Prince George's County candidate platform guaranteed to lose an election

How to lose an election for county executive in Prince George’s County, besides running as a Republican? Let me offer a sure to lose campaign platform. Let me know if you think this (did I miss anything?) is a sure way to lose an election in Prince George’s County.

1. I pledge to work to increase public participation in the process of government. To this end I will work to create new and novel politically engaged local and neighborhood organizations with a voice at every level of policy and decision making.

NEW: I shall work to provide the resources necessary to establish ambulatory health and care services. Prince George’s County shall find a way to provide a medical health care safety net. To this end, as county executive, I will expand and strengthen existing safety-net capacity (exploring both private and public options), invest in new health and medical infrastructure, work to increase assistance in the enrollment of entitled citizens into Medicaid programs, and actively pursue regional partnerships. The county cannot continue to grow at the expense of those with lesser economic means.

2. I am dedicated to the principle of equal access to societal and environmental resources. I will therefore insist on “…the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” I will enable policies that replenishes the earth; favor an energy efficient economy; and enable citizens to live by supporting and protecting the integrity of our ecosystems and its services.

3. I am determined to create a sustainable economic system that can creates decent jobs with a good standard of living for all people and maintains a healthy ecological balance. Meaningful work with dignity will therefore pay a “living wage” which reflects the true value of a person’s work.

4. I will follow the County General plan in all decision making, and desist from the current policy of ad hoc decision unrelated to or in opposition to the General Plan. Upon election I shall immediately call for a review of the plan by all stakeholders and constituencies.

5. I believe that a core mission of government is to provide security for the community. Public safety and public health are fundamental responsibilities of government. Support for public safety employees will be direct, unequivocal and continuous. At the same time, I will call for people to step up take an active role in making our city safer through community partnerships and through new and existing grass root organizations.

6. I believe that we all have a duty to educate our children. Education is a family matter in partnership with government. As with public safety, I will call for people to step up take an active role in making our city safer through community partnerships and through new and existing grass root organizations. I am committed to closing the learning gap of economic inequality. I consider education to have three equal parts: family including faith based organizations, public schools and libraries. Education is not limited to classrooms and therefore I will support access to outdoors events, recreation, sports and cultural programs that not only provide instruction but enhance quality of life.

7. I shall lead by example and by direction your government agencies towards outputs of excellence. I shall give them the tools to do the best job possible from clean roads without potholes to permits without unnecessary delay. I shall go to the tax payers explaining the project and lay out the costs. We shall seek to reduce or cut programs for which taxpayers are no longer willing to pay, remembering that government has an obligation to protect minorities.

8. I shall seek partnerships with business to retain or reengineer existing jobs; we shall work to bring new businesses and new opportunities for employment to the County. I shall call for competitive taxing strategies to encourage businesses identified in the General Olan to operate in Prince George’s County. I will enage by all means available the federal and state agencies to choose Prince George’s County as their next building, offices or program.

9. I will continue to support, enhance and enable community involvement with land use decisions seeking new ways for local citizens to be heard and not ignored.

10. My actions and policies will be motivated by long-term goals. I shall move to protect valuable natural resources, safely disposing of or encouraging the recycling of all waste, while developing a sustainable economic system that does not depend on continual expansion. I shall counterbalance the drive for short-term profits by assuring that economic development, new and old technologies, and fiscal policies are responsible and fair to present and future generations who live here now or will live with the results of our actions.

Prince George's County Council invades the rural tier with intense zoning change at last minute

Well at the last moment in the dark shadows of probable big moneyed interest of the council chamber, Prince George's County invaded and invested the rural tier (Woodland - Crain Corner) ignoring its own planning strategies and destroying three centuries of history in the hope that it can continue “mauling/malling” its way to prosperity. While most counties and forward thinking municipalities are trying to preserve ecosystem services, Prince George's County blithely figures that as with all its other problems, it can simply pretend that someone else somewhere will rescue it when the time comes. When the county is paved over and green space is at a premium Prince George's will be known as the parking lot of the Washington metro area devoid of ecosystem services, and wondering why when it could have been the leader it chose to follow tired worn out models long shown to be dysfunctional. Asphalt is not the future, it is the past; the future is building sustainably something the present majority of the Council simply doesn't get. This is the same council that placed a trash waste transfer station one mile from their newly designated MXT use (no where near public transit) site in a rural part of the county and thinks that world class hotels will be lining up to have high rise over-looks with a view of a trash haulers. And worse the transfer station is right next to an environmental critical area of the central Patuxent River of Maryland, but no matter Prince George’s politicians know that water comes from the tap and a clean river is not their problem, nor clean air for that matter. And one mile away they are planning to entice cutting edge office workers to smell the stink of shady planning.

