The pressure to transform the suburban Westbard area of Bethesda into an urban town center is not coming from residents. According to Montgomery County planner Marc DeOcampos, 85-90% of resident feedback during the week-long Westbard Sector Plan charrette was in favor of low-density development.
With those same residents panning the initial concept plan last week, and no clear incentives or perks to justify the negatives of urbanization on the Westbard area, where will any support for radical change come from in the Westbard Sector Plan process at the Planning Board and County Council levels?
Follow the money.
Developer Equity One, which owns all of the commercial properties along Westbard Avenue and Ridgefield Road, has partnered with local development firm EYA. EYA has donated many thousands of dollars to councilmembers. Here's a chart detailing checks the firm and its leaders have written to those members of the Montgomery County Council:
EYA (corporate)
2010
Nancy Floreen $250
Hans Riemer $500
2013
Hans Riemer $500
2014
Hans Riemer $500
Nancy Floreen $500
Bob Youngentob
George Leventhal $250
Nancy Floreen $1000
Hans Riemer $1100
LeRoy Eakin
Hans Riemer $500
Frank Connors
Hans Riemer $100
Aakash Thakkar
Hans Riemer $743.12
The grand totals are $1750 for Councilmember Nancy Floreen (D-At-Large), $250 for Councilmember George Leventhal (D-At-Large), and a whopping $3,200 for Councilmember Hans Riemer (D-At-Large).
All 9 councilmembers will have the final say on the Westbard Sector Plan. If anyone keeps pushing for higher than 45' buildings in the plan, now that residents have made clear they are opposed, you'll know where it's coming from. Follow the money.
More vague conspiracy-mongering. Any worthwhile reporter would also note the aspects of this that make it seem a lot less likely EYA is trying to buy off politicians for more Westbard development rights:
ReplyDelete1. EYA is headquarted in Bethesda
2. EYA has at least half-a-dozen completed or in the pipeline projects in Montgomery County
3. EYA hasn't even officially been named a partner in Equity One's plans
But go ahead RD, keep pitching this BS.
10:07 Are you serious? EYA is partnered with Equity One, and has had representatives at the public meetings. What do the factors you refer to have to do with EYA needing approval from the councilmembers they contribute to for higher density?
DeleteSo you're saying the landowners want to build on their own land?
ReplyDeleteAnd they want to build above standard allowed limits? Which the residents don't like, but the planning board has authority to allow?
So you are suggesting that the aforementioned council members are letting the developers do that they want on their own land, despite what current residents want (with no legal power to do anything about it).
10:09: They can't go over 45' without a zoning change. Residents overwhelmingly oppose the zoning change. Where, then, is the compelling argument for change? What are the tremendous benefits for residents that outweigh the many negatives of the current proposal? Should developers be put above residents who are also landowners?
DeleteWho grants a zoning change? I don't imagine the council members actually do that?
Delete1:12: Again, the Council has final say on any Sector Plan. That's the legal structure we're working under here.
DeleteI'm sure EYA is looking for a return on their investment.
ReplyDeleteSo for a few hundred bucks of campaign donations you are straight up accusing said council members of having their decisions swayed in something they don't have much power over? Isn't this the planning board's realm? I seriously doubt Decampo is taking developer money.
ReplyDelete10:10: First of all, this report is about what money councilmembers got, not planners. I never said a planner got a campaign contribution anywhere in the article. Second, the 3 councilmembers mentioned do vote YES to projects by developers they receive donations from. Just line up their checks and votes to see for yourself. Finally, the Council is indeed the ultimate authority, not the Planning Board.
DeleteWait the council has to vote on every project that the planning board approves???
Delete1:13: The Council votes on every Sector Plan passed by the Planning Board.
Delete@10:09AM: The planning process isn't supposed to be about just signing off on what is legally allowable.
ReplyDeleteThe planning board takes a holistic view of plans, not just whether it's legal or not.
Sure. I concur. But if it's allowed already then there's nothing they can do about it. If they are asking for more than what's allowed, the planning board should take into consideration all factors. This includes the current resident opinions but is not limited to just those few hundred people. Long view planning needs to be taken into account too.
DeleteJust curious how the council members have final say?
ReplyDelete10:11: They have the final say on any Sector Plan passed in the County. The Council can overrule anything the Planning Board proposes.
DeleteOk so you are saying they can overrule. But they don't actually submit the plan idea, right? The supposed experts on the planning board do, right? So if your experts tell you something is the right thing to do, do you ignore it and go with your voters? That sounds awful like your suggestion they are going with the deceloper's from their donations.
