Wednesday, November 19, 2014

RESIDENTS REJECT WESTBARD CONCEPT SECTOR PLAN (PHOTOS)

The wraps came off the Westbard Concept Framework Plan last night at Westland Middle School, and residents quickly were asking them to be put back on again. "We just don't want it," might be the best summation of 90 minutes of resident feedback to Montgomery County planners. "This is the beginning, not the end," Westbard Sector Plan project manager John Marcolin said at the outset, as Phase 1 of a 2-year process came to a close.


Everything in the plan revealed Tuesday evening had mostly been seen last week, with the exception of a new 80' building shown for the area of the Westwood Shopping Center parking lot over by Westland. Previously, that site had been been proposed to have a height limit of 50', a significant difference. Given that Equity One's land area had only increased since Friday, with the deletion of a new elementary school site on the current Springhouse nursing home property, it was unclear what the developer had done over the weekend to suddenly gain 30' of bonus density. A second 80' tower would be allowed on Ridgefield Road where the Westwood Center II and Citgo currently stand, and all of River Road would be given a 75' height.

One connector road remains an option from Westbard Avenue to River Road along the Capital Crescent Trail, but an alternate map shows it cut-off from Westbard. That alternate map also shows an extension of Dorsey Lane to Little Falls Parkway. An extension of Butler Road to the parkway remains, as well. There will apparently be a parallel road alongside Westbard Circle at the border of Equity One's property with the Kenwood Place condos. Westland MS would still gain a new soccer field, but the impact on the forest area around the school was not discussed. Little Falls Library is shown moving into the "town square" at the current Westwood Shopping Center site, and its current location being used for a new elementary school.

With attendance estimated at 250 people, the 100 printed copies of the Concept Framework Plan quickly ran out, and dozens more metal chairs were wheeled in as the meeting got underway.
Westbard Avenue, or
Bethesda Row?

River Road, or
Friendship Heights?
Renderings of what Westbard Avenue and River Road would look like after full buildout of the plan drew gasps and grumbling from the audience. Essentially, they represented the worst nightmare of any resident or civic association who testified against the new zoning code rammed through by the Planning Board and Montgomery County Council, or the county's general shuffling toward urbanizing its suburbs. Simply unrecognizable, and a complete change in character from suburban to urban. It didn't help that the rendering of Westbard Avenue - using stock images, which of course (one would hope) won't be the architecture actually used - showed that same rounded off building you've seen in Rockville Town Square, Downtown Crown, and a host of other "town centers" in the area. In short, the images showed the "concrete canyon" many residents referred to last week during the many charrette meetings.

The estimates of new units were given at 1685-1927 at full buildout. That is less than the maximum plan (2529 units) shown last Thursday, but represents a stunning tripling of the current population and automobile count.
"That's just insane, and 
that's a nice word for it"
Out of 250 attendees, only one speaker supported the plan shown. Everyone else who rose to speak opposed the overall plan for a variety of reasons.

"This is my worst nightmare," said Sarah Morse, Executive Director of the Little Falls Watershed Alliance, which advocates for the stream branches that flow through the Westbard Sector Plan area. "I am squeezed out by high density everywhere." Noting the lack of green space, Morse asked, "Where are those people going to play? Where are the parks?"

A planner's laser pointing to the tiny postage stamp of a "town square" on the map elicited howls of laughter from the crowd. Along with an uncertain plan to create a new linear park along the beleaguered Willetts Branch Stream, that is it, as far as green space in the plan, which severely displeased residents last night. "I'm really so disappointed that this plan doesn't add any green space to speak of," said Mikel Moore, another LFWA board member.

Also missing from the map were gas stations, and several residents questioned that. Concerns of price gouging by any stations that would remain were cited, as has happened in downtown Bethesda. It is an issue that - as of this morning - no county official has taken seriously, even though it presents a public safety and emergency preparedness disaster as much as an economic one. When a weather or - God forbid - terror event strikes, where would people fill their gas tanks? With the map showing no gas stations left at all, the plan seems to encourage more driving, not less. "It is a concern," said Senior Urban Designer Paul Mortenson of Bethesda's vanishing gas stations.

Residents advocated for other services necessary to the community, from auto repairs to the Westwood Pet Center. "What this area provides is a service to the community," Norman Knopf told planners. "We want to keep that service." Another resident said, "we love the stores that are there now."

