Marc Norman's comments in the Howard County Times make me wonder about the role of sensationalism in his efforts.
"This effort on behalf of the developer we believe is clearly meant to intimidate, impede and deter the citizens' rights and movement toward referendum," Norman said.
Intimidate? Over a grocery store's square footage? You gotta be kidding me.
Gibbons did file a legal challenge to the current threshold for petition signatures. Really, they shouldn't be doing that now. When you begin any game, you begin knowing what the rules are when you start and that you can't change them during the game when it is convenient. Otherwise, Chris Webber's phantom timeout in the National Championship game against North Carolina could have been allowed.
This is the kind of ridiculousness that gets in the way of real resolutions to tough problems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
So many levels of incredulousness.
ReplyDeleteLet's say you have an inheritance of 80 mill, which you need to invest so you buy a shopping center after much research.
Two years later the county council pulls the rug out from under you by changing plans without good basis - you did your research - it's all about the connections.
You loose most of the 80 mill.
Tough luck? Small matter? If you had the 80 mill, I seriously doubt it would ever be termed thusly.
One, it's lose.
ReplyDeleteTwo, I agree that you can't change the rules of the game once it starts.
Who should we be more concerned about? The people living in Turf Valley who overwhelmingly support the Harris Teeter, or some multi millionaires who invested in real estate ventures knowing the risks?
ReplyDeleteWhich real estate investors are you talking about here? Greenberg Gibbons? Just want to clarify your point/question.
ReplyDeleteI think that the other anon is referring to the owners of safeway and other nearby retail stores that will be impacted by Harris Teeter.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking it could be them, but I'll let them check in to be certain.
ReplyDeleteThose residents who are in favor of CB58 change continue to say that "residents want it", clearly a misleading statement. Residents of Turf Valley are split on the cb58 change. Area businesses supposedly supported it as well, but now we find that they did not.
ReplyDeleteThe people getting information out to the public are being accused of misinformation which is actually what the accusers have done.
I was there for the CB58 vote. The council said area businesses were in favor of the change, but they didn't mention the multitude of business messages against the change. The letter the council subsequently sent out was outrageous, claiming to correct misinformation -- They are the source of the misinformation.
At the very very least, people, please be honest. Goodness knows we can all use a little clarity.
Also, CB58 has become a win/loose scenario for the passionately involved and the council.
ReplyDeleteA little humility goes a long way toward peace and resolution and everyone involved seems to want that.
The goal is to want peace and a workable resolution more than the ego wants to win at all costs.
And anon 9:24, what about those people in Waverly who moved there for the community stores?
ReplyDeleteSome issues pertaining to your report that should set the record straight....
ReplyDeleteThe question of intimidation is not related to the grocery store size. There are a number of political and business interests who are scared to death that ordinary citizens might see that they have the power of refenda to demand intelligent, responsible and well planned growth (look at the Columbia ZRAs).
If you read the Talkin & Oh filing on behalf of Gibbons, you will see that they are challenging the Board of Elections' December approval of the petition language (which underwent extensive review by the Attorney General's office).
The Circuit Court action has NOTHING to do with the number of signatures required for placement on the Nov. 2010 ballot.
This would appear to be a frivolous legal action by a wealthy developer who is trying to make citizens raise $$$$ for legal bills.
Thanks for the clarification to 1/19 9:18. I've been out of town so I haven't had a chance to follow up on anything CB58.
ReplyDeleteI would say this seems pretty frivolous, but again, I've said in the post that this lawsuit is unnecessary and wrong.
As for gauging true interest in favor of or against the changes rendered by CB58 - if enforced - I still find it interesting that no one can really claim true victory.
Anon 1/19 3:53, you have to define split for me. Split to me means 50/50. Would you gauge the opposition at 50%, or at closer to 30 or 20%?
ReplyDeleteAnd the letter was not outrageous. It actually clarified a number of murky points of information not being correctly shared by a number of supporters of the referendum. (Note, not all.)
Anyone who claims to know the % split by geographic area is also misrepresenting, and I'm not going to 'guage' as those who are more aggressively seeking an agenda might.
ReplyDeleteThe letter was outrageous from the perspective that those folks are paid to represent all residents, and that letter did NOT clarify for those on the other side. The council took the egotistical path of standing firm in a terribly misguided decision made while the majority (this I DO know and CAN say) of residents did not know what was happening.
And also, thinking of this in terms of win/lose helps no one. That's just adding useless fuel to the fire to my earlier point that the egos have taken on a life of their own.
ReplyDeletePeaceful resolution, people. It just takes the truth, clarity, open local government - none of which we've had on CB58.
Anon 1/21 7:53, fair enough on the gauging. Glad you won't speculate.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm trying to understand the rationale of those who oppose the decision. What are your reasons for opposition? Is it traffic? Is it that you don't like non-union grocers? Do you think it'll hurt other businesses (your business if you own one)? There are litany reasons that someone could come at this bill from a negative aspect, so I am trying to understand that better.
If you're coming at it from my angle - that this decision is ok within the confines of the busted system we have now - then what they wrote isn't egotistical. In fact, it's clarifying where they came from on this and what their vote actually does.