Delete1:15: You consider councilmembers voting against the wishes of actual residents to be a good thing? Especially when they've been paid by developers to do so? I don't think you'll gain much public support for that idea.
DeleteIn light of this report, it will be interesting to hear Mr. Riemer weigh in on Westbard. Will he listen to the residents?
ReplyDeleteWhat could Reimer do even if he wanted to listen to the residents?
Delete10:16: Riemer can vote NO on the plan, that's what he has the ultimate power to do.
DeleteDyer, what exactly is your point? Can you give a specific accusation and just say it in plain words instead of vague "hmmm.. Look at this coincidence..." type of loose conjecture? It will help us understand your specific and exact point.
ReplyDelete10:15: I was clear - if you hear about high-density urbanization of suburban Westbard as a good thing, even as residents clearly oppose it, consider who's been paid what by the developers.
DeleteOk so please again what is your exact accusation?
DeleteWhile 85-90% of the people who _attended the charrette_ may have been against more development, that doesn't necessarily represent the views of the overall people living nearby. Most people are probably too busy to take time out of their day to attend these.. or they don't care enough. Tyranny of the minority.
ReplyDelete10:35: The views expressed are entirely consistent with the household survey conducted by the Citizens Coordinating Committee on Friendship Heights, and comments at community meetings. The charrette is the process the County chose, not the residents. They've provided certain mechanisms for public comment, including email and social media comments. If the results of that outreach are not what you like, it's too late to turn the game board over and run away now. All residents had equal opportunity to show up, and the overwhelming consensus was to reject heights over 45'.
Delete10:35AM: media reports indicated a packed house for the evening meetings. I'd hardly say they were poorly attended.
ReplyDeleteLots of white hair at those meetings. It looked like a Tea Party gathering.
ReplyDelete11:47: Your offensive ageism aside, you obviously did not attend the meetings. The ages ranged from young parents to senior citizens. There aren't many new parents concerned about school overcrowding with white hair.
DeleteI think that this is what bothered Robert the most:
ReplyDeleteEYA (corporate)
2010
Robert Dyer $0
2013
Robert Dyer $0
2014
Robert Dyer $0
Bob Youngentob
Robert Dyer $0
LeRoy Eakin
Robert Dyer $0
Frank Connors
Robert Dyer $0
Aakash Thakkar
Robert Dyer $0
The grand total is a whopping $0 for Wannabe Councilmember Robert Dyer (R-Loser).
"The pressure to transform the suburban Westbard area of Bethesda into an urban town center is not coming from residents."
ReplyDeleteGee, maybe the pressure is coming from the people who own the land!!!!
Those NIMBYs in Westbard don't need a town center because they just come into downtown Bethesda clog up our streets and make it less livable.
12:09: So you favor sprawl at Westbard over growth at Metro-served urban areas like downtown Bethesda?
DeleteThose numbers don't sound that big given what's at stake. And besides aren't large firms expected to make modest donations to the campaign funds of whomever is in power?
ReplyDelete12:38: Thousands of dollars sounds small to you?
DeleteVery small to affect a councilmember's vote. Yes.
DeleteOh, look at that, more conspiracy theories and libelous innuendos from Dyer. I have half a mind to start a blog and just post idiotic claims about how Dyer's a communist who runs for office so that he can turn Westbard into a Frito Lay factory to support his junk food addiction.
ReplyDelete12:52: Everything in the report is fact. You can't get around that.
DeleteYour logic implies connections from facts. That isn't fact. That's conjecture.
DeleteYou eat fast food. You support fast food chains. Facts. You therefore are conspiring against the health of our youth. Conjecture. Not fact. Now apply this to your other statements of fact.
4:40: False comparison. The Council can impose urbanization on a neighborhood; I don't have legal authority over people's dining choices.
DeleteHaha. Idiot.
DeleteLet the market rule then. Organize a fundraiser for anyone besides Reimer, and get enough voters in the room to let the council members know that folks care, are putting money where their mouths are and will vote. At the least you would get heard and demonstrate the ability to get voters to show up.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if any of these people are seriously swayed by a couple of thousand dollars, I'd be floored. Its the jobs they probably care about and the tax revenue attached for construction and residences. That's the real driver here, not 500 bucks.
1:15: There are no jobs. There's no office space in the plan. So the jobs will be baristas and folding jeans in boutiques. Not a tax boon for the county when you factor in the county expense for low wage workers in services.