Schools were another sticking point, and planners did not have definitive answers about how MCPS would accommodate new students at all three levels in the already-overcrowded Whitman cluster. Even the plan to build a new elementary school on the library site is uncertain, as the land area is not large enough to meet current MCPS standards for an elementary school, much less ample enough to provide the outdoor facilities needed for recreation and other practical concerns. The spectre of redistricting had one mother wondering if the elementary school her daughter was looking forward to attending would still be available when the time comes.

Traffic was just about as much on residents' minds. With the density proposed, one resident predicted the plan couldn't "possibly result in anything but horrible traffic."

Since the impact on schools and roads is driven entirely by density, the urban growth shown came under sharp fire from residents. "What you're doing by adding density is creating a wasteland" of automobile congestion, argued one.
"Honestly, that's
ridiculous."
Residents were clear from the beginning that they wanted low-rise buildings. One last night referred to Poundbury, England, a new urbanist planned community with lower scale buildings. "I frankly love Poundbury," Mortenson replied. "It's a gorgeous town."

Many were upset by the perception that the entire process is being driven by developers. "I hope you're keeping in mind your constituency here," one resident warned. "Your constituency is us." "I feel defrauded," said another. "I expect more from Montgomery County than this."

In the most heated exchange of the evening, a resident of Springfield - a neighborhood directly behind the Equity One site - challenged planners to identify the specific problems in the Westbard area's zoning that the Concept Plan would correct. "You're not identifying any problems with the current zoning," which would cap heights at 45'. "What are they?" he demanded.

"We haven't identified all of them," Mortenson responded. "Surface parking is not ideal," he noted.

"We like it like it is!" shouted a resident from the crowd.

"I don't have an answer to the question," Mortenson said.

"Stop lying to us!" bellowed one audience member.

In a more mild-mannered wrap-up to the public comments, a gentleman from Nebraska said the problem with the process was that it was placing design and land use before public facilities. Since so many problems with the plan relate to lack of sufficient infrastructure capacity, he urged planners to "put all of this on hold," until the county can articulate its solutions to providing adequate public facilities. He cited the Doctrine of Comprehensive Planning as the model to follow.

How should planners proceed? Here are my thoughts:

First, I think the Charrette process was a valuable one. I grew up here, and even I learned some new things about the neighborhood over the last nine days. With planners' help, we've identified a lot of the problems and concerns, even if we don't have the solutions yet.

Second, there is one great proposal in the plan - the daylighting of Willetts Branch Stream, and the construction of a linear park and trail alongside it. I would be fantastic to see that happen. It might be nice to have a brand-new library, although I happen to like the current one. It would also be unfortunate to lose a forested library site, and end up with a bait-and-switch apartment building there instead of an elementary school.

But there's no reason that planners cannot salvage a workable plan from all of the work they and we  put in last week.

So keep the Willetts Branch Plan. Change the proposed zoning back to the current 45' maximum height on Westbard and River Road. Frankly, I'm not convinced we need 45' on all of that area myself. There's big money in shopping centers, especially in 20816.

We've been told that development needs to be greater in scale to be profitable. But this past weekend, a beautiful new shopping center opened in Upper Marlboro. The Osborne Shopping Center was closed after 20 years at 7583 Crain Highway, and replaced by...a new shopping center. No apartments. No townhouses. No residential component whatsoever. Just a fabulous new strip mall shopping center with plenty of free surface parking, and a brand new Safeway store anchoring it. The Osborne Shopping Center pretty much shoots down the argument that Equity One can't simply give us a better shopping center. Equity One would still have plenty of room to develop across the street at 45'.

The 80' heights of two buildings proposed are incompatible with the nearby single-family homes, as are the 75' heights on River for Kenwood. These buildings will impose themselves on backyards of people who have invested just as much in their properties as the developers. And with no Metro station at Westbard, the heights and density proposed are simply creating more automobile traffic.

Planners should make an explicit text and map recommendation to retain the gas stations along River Road, and at least one on Westbard. Period. With more cars being added, we have to have gas stations to fill them up.

Regarding schools, the plan should not be approved until MCPS has made clear exactly what capacity improvements or new school construction it will provide to meet the number of students generated by the new units. Can the library site actually work for a school? We need to know that, and what they'll do at the middle and high school levels, as well. Is redistricting ahead? Tell us the truth now, not later.

Planners, and Planning Director Gwen Wright, have acknowledged that Westbard is not a transit station community. The plan needs to better reflect that, as well. With no new office space proposed, virtually all new residents will be heading into the District each day for work. New units will require new capacity on River Road and Massachusetts Avenue. As of right now, no such project has been proposed. We need to hear specifics from the State Highway Administration as to what can be done. You could widen River Road, but that would require taking front lawns east of Little Falls Parkway, and the road narrows in DC, anyway. So what is the answer? Maybe it's that this area is currently built out, and its roads and schools can't handle major new development.

