Even before bill 33-11 was presented, we discussed the idea of having a Wal-Mart near our neighborhood. Wal-Mart is the apparent target of this legislation, which is strongly supported by local labor organizations. Feelings in the neighborhood were mixed on Wal-Mart, but we saw no compelling reason to get involved, except to ensure the property was developed in a way that aligns with smart growth and transit-oriented principles. To be clear, I personally am not a proponent for Wal-Mart and some of their practices. That aside, it remains true that many residents do appreciate the lower costs they can typically find at a store like Wal-Mart. I respect their right to consumer choice and do not impose my personal opinion on them for shopping at Wal-Mart.

When 33-11 came to our attention, the community consensus was much clearer: this bill crosses a line. Like I said, we have no strong feelings for or against large retailers like Wal-Mart, but this bill is about much more than Wal-Mart. It would have a chilling effect on any large retailer considering Montgomery County as a home. When I asked for neighborhood input, the majority of emails I received conveyed negative feelings about this bill. One neighbor called it “legalized extortion”, another felt this was the County’s way of “shaking down” businesses. Somewhat surprisingly, many residents also expressed concern that this bill is unfair to new business, as we already have many large retailers in the County who apparently are not covered by this bill. After discussion, our civic association board voted unanimously to take a position against this bill.

The biggest flaw of this bill is how it is written. Almost all of the things it strives to do are important, valid, and just. The problem is that it will accomplish none of them, and even many of the supporters appear to understand this based on their testimony. A vague description of 'large retail store' and 'recognized civic organization' will make effective monitoring of the implementation costly and cumbersome for the County. For this cost, the community will get very little, if anything, in return. For example, my civic association, our local civic foundation, and our local elementary school parent-teacher association are three groups that would apparently be eligible. If you draw a five mile radius around my neighborhood, those three groups could satisfy the requirements of this bill for every big box store from Bethesda to Rockville, and Potomac to White Oak. Some new flowers and a coat of new paint on the local recreation center are nice, but not likely to significantly protect our quality of life with higher wages or more affordable housing. Our association stands to benefit directly from this bill, but still we are not comfortable with the message it sends.

The expressed intent of this bill is very valid: we want to protect quality of life in the County. Of course the five co-sponsors, and the other four Council members all want this, so the question really is, "Does this bill actually offer us an effective instrument to do that?" In my view and in the view of many of my neighbors, this bill is more of a blunt object that could do more damage than good for the economic development of our County. If you want things like more affordable housing in specific locations, like those around large retailers, engage them directly to get what you want. If you want to give me a tool to protect transit-oriented areas around metro stations, strengthen the CR zone or rewrite our outdated zoning code. Putting an additional, vague layer of regulation on new business in the county is not likely to accomplish your goal of protecting quality of life. Instead, it will only build upon our growing reputation as a County unfriendly to business.

I met Casey during my work on the White Flint Sector Plan a number of years ago. I immediately saw Casey as the type of committed, smart advocate we need in this County for progressive, sustainable land use policy. Not afraid to voice his opinion, Casey became invaluable to the ‘White Flint Movement’ and quickly became known as our go-to guy on cyclist issues. Beyond that though he had a great ability to reach out to many sides, and worked with people on all sides of the issue. This is a rare talent.

Many land use issues are currently swirling around the County. Although White Flint has now entered the implementation phase, we are still wrestling with the CR Zone, a rewrite of our zoning code, sector plans along the Purple Line, and creation of great places within the County that will attract the next generation of professionals. Casey will be a great asset to not only the Planning Board in these areas, but all citizens of this County.

Not to sound like Donald Trump, but that's easy: The budget.

But, again, like Donald Trump, that's too simple. The budget looms over everyone and everything. Always has. Always will. That's true in the best of times, as the County's population boomed, buildings rose, new technology glistened, and tax revenues flowed. Even as the County spent and spent and spent, there was always the realization that the good times would someday peter out.

Exhibit One: Robin Ficker and the voter-enacted limit on new taxes. Does anyone think the voters will rescind the limits?