You alluded to civic unengagement, which seems pretty clear in local politics. Actually, all levels of politics. But, that doesn't necessarily implicate the government. Civic engagement is a two way street between citizens and our representatives. If one party fails in that relationship, it cannot always be total blame on them. So, I cannot blame citizens for not paying enough attention until it was too late to speak out ahead of the vote just as you cannot claim that the government didn't tell anyone about the vote. It's on their web site.
Anon 1/21 8:06a, I don't mean to imply that there are winners/losers in the absolute sense, but some parties will be worse off than they were no matter the outcome of this. In my opinion, the arbiters of that are not government. They're looking to make sure all stakeholders come out ahead because they have to answer to all of them. It's their opinion that this decision would work well for all stakeholders.
ReplyDeleteI have some questions back at you in relation to your post.
Would you think that Mr. Norman will protract any loss in referendum (if it gets that far) through court challenges?
Would you be claiming the same lack of openness if the CC had shot down CB58?
Is it more important to you that CB58 doesn't get enacted or that the county develops a clear commercial development master plan?
It's of paramount importance that those affected are:
ReplyDelete1. Notified
2. Allowed input
3. Local Govt represent all fairly.
NONE of this has happened with CB58.
How did none of this happen? No one has proven to me that the government did not go through its normal processes for a ZRA. Until I see that, I'm not convinced that the government was less open than usual. You are free to spout those issues, and others, but without proof people will simply not listen. Conjecture is not a basis for referendum.
ReplyDeleteNO one said it doesn't ordinarily happen.
ReplyDeleteWhen you receive messages like the one you posted, you call them 'attacks'. In addition, your characterization is false.
Hopeless. Someone call Obama.
I'm not sure to what you're referring about either (a) which message or (b) that I called it an attack. I'm just asking questions of people who are saying the government wasn't open on this particular process. They haven't been answered at all in this space.
ReplyDeleteI guess I don't see the point in commenting on a blog if you're not willing to have a real dialogue about an issue. Allegations get us nowhere.
This is not a question of who wins or loses. A few of the reasons that citizens from across the county have been motivated to take CB58 to referendum are:
ReplyDelete1. The attempt to rezone a single property for the express benefit of one owner is clearly "spot zoning" which the Council should have referred to the Zoning Board. Unfortunately, development attorneys have learned that it's much easier to push a ZRA text amendment through the Planning Board/Council than it is to meet the legal "change & mistake" burden required by the ZB.
2. As a text amendment, there was absolutely NO requirement to notify neighborhoods bordering the one affected property. Furthermore, the ZRA was mistitled by DPZ, without any reference to Turf Valley or the property owner.
3. The Turf Valley developers chose not to submit the complete ZRA application (from DPZ's website). They chose not to report financial contributions to 5 out of 6 elected county officials as well as the DEPUTY DIRECTOR of DPZ !!!
4. CB58 represents a significant change to the Route 40 business corridor. Rather than being reviewed in the context of a Route 40 Master Plan, utilizing current retail market demand and traffic information, the Bill was approved under the misnomer of being a local neighborhood grocery store that was welcomed by the majority of areas residents and businesses (both of which are egregious misrepresentations).
The overwhelming concensus of citizens, taxpayers and registered voters is that the vast majority of people support well planned and managed development that is supported by forward funded infrastructure improvemements and public amenities.
Also, it has generally been ignored that some have used "slur by association" in pointing to possible union participation. I hope you will agree that all interested parties have a fundamental right to participate and exercise their right to referendum.
That being said, why do some people feel it's necessary to espouse and protect the developer's economic interest while diminishing and denigrating those volunteers who may be involved to protect their union's economic interest?
The Sun reported that Deputy DPZ Director Steve Lafferty was going to ask the county ethics office to review the contributions he received. Has anyone seen a report from them?
ReplyDeleteAnon 11:07, thanks for responding to me. Per my letter to the editor at the HCT, I agree with you that we should close loopholes like the one that GGC is pursuing and that we should pursue a process that requires petitioners to detail campaign contributions to local officials. We do have a bill coming up in the State session to deal with the latter. Currently, though, GGC is working within the system that is presented to them. And I am on record as agreeing with you about having well planned development that I think we are sorely missing.
ReplyDeleteI think we just have to agree to disagree on your fourth reason.
My feelings on participation - in any civic discussion - are that people should get involved for reasons that are linked to the fundamentals of the issue. The ZRA that preceded CB58 and CB58 itself are development issues.
In my mind, that means the issues at play are adequate infrastructure, traffic, and if those two issues do not outweigh the community benefit in terms of jobs and commerce that can be brought by the land owner. It doesn't really have anything to do with who will be in the developed space - in this case, probably Harris Teeter, a non union shop. That's up to the land owner/developer.
For grocery union folks to be against CB58 because a non-union shop would be coming seems to be out of line with the issue at play. Were a Giant proposed, it is likely that the union would not be involved at all. In Mr. Norman's case, he would be involved no matter the occupant because it impacts where he lives. He's in it for the right reasons. And while I disagree with the action he is taking, he is impacted by the development in a way that is related to CB58's legislative intent.