GOOD - The impact fees are higher. For the first time, the proposed development impact fees generally reflect the true cost of providing the needed roads and schools to support new development.

GOOD - The school test is a vast improvement over the current test and is based on the class size reductions that the County is trying to make.

BAD - A School Facilities Payment would allow developers to buy their way into overcrowded school districts and dump more students into schools already at 110% - 135% capacity.

GOOD - The draft Growth Policy explicitly focuses on facility, fiscal, economic, environmental and social sustainability.

BAD - The environmental factors need to be much stronger. It doesn't matter how much traditional infrastructure and services we provide if our air is poisoned, our streams are dying, our farms are being paved, and our planet's baking.

BAD – It acknowledges the importance of police, fire & rescue, and other facilities (such as parks, libraries, recreation and health) but only recommends guidelines - not real tests - for determining adequacy.

GOOD – The Policy takes the quality of development design into consideration as a factor in our quality of life.

VERY BAD – The proposed transportation test is no test at all. It is virtually impossible to fail no matter how bad the roads are. The new Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) is so bad that it may negate all the good in the Policy. Unbelievably, the PAMR test declares that the current transportation system throughout the entire County is adequate! We know that just isn't true.

The PAMR test disregards the congestion which locks up most major County roads because you can always ride a bus.

So the draft Growth Policy would allow developers to pour more and more traffic on a non-functioning road system, simply because someone might ride a bus. For example, a street with a speed limit of 40 mph is considered adequate if it averages 10 mph in the rush hour and buses average 7.5 mph! As far as this test is concerned, congestion is not a problem.

There’s one test it doesn't pass –and that’s the laugh test. It tells County residents that the problems they face everyday don't exist and don't matter. We can and must do better.

It is true we wanted to collect higher fees that reflect the cost of infrastructure, not for the sake of collecting money, but in order to build the necessary infrastructure. The guiding principle of a sound growth policy isn't how to soak developers, but how to insure that we have the infrastructure that we need. If we can't provide the infrastructure, no amount of money will make it better. We need realistic fees, but more than that, we need realistic tests. We need tests that allow development to proceed only when the infrastructure is truly adequate. If all we do is collect money, then we fail.

This is a call to action. You need to let the Council know that you want a Growth Policy that makes a more livable County, not policies that trade off our quality of life for a pile of cash. We need a growth policy that reflects three basic principles.

What can you do? Again three easy steps.

Councilmember.Elrich@montgomerycountymd.gov
Marc Elrich, At-large

Councilmember.Floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov
Nancy Floreen, At-large

Councilmember.Leventhal@montgomerycountymd.gov
George Leventhal, At-large

Councilmember.Trachtenberg@montgomerycountymd.gov
Duchy Trachtenberg, At-large

Councilmember.Berliner@montgomerycountymd.gov
Roger Berliner, District 1

Councilmember.Knapp@montgomerycountymd.gov
Michael Knapp, District 2

Councilmember.Andrews@montgomerycountymd.gov
Phil Andrews, District 3

Councilmember.Praisner@montgomerycountymd.gov
Marilyn Praisner, District 4

Councilmember.Ervin@montgomerycountymd.gov
Valerie Ervin, District 5

Links to relevant background reading:

Proposed 2007 Growth Policy Page.

Thank You Montgomery County Voters

From El Blog de El Rich September 5, 2006 The Post's recent article by Nancy Trejos (Sept. 3--link to the article HERE) offers only the most cursory examination of the affordable housing problem in the County and the region. Not one of the "solutions" raised in the article come close to addressing the problem. But that is not surprising; there is a stunning lack of interest in understanding the dimensions of the problem. Let's put what is being discussed in perspective: Last Fall, the County government was presented with an evaluation that showed that almost 8,000 apartment units were up for condo conversion. These comprise lower middle class, working class, and middle class apartments that, after conversion, will no longer be affordable to these renters. Those 8,000 units are equal to almost 20 years of MPDU (moderately priced dwelling units) produced in new construction. In short, we could lose in one year what we'll create with the County's so-called bold, innovative programs over the next 20 years. The conversion of a single large rental complex of 400 units alone could result in the loss of more units than the annual production of MPDUs. ...Read more HERE...

Authorized by Friends of Marc Elrich, Dale Tibbitts,Chairman, Christine Grewell, Treasurer