 |
| Photo by FadderUri on Flickr |
Instead of taking the opportunity to significantly reduce the pipeline of residential sprawl development by simply taking no action and letting dormant projects expire, a council committee voted to move forward on bills that would extend the validity periods for those projects for another two years.
County planners warn that this is the wrong type of development, in the wrong place, and that it puts the county “at a continued disadvantage relative to its neighbors.” They urged lawmakers to recalibrate county development priorities to focus on compact, mixed-use development near transit. Sadly, county council members weren’t listening.
 |
| Photo by Prince George's County |
As originally drafted, CB-70 and CB-71 would have granted only a one-year extension, which would have effectively grandfathered some projects approved as far back as January 2003 until December 31, 2014. But in a curious and brazen move, the bills’ sponsor, District 6 council member Derrick Leon Davis, moved to amend the bills to grant a two-year extension to those projects, until December 31, 2015.
Davis’s amendment was likely prompted by the parade of developers’ representatives who showed up to last week’s Planning, Zoning and Economic Development (PZED) committee meeting to testify in favor of the bills. According to the committee minutes, seven developer attorneys testified: Thomas Haller, Larry Taub, Norman Rivera, Ed Gibbs, André Gingles, Mike Nagy, and Chris Hatcher. Additionally, two lobbyists from the Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association testified: Marcus Jackson and Kenneth Dunn.
One of the developer attorneys, André Gingles, raised eyebrows this past December by suggesting that council member Eric Olson, who was in line to become the next council chair, was “too Arlington” for Prince George’s County. And one of the lobbyists, Marcus Jackson, was a longtime legislative liaison for disgraced former county executive Jack Johnson, as well as a former policy analyst to District 8 council member Obie Patterson.
The Coalition for Smarter Growth and I submitted written comments in opposition to the bills; however, our voices were clearly drowned out by the din of developer representatives who supported the extensions.
Ultimately, 4 of the 5 PZED committee members voted in favor of Davis’s amended bills: PZED chair Mel Franklin (District 9), PZED vice chair Karen Toles (District 7), council chair Andrea Harrison (District 5), and council vice chair Obie Patterson (District 8).
The committee’s lone dissenting vote was from council member Eric Olson (District 3), who expressed concern that the legislation did not provide any incentive for developers to move forward with their projects.
Olson’s Alternative Bill: 6-Month Extension If Permits Immediately Obtained
 |
| Photo by Prince George's County |
Olson has drafted an alternative validity extension bill, CB-75, which would grant an extension of not more than 6 months to any dormant project that applies for and obtains required grading or building permits prior to the expiration of the existing validity period. The 6-month period would run from the date the building or grading permit is issued. The PZED Committee voted unanimously to forward this bill to the full council.
As currently drafted, Olson's bill does not have a sunset provision. Instead, it sets up a new procedure where developers could obtain an automatic 6-month extension of site plan validity periods for any project that is able to obtain a building or grading period prior to the expiration of its then-current validity period. Olson believes this new procedure will properly incentivize serious developers to keep their projects on schedule.
How to Make Public Comments
CB-70, the Davis bill extending the validity period for site plans until December 31, 2015, is scheduled to be formally introduced during the council’s October 8 legislative session. It’s unclear when Davis’s companion bill relating to subdivisions, CB-71, or Olson’s 6-month extension bill for site plans, CB-75, will be introduced, as these do not (yet) appear on the agenda. CB-71 and CB-75 are to be introduced on October 15.
 |
| Photo by Sarah Voisin, WashingtonPost |
According to the council’s standard legislative process, once a bill is introduced, a public hearing before the full council is scheduled to occur “not earlier than 14 days after introduction.” Therefore, there is still time to let the council know what you think about these bills.
You should direct any written comments to the Clerk of the Council, and copy the individual council members, whose email addresses you may find in the Maryland Manual. You may also make limited oral public comments at the hearing, which will occur Tuesday, November 19, 2013, at 10:00 am.
CORRECTION: After receiving additional clarifying information from Councilmember Olson, this article was updated to reflect that the lack of a sunset provision in CB-75 was intentional and not a possible drafting error, as previously suggested by the author. The article was also updated to include the scheduled public hearing date and time.
CORRECTION: After receiving additional clarifying information from Councilmember Olson, this article was updated to reflect that the lack of a sunset provision in CB-75 was intentional and not a possible drafting error, as previously suggested by the author. The article was also updated to include the scheduled public hearing date and time.
I must point out, it is the developers that are risking the money. To a limited extend the county can try to channel where things get built, but at the end of the day it is the property owners that put up the cash.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just the developers whose money is at risk. The county pays a huge cost to maintain the infrastructure necessary to support sprawl, even if the developers finance the initial construction of it. That's money that could be better used to revitalize existing communities inside the Beltway, near transit.