Washington Post Delivery is Abysmal

For the last four years I have watched my delivery service of the morning newspaper turn into a lottery wherein I usually lose. I pay; no paper. The morning walk of 1500 feet while good for the body, gets old on the fifth or sixth trip to see if there will be a newspaper that day. You would think that given the stories of newspapers economic woes, that the service would be getting better, bot worse. I however can count on at least three no paper or noon delivery of said paper per month. Of course a late morning newspaper for most of us becomes an evening paper full of yesterday's news. So with nothing left but frustration, I am ending my 35 year love affair with a morning news paper. Sadly I will now get my news from the internet and television in small factoids trimmed to fit a busy mind with no comfort level for detail.

TO: Washington Post Circulation (original written in haste on one of those irritating web site memo fields was loaded with typos)
I ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT FOR A MORNING PAPER. NOT A MID DAY OR AFTERNOON PAPER, BUT A MORNING PAPER. OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, I HAVE WATCHED MY DELIVERY BECOME SPORADIC, UNPREDICTABLE AND ABSENT. MY PAYMENT WAS ON TIME AND DIRECT, YOUR SERVICE IS ABYSMAL. I HAVE CALLED FAXED AND PLEADED TO NO AVAIL. EARLIER THIS MONTH I SAID IF THIS HAPPENS AGAIN (WHICH IT DID - CHECK YOUR LOGS) I WOULD NOT BE RENEWING MY SUBSCRIPTION. SINCE THE POST CAN NOT HOLD UP ITS END OF THE CONTRACT, I SHALL NOT BE RENEWING THIS SUBSCRIPTION AS THERE IS LITTLE SENSE IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES OF PAYING FOR SOMETHING I DO NOT RECEIVE...SERVICE

Prince George’s County Legislative/Regulatory Digest: April 11 – April 17, 2009

Prince George’s County Legislative/Regulatory Digest: April 11 – April 17, 2009
Table of Contents
Tuesday, April 14, 2009. 3
County Council 3
CB-7-2009 (DR-2) – AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING VALIDITY PERIODS. 3
FOR DETAILED SITE PLANS AND SPECIFIC DESIGN PLANS for the. 3
CB-8-2009 (DR-2) (SUBDIVISION BILL) – AN ACT CONCERNING.. 3
VALIDITY PERIODS FOR PRELIMINARY PLANS OF SUBDIVISION for the. 3
WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION PROPOSED.. 3
FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS AND THE. 3
● Appointment of the following individuals to the Enterprise Road Corridor. 3
Development Review District Commission for Prince George’s County: 3
● Appointment of the following individuals to the Prince George’s County Adult. 4
Public Guardianship Review Board: 4
Wed., April 15, 2009. 5
PUBLIC SAFETY AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE. 5
1:30 p.m. * Room 2027. 5
2. CR-13-2009 (County Executive) A Resolution adopting a Schedule of Miscellaneous Building. 5
Permit Fees in accordance with the Subtitle 4, the Building Code. 5
PLANNING, ZONING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. 5
10:00 a.m. Room 2027. 5
People’s Zoning Counsel 5
M-NCPPC – Commission Staff Overview.. 5
Planning Board Meeting. 5
FACILITY OPS/M & D LANDSCAPING AT HIGH PROFILE FACILITIES BRIEFING.. 6
Consent Agenda.. 6
PGCPB NO. 09-53 - SDP-9211/01 - COLLINGTON CENTER RESEARCH LIBRARY CONSORTIUM... 7
5-09041 BEACON HILL, PLAT 1. 8
5-09042 BEACON HILL, PLAT 2. 8
5-09043 BEACON HILL, PLAT 3. 8
5-09044 BEACON HILL, PLAT 4. 8
5-09045 BEACON HILL, PLAT 5. 8
5-09046 BEACON HILL, PLAT 6. 8
5-09047 BEACON HILL, PLAT 7. 8
5-09048 BEACON HILL, PLAT 8. 8
5-09049 BEACON HILL, PLAT 9. 8
5-09050 BEACON HILL, PLAT 10. 8
5-09052 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 1. 9
5-09053 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 2. 9
5-09054 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 3. 9
5-09055 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 4. 9
5-09056 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 5. 9
5-09057 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 6. 9
5-09058 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 7. 9
5-09059 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 8. 9
5-09060 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 1. 10
5-09061 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 2. 10
5-09062 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 3. 10
5-09063 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 4. 10
5-09064 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 5. 10
5-09065 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 6. 10
5-09066 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 7. 10
5-09067 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 8. 10
5-09071 IVY CREEK, PLAT 1. 11
5-09072 IVY CREEK, PLAT 2. 11
5-09073 IVY CREEK, PLAT 3. 11
5-09074 IVY CREEK, PLAT 4. 11
5-09075 IVY CREEK, PLAT 5. 11
5-09076 IVY CREEK, PLAT 6. 11


