53 beers on tap

How far we've yet to go

So, there's a story on WBAL's morning show today about an Owen Brown family who are the apparent victims of racially- based harrassment.  Specifically, chicken buckets and bones have been thrown on their yard, and a letter "N" has been burned into their backyard with some sort of chemical.

Yesterday, I went with my family to Philadelphia, to take in some local culture and cuisine (Pat's Steaks rocks!) and to go to a Phillies game with a college friend of mine.  While we were leaving the ballpark, a group of 3-4 black teenagers, one sporting a mohawk, walked by us, from behind us, we heard a voice say "Hey kid, nice haircut."  We all turned around and saw the boy with the mohawk respond with a harsh glance, and then a smile.  The guy who'd called out the black youth's hair was tall, thin, white, with a couple friends-- and had the same hairstyle.

Why do people respond to race issues with such sensitivity?  As a correlation, why are we so sensitive to such issues?  Shouldn't we, in this time in this country especially, be moving past this? 

I am not writing to argue any specific points of either of these things I've noticed, or to weigh on on the Henry Louis Gates situation, etc.  But to note that when even the President of the United States is moved by this issue to react as strongly as he did-- and as many would say, and he has basically admitted, overreact-- it is clear that we are still a country coming to grips with our diversity.

I do feel that a lot of the hypersensitivity is driven by our economy.  A strong tide lifts all boats and for the last year or so, our economic tide has ebbed.  Therefore, the desire we all have to "look out for ourselves" becomes magnified.  And in this need to watch out for oneself, one looks toward taking care of family first, then friends.  To the extent that in the majority of individuals, their social circle is predominated by members of their own ethnic group, this self-interest becomes race-driven.  Does such behavior exhibit bias?  In the pure sense of the word, yes.  But does it demonstrate prejudice?  I'm not so sure I'd say that it does.

What it does do is bring a bright light to a basic flaw in American society-- the failure of our culture to put common interest above self-interest.  It's not that we as Americans haven't experienced times of great common interest and shared sacrifice-- we have, and although trying times, these times have brought people together and petty issues were put aside.  But such is not our nature.  Not at this time.

So, we're in a bad economic period, people are losing jobs, many millions more are afraid to spend money for fear they'll be the next to go, we have not experienced such times in 75 years-- what do we do?  One course of action is to succumb to fear.  And that is manifested in acting out against those who aren't like "us".  And that manifestation can be so very subtle, or it can be more acute-- like burning a letter "N" into the yard of a young black family.  It could be even worse.

But another course of action is to respond with hope, and with spirits and heads held high.  Another course of action is to realize that in these unprecedented times, unprecedented courage and compassion are needed.  This requires an acknowledgment of our shared peril, as well as of our shared glory when we succeed.  Such actions can be small as well as great-- such as a shared joke between two total strangers about their common haircut.

In one puny blog post in Howard County, we will not solve an issue which has bedeviled American society for hundreds of years.  But the underlying point of everything I've written here is that-- while we all endure these times, we have to remember to take care of each other.  Just as we did in other trying times throughout our history.  Because if we don't, we won't like ourselves when we come out on the other side, and in fact, we may create as a people, a society with wounds that can not be closed.

Meanwhile, west of Howard County...

Article in today's Sun here about the proposed widening of I270 from northern Montgomery County into Frederick.  Opponents are complaining about the effect of widening the road on fostering sprawl, are queasy about the road's $4.6 billion price tag, and are propoting more mass transit in the area.

Haven't we already gone here?  This sounds a lot like the debate over the building of the Intercounty Connector.  During the decades of hand-wringing over whether or not to build the road, nothing happened except roads in Montgomery County became nearly impassable during rush hour, and the cost of building the road multiplied by many times over.  Band-aid proposals to increase mass transit in the affected area went unfunded, of underfunded and therefore doomed to fail (thanks in large part to the Glendening administration, who wonderfully combined a high quantity of lip service with a low level of actual activity where the ICC was concerned).

This project doesn't need to be another 30-year discussion.  Here's what needs to be done, now:

1. Find the funding to create better transit in the I-270 corridor.  Now's the time for the MTA and WMATA to join forces and work towards creating a light rail line between Frederick and, say, the Glenmont terminus of Metro's red line.