But the budget's shadow isn't really any bigger in the lean times, as unemployment jumped, property values plummeted, and MoCo citizens watched their earnings and savings shrink like sponges left in the sun. It's still there, now with the Ficker limit as frosting.

It's just that people notice it more when it pinches.

But there's a whole new dimension to the snarkiness right now. Snarling and spitting. Letters from the County to the State: no, we won't pay for the schools to do whatever they want. They have to tighten up like the rest of us. NO, fire back the school czars, we won't and you can't make us. We are the most important thing in the world and the law says you can't cut us.

That just isn't the MoCo way.

Did you see the police demonstration in front of County Executive Ike Leggett's house? Calm. Orderly. One guy told the Washington Post that he came out because he heard they were going to egg the house, but everyone knew he was joking. That's the way it's supposed to be in an activist-dominated, well-informed place like this. OK, make your point, you will be heard, we'll consider it and move on.

Is the budget really that pinched? Is there no money left?

Some people think that the popular phrase “all the low-hanging fruit has already been picked” is actually true this year. Have all the redundancies and inefficiencies and waste been squeezed out of the budget already? Is that why the decisions are so hard?

Apparently not, if you read the County's own study. That study is the January 31 report of the Montgomery County Organizational Reform Commission – commonly known as the Organizational Reform Commission. http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/rsc/upcnty/pdfdocs/mcorc.pdf.

It was a great idea. Get the politicos out of it. Let some objective people look at the underlying structural questions in the County. Once the shouting dies away, maybe we'll see if there is low-hanging fruit left.

The ORC study was conducted by a diverse group of County leaders, most of whom are well-versed in the County's byzantine guts, but none of whom are tied to money-slurping special interests. It was, in the best sense of the phrase, a citizens' review commission. Dan Hoffman, the head of the Citizens League of Montgomery County, was one of the Council-appointed members of the ORC.

The ORC only lasted six months, a mere eyeblink in MoCo time. But in its brief life, the ORC held 16 full meetings, and more than 30 working group meetings. Much of the work was done hand-in-hand with County experts and agency representatives. Some of the presentations were bizarre, like the County employee unions' suggestion that the County's budget woes could be solved if we just didn't put such expensive toilet paper in the jail. Most were much more substantive. As a result, the ORC, even given the usual MoCo restrictions on budget-cutting sentiment, produced some good work.

The ORC's recommendations were extensive, ranging from avoiding duplication by centralizing real estate and other functions the way other governments do to reorganizing many of the advisory boards that sprout like weeds in the local red clay. The savings from most of its 28 recommendations were listed as “unable to quantify” but the overall savings would have been in the millions of dollars. Perhaps $30 million could be saved by simply following some straightforward suggestions for information technology across the County. That's 10% of the overall budget deficit in one suggestion alone.

So the “low-hanging fruit” isn't already gone. Some of it is still there. There are still millions to be saved.

What is making people grumpy, though, is not that they can't see where to get the savings, but that each decision now angers a particular group. That in itself isn't new. But what is new is that the groups whose oxen are being gored are not absorbing the news with the equanimity we expect in this County.

Led by firebrand Gino Renne, County employee unions are treating each potential cut as a mortal wound, running to court when they couldn't get what they wanted. Montgomery County Public Schools ran crying to court, suing the County for daring to give it less than it got last year, even as revenues dropped.

When did we decide that the best way to decide on the County budget was to ask a judge? Isn't that the antithesis of the Montgomery County way?

We all know that the budget cuts are hard. The money's there, but we need the political will to make those cuts. Judges are the answer to a lot of questions, but not political will. Asking a judge to make one of these decisions is the exact opposite of political will; judges are supposed to be above politics.

The root of the problem, however, is something else. What may be driving this whole problem is a concern that a cut today won't be salved tomorrow. That has been the historic basis for MoCo compromise: I'll take a hit today, but I'll be made whole later, and everybody will be better off.

That part of the social contract seems to have broken down. Even in a County where one political party, and really one philosophy, dominates public thinking, we can't get along enough because of fear.

And no one is talking about that.

The Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board is trying to change that by hosting a series of walking and biking tours of the neighborhoods in our community. The next tour is on April 3, when I will be leading a tour of Lyttonsville, a neighborhood of 68 acres on the western edge of Silver Spring, with local activists.

Lyttonsville is a prime example of a part of Montgomery County – and its history – that has been overlooked for too long. Founded in 1853 by Samuel Lytton, a freed slave, the neighborhood was for many decades predominantly African-American. For reasons of race and class, the area was neglected by the county government. The streets were not paved and many residents lacked running water or plumbing until the 1960s, despite its proximity to downtown Silver Spring.

Residents consider their community part of Silver Spring, but school boundaries originally drawn to ensure diversity send many children from Chevy Chase to the neighborhood’s Rosemary Hills Elementary School, while students who live just a few blocks away are sent to Woodlin or Rock Creek Forest Elementary Schools. Consequently, in some ways the neighborhood has connections to the more affluent areas to the west, and its kids go on to attend Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School.

To some degree, the school boundaries, together with the CSX tracks that form the neighborhood’s northern and eastern border, weaken ties to Silver Spring neighborhoods to the east. A narrow bridge over the tracks has been a source of contention, but the bridge is a key access route to the Capital Crescent Trail. When the Purple Line is built, the trail will be finished through the neighborhood and extend into downtown Silver Spring along with a high quality transit option for getting to Bethesda, Silver Spring, and Prince George’s County.

Today Lyttonsville is racially and economically diverse, with many young families joining longtime residents, including about a dozen families descended from the original settlers. The neighborhood has come a long way from its beginnings with little more than a church, a one-room schoolhouse, and a group of houses built by the original residents.

If you would like to learn more about Lyttonsville and get to know some of the people who have worked to make it a vibrant place to live, join us for the tour on April 3. We will begin with lunch at the Parkway Deli at 8317 Grubb Road, followed by a walk and community discussion at the Gwendolyn E. Coffield Community Center, located at 2450 Lyttonsville Road. Please RSVP to caseybanderson (at) aol.com so we will have space for you at lunch.

This exchange was shortly after it came out that MCPS was again considering a lawsuit against County taxpayers. And again, most of the Council appears extremely frustrated with MCPS, the School Board, and especially Superintendent Jerry Weast. Several Councilmembers feel the School Board has been his rubber stamp, although not all School Board members are complicit with Weast’s games (such as threatening to use County taxpayer money to sue County taxpayers). Laura Berthiaume, for example, has spoken out against Weast in the past (I remember a very nice Washington Post Op-Ed awhile back), but the body as a whole appears to be at his mercy. The School Board is part-time, has little staff support, and must manage a budget about the same size as that of the rest of the County combined. Weast has the staff and bargaining power to run over the Board as needed. It has gotten to the point that even past School Board member and current Council President Valerie Ervin has publicly talked about abolishing the School Board.

Of course the problem is money. After closing a billion dollar gap last year the County is faced with another $300m hole. At the same time MCPS is requesting an additional $82m on top of the $1.4m that it got last year. The County Executive has said this is not realistic. I’m not writing this to argue the merits of the MCPS budget request or the validity of the County Executive’s budget. Rather, I’m tired of the current MCPS approach to resolving the problem. The attitude that seems to have saturated top-level MCPS management is now openly discussed in County circles. Even in my limited interactions with some MCPS senior administrators during my time on the Organizational Reform Commission it was clear. They had no interest in working with the County and failed to cooperate in providing us information we requested. Our questions were clearly unwelcome, because our questions indicated there was room for improvement.

So what to do? We know Superintendent Weast is leaving and a search is on for his replacement. Despite his style, it is hard to argue his accomplishments. People move here because our schools are outstanding. Our oldest just entered kindergarten and our experience has been fantastic. However, those interviewing potential Superintendant candidates should NOT just be looking for an easier-to-work-with version of Jerry Weast. The Board needs to change its structure or risk permanent doormat status. The County must give the School Board the planning staff and time to properly manage the massive organization they run. Strategic and planning related elements of the Superintendant function should be given to the School Board. I’m not talking about adding positions, but rather moving them. The School Board should have the ability to stand up to its most powerful employee.