DeleteThe county's land use policies are extremely important in shaping where and how the county grows over time. Those policies can also be a powerful influence on the market. For instance, if county policies disincentivize suburban sprawl by requiring developers to pay the full cost of constructing and maintaining the infrastructure, there would likely be much less cash available for such development.
Mr Heard, you should consider the scale. Take for example Westfalia: developes will put up around $2B, the county a few milllion, the state around $150 M for an interchange probably should not be included because it is going to be replaced regardless. So the the county puts up less than 0.1% of the investment, for a development that will return the county's investment, in taxes, within the first year, and then continue to pay it back in perpetuity.
ReplyDeleteThe developers are taking the risk. They get to make the play.
Regarding Westphalia, I don't think you're accurately characterizing the scale issue, particularly when you take into account the ongoing maintenance cost for the infrastructure. Who's going to maintain the roads, bridges, new interchanges, sewers, schools, libraries, etc.? Who's going to fund the police, fire, rescue service? Who's going to remediate the environmental damage done by taking out all of the forest land? Who's going to pay for Metro or MTA to run a transit line out there? I assure you the cost of all that greatly exceeds $2 billion.
DeleteMore fundamentally, though, it is the government's responsibility to set land use policies that work for the good of the public. Property owners don't have (and never have had) the right to do anything with their land that they want to. So, I certainly don't agree that the county needs to cede its land use authority to the will of self-interested developers.
"Who's going to maintain the roads, bridges, new interchanges, sewers, schools, libraries, etc.? Who's going to fund the police, fire, rescue service? Who's going to remediate the environmental damage done by taking out all of the forest land? Who's going to pay for Metro or MTA to run a transit line out there? I assure you the cost of all that greatly exceeds $2 billion."
DeleteWestphalia is just as dense as most developments in PG county, if not denser, and its location next to the beltway puts it adjacent to existing, well-established suburbs.
Given that, these questions can be asked of any, nay all, urban developments in suburban DC. What you are doing, as a whole, is questioning the economics of the existence of the entire PG county.
"Westphalia is just as dense as most developments in PG county, if not denser, and its location next to the beltway puts it adjacent to existing, well-established suburbs."
ReplyDeleteNo...Westphalia is a forest. What the owners of Westphalia are trying to do is make it into one of the most dense developments in the county. That's exactly my point. Their desire to make a new city out of a forest imposes a cost on the rest of us: the cost of all that additional infrastructure I just mentioned.
If the developers want to develop something, why not do it at a Metro station, where a lot of the infrastructure already exists? If they want big box, why not go redevelop Landover Mall or Eastover Mall or Iverson Mall, etc., instead of clear-cutting forest land? These are the decisions I'm talking about.
"If the developers want to develop something, why not do it at a Metro station, where a lot of the infrastructure already exists?"
ReplyDeletePresuming you are a homeowner, I expect that you have plans how to improve your property. If (for example) you want to spend $20k putting on a deck, you probably ignore suggestions that you spend your money on a new kitchen.
Those pesky property owners have their own ideas about what they want to do with their property, and how they want to spend their money.
Yes...and if I decided I wanted to open up an adult bookstore on my residential-zoned property, the county has the right to tell me "no," if that doesn't fit within the county's land use policies for that property. The point is that "pesky property owners'" desire to do something with their property is not the only relevant fact, no matter how much money they have to spend on it.
DeleteMr Heard: the county has already approved the construction. Has the zoning been changed?
ReplyDeleteThis is not about zoning, although it may be that the county should consider down-zoning more of the suburban areas as one element in the overall implementation of a transit-oriented growth strategy.
DeleteThe question that this article addresses is whether the validity period for the previously approved construction, which should have long-ago expired, should be renewed for another two years, when it's not consistent with the county's overall land-use goals and policies. My answer to that question is "No." You obviously believe that the answer should be "yes," and that people should be allowed to construct as much sprawl as they want if they're willing to spend the money to do so. We're all entitled to our opinions, but I hope for the county's sake that they ultimately decide against the sprawl.
"You obviously believe that the answer should be "yes," and that people should be allowed to construct as much sprawl as they want if they're willing to spend the money to do so."
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not. OTOH if the county has already approved construction and there has been no change to the zoning, what is the point of making the developers go through the approval again if it is going to be approved? Hassling and wasting people's time is not good business.
And yes have opinions: such as I do not believe that a large, mix-use housing development is anything like an adult bookstore.
If you want development near Metro stops, suggest that the county encourage it there. Nearby property owners will respond smartly to profit.
"[W]hat is the point of making the developers go through the approval again...?"
ReplyDeleteHubert, there is a point, and it's not to hassle or waste people's time. I talk about the reasons more in my earlier post, but it's summed up pretty well in this paragraph:
The county’s land use policies have changed significantly since 2009. New subregional master plans and/or area master plans are in place for almost all significantly populated areas in the county. Additionally, the county has adopted stronger stormwater management standards and complete streets policies. And the county is currently revamping its General Plan. Many of the older single-family developments in the pipeline are not in line with these new and forthcoming land use policies.
