A bill introduced by Montgomery County Councilmember Andrew Friedson (D - District 1) would permanently eliminate the Office of the People's Counsel. The office, which was able to assist residents with land use and development issues, and could represent the interests of the public in some land use administrative proceedings, hasn't been funded by the Council since FY-2010. Developer-funded councilmembers used a budget shortfall as an excuse to "temporarily" get rid of the position starting in FY-2011, and, of course, never restored funding since.
Bill 18-23, co-sponsored by Councilmember Dawn Leudtke (D - District 7), would create a new office, called the Community Zoning and Land Use Resource Office. It would completely gut the functions of the People's Counsel that made it beneficial for residents, but a pain for development interests. The "officer' of the new office would no longer be an attorney. They would no longer be allowed to participate or advocate for the public in administrative proceedings. That would be a big win for developers, as the People's Counsel as currently defined in County code can introduce evidence, call and cross-examine witnesses, and point out when the County or a developer is in violation of County code and regulations.
The reason this is happening is that County Executive Marc Elrich (D) has made a firm point of wanting to have funding for the Office of the People's Counsel finally restored in the FY-2024 operating budget. Much like the bait-and-switch soundalike bills on expanding the Council size and rent stabilization, which sounded like what advocates wanted but prevent the substantive change of the competing proposals, the "Community Zoning and Land Use Resource Office" is as much like the Office of the People's Counsel as the German Democratic Republic was democratic.
In short, Bill 18-23 is a totally-cynical move to kill off the People's Counsel permanently, as it is getting harder and harder for the Council to explain year after year why it is not funding an office that exists solely to help residents. As you can imagine, it's difficult to publicly announce that you don't want to fund an office that exists solely to help your constituents and protect their interests. Thus the bait-and-switch. A public hearing on Bill 18-23 is currently scheduled for April 18, 2023 at 1:30 PM.
10 comments:
It was never their intention to hear opinions by residents as they "know" what we need whether we like it or not.
I'm beginning to suspect the Council doesn't really care terribly much about us serfs.
Get ready for the Office of the People's Counsel to be dumped by the Council. The Council has given notice, once again: They don't give a ****!!
Our leadership knows what's best for us. Don't believe me? Just ask them.
Why is everybody in this county so obsessed with development, whether for or against??
How about the powers that be do something about the shocking increase in crime, the flailing local economy or the steadily declining quality of the county's public schools?
As for development, it should be a balanced approach but there are too many extremists views on this like there are on every topic these days. People either want a blanket ban or want developers to be able build everything everywhere like they're currently doing in the South.
For what it's worth the county government (the council and planning board at least) already seems to do a better job than everywhere else at balancing development. Open space is preserved for agriculture and parks. Dense development is concentrated in urban areas near metros, with a focus on mixing uses.
6:39: There was an effort to place density near Metro, but that - and "smart growth" - appear to have been abandoned by the County in favor of upzoning all neighborhoods under Thrive 2050. I haven't heard any of the smart growth buzzphrases from County officials for some time now. Remember "activating the streets," "eyes on the street," "quarter to half mile from Metro," etc.?
I believe the concern from residents is the increasing encroachment on residential neighborhoods, and the clear impact that will have on the quality of life. It's also from the ever-increasing tax burden that is resulting from the County's single-minded focus on residential housing over commercial development and job growth.
Residential development has proven to generate more in new costs than it does in revenue. We know this because the County has grown astronomically, but every year the budget is in the red, and taxes go up.
Reasonable limits have to be placed on the pace of growth, and an equal effort has to be made in increasing our competitiveness for economic development. We have to attract more high-paying jobs and corporate headquarters to balance out the revenue picture. We've also seen a morally-bankrupt trend by the Council in shifting more and more of the tax burden of development from the developers to residents.
Most of all, the clear and intensifying animosity of the government towards citizen participation in the development process. That can't go on.
Which neighborhoods have been converted from single-family homes to a higher use?
Well said, Robert. The residents are not against development but have been very clear about wanting true balance. The County Council and Planning Board don't care and side with the developers every step of the way. Comments from the public constitute a purely performative legal requirement for those bodies. Time and again, they show that they do not care what the taxpayers and voters want.
10:28: When the Council passes the ZTA for Thrive 2050, most single-family neighborhoods in the County will be converted to multi-family.
It’s a red herring to suggest that all opinions on development are “extreme.” I’ve never heard anyone suggest a ban on development. What I have heard are protests about Countywide upzoning of single-family neighborhoods, instead of using neighborhood-specific plans (the current system.) As for upzoning areas near Metro: this has been widely supported, although there has been disagreement about the radius (one-half mile? more? less?) in which upzoning should be supplied.
Post a Comment