We also need to make adjustments to the Maintenance of Effort law. The Organizational Reform Commission recommendation (Click Here to view the report and go to page 44) in this area warrants serious consideration. State legislation has already been proposed to alter the law (SB 53 and HB 44). These changes will enable the School Board to work with the rest of the County rather than sue it.

In combination, these changes may enable the School Board to work collaboratively with the County Council and Executive, who must represent all County taxpayers and stakeholders. I have a personal, vested interest in a well-funded and properly managed school system. However services such as our library system, police, fire and rescue, our park system, and transit all contribute to our quality of life in MoCo. If those services are irreparably damaged because MCPS and the rest County leadership can’t work together, we may end up asking ourselves, “What’s the point?”

Some might call this a regressive tax. However, if you care about the condition of our watersheds, the environment, and our MoCo quality of life, you should support this progressive move. For more on the Trash Free Potomac River Initiative click this link.

-----------

As you may have read recently, the County is considering a bag tax. The tax would be a 5 cent charge for every plastic grocery bag used by a consumer during a purchase. One of my other hats is president of a civic association that has a massive border with Rock Creek Park. Our neighborhood has done our part every year to try and keep the creek clean, and it is with memories of being knee deep in Rock Creek picking up trash that I say, “Tax my bags!”

Even if you don’t live near or help clean up a local watershed, you live near trees. After the recent windy days we’ve experienced, you can’t miss the bags stuck in trees. They seem to be everywhere. Once they ‘escape’ from your car, house, or trashcan they seemingly last forever and get in everything. I’ve pulled clumps of bags out of Rock Creek from stores that have been out of business for years. I try to not be dramatic. It’s just not my style. But I feel comfortable calling them a scourge. They are especially noticeable during the winter while much of the leafy undergrowth is dead. If you’re in the area of North Bethesda, drive down Boiling Brook Parkway and check out the stream. It’s loaded with bags and feeds into Rock Creek.

Some are concerned that this tax would hurt business, but our surrounding jurisdictions have a similar fee. Some would say that it hurts families who are struggling with already rising food costs, but they can avoid this by simply using the reusable bags that most grocery stores offer. The tax is also estimated to raise about a million dollars for County coffers. Although this should not be seen as a money raising venture, this revenue is sorely needed. When the economy improves this revenue should be dedicated towards storm water management and watershed clean-up projects. This is not just another new tax being imposed by the County. This is a quality of life measure. I’m confident that the County Council understands this and will act now to pass this legislation.

Why talk about Nixon now?

Because Montgomery County may be facing the same kind of high-stakes stand-off, but may have the same kind of leadership opportunity in place.

Montgomery County’s main problem now and in the foreseeable future is a massive budget deficit – estimated at $300 million. The County is limited in its ability to raise taxes. And our leaders have been screaming for the last two years about the damage done when they have to make cuts. Even with all that, the voters clearly rejected an attempt to raise ambulance fees last fall, and don’t look like they’ll be all that willing to raise fees elsewhere.

So the Council and the County Executive are having to stare very hard at the budget numbers, and the tension in Rockville makes the ground quiver. Tempers are on hair-trigger alert.

So let’s talk about the elephant in the corner.

80% of the County’s expenditures are on salaries for government workers and other labor costs, including pensions. MoCo is generous with its workers, and it attracts some of the best. The County’s leadership has always been labor-friendly, and well-connected.

And, with the turmoil in Wisconsin, this isn’t a good time to be fiddling with government worker pensions and other costs. Public employee unions are in a vicious mood, with a statewide effort in a few weeks called “Madison in Maryland” coming up to pressure Governor Martin O’Malley away from demanding concessions from state workers.

Here in MoCo, the mood is the same, with the County’s chief labor provocateur, Gino Renne, giving feisty phone interviews while driving to join the Wisconsin protests. Think how much more cooperative he’ll be after a few nights in a sleeping bag in Madison.

But the County is pressing ahead, asking for $25 million in worker concessions in next year’s budget, less than 10% of the projected deficit. Renne apparently rejected this overture, telling the Washington Post it was a “prelude to a battle.” He would prefer to see “top-heavy management” cut back.

