The documents being sought are those from the time periods prior to the sector plan process, which began in September 2014, and after the Council's approval of the plan in May 2016. But according to Save Westbard, the citizen group opposing the height, density and impact of the plan, Regency Centers has unilaterally declared all such documents to be irrelevant to the case.
Plaintiffs' attorney Michele Rosenfeld is now expected to file a motion with the court to compel Regency Centers to turn over the documents. Just as with the Planning Department and Planning Board's effort to ensure no independent monitoring of the developer-funded cemetery "investigation," it's clear that there must be something in these documents Regency Centers doesn't want the public to see.
To date, the Sumner Citizens Association, Westmoreland Hills Citizens Association, Springfield Civic Association, and Wood Acres Citizens Association have each donated $5000 to fund the Save Westbard lawsuit.
Michelle Rosenfeld getting paid. Great business plan. Take advantage of soon to retire or recently retired NIMBYs with money to burn.
ReplyDeleteI doubt there's some dark and scary secret in those documents. This business is protecting itself from loons. Good for them.
ReplyDelete5:09: Michele Rosenfeld is nearly the only land-use attorney left who will represent residents and neighborhoods in development disputes. It is hardly an effort motivated by huge profits, as the need to raise funds for the lawsuit attests.
ReplyDelete5:10: People don't end up in the 20816 zip code by being "loons." It's the most highly-educated zip code in America.
Dyer, I think you confuse 20816 with 20814! Go back to junior college, Tool!
ReplyDelete6:42: You're the tool, for just saying 20814 is more elite than 20816. Obviously a carpetbagger.
ReplyDeleteSo Dyer, how did you "end up" in 20816?
ReplyDeleteIt certainly wasn't the result of personal achievements.
@7:00 AM: argle bargle
ReplyDeleteDyer has to spend so much time educating his haters on Bethesda.
ReplyDeleteThey may want to read up on Bethesda on their own time before lashing out at Dyer.
Loons to the left and right. Get the steam rollers already.
ReplyDeleteClown to the left. Jokers to the right.
ReplyDelete8:21/8:31: Sounds like something I could say on the dais if I was a Council member.
ReplyDelete5:10: You obviously know little about the legal discovery process. While a party to a suit can appeal to a judge to reduce the scope of discovery, that party can't unilaterally refuse to comply.
ReplyDeleteRegency/Equity One has apparently decided that it would rather flout the rules of discovery than turn over its records. Wonder why? This is getting interesting.
Good for Michele Rosenfeld. Tough and able litigator. It will be interesting to see what's in those Equity One (now Regency Centers) documents.
ReplyDeleteIf Equity One's dealings with the County and HOC have been so above-board, why isn't Equity One turning over anything before/after the sector plan hearing process?
ReplyDelete@5:10 AM: If there's nothing "dark and scary" (your words) in the Equity One documents, why does Equity One have to "protect itself"?
ReplyDeleteSure looks to me like Equity One is hiding something. The documents that Rosenfeld is requesting are relevant to a contract zoning claim.
ReplyDeleteHas there ever been a similar, huge redevelopment project that has utterly ignored residents like Equity One/Regency has done here? Sick thing is that our Planning Board has their back.
ReplyDeleteWell said, Skippy /9:07 AM. Equally unfortunate that the County Council (with the possible exception of Marc Elrich) has been doing the same. To my mind, the onus lies principally on the Planning Department, the Planning Board and the County Council. It is these bodies who are charged with balancing the interests of the developer and the public. In the case of Westbard, including the matter of the cemetery, the public is being and has been ignored.
ReplyDelete8:50/8:54/8:57/9:01/9:04/9:07 - Did you make your quota for today yet?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the lawsuit, Dyer, and the public have raised legitimate issues regarding Eq1/Regency, the process, the Council, and the Planning Board. On the other hand, I also question the amount of money being sucked up by the lawsuit, which is likely to be unsuccessful in the long-term, and the aggressive soliciting of donations by Michelle Rosenfeld, Save Westbard, and other supporters. I'm particularly concerned about the targeting of local neighborhood associations for donations and the tactics that have been used to solicit them.
ReplyDelete@2:54 - You "believe" that the "lawsuit, Dyer, and the public have raised legitimate issues" and yet, you complain. If you "believe" that legitimate issues have been raised, then have the gumption to fight back, or stop caterwauling.
ReplyDeleteYou "question the amount of money being sucked up by the lawsuit" ... which you opine will be "unsuccessful in the long-term" and yet, you offer no basis for your opinion. We are eager to hear your learned defense of the developers. Do tell.
Complainers complain and offer no solutions -- we are looking at you, 2:54.
You express concern about the "aggressive soliciting of donations" by our attorney, and yet, have you donated? I didn't think so. How self-righteous of you to invoke Michele's name on a public blog and slander her pristine reputation.
Do you know that Michele does emphatically NOT "aggressively" solicit even one dime. We write our weekly emails independently of Michele, and WE, SAVEWESTBARD solicit donations, because people pay for services, right? ... did you EXPECT her to work for free?
Tell me, 2:54, do you work for FREE? Yeah, I didn't think so.
It's so adorable how you are concerned about the "targeting of local neighborhood associations for donations" and yet, 2:54, what did you do to DEFEND the associations? NOTHING, I'd wager.
