I know that CB58 has been passed. I know that HCCA finally has a public position on the referendum, after much debate. And I now know that the HoCo Chamber of Commerce wants the signature threshold for petitions to be increased from the measly 5000 that it is today (in a county of about 300,000 people).
With the new entry into the fray, let's talk about the players in this game.
On one side, we have businesses and developers that want as little restrictions as is possible over where they want to conduct business. And businesses with models that command stores with huge square footage want to be able to build and operate wherever. That's where the HCCOB comes into play. They feel that our elected officials in the County Council and the HoCo Planning Board are supposed to be a check on those desires. Also, they think that a referendum (passed or not, I guess) would send a bad signal to businesses that want to come here. From the number of chain stores in Columbia and HoCo, that's not likely.
Of course, there's also the development company Greenburg Gibbons Commercial that submitted the ZRA so that their proposed Turf Valley Town Center could have a 55000 sq ft zoning cap. They're saying that no shopping center with an anchor supermarket of less than that amount could survive today. That's a load of BS because Trader Joe's and Whole Foods do very well for themselves in areas closer to 20000 square feet. They may have caught less flack for making that claim and just coming out to say that they want a grocery store up to three times the size allowed now. I'm not sure how they could shed the common label applied to developers as being profit-driven (they are) and having elected officials in their back pocket (they do a lot of lobbying, contributing, and attending County open meetings with pretty drawings and charts).
We also have the Marc Norman-led Howard County Citizens for Open Government. In the interest of openness (and irony), he won't reveal to anyone how many people comprise his organization. He thinks that the planned shopping center would hurt other businesses and increase traffic into Turf Valley. I'd definitely need to see studies on that to prove the concept instead of allegations of lack of foresight and officials' improprieties with developers.
Norman has the backing of HCCA. He also, conveniently, has the backing of labor unions that represent workers at union shops of Giant and Safeway. They oppose Wegman's (160,000 square feet?!) and Harris Teeters popping up in the county because they're not union shops.
Basically, everyone has made their own not-so-savvy moves in this mess. What this boils down to is whether or not the shopping center will make sense for Turf Valley and the immediate surrounding area in terms of commerce, convenience, and urban planning. It has nothing to do with enfranchisement of voters. It has nothing to do with adding union jobs. It has nothing to do with sending signals to big corporations. The issue is as simple as it really sounds.
Does the already passed regulation change make sense in terms of those three criteria? Stop the sideshow and make that call for yourself. If you don't think so, then sign the petition. If you have an ulterior motive or think that it does make sense, then don't. And we'll see how it hashes out by February.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5,000 seems small until you try to gather that many signatures. It's a matter of not having time or money for exposure to this many people, not a matter of voters not wanting the decision.
ReplyDeleteWe've had maybe 1 referendum in a decade - what the !@#$% is the problem? It's not that we have too many, and maybe the 5,000 is too large.
What if you had to get 5,000 unique visitors to this website in the next two months, or you would not be able to keep it going? What time and resources would you have to invest to make that happen? 5,000 is a huge number when you don't own a broadcast company.
I had to check out blogger's setup on the comments. I had kept them as the default, but that was that only registered users with Google could comment. That is a pain, so I just let anons comment now. It's easier. Sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think that 5000 is pretty low compared to the number of people in HoCo. 5000 out of 300,000 residents to get onto the ballot. That's less than 2%. I would suggest that 4% would be reasonable and much more of a mandate on any issue.
The issue with the signatures is really what is the threshold by which resident outcry merits a referendum. 2% isn't that threshold. If the roles were reversed and the developer was out getting signatures, then Mr. Norman and his supporters would be likewise outraged at the low number to get it to the public.
I just don't understand how 2% of the population should be allowed to throw any issue (small or large) to a county vote that costs a lot of money and makes an issue political to the point of absurd distortion. The threshold, though, is an aside to the real issue at play.
It's quite a strawman argument to say that because we've had a low number of referendum questions that this is no big deal to allow this one. The issue isn't whether or not we have too many. The issue is whether or not CB58 was well-vetted by the planning board and county council. If there are enough people in the county that are informed enough on the issue to say that they didn't, then let's have a referendum. Even if that is 5000 people on the dot. It's the standard in our charter and, unless it changes, that's what Mr. Norman's group has to achieve.
Costs what money? That question was posed by someone else on another site, and never answered. Until someone comes up with the referendum cost, there is none.
ReplyDeleteReferendum is our right, one that has not been exercized fully or consistently because of the huge barrier of 5,000 signatures which really mean 6,500 signatures. Strawman has nothing to do with asking for the rights we've legally been afforded.
CB58 was never vetted - the council made their decision based on the **parties involved**.
Please. To say that "if enough people in the county were informed" is entirely too telling.
What if you had to obtain 6,500 unique visitors to this site in two months, and you had no access to informing or otherwise directing people here? No resources, no money, no time, no links, no buddies, no influence (because you are a regular joe).
That scenario most clearly creates a barrier to your right (for free speech, in this case).