I don't think residents are asking as much of the Westbard area as planners seem to be. No one considers the commercial strips along River and Westbard to be grand boulevards. They are simply service areas where one can fill the gas tank, get a quick meal from the drive-thru at McDonald's, buy some pet food or pick up a prescription. Could pedestrian and bicycle access be made safer? Sure. But there's no reason that can't happen at 45' height. This is perhaps the most in-demand area of the county, with Whitman schools and right outside the DC line. If apartments are built at 45', they will fill up quickly. They will probably still be too great in number for our roads and schools to absorb, but what is currently proposed is far worse.

The suburbs should remain suburban, basic residential services must remain, and the plan should put quality of life ahead of all other priorities.

Does that require putting the concerns of residents above the profits of developers who consider the neighborhood their personal Monopoly board? Absolutely.

58 comments:

  1. Anonymous5:21 AM

    The desires of the residents who live there RIGHT NOW aren't the only things planners are going to think about.

    Planners inherently and by definition are PLANNING for the future. So when people whine and moan about not being heard....guess what: you don't have as much say as you would with your local elected official. You are not really a constituent of a planner. You may not even be around 20 years from now or your situation may change, your kids may leave for college, you may retire, etc., etc. You might be dead.

    And guess what, people want to live in Montgomery County and Bethesda especially. And guess what, while the people who live here now may whine and complain about possibly, maybe, potentially not having a gas station around the corner, the county must build for the future, a future with less suburban sprawl, denser housing closer-in to the major hubs.

    Otherwise, we'll live in an unsustainable mess. The starts of which were beginning to see now with school overcrowding in every corner of the county and rising crime in exurbs like Montgomery Village and Gaithersburg.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5:21: So this wise plan to stop sprawl is why the County Council approved building a city in the country at Belward Farm? I'm not following you here. Do you consider leaving the entire Bethesda area with no gas stations to be wise planning? Do tell, I find these arguments fascinating.

      Delete
  2. Anonymous5:44 AM

    I don't agree with the first commenter; I live in Kenwood Place and commute downtown daily, taking a bus to Friendship Heights and then the Metro. This route must be used outside of "rush hour" or the traffic on River Road extends it from a 10 minute trip to Friendship to 30-40 minutes. If we had better access to Metro it would be different, but as people said last night, "we are not Rockville or downtown Bethesda NOR DO WE WANT TO BE". Spring Valley in Northwest DC has retained its village character without adding much population; why can't we?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous6:05 AM

    Unfortunately, it's not about what YOU want. Our policymakers have correctly decided to pursue land use strategies that will benefit US ALL in the long term.

    The long term is key. I don't blame you for hating the ideas here because Montgomery County has been such a successful suburb for so long.

    Also, it's important that you understand the reason for your long River Road commutes are precisely BECAUSE of the suburban growth and sprawl we've allowed so far. The large majority of that rush hour traffic is going to and from the Beltway, where they are coming and going to NOVA and I-270 where we have allowed more and more suburbs to be built. You get stuck with the traffic. Unfair but true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6:05: Who, in your definition, is "us?" The residents are not part of "us?" Your solution to automobile traffic on River Road is more automobile traffic? I'm not following you here.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous6:21 AM

    I don't get this notion that in this supposedly capitalist country, that property owners can't use or dispose of their own property as they see fit, based on market demand.

    Or the notion that neighborhoods that were built as single-family homes, 50-70 years ago, or even longer, must remain so in perpetuity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6:21 You've summed up the essential question - can successful single-family home neighborhoods remain, or will they be bulldozed to expand urban areas? That's the existential argument animating the resistance to the new anti-suburban attitudes of many county elected officials. Councilmember George Leventhal said in 2013 that the suburbs were "a mistake." Homeowners in this area vigorously disagree with Mr. Leventhal.

      Delete
  5. Anonymous6:32 AM

    Think about it this way, the people that are complaining could very well be living in homes and apartments that were also once protested from being built in order to save the character of the neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 6:32: Who protested the original neighborhoods being built? The land where the single-family homes are today was all farmland.

