FLOG - the Friends of White Flint Blog

Have you noticed the FLOG acting a little oddly recently — that is, more odd than the usual assortment of posts by strange people like me? It’s not your imagination. We have not started running ads, and especially not for on-line casinos and fake pharmaceutical sales.

The FLOG has grown rapidly in the last year, and we average about 5,000 “unique visitors” a week. One of the prices of our higher readership is that we become more attractive to cybercriminals and spammers. Ordinarily we take care of this invisibly, behind the scenes, but in the last few days we have been hit with automated and large-scale attacks by a Russian spammer. We think it’s cleaned up now, and the problem contained. We’re sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for your patience.

Barnaby Zall

Just a reminder: nominations are due this Friday, August 13, for the White Flint Sector Plan Advisory Committee. This is the new group called for in the White Flint Sector Plan to advise the Montgomery County Planning Department. The Planning Department expects to nominate up to 18 individuals, including residents, property owners, and representatives of civic, advocacy and community organizations. The Advisory Group will meet at least quarterly, and applicants are expected to commit to two years’ service.

(Meeting of the original White Flint Advisory Group) 

Self-nominations, not to exceed 500 words, highlighting “your interest, background, expertise and any other qualification that will ensure the successful implementation of the White Flint Sector Plan,” may be sent by e-mail or regular mail. MCP-Chairman@mncppc-mc.org or Chairman, Montgomery County Planning Board, 8787 Georgia Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910. Questions can be directed to Nkosi Yearwood (who has staffed the White Flint Sector Plan for several years) at nkosi.yearwood@mncppc-mc.org or 301-495-1332. Additional letters of support can also be sent.

Some observers have suggested that applicants must represent organizations, but that is not part of the application announcement. In addition, some opponents of the Plan have been soliciting support for appointment, but it’s unclear whether they could meet the announcement’s requirement of providing advice “that will ensure the successful implementation of the” Plan; it’s more likely that opponents will moderate their views at this juncture, and claim only to want a successful Plan.

Barnaby Zall

Montgomery County Planning Director Rollin Stanley has started a blog: http://montgomeryplanning.org/blog-director/. The blog follows his presentation to the Friends of White Flint Speakers’ Series event on June 2.

(Rollin Stanley)

Barnaby Zall

An unexpected blow-up in Montgomery County politics has County Councilmember Phil Andrews criticizing County Executive Ike Leggett for “talking out of both sides of his mouth” ”for saying that employee furloughs have harmed government services while at the same time moving forward with plans to provide more paid vacation to county workers”, the Gazette newspaper reports.

Some people are wondering the same thing about White Flint financing proposals. In today’s Gazette, Diane Schwartz Jones, Leggett’s chief administrative staffer (and who is charged with overseeing the White Flint Plan) is quoted as saying “an additional real estate property tax will likely be placed on commercial and possibly all residential properties in White Flint.” Wasn’t this the same Diane Jones who sent an e-mail claiming the residential tax was a “very rough and virtually unvetted proposal”?

Jones explained: “No recommendation has come from the county executive yet, so we don’t know what that figure will be or what it will need to cover,” she said. “…When we looked at the outline given to us by [the M-NCPPC] there was still a gap that needed to be filled.” That “gap” is the difference between the huge percentage of infrastructure financing which will be paid for by commercial development and the total cost of the project. When White Flint development starts, that new commercial development won’t be built yet, so there won’t be money in the bank to fund the first few items.

But that’s a disingenuous argument: there are almost always such “gaps” in infrastructure financing. No government waits around until they have cash to pay for these projects just sitting in the bank. That’s why we use BONDS, and that’s why the County just recently was touting its success in retaining its AAA bond rating (which lets it float bonds at the lowest cost possible). Given how often County staffers talk about bonding projects, you know the “gap” argument is a stalking-horse. Besides the commercial developers have already said they’ll “forward-fund” these projects, taxing themselves even before the projects are built, just to get the infrastructure in place.