You've just upped your signature total by 30%. For what reason? Because 1500 of the signatures would be invalid? If so, then that's awfully telling about the kind of campaigning happening.
ReplyDeleteReferendum cost time and money for the parties involved that advocate either side of the issue. That time and money could have been spent in advocacy for the issue in the first place. In this case, it could have been spent on supporting a traffic and commerce study that Mr. Norman could use to prove his case. There's a nominal cost for HoCo government in making the referendum happen, but that's not a real claim for anyone to make.
As for CB58's vetting, one, that is your opinion. Backing to the previous paragraph, money and time could have been spent getting actively involved in the process with our elected officials and parties involved.
Referendum is the right of the people. I'm not disagreeing with you. And, having information is pretty telling. If people are blindly signing a petition for any cause with little or inaccurate information, then is that better for our government than what the Planning Board and County Council do? The answer is clearly not. An informed electorate is the best electorate - and that does not imply formal education. It implies that activists involved supply true information to the citizens. We have seen that is not happening all the way through.
You still have failed to address the double standard that would have been applied if it were the developer trying to get 5000 signatures. CB58 opponents would say that the developer has so many resources that it would too easy to reach that number.
The challenge Mr. Norman faces is currently 5000 signatures. He says he will meet that without a problem. He has done it by forming partnerships with like-minded people with greater access (grocery unions). That's how you get it done. If he pulls it off, he deserves some credit for the achievement.
You keep mentioning that referendum is your right. Rights come with responsibilities in how they are exercised. In this case, the responsibility is to prove that there is enough public support for the view that this issue should be settled via ballot question. 5000 signatures is the current responsibility.
Your original post wrongfully claims that the developer has asserted that no grocery store less than 55,000 could survive. I don't think Greenberg Gibbons has ever said that. Their consistent position has been that a larger grocery store is necessary to anchor the vibrant, upscale town center that they have planned for Turf Valley. In other words, a smaller store may be able to make it there, but it would not attract the other types of retail uses that would be desirable to the community.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnon, you're right. I minced words wrong there from the Sun piece. Consider it changed.
ReplyDeleteRyan,
ReplyDeleteThe 6500 for 5000 approved is standard - many are unable to be confirmed for a number of reasons, not fraud or whatever else you might have been thinking with the "telling" statement.
Believing that developers have no access or influence on county govt' and might need to gather 5000, no, 6500 signatures to get something done is just ludicrous.
You trust the developers and the representatives who take their money immensely, which leads me to think you've lead a charmed life, thus far.
Anon, you did confirm for me that your 6500 for 5000 is basically for fraud purposes. Not being able to "confirm" signatures can and does imply fraudulent names and addresses.
ReplyDeleteYou misread what I wrote about the developers' ability to get signatures. I'm sure that they could mobilize pretty easily. It's true that they have more time, money, and resources compared to a similarly sized group of citizens (usually, the citizen group is much smaller). I said that you would be outraged if the opposite were the situation - a developer rallying for a referendum. Again, you confirmed my point.
I said nothing of trusting the representatives and developers - particularly the developers. They carry misinformation, too. I said that I feel that it would be better in this situation to let our elected officials do their job and that activists on both sides work through the process laid out for us. Mr. Norman and the folks that have rallied in favor of a referendum did not present enough evidence in opposition of Gibbons. Otherwise, the motion would not have passed.
I don't appreciate the personal attacks. It doesn't shine favorable light on the referendum cause, either.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteEvidence of trust does not have to come in the form of verbally expressing "I trust X".
6500 vs. 5000 comes from people signing who can't be identified from the handwriting, who didn't register to vote and didn't know whether or not they were registered, and any number of reasons. No one would try to defraud in this situation because petition signatures are checked, there's no way to get away with fraud here.
Regarding personal attacks, would it help if I added a smiley face after statements? ;)
Also, regarding personal attacks maybe I should call myself Tom rather than anon, or some other innocuous unidentifiable label that others can pick up and mix up. Perhaps the comments would be more lightly taken.
ReplyDelete:)
I reread my post. Was the 'attack' the part where I said, "you must be living a charmed life"? OMgoodness, Ryan. Are you serious?
ReplyDeleteI am serious about the attacks as a precedent. I take things pretty light-heartedly, but I don't want "charmed life" to turn into "in developers' pockets" or "undercover commie-Nazi." May as well say something now before it goes further with any commentator - not just you (Tom). Having a name does help, BTW.
ReplyDeleteI figured that there were additional reasons for the 6500 approach, but I did want to make sure that fraud could be a reason too. Some people just can't write their names very clearly, also.
Some observations....
ReplyDelete- Generally, 10% of petition signatures are routinely invalidated. That being said, you can't be too careful when dozens of people are collecting signatures and you don't know what quality control standards to expect from each one. You either meet the requirement within 60 days or you're out of luck.
- Developer resources, influence and legal tactics are generally successful in commanding the political and legal arenas. The ONE aspect of the zoning and growth process where they can't exert disproportionate control is when issues are placed on the ballot. This is the one vehicle where citizens have considerable influence and power.
- A few of the reasons that citizens from across the county have been motivated to take CB58 to referendum are:
1. 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.
