I got word through HoCo Free Market about Greensburg Gibbons' nopetition.com - a website that basically shares their message directly with the people of Howard County about their plans for Turf Valley Town Center.
While the idea may well be a bad PR move (seriously, the developer vs. citizens dynamic is a no win for Gibbons), I did find a couple of documents of interest. Namely, I wanted to provide the document that the County Council wrote to citizens in an effort to clarify what CB58 does and does not do. It clears up a lot of procedural and legislative misinformation being spread by commenters on this blog, other websites, and in petition drives. It should be read.
Also, we had a commenter on here who said that Greenburg Gibbons did not detail their campaign contributions to council members. Per the law and the ZRA petition form, they don't have to. Check it out yourself.
As I have said before, taking your case to the people is one thing. Providing them with misinformation and out-and-out lies is another. That goes for both sides.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Ok, so, where's the outright lie?
ReplyDeleteBoth sides are lying to their constituents. GG has lied about the traffic impact, per usual with developers. Commenters have lied on this blog in support of Norman's cause saying that GG illegally didn't disclose campaign contributions in the form. It's everywhere and easy to find.
ReplyDeleteContributions weren't disclosed, but whether or not it's legal is in dispute. That's why new legislation is afoot to clarify.
ReplyDeleteIf you've read the documents, it seems to be a requirement without the clarifying law.
So there has been no eggregious misrepresentation on the part of Norman, and you are minimizing the developer's misrepresenations by saying, "per usual".
It would be great if two sides always had equal blame for conflicts, but that flies in the face of facts, and human nature.
FYI, I'm not the commenter who posted Norman's position on the law.
Actually, it's not in dispute at all. The legislation proposed is to make sure that it is required for all zoning change requests in the future. There is no question on the ZRA form asking for it.
ReplyDeleteIf you want me to give the litany GG misrepresentation, here you go:
1. They underestimate the amount of traffic that this will bring on Route 40 and through TV corridors.
2. 54000 square feet isn't required for an anchor grocery store to thrive in HoCo. Just ask for the change and be done with it. They have said they could go on with the center even if CB58 were defeated in referendum voting.
3. They didn't talk to everyone to gain support from the start. They added in piecemeal constituents.
If I have to spell these things out, then I'll do it. My belief is that both sides are misrepresenting themselves and the information in this situation. It happens all of the time and it should be the job of citizens to sniff out that - almost always - the extreme sides of an argument are both wrong in some fashion. The middle is where truth lies.
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteTake a look at the DPZ website. They have a nine page ZRA application that includes four pages of information about contributions and other financial arrangements with public officials.
Unlike GGP's ZRA application, Gibbons decided not to complete those pages (with disclosure that the Turf Valley developers have given money to 5 out of 6 of our elected county officials and the Deputy Director of DPZ).
Regarding the grocery store size, you have overlooked the impact that Turf Valley will have on the Route 40 business corridor (which doesn't have a Master Plan). If you research the current retail business/traffic data, you will see that there aren't enough households to support the Turf Valley increase.
Let's have an honest assessment which determines that building a regional shopping center on I-70/Route 40 is worth losing two or three of the existing older centers within three miles.
How long do you think it will be before the owners of those properties ask the Council for new zoning to build hundreds of new condo units in place of the existing shopping center (following in the footsteps of Kimco/Wilde Lake)?
You're not correct. GGP had to file out those pages because they applied for a comprehensive zoning change. GGC did not. If they had, then they would have had to acknowledge contributions. Again, read the form that I've linked to and you'll see exactly what I mean.
ReplyDeleteI have not overlooked the impact. Here's the deal on land ownership in a commercial space. In this environment (without the Master Plan for commercial space), a landowner and merchant are both at risk to future development.
If you have hard evidence to support your claims, I'd love to see them. But, if you're just guessing without a funded professional study, I'm not any more inclined to believe your view.
Also, let's be clear here. This is not a regional center.
Last, you're making a broad assumption about the failure of other existing shopping centers. Regardless, though, centers can be allowed to fail amidst other competition. Our zoning and planning practices should not be necessarily geared toward protection of existing developments, particularly in the commercial space. I'd much rather have a conversation about the merits of opposing this in terms of traffic.
At a county level, our officials should be concerned about a few things when approving ZRAs of this size. (Not a comprehensive change like GGP's suggestion.) We should care about traffic/adequate infrastructure impact, revenue impact, and sprawl. In this case, sprawl isn't that big of a deal. So, it boils down to traffic for me.