And let’s just run those cost and revenue numbers, shall we? The proposed residential tax, even at the highest punitive figures Jennifer Barrett, the County’s chief number cruncher, has been bouncing around these days, would bring in at most about $8 million. Out of $1 billion in infrastructure costs, almost all of which would be paid for by developers directly or through the new commercial development tax. And that would support White Flint development which, by the way, would produce $6,900,000,000 in new tax revenue for the County (that’s $6.9 billion, or about one thousand times the amount of the new residential tax).

Given the fact that the new residential tax proposal is likely to kill the White Flint Plan, does Diane Jones really want to give up seven BILLION dollars to grab a few million out of White Flint residents’ pockets? Which we don’t even need. And they know it? Is this the same “fairness” argument which says that the County Executive is not going to put one dime into a “rich” area like White Flint?

Barnaby Zall

Most of the news about Monday’s airplane crash in Dillingham, Alaska, was about the loss of former Senator Ted Stevens and the survival of former NASA chief Sean O’Keefe. But for some in the White Flint area, the more hurtful news was tucked in a small paragraph near the end: William “Bill” Phillips, a constant presence around Georgetown Prep football, also lost his life in the crash. Fortunately, his 13-year-old son Willy, survived the crash.

Three of his sons played football for Prep and now play for Division I college teams: Andrew, a senior at Stanford, Colter (named for his ancestor, Lewis and Clark survey member John Colter) is a sophomore at the University of Virginia, and Paul, a freshman at Indiana University. I knew all three boys when I coached freshman football at Prep, and they were smart, courteous and funny. Andrew, for example, is an enormous gentle giant who plays offensive guard for Stanford, but he also starred in school theater productions, playing against type. Bill and his wife Janet hosted numerous meetings and parties for Prep football players over the years, and were very involved in school life. Out of respect for the family, Prep had no comment.

Barnaby Zall

An unverified report from one of the “stakeholder” meetings being held by County Executive Ike Leggett’s staff on the “very rough and virtually unvetted” proposal to impose new taxes on White Flint residents has one of the most committed opponents of the White Flint Sector Plan saying that the residents SHOULD pay new taxes: “They’re getting the benefits. They should pay for them.” She, of course, does not live in the White Flint Sector.

Barnaby Zall

How real is the threat of a tax increase on White Flint residents?

If you listen to County Councilmembers, not very. According to his senior staff, County Executive Ike Leggett agrees and won’t propose a tax on residents. Diane Jones called the proposal “very rough and virtually unvetted” (translation: she didn’t write it, and she’s in charge of the staffing on this issue for Ike).

Makes sense. The County is crying for money, and White Flint, even by the most pessimistic estimates, will generate $7 BILLION in additional tax revenue. And the infrastructure cost will be mostly paid by voluntary taxes on commercial development (the developers who will pay that new tax have already agreed). There’s no need to tax residents for White Flint infrastructure.

But the people actually writing the implementing legislation have no marching orders on this — yea or nay. And we hear that staffers are still rattling sabers. “We have to look at all sources of money, because the County can’t afford to invest in White Flint even if there’s a big payoff and the developers have agreed to pay the lion’s share.”

So what’s going on?

During the County Council’s deliberations on the White Flint Sector Plan, Council staffers continually tried to change the Plan to retain obsolete automobile-oriented mobility tests. Staff simply shook their heads at arguments that a New Urbanism, transit-oriented master plan shouldn’t depend on tests that measured success by how fast cars move through intersections.

But that was a different situation. The old PAMR and LATR “balance” tests were mandated by law, so Council staff was stuck putting square pegs in round holes unless the Council itself changed the law or exempted White Flint. Eventually, the Council exempted the area and the Plan moved forward.

Now, this tax proposal looks like staff political posturing. Maybe they’re trying to get the developers to kick in more money? Or maybe they’re trying to leverage something else? After all, the staff line throughout the financing debate has been that it would be “unfair” to develop White Flint when there are needs in other areas of the County. “We can’t put money in a rich area!”

The problem is that the staff is playing a pretty serious game of political “chicken” here. They’re gambling that they can get the developers to pony up for other things before the September primary elections, or that there aren’t enough White Flint residents who will get angry to make a difference in the elections, or that memories will be short.