2. The argument put forth by some groups that buildin g roads drives sprawl is specious.  As we know in Howard County, sprawl is driven by real estate values (note Howard County in the 1980s and Carroll County over the past 10-15 years), and then, unfortunately, the highway infrastructure catches up.  Right now, the best real estate values in Maryland are found in Frederick County.  This is a big bullet to bite, but steps have to be taken in the direction of widening the highway. 

3. Accordingly, Frederick County needs to govern its own land use policies.  Montgomery County has already done this.  But ensuring that "sprawl" doesn't ensue a widened I270 is the job of the Frederick County Commissioners, and of city officials in Frederick and elsewhere.

Time to vote on CB29

There have been lots of discussions on other local blogs and listserves about the pace and appropriateness of deliberations and discussions on Council Bill 29, which would seek to establish guidelines for the redevelopment of the Columbia village centers.  Specific points of contention are that the Council should wait until the fall to vote on the legislation, in order to allow for more community input and opinion-gathering; and that specific council members have been acting in an underhanded manner, convening meetings with the public, with village boards, and with the CA board to discuss and exchange ideas about Council Bill 29.

The time to vote is at the Council's worksession on July 30, as scheduled; and the actions of all Council members throughout this process have been totally appropriate, to my knowledge.  Here's why.

First, this timing issue.  Some feel that the summer is a bad time for the Council to do anything, because people are on vacation or may otherwise be ill-attuned to civic affairs.  This is an insult to the intelligence of Howard County residents.  "Because it is summer" is a poor excuse.  Are all civic activities supposed to cease in the summer because people have vacations?  Or just those that are important?  And who decides the level of importance?  Yes, people go on vacations in summer.  But plenty of sufficient avenues exist for people to have their voices heard-- online testimony, public testimony, even the simple act of writing an e-mail or sending a letter to your local representatives.

It was recently mentioned on a local listserve that a community meeting in Oakland Mills to discuss CB29 only yielded five residents to come and speak about the legislation.  This is unfortunate, but it also seems as if the village did everything it could to promote the meeting.  The sad truth is that more people should come out; however, because there is community apathy is no reason to extend the period for considering the legislation either.

A more salient point made about timing is that the Council hasn't had enough time to fully analyze relevant issues concerning the proposed legislation.  However, those who have claimed this have not accordingly discussed what data have not yet been fully analyzed, or overlooked completely.  Rather, these opponents appear to be making this claim more because their pet issues aren't explicitly addressed (such as affordable housing).

Now, to the appropriateness of meetings and interactions.  Council members, most notably Jen Terrasa and Mary Kay Sigaty, have been very active in soliciting community input and thoughts regarding this legislation.  Most recently, though, a meeting they held with the CA Board recently was described by an e-mail coorespondent as a "negotiating session": i.e., "if the bill contained X, Y, and Z, what would be the CA Board's reaction?"

Is it just me, or is this sort of discussion and interaction exactly what I expect my elected officials SHOULD be doing?  In fact, I'm kind of annoyed all five Council members haven't been as visible as Ms. Sigaty and Ms. Terrasa have been.  (To be fair, three members of the Council can not all appear at the same time in such a session, as it could constitute a Council meeting.)

All of these meetings have been public forums and opportunities for public input.   Discussing theoreticals, possibilities, and goals of the legislation with interested groups and parties are, in my view, an expectation. 

What would the critics of these Council members prefer?  That the only meetings held are scheduled over a very narrow band of dates in the Council calendar?  Or that the only meetings held be private meetings held during the day with parties whose interests may not be so oriented in favor of the community?

All in all, I fail to find any compelling reason why the date of consideration of this legislation should go beyond July 30.  And further, I think the only parties qualified to decide whether or not more time is needed, are the five Council members.  Unless there is something totally escaping me, I see no reason why not to move forward with this legislation on July 30.

Build healthy?

So, HCCA has asked that the availability of health care services be added to the Adequate Public Facilities Act (APFA).  Of local jurisdictions, only Montgomery County has a similar provision in its land use code.

