53 beers on tap

Just a cool Sunday morning tidbit

There aren't a lot of CEO's who are exactly hurting for money, and I'm sure Under Armour's Kevin Plank is no exception.  But I do think it's a good thing that he re-wrote his compensation agreement this year so that, instead of earning a salary of $1.5M, he's only earning a salary of $26,000, the same salary he gave himself when he started the company, and leaving the rest to be determined by Under Armour's being able to meet its financial benchmarks.  The reason for the change was the company's lackluster financial performance.

So then why is it called "senior" housing?

The fact that the County Council is seriously considering a bill that would open supposed "senior housing" availability to those under 55 is nonsensical.  It's a bad idea and needs to be stopped.

When I was President of the Howard County Citizens Association, we participated in the drafting of the senior housing regulations.  Before we would even go to the table to participate in the drafting of the regs, we wanted to make sure that the regs would provide no loopholes for others to drive through to circumvent the age restriction.

The philosophy behind the age restriction is simple.  Senior housing is built as more compact housing, parking requirements are less than in "all ages" developments, etc. because the theory behind senior housing is that seniors need less in terms of resources than the general population.  There is supposed to be less traffic in a senior housing development than in an "all ages" development.  Senior developments are designed with more and better amenities than their "all ages" counterp;arts because the theory is that seniors wish to drive less.

So to open this housing up to the under-55 set is, to me, ridiculous.  First off, none of the current senior housing that exists has been built to address this possibility-- because they were all designed, built, and marketed as nice, livable communities, FOR SENIORS!  Second, I agree with Courtney Watson's comment in this week's Patuxent fishwrap-- what need is being served by this bill?  I guess the affordable housing (or lack thereof) argument can be made as an argument for this bill, but really, the affordable housing problem exists because developers aren't being grabbed by the short hairs to establish full-spectrum housing countywide.

The Council needs to do the right thing and get rid of this proposed legislation.  And shame on Brantley Development Group-- whoever THEY are-- for bringing this forward.  This is the exact reason why people hate developers.

Welcome to the gentleman from Michigan

Still catching up...almost there!

Phil Nelson, former city manager of Troy, Michigan, has been named the fourth President of the Columbia Association.  Below are my observations.  Continuing to respect the fact that I serve on the citizens advisory committee that helped select the new President, I will limit my reactions to those I gathered at the public forum, and to reactions expressed by CA board members in the local press.  Suffice it to say, though, that the man who I met during the evaluation process is the man who the community met at the public forum.  Just don't expect any revelations of "behind closed door meetings" from me. 

What Phil Nelson brings to CA is considerable experience in managing diverse communities.  Especially important is his experience in working within communities that face financial hardship and uncertain revenue streams.  He spoke at the forum of his experience in building partnerships with other levels of government and with the private sector to get things done.  He is perceptive and favors consensus building; however he is pragmatic enough to realize that consensus can't always be built, and that sometimes the mark of leadership is to chart a course that may sometimes be unpopular.  Although a lifelong midwesterner, he is aware of the vision behind Columbia and is familiar with the tenets behind its founding.  Around all of this, he is a man of good humor, highly articulate, professional, and I believe, a man of great integrity.

I understand there are some whispers in the community that because some community members have problems with the selection process (eg, no direct public questioning at the forum) that the final selection was flawed in some way.  That's an uninformed point of view; however I know that people will think whatever they will about the process.

My view is that the community needs to welcome this new President of CA with open arms, and I feel open minds.  He will need time to become acclamated to his new job, as all of us do when we start new jobs.  My feeling is that when the community at large gets to meet this man and work with him, that people will be pleased-- maybe even, pleasantly surprised.

Making a Federal case out of it!

Catching up on a few current topics, on which I am behind...therefore I am not partying tonight with other local bloggers.  Oh well, perhaps next time!  (I keep saying that...)

