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.

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.

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.

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.

‘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.

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.

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?

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.)

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.

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.

Certain people say that “Rockville made a deal with Montgomery County and the State” to build the courthouse at the former Library site, and we should stick to it. No one currently in City Hall, however, can produce any proof of that “deal.”And it certainly isn’t in the public record, and it was not considered by the Mayor and Council in any public meeting back then. So let’s all face reality. The only “deal” was between Montgomery County, at that time led by Rose Krasnow’s mentor Doug Duncan, and the State. It was Ms. Krasnow’s role to try to look out for Rockville’s interests and work to minimize adverse impacts of that deal on Rockville, and it appears that she was trying to do that. For example, in a June 20, 2001 Gazette article, Ms. Krasnow stated, “Given the limited size of Town Center, it’s unfair of the county and state to provide less than their fair share of parking.” True then; even more so today.

As Mayor, certainly Ms. Krasnow wasn’t giving the State a pass on complying with zoning code requirements, or letting them slide on adequate safeguards for pedestrian safety and traffic impacts, when they would later design and build a courthouse on the former Library site. Just as Mayor Susan Hoffmann and the City Council today do not want to let the State build a courthouse that far exceeds the zoning code restrictions for that site. For example, a height limit of 75 feet, compared to the maximum height of about 130 feet of the courthouse building as planned now.

And certainly Councilwoman Phyllis Marcuccio doesn’t want to see the state build such a “grotesque” courthouse there – a word used by her predecessor Glennon Harrison in that June 20, 2001 news article – even though she told citizens at the March 13 Town Hall meeting that the city’s Master Plan does indeed show the site’s future use as courthouse. That master plan does not say, however, that the State is free to flaunt zoning code requirements. It doesn’t give them a green light to ignore important siting and design criteria, and the City’s and residents’ requests to address legitimate concerns about safety, parking, and traffic impacts. Any developer has to do those things. Just because the State didn’t have to, didn’t we deserve that it negotiate in good faith with the community, instead of against it at every turn, as they have in this case since 2001?

As of this morning, more than 215 citizens have signed a petition supporting the Mayor and Council’s resolution opposing construction of the courthouse as proposed, and asking the State to hold up on this ill-conceived $71 million dollar expenditure. These are not “a few influential neighbors” as some would have you believe, and they are not NIMBYs as some have labeled us. They are people from all over Rockville – from Twinbrook, Hungerford, Woodley Gardens, New Mark Commons, and yes, the West End – who have learned the facts behind the rhetoric, just as the Mayor and Council did before they passed their resolution.

We have sent the petition to the Senate and House subcommittees in Annapolis who are considering the courthouse’s place in the budget, along with important information that they may not be aware of. Like the initial building plans that show a 40-foot tall building adjacent to the neighborhood, and the current plans with heights up to 130 feet. We have invited them to come to Rockville to see for themselves what “the fuss” is all about. We sent them bunch of photographs, too, just in case they can’t make it out here. Many people who think they support the courthouse at the Library site change their mind when they learn more about the project, especially how the State mistreated Rockville, and what the State is actually proposing to build. We hope that some of those Senators and Delegates will too.

You hear from the other side of this issue that “now is not the time to oppose this project, why did you wait until it’s too late?” To them I offer the headline of that June 20, 2001 Gazette article: “Debate goes on.” Yes, it does!

And to those who say our actions could keep Rockville from getting this courthouse, again I say let’s face reality. It’s the legislators who hold the courthouse’s destiny in their hands, not the citizens of Rockville, or its Mayor and Council. Isn’t that what they have been telling us all along. Isn’t that what they told Governor Martin O’Malley when he asked them to work out a compromise?

Frank Anastasi
Move the Courthouse Steering Committee

Rockville Central runs occasional, edited opinion pieces by contributors. Their views are not necessarily those of Rockville Central. To submit your opinion for consideration, contact us.

The department heads briefed about 75 attendees (by my quick count) including a number of Rockville Central friends like Mark Pierzchala and Brigitta Mullican. Drew Powell rounded out the core of recent city candidates in attendance. I also spied Christina Ginsberg and a number of others I know.

While a number of items on the agenda had the potential of causing some controversy, the briefings were quite straightforward and the questions informational in nature. Some of the issues will be familiar to Rockville Central readers, such as progress on the drafting of a new zoning ordinance for the City, rollout of the new trash program, creation of a new utility to handle stormwater management, and the needed replacement of some 33 miles worth of City water pipes are giving up the ghost.