Ah, but you did not answer the question. Have these changes in "policy" caused any changes in zoning or the building code, i.e., the questions that are asked when a project is measured for approval?
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be saying no. If that is true, then the "policy changes" are toothless.
The answer to your zoning question is I'm not sure whether the zoning has changed for every one of these 15,000 properties over the last 10 years. But that's not the point. Other things besides zoning affect development review, including subdivision review, APF determinations, development district standards, SWM issues, etc. So, the policy changes are far from toothless. That's why these projects need to be reevaluated under the current standards, if they want to move forward.
Delete"And the county is currently revamping its General Plan."
ReplyDeleteProjects are approved or disapproved based on EXISTING regulations. The county can not hold up any developments based on anticipated changes.
"I'm not sure whether the zoning has changed for every one of these 15,000 properties over the last 10 years."
Given that the changes are incremental, how likely is it that they will be disapproved in their current form? And how long will it take for the bureaucracy to reevaluate the permits for (previously approved) 15,000 properties? I think it is unreasonable to subject every project, delayed by this terrible economy, to the same scrutiny that a completely new, unapproved project must go through.
The risk is, that the developer will walk away from a project if it is subjected to excessive delay. The county will loose the taxes, and the new residents that otherwise would have moved to PG will go elsewhere.
You're making my point once again, Hubert. Yes, projects are evaluated under the regulations that exist at the time. And because these stalled projects should've long ago expired, they need to be reevaluated under the regulations that exist now, if they still want to go forward. The deadlines on these projects have been extended for 4 years already. It's time to let the law work like it was designed.
DeleteThe truth is, these developers have already walked away from these projects. But it says something about the sprawl-oriented psyche of the county that they can't just let these dead projects rest in peace.
"The truth is, these developers have already walked away from these projects. But it says something about the sprawl-oriented psyche of the county that they can't just let these dead projects rest in peace."
ReplyDeleteThis disagrees with what you wrote above, namely that a "parade of developers’ representatives who showed up to last week’s Planning, Zoning and Economic Development (PZED) committee meeting to testify in favor of the bills." Why would a developer send a rep to testify in favor a bill for a property that they have walked away from?
More to the point, why is EVERY delayed project = "sprawl" ?
Developers, like other businessmen, like all of us, sometimes do things that are irrational -- like continue to support the idea of sprawl development when every market trend says that's bad business. The somewhat rational part, I suspect, is that there's a feeling like they've spent money on a project long ago, and that they hate to think that their money is going down the drain because their approvals are about to expire. But that, too, is business. Missed deadlines = lost revenue.
DeleteAnd I never said every one of those delayed projects is an outer-Beltway suburban sprawl project, but M-NCPPC says 80% of them are. Regardless, any stalled project that hasn't gotten off the ground after 4 years of extensions needs to be resubmitted and reevaluated under current regulations.
"...every market trend says that's bad business."
ReplyDeleteMr Heard, you no evidence to support this astonishingly radical assertion. Moreover, you (once again) forget who's money is at risk. If anyone knows what the market trends are, it is the people doing the selling.
Of course if the projects have been abandoned for commercial reasons, extending the permits won't make any difference.
"No evidence"? What do you call the MWCOG and GMU market studies cited by M-NCPPC?
Delete"Astonishingly radical assertion"? The declining preference for suburban single-family homes has been noted by nearly everyone who has seriously looked at these things. Leigh Gallagher's new book, The End of the Suburbs, has been getting a lot of buzz recently, but it's one of only many that have noted the trend.
And M-NCPPC's whole point in suggesting that the development pipeline of sprawl needs to be reduced is that all these dead projects are negatively impacting the development review process.
Mr Heard, your statement "EVERY market trend" is an exaggeration. That means every trend, bar none. I doubt that your cites make such a sweeping and preposterous claim, as it flies in the face of continued exurban development.
ReplyDeleteShow me a legitimate market study that says sprawl is on the rise, and maybe I'll adjust my statement from "every" to "most," if that makes you happy. I can tell you I certainly haven't seen such a study...
DeleteAt any rate, we've been at this discussion a long time. If we're now at the point of you nit-picking my use of the word "every," I think it's about time for us to wrap it up. I appreciate the discussion. Have a good evening.
"Show me a legitimate market study that says sprawl is on the rise"
ReplyDeleteMr Heard, I never said that. But take a drive out to some exurban place like Leesburg or Waldorf, and you'll see lots of development. You do not need a study to see that this trend is not going away. Nor will it ever, as long as there is growth, as this is how ALL cities have grown since the dawn of civilization.
Property owners on the outskirts are fully within their rights to develop and make improvements, to maximize their investment. PG needs to consider this, as that is where most of the growth in its tax base will come from.
All of this from one person? Wow.
ReplyDelete