      Delete
  6. Anonymous7:04 AM

    Do resident rejections actually hold any weight? (Direct)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 7:04 We're going to find out. Homeowners certainly outnumber commercial landowners in the Westbard Sector vicinity. They also vote here. Of course, the developers (like EYA in this case) write big checks to the County Council, so math can be relative when plans go to the Council.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:05 PM

      But no legal power, right? Only indirect power.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4:07 PM

      That sounds quite indirect. No real power specifically. Legal, jurisdiction, bla bla.

      Delete
  7. I will definitely miss the "old Westbard" from growing up in that area. I would hate to see dense buildings everywhere I looked. Gotta say I am a fan of surface parking as well from a safety standpoint, not to mention not having to snake my way through a (usually tight) garage

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 7:38: True. Some change will always happen, but a complete change is inappropriate. I agree on surface parking. I've never had a positive garage parking experience, and it literally adds 5-20 minutes to your time, depending which development we're talking about.

      Delete
  8. Anonymous7:49 AM

    Robert says "Out of 250 attendees, only one speaker supported the plan shown. Everyone else who rose to speak opposed the overall plan for a variety of reasons." The one who supported doesn't even live in the Westbard area but in Bethesda, where he can walk to the Metro. He bikes on the Crescent Trail - fine. I cannot take three kids and four bags of groceries on my bike. This is a suburb and until we have rail or better transit that won't change; cars are the only viable option for most families. This is not a singles area,

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous8:19 AM

    The first post said it, we aren't necessarily the planner's constituency, but the council is. Start reaching out to them now through coordinated activity with your respective associations. Those people care about votes and press. If one actually shows up and can bring numbers, folks will listen. If its just people posting online and not showing up, why would they care?

    The height they're talking about is out of scale and represents little step down from River to the single family homes.

    Secondly, the residents view this a suburb, but the planners look at this as more urban, its the rub in this scenario. However the point about spring valley is a good one, and I've often thought it would be a good model for how we'd like to see development proceed. Frankly, this is an issue not of profitability, but how much profit. That center already returns, the question is how much can Equity One, EYA, etc make above costs on multifamily.

    End of the day, many of these properties need work and are the product of a plan that wasn't followed and a single main owner. Now there is a chance to improve what is there, I just hope its not as dense as they have proposed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous8:19 AM

    Yeah, even if the plan comes to full fruition, did anyone say why young singles (other than AU students) want to live on Westbard compared to downtown Silver Spring, downtown Bethesda or even Friendship Heights?

    Westbard is certainly not going to have a live music venue like the Fillmore or even like AMP at Pike & Rose. It's not going to have nightlife. It may get some good chain restaurants.

    Westbard doesn't have a transit station and isn't walkable to Metro. It's served by one infrequent old Ride On Bus. You can catch the T2 Metrobus on River Road also. Relying on either takes a lot of planning since they are setup to primarily serve rush hour commuters. You're really out of luck on weekends having to wait 40 minutes for a bus. They run once an hour later at night. Are there plans to bring BRT to River Road?

    Currently, it's less expensive to rent on Westbard than downtown Bethesda and it offers an alternative, quieter type of neighborhood. Both of those are draws for people but will probably change when this plan happens.

    Whatever is built really needs to reflect that Westbard and the surrounding neighborhoods are family oriented.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous8:37 AM

    @Anon 8:19
    "...but the council is. Start reaching out to them now through coordinated activity with your respective associations. Those people care about votes and press."
    Good luck with that. 8 of the nine don't care because they know you don't show up at the polls and they get 70% of their money from developers. In fact, if you're a politician that dares to question a development you will be punished for not adopting their "group think"
    See - http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/elrich-strong-critic-of-development-policies-moved-off-of-influential-montgomery-panel/2014/11/14/c5b500f2-6b5e-11e4-9fb4-a622dae742a2_story.html

    ReplyDelete
  12. Woodmont8:50 AM

    The council cares about votes, but it's really too late to start organizing now. We just had an election and development was a major issue.

    We all know where candidates stood on that. MoCo citizens have spoken, and they want urbanization of the suburban neighborhoods.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for your coverage Robert.
    A side but important issue is the cutting down of many healthy large trees that has been going on this past week in front of Little Falls library, and Westland Jr. high and today on Westbard in front of the Westbard Mews townhouses. Given the limited canopy cover that we had, please do a story about all the tree cutting. I think Pepco is behind it.
    Thank you,
    Joyce

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joyce, I noticed the library ones yesterday, but was not aware they were going further. Thanks for the tip. If its Pepco, it seems even the County Council has been unable to rein them in. I did a story a few years ago when they destroyed the trees that used to screen the loading docks at the Westwood Shopping Center. Losing huge parts of those trees played into hands of those saying Westbard Avenue is "just loading docks."