DeleteYou've bought into the urban legend of "more housing units = more tax revenue." The County underwent explosive growth over the 20 years. Yet we have a structural deficit in tax revenue. The reality is that the services and personnel costs of residential growth (schools, transportation, police, fire, etc.) outstrip the tax revenue.
"You consider councilmembers voting against the wishes of actual residents to be a good thing?"
ReplyDeleteYes, if the vote is in the best long-term interest of our community and the residents against it won't even be there in the lifespan of the master plan.
"Especially when they've been paid by developers to do so?"
Actually the numbers you cited in your super-duper "special investigative report" went to the candidates' campaign funds not their personal pocketbooks.
(Also, congrats on taking five minutes to search the state's online database. Very special investigation indeed.)
Absolutely agree. If the residents are short sightedly seeing their own needs versus a long term plan (like the master plan) then I very much think the planners and council members should do what is best for the long haul.
Delete@ 1:12 PM: "So you favor sprawl at Westbard over growth at Metro-served urban areas like downtown Bethesda?"
ReplyDeleteMore dense, more focused development at Westbard is not "sprawl", you dunce.
1:36: It is sprawl because it is not located at a Metro station. Jamming thousands of people and cars into non-transit-oriented site is classic sprawl at its best.
DeleteI doubt EYA is giving money and not expecting some return on that.
ReplyDeleteOf course they're trying to influence people and have like minded folks in power.
@ 1:40 PM - Do you take the Metro every time you go to downtown Bethesda?
ReplyDeleteWhat, you don't?
Hypocrite.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteHaha. Yes! That's good.
DeleteWhy did that get deleted? Because it hurt Bobby's feelings? Anything he deleted before violated policy. How did that one violate policy? Or rob is just censoring now?
DeletePer bob's own words that did not violate commenting policy. So really Robert is just being sensitive and deleting things he doesn't like.
DeleteCensorship, one might say. Fact. Bobby is against freedom of speech. It's a conspiracy.
Why not include contributions from development attorneys, and the folks who shepherd plans through technical review, and the various lobbyists?
ReplyDelete@ 3:23 PM
ReplyDeleteHow is not being responsive or weighing the desires of constituents poor governing? That's how people lose elections.
If enough people care by showing interest, and raising money, many things are possible. If not, they would simply weigh resident's input less, its that simple. Either side should ask themselves, what would motivate the Councilmembers, they're the final say. Use that to get what you want, its not rocket science.
@RD, there will be plenty of economic impact of building, construction materials, jobs building, planning, designing, maintaining, etc. Many of those are constituents, they would be motivated. While you're correct that social support may outstrip tax benefits in some cases, just waving people off in a major MSA isn't reality. (that doesn't mean anyone wants 120 foot building in their back yard especially without the infrastructure to service it)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete"Citizens Coordinating Committee"
ReplyDeleteHmmm... "CCC" sure sounds like a dog-whistle to me. I believe that they used names like that in the South in the 1960s.
1:14 PM Dyer I assume that large companies who do frequent business with the county are expected to pony up something to maintain their place at the table. An above board reportable contribution of $1000/year for a large wealthy county like Montgomery doesn't strike me as unseemly. Of course anything of a personal nature, that would be a different matter.
ReplyDelete3:16 There is no Metro at Westbard.
ReplyDelete3:23: "what is best for the long haul."
ReplyDeleteWhat does that mean? Developers making big bucks by urbanizing Westbard is "best for the long haul," and overrides the "short-sighted needs" of the residents?
Tell me more! What is the public need and benefit for jamming thousands of people and cars into a sprawl development nowhere near a Metro station?
What is "the long haul?" Are you anticipating some cataclysmic event or something? Do tell.
I'm trying to understand your astonishing talking point that residents and voters don't matter, and the out-of-town developers do. Please do try to have Hans Riemer, Nancy Floreen and George Leventhal announce that publicly; it should be an entertaining response from the public.
Developers over residents.
Is your next talking point, "Developers are people, my friend!"?
4:38 True. I will do future installments of the Westbard Follow the Money. There's also money that's difficult to trace, because it's passed through dummy corporations and LLCs.
ReplyDeleteI thought you said you had proof you traced it?
Delete4:36: I did - read the list above.
Delete5:32 Those jobs are temporary, and the revenue from them will not cover the taxpayer costs of the new development. Furthermore, there is not a single square foot of office space being proposed, which means there won't be any high-wage jobs. Ergo, there will be no "live where you work" offset for the new residents. That means this is sprawl development away from Metro with no revenue benefit for the county, and no clear benefit in the current proposal for residents. Who's left to benefit? The developers.
ReplyDeleteI am shocked. Shocked.
