Rockville's Mayor and Council are holding a , on .
This battle is not lost. Your Mayor and Council deeply value the input we receive from citizens at our public hearings. You would be amazed by the effect an outpouring of public opinion can have. I encourage you to sign up for the hearing and make your voice heard.
It's polite to send an e-mail to clerk@rockvillemd.gov, call 240-314-8280, or send a fax to 240-314-8289 to sign up to speak, but even if you don't sign up, you can still show up Monday night and you will be heard.
You can even make your voice heard before Monday: Post this article on Facebook, tweet it, or email the link to your Rockville friends.
When you get to City Hall on Monday night:
- Let us know how much you value Rockville's family-owned businesses. And tell us why you don't think the City of Rockville should casually tell a family-owned business that has operated in Rockville since 1854 to simply move away.
- Tell us you'd like us to actually support Rockville's employers, not just promise to do so during our campaigns, and not just talk about doing so during our meetings.
- Remind us that the more successful Rockville's businesses are, the less tax Rockville's people have to pay.
- Let us know how much you value pedestrian safety. Please ask us what we're going to do when the first funeral-goer trying to dart across Route 28 at dusk ends up needing their own funeral.
- Remind us that 's is a valued neighbor. Let us know that you realize the West Montgomery Historic District is a historic district with a lovingly cared-for funeral home smack in the middle of it. Feel free to point out how the funeral home is possibly the best-maintained building in the West End, sometimes irritatingly so in comparison to our own homes.
- For that matter, remind us that Pumphrey's predates the historic district—and just about every home in the area.
- Remind us that Rockville's employers need to be able to rely on the decisions their government makes. Remind us that we are a lesser place when we can't trust the word of our City government.
- Remind us that the only reason the parking lot didn't get built promptly after the approval was given way back in 2010 was that Pumphrey's did trust the word of Rockville's government. More than $100,000 in planning and legal costs later, I'm sure they are sorry they did.
- Come equipped Monday night with information about what else could be built or operated on that space if Pumphrey's left. (The short answer: not much.) Come bearing the knowledge that it was fully legally and procedurally appropriate for the previous council to decide what it did.
- Remind us of something we're already fully aware of: The City of Rockville always evaluates each zoning exception request it receives on a case-by-case basis. There is no such thing as "opening the floodgates."
- Remind us that Pumphrey's asked to combine their two lots only because City planners asked them to do so; point out to us that wielding that request as a weapon against them now is grossly unfair.
- And remind your Mayor and Council that when we make a commitment to overturn a previous decision only if that decision was legally or procedurally wrong—and it turns out to be neither—we should keep our promise, even if it ends up in a result we don't like. Our word matters.
- More than anything, remind us that you will not allow Rockville to be run by the rule of NIMBY. We are better than that.
See you Monday night!
The author is a member of the Rockville City Council.
The email address is: mayorcouncil@rockvillemd.gov
I sure hope Councilmembers Newton and Hall read this. Thank you, Tom, for making happy to have voted for you.
Approving this parking expansion is the right thing to do. Council Member Moore has presented all good reason that should be considered for the vote on Monday. Sorry I won't be able to make it to the hearing.
I particularly want to associate myself with the statements made by Councilmember Moore and others about fairness. Businesses and homeowners should feel they can trust the City’s word. I imagine that when William Reuben Jr purchased the home for Pumphrey in 1928, a hand shake was enough to seal a deal. People honored their word. The last Mayor and Council decided this issue, and Pumphrey should be able to move forward based on that decision. If this Council pulls the rug out from under them, it would send a message that the City of Rockville cannot be trusted.
Thank you very much for the information.....
The first is at Citizen’s Forum, which will roughly take place at 7:10 p.m. At this time, one can address any issue with the Council, but the testimony would not be made part of the public record on the Pumphry’s issue. The second is at the Public Hearing, specifically on the Pumphry’s issue, which will roughly take place at 8:20 p.m. (could be slightly earlier) Agenda # 11 – following public hearings on two other issues, that may draw few or no speakers. This is the appropriate time to address the Pumphry’s issue and have the testimony be included in the public record. There is no prohibition on testifying in both time slots; indeed it is a reasonable strategy to do that, as each opportunity offers only 3 minutes.