So much for being an obstructionist ;-)...
Anon,
ReplyDeleteA much better set of observations than what I've seen so far in any discussion on this subject. Let me respond, if I may.
I can understand the desire to get extra signatures for the litany reasons that they cannot be validated.
The legal procedure does appear to benefit developers in giving them more convenient methods to push through zoning changes. That said, it is the job of of two parties to thwart a developer's steamroll.
One party is government, who should be above the mess. Second are the citizens that should be actively engaged in issues from the moment that they arise. In this case, I was struck by the lack of real citizen interest in CB58 until it was too late to impact the ZRA.
Now, Mr. Norman has compiled a group of precarious resources in a desperate attempt to get his signatures. In my mind, his efforts would be better served in spearheading a campaign to revise zoning change requests in the county. He seems to only really care about Turf Valley. That's fine, but then he is clearly lying and manipulating when claiming that this issue is a county issue. The zoning of one property is not. The way zoning is handled is. Let's be clear on that and stop misleading others.
As for the reasons why some people support this, I have heard them prior to your post. (At least you can actually state them. Others have no clue.) Still, I am very concerned that the signatures gathered are not done under the guise of a well-thought out position. Referendum signatures aren't collected that way. They usually encounter misinformation from both sides to get supporters. What I find really interesting is Mr. Norman's gamble that the GG cannot outspend and outmessage him in a referendum. If they have so much time and resources, then Mr. Norman would hypothetically have little chance of success.
Most of your points deal with process more than this specific property.
Point 1 is procedural and is part of a campaign to change how zoning is handled. Though I will point out that the County lacks a real master plan for commercial development. This is part and parcel.
Point 2 is moot because GG contacted the members of that adjacent property to gain their support.
Point 3 is actually not true. There is no question on the petition request form about political contributions.
Point 4 seems to be murky at best. It is claim versus claim. Without true evidence in the form of informed citizens and an economic study to prove its impact on Route 40, we're just blowing smoke. It's something that I'm not going to get guess about because it would be conjecture. I will point out that Mr. Norman's unwillingness to share the number of members in his group points to either (a) an ironic twist on a man calling for openness or (b) that he has very little support.
I agree with you that the people of Howard County want planning and zoning to be well thought out and managed. That, though, does not mean "spot complaining" either. It means advocating for a more thorough and open zoning and planning process.
Why are you focused on Norman or the size of his organization? Does it matter that he organized more than a half dozen area communities to form REGION - Responsible Growth In Our Neighborhood? Is it important to this discussion that he was largely responsible for turning out more than 200 people (from across the county) for the 2005 Planning Board hearings to expand Turf Valley by 20%? How about the legislation that he spearheaded in Annapolis to require chemical testing of golf course property before it is redeveloped into housing?
ReplyDeleteOur county government is responsible for allowing Turf Valley to develop without responsible planning or oversight. Norman just happens to be the guy who lives there and is taking the lead to hold the government accountable.
It takes an extensive grassroots organization to accomplish these feats. The reported number of petition signatures (over 3,000) would appear to dispel the notion that only a few people are involved.
It's naive to suggest that any ZRA is a local issue. For years, our Council members have been playing the game of divide and conquer by having the local official express outrage and opposition to rezoning in their district while the other four vote for it.
ReplyDeleteThis charade is perpetuated as the developers manipulate rezoning around the county. Look at the current upzoning ZRAs proposed for Route 1 and Elkridge (supported by the three Columbia Council members while Ms. Watson vows to fight for her constituents).
Norman's organization size does matter. It indicates the amount of support that he has. Constituency matters. It does and don't lie to yourself in saying it doesn't. Just because Mr. Norman organized six communities does not mean he organized everyone in each of those communities. It means he organized persons in those communities. There is a big difference in constituency size, depending on the level of support he has.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't necessarily dispel anything to have 3000 signatures. I will agree that there seems to be a reasonably concerned group. But, you are leaving out a couple of key components here. First, Mr. Norman has the support of grocery unions that are actively passing the petition around and likely not framing this bill in proper context because Harris Teeter is a non-union shop. Second, we don't know what supporters are actually telling people to get them to sign. This is a referendum on one ZRA. It could be being sold as something to "keep big box stores" out of the area. This is not that kind of protest, though. Mr. Norman is engaging in spot advocacy and he would be better served to approach this problem from a countywide view. Some of his supporters do, including some in HCCA. I would much prefer that approach because changing how ZRAs are processed and developing a countywide commercial master plan are the real keys. If Mr. Norman wins his case among the people for CB58 (in referendum), then nothing changes about the county process or lack of commercial master plan. Does Mr. Norman care about his convenience in Turf Valley or all of HoCo? His pattern of organizing and appealing seem to indicate the former.
Again, my stance on this should be made clear. I think it is a naive approach to try to oppose one ZRA request through referendum. The county lacks a clear commercial master plan and there are also problems with the ZRA process (something a state bill will help clear up). That should be the drive of referendum supporters here. For me, it seems awfully short sighted to go after one ZRA at a time.
ReplyDelete