Why is the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) so interested in Montgomery County Clarke County , and extends south and west, hundreds of miles from Montgomery County Warrenton , Virginia
So why did the PEC receive a $43,000 grant from the Rockefeller Foundation “to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the political climate and prospects for Bus Rapid Transit in Montgomery County , Maryland
And, where is the report? Why isn’t it on the Transit Task Force website? Just as with the very detailed segment-by-segment report of the proposed BRT lines, completed by The Traffic Group, it is nowhere to be found. And no one on the County Council has mentioned it.
And, why are our County Executive Ike Leggett, and our Montgomery County
Please ask your councilmembers why they are so interested in the goals of the PEC, at the expense of our citizens. Ask them why they are pushing to raise our taxes to protect the rural nature of Virginia
Write the County Executive
Write the councilmembers here:
In what way would it be appropriate for the county to republish a study that (so far as I can tell) it did not ask for, did not pay for, and rather looks like it is intended to provide a guide for lobbying or other political efforts?
ReplyDeleteWhy is a blog that is "dedicated to improving responsiveness and performance of Montgomery County Public Schools" putting up posts on BRT?
ReplyDeletePaula can best answer this, but what we have found is that planning in Montgomery County often forgets about the public school students. Classroom trailers have been on the ground in MCPS for OVER 27 YEARS! For 27 years we haven't figured out how to get all of our public school children in to solid buildings. More development? Where will the public school students go to school? More trailers? More traffic? What about bus rides?
DeleteMontgomery County Planners and Elected Officials do NOT have an eye on the big picture. We hope to remind them that with more development comes more public school children. Where will we put them? The time for that discussion is NOW, not when the students are already in school.
Anonymous@July 6, 12:30 pm, Janis is right (thanks, Janis); development, BRT plans, unsustainable development and lack of attention to existing infrastructure all impact our children and our public schools. For example, the proposed 'accessory apartments' that can be built in every neighborhood 'by right' (i.e., no review required) will not have MCPS review and so any number of children can move into your school cluster's neighborhoods and there will be no way to track the numbers until the schools become even more overcrowded. The BRT is a means to an end, i.e., more development. In the end a BRT will mean many, many more school children. That is why, to me, it is important to have a public conversation about these plans. If the county government won't do it, this blog will. And, while the direct purpose of this blog is to make MCPS/BOE doings transparent and accountable, we also aim to make the Montgomery County government transparent. Just being good citizens...
ReplyDeleteI think that's a conversation worth having. The initial post read more like an accusation that the council was nefariously doing the bidding of the Piedmont Environmental Council and then covering it up, together with an anti-tax complaint about BRT. Maybe I missed the subtlety. Initial anonymous, not #2.
DeleteAnonymous#1, the accusations remain. There are a number of behind-the-scenes conversations that have occurred to reach this point. As for hidden documents, I have gone to a number of meetings about the BRT and never was the very detailed study completed by The Traffic Group (TTG) mentioned. That study is a segment-by-segment analysis of the proposed routes. Where is it? Why can't the neighborhoods have access to that report? In fact, one member of the transit task force told me everything is posted on the transit task force's website. Not true. We are still waiting, after asking now for almost a month, for that study to be made publicly available. Similar for the study I mentioned in my post. No one on the transit task force or the county government will acknowledge its existence. And finally, as I said in an earlier post, the work plan states the task force report would be a draft, open for public comments. Then there would be a final version. Instead there was no draft, there have been no public comments. At no point since the early start of this BRT push, has any neighbor or citizen been asked, where is the best place for a bus route? What would you, as a citizen and taxpayer, like to see to improve bus transit in this county? What would get you out of your car and into a bus? We are just told, it's happening, suck it up, and oh by the way, you are going to be part of a special taxing district so you will be paying for this too.
ReplyDeleteI think the BRT is a great way to increase development in Montgomery County.
ReplyDeleteIn case you do not understand how taxes work, more development means more revenue for the County. Therefore if there is more revenue, MCPS can have more money for capital improvements. Also, it is not logical to spend the money to renovate or expand an existing school if there is only 50 or less desks unavailable inside the building. In that case, it seems financially responsible to rent trailers instead of use millions just to expand the school with a few more classrooms. With more development, the amount of necessary space would increase and therefore would force MCPS to expand the buildings instead of use tens of more trailers. I believe a few trailers is acceptable, if not financially ideal, but when it gets to be over 10, then there is a problem--currently there is not.
Thanks for the perfect example of why Montgomery County needs REAL PLANNERS in Montgomery County instead of anonymous guessers. The taxes arguments is ridiculous, there is lots and lots of EMPTY office space in Montgomery County right now. Why didn't all that space "work" to increase the tax base? Oops. Looks like your theory is a proven failure.
DeleteNo amount of trailers is acceptable. They are not permanent structures and no child should attend school in something that can't keep them safe. Your lack of information is glaring. MCPS has MANY PUBLIC SCHOOL BUILDINGS that could be used for classrooms. But, instead, the Board of Education rents out those buildings to private organizations, or has handed them over to the County Executive for him to rent. Public School buildings are first and foremost for the use of public school children. They aren't being used for public school children, and the public school children are being put in temporary, unsafe structures outside. Planning? Not hardly.
Paula Bienenfeld writes:
Delete@Anonymous July 8 10:25 PM. Thanks, I think our citizens and I do understand how taxes work. That is why we voted for the Ficker amendment, to limit the amount of property tax we must pay. And that is why the Transit Task Force's scenarios require 'special taxing districts' -- because otherwise the county council cannot raise our taxes. It is explicitly discussed as a way to get around the will of the people that live in this county.
And, if more development means more money for the county, why is our infrastructure crumbling? Where is the money from Clarksburg? How about from downtown Rockville development? What about from King Farm? The county should be floating in money if your proposal is true.
UPDATE: report is still not available after calls to both PEC and partner Coalition for Smarter Growth. Where is it? Citizens cannot make an informed decision when these 'decision documents' are hidden from the public. If anyone has information on this report, or has seen it, please post here.
ReplyDelete