      Delete
  14. Anonymous12:05 PM

    "...the profits of developers who consider the neighborhood their personal Monopoly board?"

    LOL, another Republican hypocrite who thinks that capitalism should be everywhere...except in his back yard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:25 PM

      Sorry maybe I just don't understand politics but I'm not sure why you would think someone who is anti development is a republican?

      Delete
  15. Anonymous12:54 PM

    I honestly don't understand. Westbard is almost entirely made up of crap. I mean it seriously looks like a ghetto where storage facilities and fast food are the bulk of its "amenities." I do not understand how anyone could look at the current concrete wasteland that is Westbard and be defensive of the status quo. Dumbest NIMBYs ever.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12:54: Actually, probably the most highly educated NIMBYs ever. But NIMBY seems to be a popular dismissal for stakeholders who don't agree with what developers want to do. Planners and the County Council failed to guide development in Westbard for decades - that's not the residents' fault. Having said that, there are a lot of amenities in Westbard that downtown Bethesda doesn't have. McDonald's is a huge amenity. Where in downtown Bethesda can you get a Starbucks-quality coffee or hot meal in 5 minutes without getting out of your car in freezing weather? Auto repairs, the best Giant in the region, Talbert's. There's no question the area has needed sit-down family restaurants for decades. Those could easily be added on pad sites. There's nothing stopping Equity One from building a new strip mall shopping center like the Osborne Shopping Center I mentioned in Upper Marlboro. I don't consider convenient parking and shopping, and necessary services like gas stations, to be "crap."

      Delete
  16. Anonymous1:02 PM

    The NIMBY's are at it again. The only legitimate argument for lower density here is the lack of any transit (now or in the future), the rest of the statements made are completely absurd or based purely on selfishness. None of the renderings look anything like Friendship Heights or downtown Bethesda, which both have skylines full of 150-250' high-rises.

    How does 50-80' buildings (that will mostly be blocked by fully grown shade trees anyways) equate to an "urban area???" If anything this would be a step down from the handful of 15-20 story high-rises in the area now.

    It's hilarious that someone actually referred to the proposal as a "wasteland," since that's exactly what it is now. Just as a funny as the residents being so protective of their treasured surface parking and "retail"--a collection of auto bodyshops/industrial sites, overpriced gas stations, a 7-Eleven, and two ugly, outdated strip malls.

    It's funny how Dyer glorifies limited govt/pro-business places like Texas where zoning laws are a joke and its pretty much free-for-all, yet he whines how the Mont Co government isn't doing enough to regulate private development. So much for the pro-business/capitalism stance...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1:02: Nothing I've said is anti-capitalist. The developers have full rights to build now to a certain height. They're asking for more. The residents don't want it. It's funny how the places you cite for lax zoning somehow have plenty of transportation infrastructure, suburban neighborhoods, gas stations and quick service restaurants. Here in the land of advanced planning we are urbanizing the suburbs, have nowhere to fill the gas tanks, and the same overpriced chain restaurants in every "town center." Sounds like we should study the Texas model.

      Delete
  17. Anonymous1:16 PM

    Does the angry person live anywhere near here?

    I agree the land by the radio tower is the definition of wasteland, it needs work. Where I can't agree is someone freely wanting excessive density relative to the desires of the community. As the parent of kids in the schools, someone who invested heavily in their home, and patronizes local businesses, I don't think there is any selfishness going on by protecting the feel of my neighborhood, the local businesses (some low priced gas I might add), and the need for updated, but not over the top retail.

    Chill.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous1:17 PM

    I agree with 1:02PM. It's really irresponsible planning to bring in so many new housing units without providing rapid transit.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous1:24 PM

    Robert, you're on point regarding the gas stations. If there's just one left, Westbard residents will be price gouged. Just like at the remaining gas stations in the downtown. (We all know the most expensive gas stations in the county are on Old Georgetown in the downtown.)

    There are no other gas stations in the Westbard vicinity.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous1:29 PM

    Robert, we all learned long ago there's no having an intelligent debate with you.

    People can read the comments and decide for themselves what makes the most sense....everybody already knows you will never change your mind and I don't feel like getting into one of your patented arguments filled with ad hominems and falsehoods to prove it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1:29 What did I say that was false? You're right about one thing - I'm not likely to change my belief that out-of-town developers should not be able to come in like Godzilla and stomp all over the Westbard area. They should stick to running shopping centers, since they seem to be very good at it from what I've seen with the property improvements and events they've had so far.

