MoCo Council asking Annapolis for eminent domain-on-steroids land grab power

For the third time in this term of office, the Montgomery County Council is trying to quietly ram a major change in the law through behind closed doors in Annapolis. In 2015, they tried to establish an Independent Transit Authority with unlimited taxation and debt power, and in 2017, they attempted a backdoor runaround the term limits voters had approved only months prior. This morning, they are exhorting the Montgomery County delegation to the Maryland General Assembly to expand and increase their eminent domain authority.

The bill, like the others, is being filed at the eleventh hour, and with no fanfare. Bill MC 27-18, "Eminent Domain - Expansion of 'Quick Take' Authority," would streamline the property seizure process related to highway and transit projects. For example, it would eliminate the ability to compare a property to similar pieces of land for the purpose of determining fair market value. The Council would also be able to force residents out of homes, and businesspeople out of commercial properties immediately, as long as they make an immediate payment of that potentially less-than-actual market value to the landowner.

Purple Line opponents suspect the law may be used in short order for eminent domain seizures related to that light rail project. That would fit the "heckuva rush" manner in which it is being put forward in Annapolis.

But looking ahead, this law would be equally handy in the quick demolition of more than 150 homes and businesses along Georgia Avenue between Olney and Wheaton, for the planned BRT route there. We know that from a state analysis, but we don't have similar numbers yet for which properties would end up being seized for BRT along MD 355 and Route 29. How might this also be used in the Veirs Mill Corridor sector plan, which is about to begin the process of approval before the Montgomery County Planning Board? Land seizures along Veirs Mill have been strongly hinted at by planners.

The late-filed bill will be introduced at the 9:30 AM session of the Montgomery County Delegation this morning. If the bill receives the necessary votes to advance, a public hearing will be scheduled. One question will be: will that hearing be held in Rockville, or Annapolis?

It's no wonder they held this bill from you, despite planning it for months, and are now attempting to file it quietly at the last minute!

MOCO SNEAKING ONE PAST YOU AGAIN: STATE LEGISLATION WOULD EXTEND TERM OF MNCPPC CHAIR

We just got (temporarily) through the soap opera that was (and will be) the proposed Independent Transit Authority, which saw Montgomery County try to sneak a bill through in Annapolis to enable such a tax authority to be created. Less than two weeks later, the MoCo political machine is at it again, quietly handing off another developer-friendly bill to the General Assembly.

Bill MC/PG 105-15 (House Bill 652) would change the consecutive term limit provisions for the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission. Presently, commissioners who serve as Chair or Vice-Chair of the body may not serve more than 2 consecutive 4-year terms.

HB 652 would change that limitation, allowing a commissioner appointed from Montgomery County to serve two additional consecutive terms, as long as he or she serves as Chair or Vice-Chair.

Since commissioners are appointed by the County Executive, and not elected by voters, this would give a tremendous amount of political power to a Chair who could serve for 16 years in the role - longer than most would serve in any single county office. Christina Ginsberg, a Rockville resident and former president of the Twinbrook Civic Association, says the provision could create a "development czar who would have more power and a longer term than our elected officials."

The bill had its first reading in Annapolis yesterday. I can recall no public announcement or media coverage of this significant change being proposed, other than on the legislative and delegation websites. Even more troubling: no matter how many ways I try to search for this legislation on the County Council website, I get no results. This despite Council attorneys having apparently commented on the issue, according to a transcript of a December meeting of the commission. So much for "open data." By the way, the commission itself, not surprisingly, is in favor of MC/PG 105-15).

With developers wielding more influence in county politics than ever before, it's time to ask serious questions about this legislation.