To say that: "...those who support the expansion of the parking area prevailed." is inaccurate and misleading. I would ask that individuals who do not attend our meetings refrain from "reporting" on them. It perpetuates a culture of misinformation. Our meetings are open to any resident of the West End and we regularly discuss issues that affect our neighborhood. I encourage any interested individuals to attend. For more information please visit our website: http://weca.us/. Susan Prince President West End Citizen's Association
The fact that you conclude that “there was no clear consensus” does not negate the fact that, as reported, the majority (or at least plurality) of the people at the meeting voted for the expansion. Are you now claiming that this is inaccurate? What is “misleading” about repeating the report of this result? Personally, I would characterize your explanation above as “misleading” as it never reports the result of the vote other than to say that “it was almost evenly split.” So if it was indeed not “evenly split” then one side prevailed. Which side was it Ms. Prince, and why are you avoiding reporting it now? Not reporting it is misleading.
Also, if this is what constitutes “almost evenly split” then I guess I am “almost” the mayor of Rockville. ;-)
Your recollection of my report to the Mayor and Council is accurate. However, it is the leap from my report to your interpretation that I wanted to correct. As I reported then and will again, there were 50 people in attendance of which 25 voted for expansion, 20 voted against with 5 abstentions. A motion was made to report to the M&C that we would not take a position, because there was no clear consensus. We included the tally to give an indication of the closeness of the vote. By focusing solely on the number of votes misses the point. The arguments for and against were equally strong and people were passionate on both sides of the issue. There was no prevailing viewpoint. Our practice is to take positions only when there is a clear desire to do so among the residents. In fact, in the 3 years I've been President, this was the only major vote that was not virtually 100% for or against. We do not seek a simple majority but rather look to build consensus among residents on issues that affect us. The strength of our organization comes from our unanimity. I do not view our role as taking stands that pit residents against residents and could potentially split the neighborhood. I also would not use my position as President to advocate to my neighbors in support of my own personal viewpoint (much like Councilmember Moore is doing with this letter). Of course residents are free to contact the M&C individually. Which I encourage them to do.
Personally I declare that you characterizing my statement as “inaccurate” indeed “perpetuates a culture of misinformation” that you so bemoan in your post.
I agree that if you only count 45 of the votes, it is uneven. However there were 5 abstentions which must be considered as well. These individuals represent 10% of the residents present and with such a close vote is statistically significant. As President, I was one of the abstentions. Personally I am against this proposal for a number of reasons. I cannot speak for the other 4 individuals. They could be for the parking lot, in which case the vote would have been 29 to 21. They could be against the parking lot, in which case the vote would be 25-25. Because we'll never know for sure, and there is a chance that it was a 50-50 split, it is incorrect to assume there was a prevailing sentiment for the parking lot. It is disingenuous to focus only the part of the vote that suits your argument. Our informal vote should not be used as an argument that residents are for this parking lot. At best, it represents ambivalence about this project.
If I may "butt" in between you and Piotr for a moment. It seems to me that absentions can't or should not be considered. If these votes either for or against were not intended to be examples of the feelings of those citizen's who voted, then what good was the vote in the first place?
Perhaps, but because the vote was structured as a straw poll - rather than a formal vote, people may have been more willing to abstain. Again, we'll never know for sure - and I don't like to speculate. The intent was to take the temperature in the room and determine if we had enough consensus to take a formal position. We didn't reach a consensus so we didn't take a position. This is why I am concerned about taking this "vote" at face value. Thanks.
Actually, I personally counted the “rant” in the against-column. However, Ms. Susan Prince (see her comments above) actually testified on behalf of the West End Citizen Association (WECA) and reported a neutral position of the organization (at their meeting some time ago, they took what was reported as a straw-poll vote where 25 people voted for the expansion of parking, 20 against and 5 abstained, leading to an apparent ultimate neutral recommendation result). But then Ms. Prince proceeded to use a large part of her time, advocating against the expansion of parking, so it was easy to miss that her testimony was officially neutral. So then, last night’s testimony numbers appear to be: 26 for the parking lot expansion, 13 against, and one (Ms. Susan Prince on behalf of WECA), neutral.