So where does Richard Milhous Nixon come in?

Because there’s a comparison here. The County Council is blessed this year to have elected one of labor’s own as its President. Much of the coverage of her election focused on being the first African-American woman to run the Council, but, Valerie Ervin, a Silver Spring Democrat, is a lifelong labor organizer. She told the Washington Informer in a recent article that “I have worked with catfish workers in Mississippi and textile workers in South Carolina,” Ervin said. “As a union organizer, I have learned to listen and respect people’s work. Unions have played a key role in making sure that people are paid well and have good benefits.”

But she’s also a very sharp leader, with a Master’s degree in Public Administration from the University of Baltimore. She says, candidly, that the present salaries and benefits for County employees are “not sustainable.”

I’m sure Ervin won’t like being compared to Nixon, and clearly the analogy doesn’t stretch far. Nixon had success because he was against the Communists; if Ervin finds success here it will be because she is for labor. But both of them have a clear understanding of their opposition – their needs, desires and limitations.

That alone may be enough to let Valerie Ervin find common ground in a contentious time. Let’s hope so.

The Commission for Women understands the budget constraints facing the County, and recognize that hard choices need to be made. Nonetheless, we believe that the Commission for Women provides vital services to Montgomery County in its current form and ask that you join us in working to persuade the County to reject this ORC recommendation.

For nearly forty years, the Commission for Women has advocated policies that improve the lives of women and families. As part of that advocacy, the Commission has researched and published reports on critical issues affecting women, such as poverty, immigration, employment, pay equity, and relationship violence. The Commission has also provided counseling and career services to more than 3,000 women annually so they can improve their lives. Often, these women are at crisis points in their lives and have nowhere else to turn; the Commission provides them with tools to address domestic violence, maintain stable family relationships, continue their education, and find jobs to move toward economic self-sufficiency. Moreover, the Commission has sponsored the Women’s Legislative Briefing – the largest annual gathering in the State to address the impact of legislation on women – for the past 31 years. In 2010, the Commission planned and implemented the 40th annual bi-annual convention of the National Association of Commissions for Women, bringing together over 150 women from across the country to share information and best practices for supporting the rights and interests of women and families.

The elimination of the Commission for Women will mean that there is no longer an agency within Montgomery County devoted to advocating the empowerment and advancement of women. The issues addressed by the commission are not addressed as matters of policy or legislation by other bodies of county government nor are the services provided by the counseling center duplicative of other county services.

We urge the County Executive and County Council to reject the ORC’s recommendations regarding the Commission and instead make a statement showing strong support for the women and families of Montgomery County and an acknowledgement of the Commission’s fine work in serving their unique needs.

View the Commission for Women Response to ORC Report. (PDF)]]> 2011-02-18T17:57:16+00:00 Dan Hoffman http://www.mococitizens.org/blog/detail/bringing-bikeshare-to-bethesda http://www.mococitizens.org/blog/detail/bringing-bikeshare-to-bethesda#When:01:41:59Z Guest post by Montgomery County District 1 Council Member Roger Berliner.

Last week, I asked the County Executive to lend his support to expanding a robust bikeshare program to the Bethesda area.  Both DC and Arlington have an extensive network of bikeshare stations, and I believe including Bethesda in the continued development of this network makes a lot of sense.

Because of its high metro ridership, proximity to existing bikeshare stations, and connectivity to biking trails in DC - not to mention the traffic impacts related to BRAC - Bethesda is an excellent candidate for expansion of the existing system.  In fact, over 200 residents of Bethesda are already Capital Bikeshare members – and that’s with zero stations in Montgomery County.

I also believe that White Flint, with its exciting new mixed-use development taking place right now, is also a good fit for bikeshare. As this new paradigm in transit-oriented development takes shape, the time is now to ensure that bikesharing is included in the landscape of White Flint. When it is installed, it could be a link between the stations planned in Rockville and the new stations in Bethesda. 

I asked the County Executive to think creatively about how we can move forward on bikeshare quickly. This could include continuing our County’s pursuit of federal grant money to match interest in funding at the state level, and developing a sponsorship model, which could be similar to one in place in Crystal City, to leverage interest from the private sector. With over 110 stations in DC and Arlington, Montgomery County’s partnership in the bikesharing network is overdue.