Let's focus on the facts rather than your feelings: The people in the neighborhoods spoke-up and told their "leadership" what they wanted -- which was to support the lawsuit. Facts, 2:54, facts. Simply because those in "leadership" did not want to board the train, so to speak, does not mean that their judgment on the lawsuit is/was correct. In fact, as long as we are free-wheeling in opinions here, I'll opine that their judgment was flawed and self-interested ... and not in the best interests of the community at-large. Challenge me. If the people did not want to fight the development, then the "leadership" would have prevailed. Funny thing is ... they LOST. Remember that?
Do something yourself, 2:54, or stop whining about those who actually fight on behalf of the community -- for FREE -- and we, in turn, support our PAID attorney, as she should be, don't you agree, 2:54?
Some of the comments here are worthy of a Trump tweet. Two large-scale community surveys, one several years ago by Springfield association, and a more recent one by the Westbard group, found overwhelming support for a moderately-scaled approach to Westbard sector. The county and planning board both ignored these constituent concerns and adopted a much denser approach, violating some of their own rules in the process and quite possibly crossing the line into prohibited contract zoning.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the trolls who criticize citizens exercising their right to seek judicial redress from a rogue council and planning board also believe that council and board
should be immunized from press accounts that accurately report their transgressions. The dimmest bulb in the chandelier grasps that there has to be substantial anger in a culture of generally acquiescent temperament to mount litigation, much less continue to sustain it. The non-specific, non-factual complaints about appeals to neighborhood associations are Putinesque. Every once in a while the people stand up for their legal rights, and if you can't handle it, move to Somalia.
Seriously to draw distraction to the 20816 zip or 20814 zip and who is more educated and wealthy gave me a good laugh tonight. The paid trolls are grasping for something weird to say. I have had many zipcodes in my life and never thought much about them. I am a proud SaveWestbard supporter. We had to hire Michele, because as individuals we are unable to fight the corrupt County Council with knowledge. We need her expertise. Obviously when you hire a professional to perform a service you can't perform yourself, you have to pay for it, like you would pay your doctor for surgery or a car mechanic to fix your brakes. Are we really debating this? We all want a new shopping center over here in 20816, but we want one that fits our neighborhood, not excessive development creating a canyon style road on Westbard with Army barrack style townhouses. The worst of it is that the corruption includes building a parking garage on top of sacred ground, a black cemetery. You would think all the liberals who scream NIMBY and call us rich spoiled elitists, would jump on the chance to preserve African culture. However, with much surprise, I can report that is not the case. Shocking really how the developers can live with themselves by pushing to destroy a suburban neighborhood and to destroy sacred burial ground, all for money. Look what happened to Judas when he went for the silver coins. God is on our side. We will fight for righteousness.
ReplyDeleteFight all you want. You are all wrong and exaggerate. This development should have started by now. The cemetery does not exist. The current developer will move the bones and that's that. I as a tax payer do not wish to pay for a church to oversee a museum and pay reparations. This is wrong. Sue the former owners.
ReplyDelete@4:52: "You are all wrong and exaggerate." Be specific. Are you talking about the lawsuit generally or about the cemetery?
ReplyDeleteWhat, exactly, is "wrong" about the following? .... That the emissions report was not done (true)? That the County Council substantively and dramatically changed the Planning Board draft sector plan in March, 2016, without a public hearing on those substantive, dramatic changes (also true)?
Perhaps your blanket statement addressed the illegal contract zoning claim (which is in dispute)? Interesting. How did you reach that conclusion? It's so easy to make blanket statements; but not quite so easy to back them up, is it? The illegal contract zoning facts are under review in the discovery process, which EO is trying side-step (what this article is about).
So, who's exaggerating? You are. The development, even under your rosy presumption that the developer and the Council both followed all the necessary procedures to a "T", could not and would not have been "started by now." There are many steps in the development process prior to construction. Even EO/Regency, last November, 2016, was projecting actual construction in 2018 (and that 2018 estimate depends upon whether all necessary regulatory processes are completed on EO/Regency's desired time-table).
The cemetery does exist. That is a fact that is not in dispute, except by you, apparently; even the planning board knows that the cemetery existed on the parcels in/near/around the HOC site, but they tried to hide the info from public review. Now, the Church wants to be involved in the archaeological process. Can you blame them? The moral high ground here does not belong to you or to the developers or to the Council or to the planners.
As taxpayers, we all pay for things that sometimes we "agree with" and sometimes we "don't agree with." That is just the way it is. In this case, MoCo has a chance to preserve the African-American history of the Westbard area. How that is accomplished should be worked out between MoCo and the Church. Let's see what comes of mediation.
"Sue the former owners." Are you the same person as 2:54 who is hot and bothered that a lawsuit is underway and is supposedly "concerned" about costs? But now we should sue the former owners? Here's an action plan ... Why don't you raise money for your suggested lawsuit and gather the residents to the cause? Or are you simply one of those people who make "suggestions" about what everyone else should be doing with no intention of doing anything yourself?
4:52: "The cemetery does not exist?" Prove it! You have not a single document that backs up your claim.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, there are land records and obituaries that prove the cemetery does exist.