I was unable to attend and speak to the issue last night (Monday). I did send an e-mail to the Mayor and Council voicing my support for Pumphrey's right to build their parking lot. I think the gentleman stated at the beginning of the discussion that there were quite a few e-mails sent. I was able though to watch some of the event on TV and what struck me the most was that the folks who live on Williams St. and Forest St. (i.e. the ones most impacted) seemed to be in favor of the parking lot and had no issue with it. In my warped way of thinking, this matters almost as much as the issue of elected official's keeping their word. Now if those close neighbors of Pumphrey's had complained that the parking lot would ruin their life, then maybe it should not be built.....but they didn't say that.......at least the one's that I saw speak.
Regardless, by far the most disturbing thing that transpired last night was the personal attacks levied against Councilman Moore. In the Citizens' Forum, a member of the Planning Commission arose and cited part some ethics rules or code with regard to Councilman Moore's article on this site encouraging residents to speak up about Pumphrey's. He craftily suggested that while he wasn't saying anything improper occurred, that Councilman Moore's actions were "against the spirit of the ethics rules". That was among the lowest, most vile blow I've ever witnessed in any of the local politics I've EVER witnessed. Slimeball tactics are not above this crowd. You know that all too well, Piotr. Also, Drew Powell, one of the Mayor's close confidants, so I am told, astounding stood up and bullied Mr. Moore by verbally attacking him during a hearing that had nothing to do with his attack, and then having the call to refer to Mr. Moore as a "bully", a comment so reflective of this man's cognitive dissonance on the issue that people in the audience gasped in amazement, myself included.
The average citizen in Rockville who tunes in and hears someone making such statements might ask themselves "what did this guy do wrong?" without understanding the full backstory. Mr Moore and ALL the members of the Council have already expressed their opinions on this subject in public meetings, multiple times. If Councilman Moore feels that this is an important issue for the city, and that he knows there is a "silent majority" in the city who isn't being heard, then he should be COMMENDED for pushing citizens to engage and speak their minds. The crowd that runs the Council now cannot have it both ways. They talk about "civility" and respecting citizens and neighborhoods, and listening. And yet, when push comes to shove, this type of tactic reveals their true colors. They need a good hard look in the mirror--they are the bullies they claim to detest so much.
What happened last night was reprehensible, and the perpetrators of the politics of personal destruction ought to be ashamed. Sadly, I am not optimistic. And this kind of nonsense makes me want to throw my hands up, stop being involved, and maybe even move out of this city that I've come to love. However, they'd love that.
Doug, you may also recall that Mr. Powell was booed for his comments last night. And I have every confidence that the complaint filed by Joe Jordan, who ran the mayor's previous campaign, repeating Mr. Powell and Mr. Hadley's allegations about such violations will be found to be baseless.
What bothers me the most is the constant one-sided impugnment of elected officials' motivations--it's never that the elected official has a truly held and/or valid viewpoint that may differ from the "anti-everything" crowd. They make an inherent assumption, without any evidence, that the motivations of the person has nothing to do with a thoughtful, fact-based position on an issue. It's ALWAYS that the big bad scary developers and big bad (in this case historic) businesses are out to make money and have no regard for the concerns of neighbors, and when it comes to accusations like these it's always depicted as ethical violations, or "pay to play" contributions. It's just wrong. And it is hurting this city's future.
The accusations of ethics had absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, which was to discuss the pros and cons of allowing Pumphrey's to build a parking lot. They knew that their own objections did not hold much merit, and that the consensus was overwhelmingly supportive of Pumphrey, so their only recourse was to ramp up the emotional level and to spray some verbal Napalm over everything.
http://rockville.patch.com/articles/poll-the-pumphrey-parking-lot Please consider taking the post-hearing conversation there.