The supporters of the drive to take Council Bill 58 to referendum refer to the legislation as a case of "spot zoning." Marc Norman, the leader of the drive, claims that the zoning regulation amendment submitted by Greenburg Gibbons was not scrutinized enough by the Planning Board and County Council. He wants the voters to decide the fate of the ZRA already approved unanimously by the County Council.
What Mr. Norman fails to see is that he is advocating an approach no better than "spot zoning." He is simply engaging in "spot advocacy." He and his group -- of unknown membership -- are seeking to take down one particular zoning amendment request rather than taking a better, broader approach.
Unlike on the residential side, Howard County lacks a commercial square-footage and zoning plan. It is easy for spot zoning to occur in such an environment. Also, the bureaucratic processes by which zoning can be changed seem to favor developers. The combined result is suburban commercial sprawl that grows alongside fairly well-planned residential development. This cannot continue.
To change busted processes and laws, though, requires a broader campaign to change the system in which developers operate with the county. Mr. Norman and his group would be better served by targeting countywide reforms on how zoning regulations are amended. His group should compel the county to develop a commercial master plan and subsequent change processes that are open to public comment.
Howard County residents want responsibly planned development. They do not seek to quell development on a case-by-case basis.
Posts
Man, I just love it when people spout the obvious and sit back doing nothing, as if their great idea will grow wings and fly.
ReplyDeleteBut also, the referendum is the only option for those who were underrepresented. You want to quash the ONLY option you'd have?
ReplyDeleteTwo strawman arguments here. I'm just as entitled as anyone else to say my opinion of why Mr. Norman should not be engaging in spot advocacy. You're entitled to come on here and say your opinion. You even have the added benefit of anonymity so you can say anything and not be held accountable for it.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly enough, Mr. Norman has used "media" in every sense of the word to spread his message just as anyone who writes a letter to the editor would.
I find it interesting, too, that you interpreted what I'm writing to say that we should quash a referendum. I said nothing of the sort. If Mr. Norman can get the 5000 verified signatures, then we're having a referendum and that's the rules of the game. I think it is misguided, yes, but I don't want to stop anyone's right to pursue it.
As I have said, Mr. Norman has been engaging with organizations that really have limited interest in the real issues of CB58. He has teamed up with people who are not in the slightest concerned about traffic and infrastructure adequacy so much as union jobs. This is all done in the interest of getting CB58 to a referendum that will work for his interest base of Turf Valley. If this were in downtown Columbia, I doubt he would blink an eye.
So, is your problem a personal one with Marc Norman?
ReplyDeleteNot at all. He's doing what he thinks is right for his community. I don't have any problem with that or anyone who fights for what they believe. I just don't think it's the right approach.
ReplyDeleteIn your letter to the Howard County Times/Flier you proposed a need to have a comprehensive approach to land use in Howard County. This was in reference to the referendum petition drive to place the decision of the County Council to approve a the eighth large grocery store in Turf Valley.
ReplyDeleteWe agree. In this particular case, the County council operated in a vacuum and failed to have a global view of the facilities that already exist on Route 40.
Four years ago, a county appointed citizens committee issued a document, called "The Route 40 Enhancement Report". It recommended
different uses and a square footage limit on certain commercial entities. This was a "comprehensive" look at the Route 40 corridor.
That document was to be implemented by the creation of a Design Manual and zoning regulations specifically established for Route 40. As of today, nothing has been produced.
Citizens can work on these issues and lobby for implementation of better land use, but they have been ignored for years.
So...in the particular case of Turf Valley, the only method of redress for those who are concerned about a lack of planning here and elsewhere throughout the county, is to use the only tool available. That is the referendum.
If this large scale change had been submitted as a "rezoning", the opponents could have sued in court. However, this bill was "legislative" in nature and is subject to referendum.
If enough signatures are submitted and approved, the question will be on the ballot in 2010. Citizens can then vote for or against.
The success of this referendum may be a notice to the County Council that we want MORE planning and not decisions like this one made by the seat of their pants.
I think that's a well reasoned comeback to someone like me who doesn't see it that way. And you may be right that this could be a dual symbolic-realistic victory if the referendum were to go forth and win. I think pressure can be applied in other ways (primarily via elections), but that kind of response is a lot better than what I have been hearing and reading from some supporters of the referendum. Thanks for writing it.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete