the State Legislative Committee to express its opposition to the current courthouse proposal.”

The motion was passed unanimously. The only problem was that the motion agreed to by email a few hours before did not include the words in boldface. Most members of the M&C did not notice the change in wording and no indication of the change was made. During the next two days some members found that they had voted for something other than what they thought. It should not be considered surprising then that at a “Town Hall” meeting of the M&C with WECA on March 13 , councilmember Marcuccio stood up at the end of the meeting and announced her opposition to any further city actions to move the courthouse and withdrew her support for city testimony that was to be given against the site.

The Mayor wanted to testify on Friday, March 14 at Annapolis but now a member of the council was no longer supporting the attempt to move the courthouse. Interestingly, the letter to the State was backdated to March 12, to a time when it still appeared that the full Mayor and Council supported the effort to move the courthouse. On Friday, the Senate Committee voted to allot $41 M for the first year of construction and then $30M for the second year. From comments at the House committee hearing, it looks like the House will also move ahead with construction at the library site.

In a parallel move to block the construction of the courthouse at the library site, there was an attempt to declare the old library a Historic Site and thus immune from destruction. The Planning Commission denied the request last week. Another move planned by opponents of the courthouse is to sue the State to stop it. Councilmember Marcuccio told the WECA meeting that she felt that: “there was plenty of documentation to suggest you don’t really have a case.” At this point there are no other moves known.

The back history of the activities of groups and individuals in the plan to block the courthouse construction is very disquieting. Rockville was known for its open and transparent government.

What now?

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.