On the surface, I'll give credit where credit's due-- this is not a bad idea.  The county is still growing, it's demographics are ever-changing, and health care needs are becoming more varied as a result.  For proposed development to consider its impact upon health care facilities, makes sense.

However, there are several caveats here that I see before thinking that amending APFA is a good idea:

1. In-county health care facilities shouldn't be the only ones considered in looking at impact on APFA.  People in southwest Howard use Montgomery County General in Olney, and those on the eastern end use St. Agnes Hospital, among others.  So, in order to consider new development in say, Elkridge, to fully implement APFA in terms of health care facilities, one may also have to look outside the county as well as in it.  To be honest this may be a show-stopper to any possible amendments.

2. The article in the Patuxent fishwrap this week about this isn't clear as to what problem this proposed amendment would be solving.  Some in HCCA are saying that there are lots of complaints about the ER at Howard County General.  I fail to see the direct link between development in Howard County and efficiency at the HCGH ER.  Hell, I fail to see the indirect link.

3. What types of health care facilities/ what types of care would you define in this amendment?  If basic primary care, OK.  If ER-type care-- some of that traffic could be diverted to existing and new private clinics-- let's hope people know about them.  But a car accident victim isn't going to the walk-in clinic on US 40.

4. How would one define a developer's contribution to the health care infrastructure?  How is it quantified?  Howard County does not own HCGH.  So by amending the APFA, who would benefit in terms of actually creating the enhanced infrastructure?  I guess owners/operators of local health care facilities could be incentivized in order to expand-- however, by amending APFA, wouldn't such expansion be mandated?  Under what enforcability?

This idea seems like it walks the line between true thinking ahead, and complete overlegislating.  I'd be interested to see if any Council member takes up this idea.

Results! And Monday preview

On Thursday night I received a call from an official from the county Department of Inspections, Licenses and Permits about the Antwerpen signs that I saw up on July 4th.  They have been contacted and they've been advised to desist their practice.

I wasn't expecting a call but it was nice to see that my post generated some follow through by the county.  And it was good to be contacted.

Monday: should availability of health care services be added to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance?  My thoughts tomorrow!

Freedom of annoyance

So I was driving around yesterday, and I noticed something new along the highways of Howard County.  Antwerpen motors apparently has had someone out putting up advertising banners on local overpasses.  There were two seen on MD 100, one at US 29 and Broken Land Parkway, and one on 95 at MD 32.  The banners are about 3 by 5 feet (at first when I saw them I thought someone had put up flags) and display the Antwerpen logo, slogan, and phone number.

I'm guessing that the intent of these signs is temporary advertising.  And in my view this is an extension of the code on temporary signage gone too far.

My understanding of this code is that it's to allow businesses to put up signs over the weekend, with the understanding that the signs have to come down by a particular time of the week.  Typically, these signs have been to promote businesses that typically transact on weekends-- yard sales, produce stands, open houses for realtors, etc.  This marketing method has been extended to promote businesses' sales, special events, etc.

I'll note that, as far as I could see, these banners were promoting no special event at Antwerpen.  So this seemed to be just general business advertising.

I'm bothered by this.  First off, the banners are pretty big.  Second, I would imagine these banners are protected per county code (although I thought it interesting I saw none in a county right of way), but as these appear to be general advertising, I am concerned about the precedent.  What if on the weekends, large signs just popped up along the road for Starbucks, Coca-Cola, McDonalds, whatever?  Do we really need more signs popping up along the sides of roads on the weekends?  Many of the ones that exist are eyesores-- I submit as evidence the area around Carmax on US1 (although Carmax itself is not an offender)

As a marketing measure, I hope this falls flat on its face.  Because that's the way to assure that other businesses don't follow suit.  And that's the only way to ensure against overly-legislating what should be a common-sense practice.

Another one gone...

...no, not another celebrity.  This week brought the news that the Safeway in Enchanted Forest Shopping Center is closing.  Some presume that the closing is in anticipation of the Harris Teeter that will soon be built in Turf Valley.

