Turf Valley Referendum Halted on Court Ruling

It appears that the drive to take CB 58 to referendum may wind up never making it to the ballot. It isn't for lack of signatures - Marc Norman's group has submitted over 9000 - but rather because of a ruling made in a Maryland court in December.

Derek Simmonsen has the news:

The review by the county Board of Elections was prompted by a recent Maryland Court of Appeals decision that changes how signatures on petition forms are verified.

Board of Elections Director Betty Nordaas said today that the board went back and reviewed the initial batch of signatures in light of a December Maryland Court of Appeals decision.

The review was suggested by the state attorney general’s office on March 11, according to a letter Nordaas gave to Norman the following day.

The court decision placed tighter restrictions on how signatures should be verified, Nordaas said. Voters now must sign their names on the petition form using the exact name that is on their voter registration; variations on a name will no longer be accepted, she said.

After elections workers invalidated more than 1,000 signatures, Nordaas said the referendum failed because there was no way for Norman’s group to get the 2,500 signatures needed as part of the first batch.

Norman, rightfully so, was shocked at the news. It appears that this review happened after counts on the second batch of signatures was halted due to a lawsuit filed by Greenburg Gibbons. Norman argues that this review is unfair because it is a retroactive review of signatures that Norman claims he acquired using guidance provided by the Board of Elections.

Very curious case, particularly since the precedent came from a case involving the Montgomery County BOE and a lawsuit surrounding "gender identity" as a protected voter class. It seems totally unrelated.

That in mind, it seems like the precedent established in this case would not have been apparent to the Howard County BOE. The state AG's office may have found this after the lawsuit was filed and decided to consider this review before taking a look at the Gibbons lawsuit.

I would be surprised, too, if I were Norman. This is a bizarre development.

Response to My Howard County Times Letter

Angela Beltram, former County Council member, responded to my letter to the editor from last week.  If you take a look at the comments to that letter posted here, you'll see several of the same points raised as are in Angela's letter.  I responded to the commenter by thanking them for the well-reasoned response.  I'll say the same here as well.  There's reasonable discourse to be had on the subject.

At the risk of being redundant - probably too late for that - my response is consistent with my position.  We agree that CB58 is reflective of a busted process for managing land use and zoning regulations in the County.  In order to fix a busted process, the citizens have to do one of two big things: (1) somehow lobby the Council and the Executive to implement reform and a countywide commerical master plan (not just Route 40 Corridor, or New Town, etc) or (2) elect other persons into positions of power that desire the same transparency we seem to both seek.

My concern with Mr. Norman and Ms. Beltram's approach is that the referendum is simply too piecemeal to achieve the larger goal.  I understand it is perceived as a valuable weapon when it comes to dealing with one particular piece of legislation, and that is why it is trying to be employed.  

The problem is that this has not been and will not be the only battle waged in the war to have better commerical land use practices in the County.  A successful CB58 referendum would not be a Waterloo for transparency.  It would just become one in a series of battles that Ms. Beltram has tried to lead down the path of referendum with mixed success.  It seems ineffective, then, to keep firing from the same gun if it rarely hits the target.  As a weapon on the subject of land use, the referendum is fairly weak.

If Howard County citizens really want to pursue change in their government, then you change the people that govern and the processes by which they govern.  Since it does not appear that the processes are likely to change given the current people governing, it would seem that the citizens should pursue changing the people that govern first.  

Like I said, I understand why referendum supporters feel like they have just one weapon at their disposal.  The problem is that this perspective is short-sighted and untrue.  

I may be thinking from too holistic of a perspective, though.  Perhaps the supporters of the referendum prefer a piecemeal fighting tactic in the hopes that they can target specific zoning changes that they dislike.  Maybe they would prefer to work within the busted system that they know than risk replacing it with a comprehensive system that may fall short of their expectations and ideals.

My Letter to the Editor in the Howard County Times

I submitted a letter to the Howard County Times regarding CB58 and the drive to referendum. Thanks to the editorial board there, it was published and is available at Explore Howard. If you don't want to make an extra click, the text is below:

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.

Gibbons Has Filed Court Appeal to Referendum Process

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.

Some Critical CB58 Documents

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.

Let's Discuss the Players in CB58

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.