(You would have been able to see it all here on the site, but I was not allowed to videotape this meeting. Rather, I was informed I could videotape so long as I allowed the WECA board to review the footage. That didn’t seem very reasonable to me — nor did it seem like it would happen fast enough to allow me to post tonight — so I said “no” and consoled myself with photos. I don’t feel so bad, though: evidently the City had been set to video too, and were given the same ground rules which they couldn’t follow either.)

Here are just a few important concrete tidbits beyond those overall issues (it’s not all, just some highlights:

Police Chief Terry Treschuk announced that the new speed cameras on W. Montgomery Avenue were set to go “live” on March 21, with a two week warning-only period. (So get yer ya-yas out now, leadfeet.)

Recreation and Parks Chief Burt Hall announced that:

• Thursday evening outdoor Town Square concerts would begin on May 1 and last through September 11.
• The Memorial Day Parade would follow a slightly different route this year — it will turn left onto Beall Ave. from Washington, and then go right through Town Square on Maryland Avenue. The judges’ booth would be in the courtyard.
• The city is developing a buskers’ program for Town Center, with outdoor musicians (and other performers?).

Public Works chief Craig Simoneau announced that initial rollout of the new trash system was set to begin in October 2008. And, in response to a very reasonable question from Susan Prince, reported that the best way to get rid of your old trash bins (which will need to be replaced by City-provided bins in the new regime) is . . . well, to use them around the house, for leaf collection or perhaps to store long garden tools. Or give them to your family and friends who may not live in Rockville. If you can’t get rid of them that way, the City will take them as trash. (I am being flip here, but he gave a good answer. There probably isn’t a good way to get rid of the things; they don’t recycle well it turns out).

In response to another question from Susan, Scott Ullery reported the good news that the City appears closer to a deal with Verizon on FiOS than previously suspected. Seems the VZ is coming around to understand that the City requires things get done a certain way on its right of ways. There is nothing concrete, but I would not be surprised if we heard something this year. (Please, I beg of you. I will do anything.)

Then it got a bit interesting.

Though it was not on the official agenda, the efforts of many WECA members to move the court house came up. Council Member John Britton gave an excellent recap, which in most respects covered the points he had written (and which Rockville Central had published, yay us) just a few hours before. Mayor Susan Hoffmann then mentioned that a key budget subcommittee was slated to meet this week and had initially allowed, then refused, to hear live testimony from the City on the reasons the court house should not be built at the old library site.

In essence, the energy of the room was definitely “move the courthouse.”

Then Council Member Phyllis Marcuccio rose and made a statement that I do not agree with but that took a great deal of courage to make, there in that room. I give her a great deal of credit for that.

Phyllis said that her understanding of the previous vote the Council had taken in opposition to the court house was that it was intended to demand that the state work honestly with the City to mitigate the large impacts that it would be having on the neighborhood. She said that as early as the City’s “Town Center Master Plan,” adopted October 22, 2001, maps showed the new court house to be at the old library site. She said that her own review of the documents over the years implied to her that, “should you take the court house to court, . . . you don’t have much of a case.”

Phyllis finished by saying “I withdraw my support of testimony so far,” meaning the effort to move the court house rather than seek to mitigate its impacts.

Given the state of mind of the crowd, you can imagine the r
eaction. But it was getting to be 9:00 pm and WECA president Patricia Woodward runs a taught ship so the gavel fell.

As I said, I don’t agree with Phyllis’ argument, nor am I sure I would interpret the resolution the Council voted on recently to mean they were seeking to “mitigate” and not “opposing” — but that is all beside the point and reasonable people can differ. The statement, in that setting, took guts.

The Gazette’s Warren Parrish was there — so read the Gazette on Wednesday; I am sure he will do a better job of recapping this than me!

This past Monday evening, as reported in the Gazette, a number of residents came before the mayor and council to express their support for the proposed district courthouse on the site of the old library. Many of these residents characterized the mayor and council’s unanimous decision to oppose the current proposal as “hurried,” “ill-advised,” “unseemly,” and “pandering to a small group of activists.” I take exception to these characterizations. With respect to the action by my colleagues, suffice it to say, each based his or her decision on a review of the issues and a considered and thoughtful analysis of their impacts on the community.

With respect to my own decision-making process, these characterizations wholly miss the mark. Rather than react hurriedly to a so-called small group of activists (NOTE: I believe that close to 200 residents have signed the petition to oppose the courthouse), I based my conclusions on a thorough review and analysis over the past few months of the facts and history of the district court proposal. This included a review of the correspondence and the official documents submitted by the State, an analysis of the project description and architectural plans, a viewing of the presentation of the concept plan by the State representatives at the May 2005 mayor and council public meeting, and various public and private discussions on this matter. One may substantively disagree with the results of my review and analysis, but hurried and ill-advised they are not. Furthermore, having identified and, in my mind, verified legitimate community concerns as a result of the adverse impacts of the courthouse, I do not consider opposition to the current courthouse proposal “unseemly.”

I reiterate my public statement that the proposed district courthouse as currently configured on the library site is inappropriate. This does not detract from the comments submitted by Mayor Rose Krasnow who informed us that the State, County and City officials initially agreed to the use of the library site for the courthouse. I respect and defer to Mayor Krasnow’s recollection and interpretation of the events at that time. I respectfully disagree, however, on the consequences of such agreement. First, there is no legal document that binds the City to any course of action; there could not be such a document since the property at issue was not in the City’s control. Second, there could not be any agreement at that time to a particular project because the concept plan was not submitted until 2005. At the time of the earlier concurrence for the use of the library site, there were no plans and designs for the proposed courthouse on which to rely to understand the impacts of the building and its activities on adjacent neighborhoods and the community at large. Finally, despite the fact that the library use was classified as institutional and the courthouse would be similarly classified, the current courthouse proposal significantly increases the scope of such use to an unacceptable level. In fact, the early design of the courthouse appeared to pay more respect to neighborhood impacts and the city’s zoning requirements than the current proposal.

Implicit in everyone’s agreement to utilize the library site should have been an understanding of an appropriateness of the scale and scope of the project vis-a-vis our neighborhoods. Put differently, such agreement should not have been carte blanche for the State to do whatever it desired in total disregard for the impacts on the community. Unfortunately, the project as proposed violates contemporary norms of how a high density structure should approach a low density one and implicates serious parking, traffic flow, pedestrian safety and neighborhood encroachment issues that are unique to this site. Furthermore, in response to the City’s and the community’s concerns, the State committed to work with the community to resolve these issues, a commitment that was more potemkin than sincere in nature.

Put simply, there was a dearth of analyses of the impacts of the courthouse proposal and a myopic focus on the judiciary’s internal needs and agenda – all to the detriment of our community. For these and other reasons that I have previously expressed publicly and despite State expenses already incurred, I continue to find that it is not prudent to invest $70 million in a flawed project.

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.

Rockville’s Mayor and Council Vote Unanimously to Oppose Courthouse Site

Although Supportive of a New Courthouse Within the City, Mayor and Council Dispute Proposed District Court Location

ROCKVILLE, Md., March 4, 2008 — At their March 3 meeting, Rockville’s Mayor and Council voted unanimously to take an official stand against the site selected for the proposed District Courthouse. While committed to the construction of a District Courthouse in the City of Rockville, the Mayor and Council oppose the location of the District Courthouse in its currently proposed configuration at the Southwest corner of East Jefferson Street and Maryland Avenue. The Mayor and Council plan to testify before the State Legislature to express opposition to the current courthouse proposal.

“We don’t oppose the District Court, “said Rockville’s Mayor Susan Hoffmann, “but no other entity would be allowed to build anywhere in Rockville without first examining traffic impacts, pedestrian access, and compatibility with surrounding uses. The state has not responded to our ongoing concerns about these issues.”

Concerns raised by the Mayor and Council and the Rockville community since 2001 center on the building’s incompatible location, lack of parking, and pedestrian safety. Additionally, the proposed building does not meet the City’s zoning codes. Specific concerns are the courthouse’s proximity to a church, a pre-school, an elementary school and an historical neighborhood. As planned, the District Court’s highest point will be adjacent to several historic homes.

Plans for the courthouse do not include parking for the public or the majority of the court’s employees. It is the policy of the state to provide little or no parking for its District Courts. The courthouse is expected to attract thousands of visitors; the majority will have to cross MD Route 28 to access parking.

“There is no doubt that a new District Court is needed,” continued Hoffmann, “but it must be an asset to the community now and in the future.”

The Mayor is expected to testify at upcoming budget hearings in Annapolis.

Council member John Britton later presented an excellent summary of the many problems with the project, and the State’s failure to work in good faith with the City or residents to address their concerns over the years. He then offered a resolution opposing building the courthouse as proposed on the library site, and authorizing a representative to go to Annapolis to testify against the project in an upcoming Senate hearing. Mayor Susan Hoffmann and Council members Anne Robbins and Phyllis Marcuccio voiced strong support. Finally, Councilman Piotr Gajewski recapped his struggle with the issue before reaching his conclusion that, “If the Governor calls [building the courthouse at the library site] malfeasance” then it must be really bad, so he would support the resolution, adding “Let’s go for it!” With that, the resolution passed unanimously.