I would tend to disagree; there are other culprits (the Giant stores in River Hill, Dorsey's Search and Chatham Mall, Weis at Waverly Woods, etc.).  And of course there is the economy.  But this goes to demonstrate that the Columbia village centers are not alone when it comes to losing anchors.  Enchanted Forest boasts a prime location along a major highway, as well as a relatively dense, mature, well-heeled population base. 

That this long-standing store could not continue to exist here-- coupled with the fact that county unemployment is now at an all-time high-- empahasize the impact of the nationwide recession here at home. And unlike in the go-go 80s-- we can't grow our way out of this one-- this county done growed about all it's gonna to.  Besides, who's going to build and buy those houses?

Damn scary stuff.

Meet the new boss!

Great article in the Columbia Fishwrap...err...Flier here about some first impressions of CA President Phil Nelson, who has been on the job now a smidge over two months.

Although two months is WAY to short a time to evaluate anyone, much less make a judgment about their prospects for long-term success in ANY job, the article suggests two things.

First, it suggests that Phil Nelson is who he said he was.  Without giving away any state secrets (TOM!!!!), I served on the citizens committee that advised the CA Board on the Presidential search.  All of the candidates we interviewed were fantastic.  But what impressed most about Phil Nelson was his demeanor.  He didn't appear to be a cult of personality; his then-position in Troy, Michigan didn't seem to be "about him", as the saying goes.  Rather, he cared about learning about the community he served, and then figuring out how he could use his particular skill set to best serve it.  He didn't seem to presume to know all the answers, but he did seem pretty confident that he could figure them out.

Second, the article suggests that Phil Nelson does what he says he's going to do.  Many of the residents quoted for the article are residents who have current/past/ongoing complaints with CA.  All of the quotes were very complimentary of Phil's manner and listening abilities.  It is obviously good politics, and good service, to gain a 360-degree view of any situation.  Phil is obviously applying that principle to the civic dialogue in Columbia.

First impressions being what they are, I dare say that the first impressions and first reviews of this CA President are pretty positive.  Time will of course tell, and goodness knows there are a lot of challenges ahead.  But this President doesn't seem to be one to shy away from a challenge, and he seems to be able to be intellectually agile enough.  Here's hoping he succeeds.

Virgin Festival: can we use the woods, please?

I am all for the fact that the Virgin Festival is coming to Merriwether-- goes to show that Merriwether is not the used-up, washed-out venue we have been made to understand from some that it is.  And I am very supportive of the County's plan to give volunteers tickets to this free festival.  It's a wonderful incentive to volunteer and as the County Executive said, if it makes people interested in volunteering, so be it.

I am confident that all of the tickets for volunteers will be used, so there'll be 35,000 tickets distributed in all, which will nicely pack the pavilion and the lawn of Merriwether.  Now we need to take it to the next level.  We need to open up the woods, indeed the entire property, for the festival, in order to give the entire community a chance to attend.

I can recall in the 80s going to many a concert at Merriwether without seeing the band, or without having a ticket.  Some of my best memories are of Jimmy Buffett, The Who, The Grateful Dead, Lynyrd Skynyrd, The Moody Blues, and others playing Merriwether, and hanging out in the woods for the show.

Now, I know why the woods were closed-- drug and alcohol crimes, and noise issues spilling out into the mall area.  Also, I am sure that now with housing so close to Merriwether, that noise is even more of a concern.

I'm going to be hopeful here that now is a different time than the mid 80s, and that substance abuse issues can be better contained.  The woods were meant to be a place where the community could come together as a gathering place, enjoy performances, and achieve a better sense of identiy as a community.  And in the context of redeveloping downtown, wouldn't this be an interesting test case?  Could our infrastructure handle a crowd of say, 50,000-60,000 people at Merriwether?

I do think that ticketholders could have a preferred location on the property-- they should.  But I also think all the remaining Merriwether property should be made available for people to sit, bring a tent, bring a picnic, and enjoy the evening if they choose.  I'm sure the county would face logistical challenges in terms of public safety coverage, etc., but if a plan for coverage can be worked out-- why not?

The woods have been restricted grounds for concerts for a long time now.  If the Merriwether area is to one day become Howard County's "Central Park", it can't possibly remain closed on these occasions.  I'd be willing to try it and see how it works out.