I look forward to working with Senator Brian Frosh, who has assumed a strong leadership role in supporting this project at the state level; Council President Ervin, who has been and continues to be a strong advocate for bikeshare; our Montgomery County Department of Transportation, which has already secured funding for establishing stations in Rockville and Gaithersburg; and Bethesda stakeholders to explore ways we can make bikeshare happen there, sooner rather than later.  You can read my letter to the County Executive here.   

The author is Vice President of the Montgomery County Council and chairs the Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy, and Environment Committee.

You'll note a strong 'transit first' tone to the original draft (pages 8-10 of the link above). We commend that tone. I can't commend what happened after that. Politics led to this watered down draft.

Next week the County Council will send its transportation priorities to the state for consideration. Four items are being identified in order of importance to the Council and by extension, County residents. The four currently making the list are (in order of priority) the Purple Line, the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and BRAC improvements. At first blush, I’m thrilled that the top three items are public transit infrastructure. However, I am aware that we are requesting assistance for three important projects in extremely difficult economic times and concerned that weak language in support of these may result in one or more being left out.

How hard should we be pushing for these new systems? Independently, any one of them would have the ability to transform the areas they will serve. All three would transform the County and provide a platform for economic development for decades to come. The Purple Line has been the most visible mass transit project for quite some time and has been under serious discussion since 1993. The group Purple Line Now has led this sustained, intense effort. It was finally approved in 2009 and now requires funding. The project would take 20,000 cars off the road, provide a much needed east-west mass transit option, and create jobs and economic development opportunities in east Montgomery County. In my opinion, this project warrants the top spot without hesitation.

The other long awaited project is the CCT. This north-south transit option would alleviate congestion on I-270 and link the more northern reaches of the County with Metro. From my perspective, our auto-oriented policies of the past have pushed development in places like Clarksburg without the appropriate infrastructure. With the approval of the Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan (GSSC), the CCT is even more critical. Any potential the GSSC master plan may have is inextricably linked to CCT. Gaithersburg, Germantown, and Clarksburg have already been allowed to grow without significant mass transit. It’s time we made up for developments practices of the last two decades.

Relative to the Purple Line and the CCT, BRT is a newcomer to the party. However, its impact could eclipse both. The county is currently studying the feasibility of BRT, but the concept has already been incorporated into the most important master plan approved by the county in years: White Flint. In that plan BRT augments the Red Line and acts as the backbone for local trips, alleviating pressure on Rockville Pike and the Red Line. But the BRT goes far beyond that. It could affordably link White Flint with a revitalized Wheaton, BRAC with points east and north, Olney with Aspen Hill, Burtonsville with Silver Spring, and new jobs in the proposed East County Science Center to the rest of the county. The BRT can also be enabled and justified by the current initiative to update the zoning code in the county. As BRT assists in revitalizing aging arterials like Randolph Road, an updated approach to zoning will ensure that people will live near and use BRT. The BRT study going on now will identify some challenges with such a broad concept, but this should not be reason to retreat. One thing that the CCT and Purple Line have that BRT doesn’t is a formal advocacy group. It’s just a matter of time before one comes to life.

Then we have the mess that is BRAC. We will benefit from the additional jobs and revenue, but funding for needed improvements has been hard to come by. The Department of Defense (DoD) has yet to adequately develop a plan to mitigate the impact of BRAC on the community. It’s a critical need and one that threatens quality of life to many communities. However, many of the fixes are road improvements that will have minimal impact and the long term solution still rests with better mass transit options. The Purple Line, the CCT and BRT will all have a positive effect on the area affected by BRAC. When you take into account that DoD should really be funding these improvements, BRAC should be no higher than 4th on the County transportation priority list but the importance of these improvements should be conveyed.

The Council deserves congratulations for having the vision to align its funding requests with its stated desire to move forward with a new approach to land use and transportation policy. The autocentric era of development is unsustainable. We cannot afford to wait any longer to put transit at the top of our transportation priorities.