The Gazette OUROPINIONS
Forum
DAN GROSS/THE GAZETTE
Newly elected Montgomery County Council President Craig Rice.
The Gazette Karen Acton, President/Publisher
Page A-16
GAZETTE FILE PHOTO
Geoffrey Mason, senior natural resources specialist for the Department of Parks (center, holding map) shows planning board members and others a map of the proposed legacy open space in July as they tour Ten Mile Creek where it crosses Old Baltimore Road in Clarksburg.
An addicted county In testimony before the County Council on Stage 4 development in Clarksburg, the representative from Pulte appears to make claims they have a God-granted right, a Constitutional right, a contractual right and an immutable right to develop their land, even if this threatens the water supply to 4 million people. He referenced the work of his hired environmental science dealers to assure us that no harm will come to our creek, our sole source aquifer or our lake. But indeed the facts strongly suggest otherwise. Well-planned development, poorly planned projects or meticulously planned projects have all produced the same outcome. Every stream, pond, creek, or river in the entire county, save Ten Mile creek, is severely compromised by development. Even Ten Mile Creek shows some signs of stress. We have learned that “dealers” are supporting a county addiction to “a couple more.” John Denver’s reference in Rocky Mountain High for
Support Ten Mile Creek
“more people, more scars upon the land.” We note with skepticism that the county itself does not arrive with clean hands to this debate. Montgomery desires both the taxes “a couple more” brings and to develop property it owns in the water shed. Parks and Planning, under political pressure, has generated its own offering of “a couple more” with no guarantee whatsoever that one more hit of “a couple more” on Ten Mile Creek will not destroy a critical water ecosphere. Even some of the mercantile representatives from Clarksburg itself want their own snort of “a couple more.” These dealers of destruction are the county’s equivalent of heroin dealers; development at any cost and we will disguise or ignore the risks. We now have addicts making the final decision about the fate of our last and only emergency source of clean drinking water. What do you think will be the outcome?
The Montgomery County Council has now heard two nights of public testimony on the Planning Board’s recommendations for the Ten Mile Creek Limited Amendment. Of the approximately 80 speakers before the board, an overwhelming majority spoke against the misguided recommendations for the Ten Mile Creek watershed — recommendations that allow far too much development and will not protect the currently clean creek and water reservoir it feeds from inevitable degradation and pollution. Speakers made clear, compelling and impassioned arguments for the imperative need to protect Ten Mile Creek as our county’s last clean creek, environmental treasure, and major water source for Little Seneca Reservoir, our back-up drinking water. The people have spoken. The council heard. It would now seem a travesty for the council to go against not only the obvious will of the residents, but also the clear, convincing science that backs up their pleas to protect this precious watershed and last pristine water resource in the county. It’s time for the council members to take a stand: stand for the people, for the proven science, for the environment, and for protection of Ten Mile Creek and Little Seneca Lake. We drink water and we vote.
Arthur Slesinger, Darnestown
Rita Guagliardo, Germantown
Wheaton Rec Center’s weaknesses aren’t abstract During the two hearings conducted by the Montgomery County Planning Board on the question of what to do with the Wheaton Youth Center, there was a clear divide among those testifying. On one hand, there were those who saw the building in the abstract, yearning for experiences long past and remembering honors given 50 years ago to whom the building was an academic exercise. On the other, there were those, mainly from the community, with first-hand experience with the building, who see it as undersized, badly in need of repair, and, for all of its past glories, not sufficient to serve a growing and thriving community in Wheaton. This is a community which deserves not only a new recreation center, but also a new library which would be combined on the land now occupied by the current library and the Youth Center. So here is the question for those on the Planning Board which after all has jurisdiction over the building? How could you let such a “modernist, award-winning structure,” as board chairwoman Francoise Carrier put it, fall into such a disreputable state? When I testified before the board, I showed photos of the rotting arch out front, of plastic bags stuffed in doors as insulation, and of rooms too small to be of use. Others testified that the roof leaks, the carpeting is moldy, the gym floor isn’t level and some kitchen appliances don’t work. The lighting is dim and the rooms, supposedly in Japanese style, are too small. According to the Planning Board, none of that mattered in their decision to render the structure historic. The condition of the building is irrelevant. That it fails to meet most of the criteria for designation is irrel-
Wheaton Recreation Center and Library at 11711 Georgia Ave in Wheaton. evant — it need only meet one. Each case for preservation has to be decided on its merits. In this case, the merits of the existing building are not the only ones to be evaluated. Unfortunately under the Planning Board’s code, the prospective new uses of the property, nor the desires of those who live nearby and would use the new facility, are not part of the discussion. In a different context, a different case might well be made. The board’s solution was to keep the existing Youth Center building, and allow it to co-exist with the larger, newer, energy-efficient structure that will combine library and rec center by taking up some of the grassy area that designers had set aside for outdoor activities. That is not “preservation,” nor is it “peaceful coexistence,” as Carrier
Andrew Schotz, Assistant Managing Editor Nathan Oravec, A&E Editor Ken Sain, Sports Editor Dan Gross, Photo Editor Jessica Loder, Web Editor
Dennis Wilston, Corporate Advertising Director Doug Baum, Corporate Classifieds Director Mona Bass, Inside Classifieds Director
DAN GROSS/THE GAZETTE
said [“Preservation and redevelopment can coexist,” Forum, Dec. 4]. This is a serious distortion of a well thought-out facility and grounds. If the Planning Board wanted to add another element to their fanciful plan, they might as well have added a zoo for unicorns. The County Council will make the final determination next year. The Gazette’s Oct. 30 editorial [“Rec center blues”] was right that a suitable commemoration of the building is in order — a music festival or plaque that would keep alive the spirit of a structure that was fine for its time.