"Development firms are people, my friend!"
Still waiting for the people saying "residents don't count" to use that line.
6:43 Never said it was "unseemly." Just pointing out where the influence for high-density urbanization is coming from. It's an Astroturf effort, because there is no grassroots demand for urbanization around Westbard.
ReplyDeleteYour logic: you have a dollar to a homeless man once. You like sex. This is evidence you use prostitiutes.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDyer is an unhinged escaped mental patient. I would feel safer if he were locked up away from normal people.
ReplyDelete@ 3:33 AM - Dammit, your comment just caused me to wake up several neighbors.
ReplyDeleteIn a way, it's a shame that he didn't get elected. His press conferences would have been so much fun.
@ 10:06 PM
ReplyDelete"there is no grassroots demand for urbanization around Westbard."
There's plenty of demand from the folks who actually own that land, as well as from the potential residents who would like to live there.
P.S.: The first word of the captcha that I had to enter for this comment was "alla". That's incontrovertible proof that Dyer is a terrorist.
Makes sense following Dyer's logic. Evidence! Proof! Facts!
Delete4:08: So your position is that "Development corporations are people too, my friend!" Lots of people would like lots of things, but not all of them are legal or wise decisions. But I admire your Romneyesque spunk, in any case.
DeleteActually corporations kind of are people too. Per tax codes.
Delete7:39: Please do expand on this idea - "Development corporations are people, my friend!" It's a heck of a PR talking point to have to base a corrupt Sector Plan on.
DeleteLOL, the only ones "imposing" anything here are the NIMBYs.
ReplyDelete5:07: The status quo is not imposition. Radical urbanization by a handful of developers and county officials would definitively be imposition.
DeleteThe posting of vulgar, bullying comments only proves that you have lost the argument, because you have no facts to back you up.
ReplyDeleteThat guy's example was certainly extreme but his logic flow followed your exact fact pattern...
DeleteWhat was vulgar about it?
DeleteJust goes to show you pick and choose 'em as suits your agenda and opinion.
5:54: It's embarrassing that anyone would defend childish, vulgar comments as being legitimate, civil debate. Most people are wondering where these ill-mannered pro-developer folks are coming from. You're not winning any support with these foul, garbage messages you're posting here. It's a PR campaign that has backfired - bigtime. You're talking about one of the most highly educated audiences in the world, and they are not impressed by your schoolyard bully profanity and vile language, to say the least. Minus one for developers abd "smart growth" on this one...
DeleteDyer doesn't like the use of facts and his "logic" when it's turned against him, yet he walks around slandering other people on a weekly basis. And then Dyer cries that he's the one being bullied and unfairly targeted. Hil-freakin-arious.
ReplyDeleteVery well put.
Delete7:38: What a sad commentary about local journalism that anything that doesn't make the tired politicians of MoCo sound good is labeled "slander." Embarrassing.
DeleteMy position is that development corporations own the land, and you don't.
ReplyDeleteAnd they aren't telling you what you can do with your own land.
If you and your neighbors don't like their plans, then you should get together and buy the land from them so you can let it lie fallow until you all pass on.
8:34: No one is stopping them from building now to 45'. But the developers are asking for more than they are currently allowed to build. Hence the residents indeed have a say in whether or not that happens.
DeleteNot really. The planning board has a say.
Delete@8:34AM
ReplyDeleteThat's not how the development process works! The Planning Board has to take a holistic view of a plan: what are it's impacts, benefits and negatives.
Developers aren't just checking boxes off on what's legal or not.
7:42: My investigative reports are entirely based in fact, as evidenced above. What is your personal interest in the Westbard development that you are so emotionally invested in it? What do you have to lose if developers' ambitions are not realized?
ReplyDeleteDyer could not make himself look any worse. Even that one commenter who defends him - Woodmont - can't defend this clusterfuck of a "special investigation." Even more intellectually embarrassing than usual, Dyer. Kudos.
ReplyDeleteWords you'll never see together: "Special Investigation" and "Bethesda Gazette" (or any MoCo Gazette for that matter).
ReplyDeleteLet's me Thankful this season for Robert's investigative reporting. Speaking truth to power.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete1:41: You've been banned from this site several weeks ago when I gave you your last warning to leave. You are guilty of defamation, harassment, cyberbullying through your comments on this site, which are in violation of my comment policy, the Google Terms of Service and state and federal law. Any further comments you post of that nature will be recorded. You are welcome to participate in a civil discussion on here. You are not welcome to harass, spam and bully.
DeleteThis is uncivilized. Please use facts.
ReplyDelete