      Delete
  21. Anonymous1:43 PM

    I'm assuming the anonymous commenter who said Westbard is a "ghetto" has lost his or her mind.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Woodmont1:59 PM

    @1:29 PM: Actually, we've learned long ago that Robert is providing an valuable resource here for Bethesda residents. We've also learned how nasty some anonymous folks can be when hiding behind their anonymity.

    Robert always keeps a civil tone and reports the facts from the unique perspective of a live long Bethesda resident.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brad Longley3:06 PM

      Woodmont your statement is problematic. Facts from his perspective. That would imply an injection of opinion into fact.

      Delete
    2. Brad Longley3:08 PM

      And before you bash, I like Bob's Bethesda blog and agree many comments are idiotic, especially now that Bob has done himself a solid by ignoring some of the more childish ones instead of stooping to their level.

      Delete
    3. Woodmont5:06 PM

      Brad,
      I said "unique perspective" because Robert is the only life long resident reporting on the area. That doesn't mean changing facts, but it does provide context.
      Nothing against the Gazette or Post, but they don't know the area as well as Robert. Remember when the Post compared Bethesda to Aspen?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous7:08 PM

      Haha yeah. Never said he changed the facts. Just busting your balls for your statement. :)

      Delete
    5. Anonymous7:31 PM

      He definitely does take facts and construe his opinion based on those facts as fact itself. Which he doesn't get is circumstantial and implied mostly versus really confirmed fact.

      Delete
  23. Anonymous8:29 PM

    "I'm assuming the anonymous commenter who said Westbard is a 'ghetto' has lost his or her mind."

    And I'd assume you lack basic critical reading skills.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7:53 AM

      The area does look like crap. Car racks, cars in various states of repair, old buildings, bla bla.

      Delete
  24. Anonymous7:28 AM

    "Westbard is almost entirely made up of crap. I mean it seriously looks like a ghetto where storage facilities and fast food are the bulk of its "amenities."

    You said Westbard is crap and looks like a ghetto. And you're going to tell residents how it should look? lol

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous9:07 AM

    @ 7:28 AM -

    The first step towards solving a problem, is admitting that you have one.

    Your precious little business strip does indeed look like crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9:07: There is no problem at Westbard. I can get my groceries or a cheeseburger and be done before you've even found a garage parking space in your "smart" growth urban town center. Westbard is what it is - a commercial area that serves the neighborhood around

      Delete
    2. Anonymous4:10 PM

      Well the idea is not to have to drive in this urban center. You're missing the point. And certainly both types of living have pros and cons.

      Delete
    3. 4:10 Agree with your second point. But given that there is no Metro station at Westbard, growth there will inherently involve automobile traffic. Not smart growth for that reason.

      Delete
  26. Anonymous9:08 AM

    "Robert is the only life long resident reporting on the area."

    Are you the same one who said yesterday that Robert is "Bethesda's only food critic"?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous3:14 PM

    Well, anyways, in the end it doesn't matter what any of us on here think about the appearance of the area, it's not up to us what happens to it...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Steve D.3:20 PM

    The real question is whether there will be a bowling alley or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve, the planners' map shows the bowling alley demolished.

      Delete
  29. Anonymous3:26 PM

    What does it mean when you say "residents reject"? Do they have any authority?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous3:27 PM

      Or do you just mean "residents are unhappy with"?

      Delete
    2. 3:26, 10:42: Considering the developers are asking for more than MoCo zoning allows them to build - yes, the residents can reject that. If planners go ahead with a plan that only benefits developers, then that would be a corrupt deal and expose the Planning Department as a tool of developers. I doubt they want that to happen. So, barring that, yes, the residents have veto power and exercised it Tuesday night.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous4:05 PM

      Ok so to our original question of whether the residents have "direct" rejection powers - then no. Simply the planner has a choice to ignore the popular opinion of the residents (although not the landowners and money of the properties in question)..

      Delete
  30. Anonymous6:37 AM

    3:27pm: From the descriptions of the meeting I've read, "unhappy" is too tame of a word :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous10:42 AM

      Haha I can agree with that. But they don't seem to have any actual rejection powers, right?

      Delete
  31. Anonymous2:09 PM

    This is going to be a real test of the planning board. Do they approve a plan that 99% of Westbard area residents are against?

    ReplyDelete