Art Brodsky, Olney
The writer is a member of the Montgomery County Library Board.
9030 Comprint Court, Gaithersburg, MD 20877 | Phone: 301-948-3120 | Fax: 301-670-7183 | Email: opinions@gazette.net More letters appear online at www.gazette.net/opinion
Douglas Tallman, Editor Krista Brick, Managing Editor/News Glen C. Cullen, Senior Editor Copy/Design Meredith Hooker, Managing Editor/Internet Robert Rand, Managing Editor/Presentation
|
LETTERS TOT HE EDITOR
Taking the reins
In his first address as president of the Montgomery County Council last week, Craig Rice hit all the buttons one might expect from a county Democrat. He expressed gratitude to County Executive Isiah Leggett and the fellow Democrats on the County Council. He praised Montgomery County Public Schools. He gave thanks for the hard work of county employees, police officers and firefighters, as well as the Health and Human Services Department. But having genuflected toward the key parties of the Democratic Party coalition, he said something downright Republican: He spoke well of the county’s businesses. “Businesses here in Montgomery County are not the enemy,” Rice said. “It does not require a reliance on discredited, trickle-down economics to understand that business supplies jobs that are needed and essential for economic health and for our citizens to realize [their] potential.” But it appeared that by declaring business isn’t the enemy, he drew attention to what has appeared to be the council’s battle plan. The most recent skirmish was the increase in the minimum wage. Ignoring economists who believed caution was a better plan of attack, the council pressed ahead with its own, politically motivated plan. Rice tried to argue for a wait-and-see strategy; the General Assembly might take action, making Montgomery’s move unnecessary. His colleagues didn’t agree. Ultimately, Rice surrendered. The council has crossed swords with business interests over other legislation. For example, in 2012, the council passed the displaced worker legislation, which requires companies that win certain contracts to retain the former contractors’ employees. To that, a Silver Spring landscaper said: “It’s just another law that makes it hard to do business in Montgomery County.” Council members might object to the landscaper’s sentiment, citing tax credits and other incentives the county uses to let business feel the love from our government. Despite the prevailing wisdom, the Montgomery County Department of Economic Development touts an article that shows Montgomery has the lowest tax burden of five other nearby jurisdictions, including Fairfax County, Va., which some view as the business friendliest. In his one-year term as the council’s president, Rice is unlikely to break Montgomery’s weak-on-business reputation. His address fired a shot across the Potomac: “So let me be clear, and I want Virginia to hear me: Jobs are important to Montgomery County.” To back up his statement, Rice offered a four-point agenda. Three of the points call for greater school funding, preservation of the Agricultural Reserve and restoration of cuts to county services. Point One called for an aggressive business agenda. “There are huge gains available for our citizens with appropriate effort devoted to the development of our businesses, particularly small businesses,” he said. The speech offered only one area of aggression: A change in the way the county goes about its procurement to favor Montgomery County businesses. County documents show its procurement activity on the order of $762.8 million. Possibly, new procurement rules will help the county’s small businesses. But so would a reduction in stormwater management fees, and energy and property taxes. So would an examination of county government activities for potential privatization. Rice — and the rest of the County Council — have to travel a long way to change policies, and to change perceptions. A council president is largely a figurehead. He can set meeting agendas. He’ll have a bully pulpit to highlight policy. But in the end, Rice is still one vote of nine. His bold words were a good opening salvo. But the question remains whether anyone should duck for fear of getting hit from a pendulum swinging in the other direction.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Jean Casey, Director of Marketing and Circulation Anna Joyce, Creative Director, Special Pubs/Internet Ellen Pankake, Director of Creative Services
POST COMMUNITY MEDIA Karen Acton, Chief Executive Officer Michael T. McIntyre, Controller Donna Johnson, Vice President of Human Resources Maxine Minar, President, Comprint Military Shane Butcher, Director of Technology/Internet