But White Flint residents are already very loud against the residents’ tax proposal, and it would be a very heavy blow to lose developer support for the White Flint Plan over something that everyone already knows will get resolved. After all, the biggest concern over the White Flint Plan has always been that the County won’t follow through on its commitments for some other reason. And those other reasons have always involved soaking White Flint to benefit some other area. Just like the Executive staff proposed taking parking revenue from North Bethesda, supposedly forever dedicated to reducing congestion and increasing transit, and putting it somewhere else.

Everyone’s on vacation, and this will likely be resolved soon after people return in September. What politician is going to let staff decide the primary elections on the basis of an idea that’s already a non-starter? Not at a time when the County is still smarting from losing a big corporate headquarters to Virginia.

So why is Ike Leggett letting his staff increase the heat in an already-hot summer?

Barnaby Zall

A quiet week is predicted. The biggest question for the White Flint Sector Plan remains the Montgomery County Executive’s proposal to raise taxes on all White Flint residents to pay for needed infrastructure (the Planning Board had recommended a far different proposal, with most funds coming from a special tax levied only on new commercial development in the area and no new residential taxes). Vacation schedules are impeding progress, and the upcoming September primary elections make it unlikely that most County officials will spend significant time on this topic. But, thanks to Dave Freishtat, Friends of White Flint Board member representing the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce, and also expert in financing policy, here’s a brief update:

County Executive: No financing plan will be possible without the active participation of the County Executive, so his views are critical. Ike Leggett’s chief staffer on this issue is Diane Jones, who described the earlier proposal to tax all existing White Flint residents as only a “very rough and virtually unvetted draft.” The Executive’s office is holding “stakeholder” meetings on the draft. As of the end of last week, no more fleshed-out proposal was forthcoming.

County Council: Despite several promises to have financing legislation introduced by the end of July, the Council can’t proceed without the County Executive’s draft. So the Council is into recess now, with elections upcoming, and little is likely to happen in the next few weeks.

Friends of White Flint will hold a community meeting when (and if) a financing plan is introduced. But in the absence of a concrete response from the Executive’s office, that meeting has not been scheduled.

We’ll let you know when we hear something.

Barnaby Zall 

Taxing Current Residents of White Flint is Not the Answer

Although I still do not know what County Executive’s proposed financing plan will look like when it comes over to the Council for our review, one thing is certain:

I cannot and will not support a plan that taxes the current residents of White Flint.

A robust financing plan is necessary if we are to ensure that the needed infrastructure in White Flint is built in a timely, reliable manner. However, this plan must not come at the expense of the approximately 2,000 current residents — people who live in places like The Forum ((note:  the surrounding older residential neighborhoods like Luxmanor and Garrett Park Estates outside the proposed development district are totally unaffected by the County Executive’s proposal).

Taxing the current residents was never part of the public conversation surrounding the White Flint Sector Plan and doing so would, in my view, break faith with our residents.

Roger Berliner
Councilmember, District 1

Earlier this week at a public meeting regarding how to finance the public infrastructure improvements needed to fulfill the vision of the New White Flint Community, a financing plan was presented by some County officials that would tax EXISTING CONDOMINIUM OWNERS in the White Flint Sector Area.We, the property owners and members of the White Flint Partnership, want to make clear that any such plan to tax existing condominium owners is not acceptable to us, individually or collectively.We, the White Flint Partnership, have consistently stated our willingness to assume most of these public infrastructure costs directly and/or through a tax as long as the County provides a sense of certainty that the improvements will happen on a timely basis and that a portion of the tax revenues raised from commercial property owners here in White Flint will remain in White Flint to cover these costs. A tax on existing condominium owners is not necessary or advisable in our opinion.  We look forward to working with the County and our friends and neighbors in White Flint to develop a financing plan that is sufficient, effective and equitable to us all. 

If you would like to be kept up to date on this issue, please visit www.whiteflintpartnreship.com and register to recieve updates, or continue to read the FLOG. 

Best regards,

The White Flint Partnership

[posted by Evan Goldman]