A Bad Case of Smart Growth
After looking at the proposed changes in Friendship Heights, I believe that they represent examples of excessive growth, not Smart Growth. I would urge this Council to not accept the recommendations of the Planning Board, and to reduce the level of future development that will be permitted. Smart Growth, as a strategy to focus development into neglected parts of the inner suburban ring with adequate but under-utilized infrastructure, makes sense, but for the same reasons it does not fit with the situation in Friendship Heights. Two things are clearly true. First, Friendship Heights is not an abandoned, underdeveloped, neglected part of the inner suburban ring. Second, it does not have an underutilized infrastructure. In addition, while the area has a high level of density, typical of an urban setting, it is not an urban area as many proponents of this like to argue.
I'd begin with my last point first. Friendship Heights and Bethesda (and it makes no sense to talk about the one in isolation from the other) are not cities despite the density of existing development. Any cursory examination of the road patterns on opposite sides of the District line make this apparent. The District is built on an urban grid pattern providing parallel routes of travel for local travel. Moreover, Wisconsin Ave. has significant local serving retail once you move beyond Friendship Heights.
In contrast, roads in Montgomery County conform to a suburban pattern. Residents are forced out of their neighborhoods and onto arteries in order to reach services and other destinations. Dependent on the smooth functioning of the main arteries, in this case Wisconsin Ave., residents become trapped when this road fails to operate. It imposes a significant hardship on neighborhoods when that artery becomes choked. It is no different an issue than what citizens in Silver Spring have told you relating to the impact of gridlock along Ga. Ave. and Colesville Rd. on their neighborhoods.
Those who argue that these are urban areas and can withstand levels of traffic associated with urban conditions are wrong. The impact of a gridlocked road is more significant here because residents do not have alternative travel routes. Density alone does not make a city. What we have are suburban neighborhoods sitting astride dense commercial areas that are dominating the use of essential arteries at the expense of the community.
Not only isn't this area a city, but it does not have an infrastructure adequate to handle the proposed level of development. It is served, essentially by only one road, Wisconsin Ave. that is already overwhelmed. The, I believe, correct application of neighborhood protection zones along the route have forced traffic to stay on Wisconsin. The levels of development envisioned will attract a huge increase in traffic volume and it is unrealistic to expect Metro to carry an inordinate number of either employees or shoppers. The fact is that Metro is essentially a North-South route running in parallel to the road. It does not serve the other directions and we all know that employees will come along East - West feeders as well as Wisconsin and that those roads are even more inadequate in terms of their potential to handle more traffic. Wishing that folks will come by Metro, won't put them on the train, and absent drastic changes in policy by the District no substantial reduction of through commuter trips., originating in the County and ending in the District, is likely. With only one major road and one Metro route , and with the existing conditions on that road already being poor, it is unrealistic to expect that this level of development will do anything but worsen the situation.
I won't spend much time with the other Smart Growth objective of reviving underutilized, decaying inner suburbs. This is a vibrant, economically viable area. It has a solid retail and office base and supports some of best property values in the County. There is no reason to jam this much development into Friendship Heights. This is an area that needs fine tuning, not major surgery. The two or three players that will be greatly enriched by this plan, will reap their reward at the expense of the community and this is wrong. They are long time investors here. They have no need for this level of development in order to make their investments profitable, they will make money if you give them more density as the Executive wishes, or if you give them less density as the community wishes.
I'd like to close by addressing something which I found
both distressing and distasteful and that is the threats
targeted at the residents, many of whom are elderly and very
dependent upon the grocery store in their community. I find
it unconscionable to have posed this as an either or
proposal - either you support our development, or we yank
the grocery store. I find it shameful. Does anyone believe
that the economic viability of this property owner hinges on
whether or not they can get a few more dollars per square
foot from Giant Food? For that matter, does anyone believe
Giant would go broke if they paid a little more? Why do the
interests and needs of the community count for so little? It
is tax payers who pay for the roads and the infrastructure.
It is the tax payers who pay for the all those things that
make Montgomery County the prime location that it is. I
don't doubt that they would make more money from a larger
project, but are there no other responsibilities a developer
has than to maximize the return to their investors? Where
does being a good corporate citizen fit in? How can they
tell a community, "Give us everything we want, or we shut
the store?" and at the same time ask our elected officials
to make decisions that increase the value of their property?
I urge this Council to send a message that this kind of
tactic doesn't work here.
In closing, I urge you to scale back the level of
development proposed here. No one is asking for things not
to change and no one is expecting that Friendship Heights
will stay as it is. Everyone seems to accept that there will
be substantially more development here, so this is neither
NIMBYism or nor small is beautiful idealism. It is a request
that the Council grant a level of development that does not
completely bury the community. It is a reasonable request.
Back to the Issues