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.

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.

CB58, Turf Valley, and a Referendum

HCCA is gathering signatures for a petition that would activate a referendum on CB58 - the proposed legislation that would allow for a change to zoning restrictions in Turf Valley. At the center of the issue is the regulation change that would increase the grocery zoning max to 55,000 square feet (up from a 18,500 square feet) and cap other stores in the zoned area to a size of 20,000 square feet.

HCCA opposes this legislation and would like to have it put to a referendum - presumably in the hopes that it could advocate effectively enough to have it voted down. It seems that a lot of the effort behind this stems from a distrust of the County Council and Executive Ken Ulman. The underlying tone appears to me that the HCCA feels that the elected officials are in the back pocket of Turf Valley developers that asked for this zoning change.

The citizens that comprise HCCA, though, have legitimate and earnest concerns about what this kind of rezoning and redevelopment would to for traffic on Route 40 and I-70. I don't find that there's anything wrong with having a concern about the traffic, environmental, and overall infrastructure impact of proposed rezoning or development.

The opposition to the HCCA - comprising many of the residents of the Turf Valley PGCC - believes that this proposal has been thoroughly vetted by citizens, incorporates their input and concerns, and should not be a matter for the population of Howard County at large. They feel that they want their shopping center and have worked out a plan that will respond to that desire.

The HCCA would argue that the issue here is responsible growth and development. Therefore, since growth and development have an impact on many more citizens than just those of Turf Valley, they argue that the issue is one that should be put to a vote of a body much larger than the County Council - a body elected to determine matters such as this on our behalf.

For a moment, let's put aside the allegations of misleading communication from the HCCA and CB58 supporters. It is apparent that both sides are clearly willing to misrepresent themselves and each other to achieve their ends. That is troubling to itself, but not the point of this essay.

The issues at play, really, are those of "standing" and the real merits of a referendum. Who has a right to oppose development? Is it everyone in the jurisdiction? Is it only those in Turf Valley? How about some group in between? It is difficult to decide. For me, it is probably somewhere in the middle. The citizens of Turf Valley should clearly have standing. Some measure of those outside Turf Valley should have standing, too. Still, it is not clear whether they should have standing in the form of a vote on legislation.

The referendum is a clever political ploy. It allows politicians to sideskirt the very issues that they are charged with making decision about and can put it to a vote for the people to decide. In a representative democracy, though, the referendum really is a way to avoid doing a critical part of the job.

For those that approve of the referendum in question, they will always claim that politicians make big mistakes, are not aware of the will of the people, and that they do no provide enough of an outlet for concerned citizens to impact policy.

Naysayers like me will say what I just did - that a representative democracy compels our elected officials to make tough calls for us. We elect them to do that and they should accordingly take the flack and consequences for such decisions. Officials are elected with the charge from voters that we trust their judgment on a comprehensive set of issues. In this case, zoning is one of those issues. Yes, philosophies are considered when voting, but ultimately, a vote for a candidate is a validation of their thought process. We should trust the thought process of elected officials because that is a implicit consequence of representative democracy.

Referendums are political campaigns unto themselves. They often warp an issue from its core into namecalling, misinformation, and scheming. Instead of focusing on the real problem at hand, it becomes something far larger and worse. Need I remind anyone of the misinformation about a host of candidates in this past November's election?

Advocacy - without the campaign ads, money, and lies - is really the best way to work on these issues. Concerned citizens should organize to petition their elected officials for time and opportunity to present their side of an issue. It is clear that members of the HCCA and the supporters of CB58 are well-informed and intentioned. They are armed with facts and research that intends to prove their cases. The process that we have for public comment and consideration of an issue is the right way to handle this. Ultimately, the fate of CB58 should be in the hands of those we elect - elected based on their judgment.