First up, the lawsuit that was filed against the County Council the Zoning Board, Planning Board, County Executive Ulman, State Senator and former County Executive Robey, the Planning Board, and the county itself, by attorney Susan Gray on behalf of 13 county residents in US District Court.  One good thing I'll say about this lawsuit: at least the plaintiffs believe in equal opportunity!

But that's about all I can say good.  What I can say that's middling about this lawsuit is that I can understand the frustration these residents have, about how land use cases are adjudicated in Howard County.  The practice of using resolutions to create county policy is a problem, insofar as resolutions can not be challenged via referendum.  There should be some way for residents to challenge resolutions, just as bills can be challenged via referendum.  To me that makes sense.

On an aside, Maryland Republicans in the legislature would like to see a California-style system of initiatives and propositions created in Maryland.  This couldn't be a worse idea.  In their view almost any public action could be taken to a public referendum, which can lead to some dangerous public policy decisions being made because of passions and large campaign contributions, not because of reason and balanced debate.  California's current budget deficit, which is in excess of $25 billion, was caused in no small part by anti-tax initiatives that prevents the legislature or the Governor from proposing or enacting certain tax increases, even in times of fiscal hardship.  The "tax revolution" in California, started by Howard Jarvis and his followers in the 1970s made the referendum popular; however its application there has gone out of control.  We don't need that here.

Nor, do we need in Howard County the remedy suggested by the plaintiffs in this lawsuit: federal oversight of land use decisions in Howard County.  It is fascinating to me that, after over 150 years of home rule in ths county, someone would in a reasoned manner, suggest that the county should no longer have the power to make land use decisions that affect its way of life.  It is a stunning remedy.  What on earth would make these people feel that the Federal government would be better suited to render land use decisions in Howard County (by the way, what would the mechanism of this be?) is totally beyond me.

I should also mention that the plaintiffs want over 100 specific land use decisions overturned, and $10 million in damages. 

A far more worthwhile effort and use of these people's and Ms. Gray's resources may be, to challenge Howard County's practices of enacting public policy through the Attorney General's office, and if not resolved, through the Maryland judiciary.  What purpose the Federal judiciary has in this matter is beyond me.  I am not an attorney but I can not fathom how any Federal judge would consider this case within their jurisdiction.

Is the point of this lawsuit not to win, but to bring light to the supposed tresspasses of Howard County land use in the local media?  If so,  bringing a lawsuit in federal court is a great way to do it, wasting a lot of time and money.  Can someone really see this going to the US Supreme Court?  But before it got to that point, probably 5-10 years would have passed.  I'm sure Ms. Gray would love to keep this issue before the local consciousness for that long.  Or more.

I will not go so far as to call this lawsuit frivolous.  However is is seriously misguided, and there are other ways apparent to me to attempt to achieve the desired end.

Dig-out, recession style!

So I drove to work yesterday (my employer decided not to delay opening yesterday, which was a foolish decision on their part, but I digress).  And, at 7:30am yesterday, not a single street I drove in Columbia was plowed.  Not Stevens Forest Rd., Not Kilimanjaro Rd., not Oakland Mills Rd., not Tamar Dr., not Snowden River Pkwy.  I believe they all had been salted, but not plowed.  MD-100 and I-95 were better.

Why was this so, when the snow started at around 5pm the prior evening?  Isn't 14 hours of snowfall enough for more than the salt trucks to be out?  By my estimation, 3-4 inches of snow had fallen by this point.  Isn't this enough to plow?  Shouldn't we expect better?

Yes, we should.  But although I haven't yet seen the winter cleanup totals yet, I am guessing that economics played a role in the lack of road treatment yesterday.  I have to wonder what, if any, remaining budget the county has left for winter weather cleanup.  Not that it's been an especially strong winter in terms of storms-- it hasn't-- but because of the overall county budget picture.

As it stood-- I have a 4-wheel drive vehicle so the snow that had fallen was not a problem for me.  And it's not like roads were impassable-- they were very passable, although speeds were slow and some lanes on roads like Snowden River were snowier than others.  So the situation on the streets was not good, but certainly could've been worse.