Only Councilmember Marc Elrich, who is not a member of the PHED Committee, challenged the staff report and the dismissal of points raised by residents at the September public hearing by staff. Much of the staff presentation and memorandum strangely attempted to litigate the active court case filed by Westbard-area residents against the Council. The Council should hope their attorneys can argue their defense more effectively than their staff.
Most astonishing among the false statements in the staff memorandum, was its designation of "Westbard" as a "center of economic activity and transit," where "more intense mixed-use development" should occur. It does so even while admitting Westbard is nearly two miles from the Friendship Heights Metro station, and over two miles from the Bethesda station. The assertion explodes the concept of smart growth, which defines transit-oriented development as being located within one-quarter to one-half mile from a rail station, and Elrich said the statement "just gave me heartburn."
"Something two miles away being 'near...transit,' it's just an odd statement," Elrich said. Staff member Marlene Michaelson insisted the two miles-distant Westbard was, by her apparent measurement system, "near both the Bethesda Metro Center and...Friendship Heights [Metro station]." Floreen was working in an alternate universe, as well, claiming higher density approved in the Langley Park area was somehow a precedent for Westbard. "That was for the Purple Line," Elrich reminded Floreen. He said there was plenty of land closer to the Metro stations where transit-oriented development could be built, that would be preferable to placing high density at Westbard.
False statements were made to defend the Council against the citizen lawsuit, which asks for an injunction to stop this map amendment, among other relief. On the very specific lawsuit charge that the Montgomery County Planning Board ignored a 2008 County law requiring it to measure whether a sector plan will reduce carbon/greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled, Michaelson made up a fictional rationale in defense. Dodging the Board's ignorance of the specific law, she said the plan's statement that an "overall goal is to move Westbard closer to environmental sustainability" somehow magically absolves the Board from performing the required environmental impact calculations.
The assertion by staff that an archaeological search for a historic African-American cemetery believed to have been located on the Westwood Tower property is more appropriately handled when a single property is redeveloped, not in the map amendment, makes no sense. Given the apparent desecration of the cemetery by Westwood Tower construction workers, the location of remains may no longer be centered on the Westwood Tower property alone.
On most other concerns raised, Michaelson said they are simply not issues that can be addressed at the map amendment stage. In a response to Michaelson's memo stating that no further arguments against heights and density in the plan had been made, the SaveWestbard organization opposing the sector plan noted that the Council has received the results of two resident polls opposing the heights and density allowed by the plan. Both showed overwhelming opposition to the plan, and both were ignored by the Council. SaveWestbard also pointed out that the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments does not classify Westbard as a "Regional Activity Center" appropriate for growth; MWCOG designates White Flint and downtown Bethesda as such growth areas.
 |
| Borders of the Westbard sector plan mysteriously expand to include two existing townhome developments (TMD and TLD) |
At the conclusion of the discussion, Floreen indicated the committee accepted the staff recommendation for approval of the amendment, in direct defiance of their constituents. This happened eight days before those constituents vote on whether or not to end Floreen's Council career via term limits. Not smart.
24 comments:
Following the predicted defeat of Question B, Dyer will be admitted to Suburban Hospital for "exhaustion" next Monday morning.
If all trolls donate $1, for the love of God will you please get a new "Betrayed" sign?
tnxs Birdbrain!
The new residents will like new Westbard and have more voting power.
7:46 AM Until then, 9 out of 10 Bethesda residents in the area disapprove of the main tenets of the Westbard Plan.
Less voting power. The more residents the LESS voting power.
How's that foot tasting, 7:46AM?
I can't wait for the new residents of Westbard. The current ones are boring.
9:05 AM Westbard residents want new neighbors like our low energy councilman Hans Reamer. Mr Excitement indeed!
(Did Reamer ever find those two Metro stops that he claimed Westbard residents walk to?)
I hear the new residents will be ethnically and economically diverse. Hopefully they will bring some better restaurants with them.
Term-limit Westbard residents!!!
No one needs to live in Mom's Basement for Life!
9:42am typed that from his crawlspace.
I would vote to disenfranchise current Westbard residents. Why should their vote count as much as mine?
9:50am keep talking like that and the MoCo Council will want to hire you!
I have read the Marlene Michaelson staff memo carefully and am thunderstruck by its lack of professionalism. Staff legislative analysis should provide the Council with factual, balanced analysis or, at minimum, pro and con argumentation on an issue.
Michaelson has ignored the substantive and careful arguments of citizens to produce a thoroughly biased document. It is galling that the Council considers her work sufficient for deliberative purposes and that the taxpayers paying for such shoddy work.
To date, I have agonized over the question of term limits for the County Council, but Michaelson's memo has pushed me over the edge. I will be voting "Yes" on Question B (term limits) in an effort to return good governance to the County Council.
No one should be on the council more than a month.
12:12PM Doesn't it suck that it has come to this?
The council tells us they know what is best for the county. Really? This is the best?
I hear that the elections are rigged.
I hear that you're deplorable.
I have said this many times. All current and future projects should be mixed use with underground parking in Westbard. It makes absolutely no sense to build anything near the crescent trail without public parking.
Underground parking and mixed use are appropriate for Westbard.
But 1.8 million square feet of space is way too much. Some of the apartment buildings are the same heights or taller than new apartment buildings in downtown Bethesda. Again, too much.
I'll settle for 12 years of term limits, thanks.
I keep hearing the County Council is "in the developers' pockets", with no proof other than development NIMBY's don't like. As someone with ties to the development community (but not a developer myself), I can assure you nothing is further from the truth. The Council is harder on developers than you can imagine. In fact, much of the high density being developed around the county are directly due to policies the Council has developed.
For instance, he Council has required a percentage of homes be "Moderately Priced Dwelling Units" (MPDUs). These must sell at a much lower price than current market rates, yet can't be substantially different than the houses around them. Builders can't make money selling houses for less than it costs to build them, so the council has had to allow higher density for the entire project. This includes town homes and high rises.
And while we're at it - why do homes cost so much? Well, around 25% of the cost of a new house goes to the county in permitting fees, impact taxes and other payments. So a $1,000,000 house will have around $250,000 in county payments attached, even before the first owner moves in.
All of this development has nothing to do with the Council being in the developers' pockets. Nothing is farther from the truth. Rather, it is about money - in the form of taxes. The higher the density, the more the county gets in taxes. And you're right - with over 1,000,000 people in the county, the Council doesn't care much about what a few hundred people have to say. The Council knows those few voters won't make a difference at election time.
And BTW - a large percentage of developers in Montgomery County are also for term limits. If the Council were in developers' pockets, why would developers want to get them out?
5:47: I actually agree that there are certain absurdities in the policy that impact developers that could be corrected as part of a larger APFO reform to ensure we have infrastructure to support the new development.
Just from off-the-record conversations I've had with some in the development community, they are actually becoming alarmed at the stagnation of the private sector economy in the County. And at the lack of nightlife in Bethesda. They recognize that jobs and office space have to be part of the equation. MCPS is also in an unprecedented decline under the current "leadership." All we have at this point is our so-called excellent schools. If word gets out they are in decline, that hurts real estate values. Hence property owners are concerned about that, as well.
There's a point at which even "their S.O.B.s" on Council become a liability to the future plans of the developers who funded their campaigns. Every Chamber of Commerce declining to endorse a single incumbent in 2014 was unprecedented, and an early indicator of what's happening now - some developers actually acting to get rid of people they literally contributed to, because the inept fools are tanking the County's economy with their votes, policies and taxes.
So how did Councilmember Elrich vote on the Westbard SMA when it came before the full County Council?
Post a Comment