Tuesday, April 14, 2009

County Council
LINK TO FULL COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA

1:00 p.m. County Council

4. SECOND READING OF BILLS – (INTRODUCTION)
CB-7-2009 (DR-2) – AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING VALIDITY PERIODS
FOR DETAILED SITE PLANS AND SPECIFIC DESIGN PLANS for the
purpose of temporarily suspending or tolling the validity periods of all approved
applications for Detailed Site Plans and Specific Design Plans that were in a valid
status as of January 1, 2009.
(Favorably reported out of PZED on 4/1/2009 with amendments)
To be introduced by Council Member Dean
CB-8-2009 (DR-2) (SUBDIVISION BILL) – AN ACT CONCERNING
VALIDITY PERIODS FOR PRELIMINARY PLANS OF SUBDIVISION for the
purpose of temporarily suspending or tolling the validity periods of all approved
applications for Preliminary Plans of Subdivision that were in a valid status as of
January 1, 2009.
(Favorably reported out of PZED on 4/1/2009 with amendments)
To be introduced by Council Member Dean
SUBDIVISION BILLS REQUIRE A 30 DAY NOTICE PERIOD PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING
County Council 3 April 14, 2009
5. PUBLIC HEARING:
WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION PROPOSED
FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGETS AND THE
WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR WATER AND SEWERAGE FOR FISCAL
YEARS 2009-2014.
(SEE SEPARATE AGENDA)
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
● Appointment of the following individuals to the Enterprise Road Corridor
Development Review District Commission for Prince George’s County:
Ms. Cynthia E. Alston Appointment/Resident
Term Expiration: 6/30/2010
Replacing: James M. Trent
Mr. Joseph L. Brown Appointment/Resident
Term Expiration: 6/30/2011
Replacing: Mr. George H. Braxton
Mr. Samuel J. Wray Appointment/Resident
Term Expiration: 6/30/2010
Replacing: Michael A. Adekoya
Mr. James A. Warren Appointment/Developer
Term Expiration: 6/30/2011
Replacing: Derek A. McDaniels
Mr. Emmanuel P. Edokobi Reappointment/Landowner
Term Expiration: 6/30/2011
Ms. Artisha R. Polk Reappointment/Landowner
Term Expiration: 6/30/2012
County Council 4 April 14, 2009
Mr. Clifton O. Reynolds Reappointment/Vice Chair/Resident
Term Expiration: 6/30/2010
Mr. Edwin Udenkwo Reappointment/Landowner
Term Expiration: 6/30/2012
Mr. John H. Waller Reappointment/Chair/Resident
Term Expiration: 6/30/2012
(Favorably reported out of PZED on 3/24/2009)
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
● Appointment of the following individuals to the Prince George’s County Adult
Public Guardianship Review Board:
Ms. Gail F. Farrell Bagaria Appointment/Lawyer
Replacing: Mr. Richard C. Daniels
Term Expiring: 10/31/2010
Dr. Elmer T. Carreno Appointment/Physician
Replacing: Dr. Allison R. Edwards
Term Expiring: 10/31/2009
Mr. Daniel A. George Appointment/Local Commission on Aging
Replacing: Ms. Janet C. Eberhardt
Term Expiring: 10/31/2009
Ms. Patricia V. Sanders Appointment/Disabilities Professional
Replacing: Mr. Rudolph E. Gawlik
Term Expiring: 10/31/2011
Ms. Judith Rose-Wilson
(Withdrawn by County
Executive)
Appointment/Department of Social Services
Replacing: Ms. Karyn T. Lynch
Term Expiring: 10/31/2009
County Council 5 April 14, 2009
Ms. Carol W. Bergmann Reappointment/Non-Profit Social Services
Organization
Term Expiring: 10/31/2011
Ms. Mary Ann Friis Reappointment/Public Health Nurse
Term Expiring: 10/31/2011
Ms. Joyce F. Jones Reappointment/Physical Disability Member
Term Expiring: 10/31/2010
Ms. Joy A. Truby Reappointment/Citizen
Term Expiring: 10/31/2011
(Favorably reported out of HEHS on 4/2/2009)

Wed., April 15, 2009
PUBLIC SAFETY AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
1:30 p.m. * Room 2027
1. CR-12-2009 (Olson and Turner) An act concerning economic renewal grant funding for the
purpose of expressing a preference that any economic recovery plan funds provided to Prince George’s
County and the State of Maryland be spent by the County and the State on goods and services made or
performed in the United States of America.
2. CR-13-2009 (County Executive) A Resolution adopting a Schedule of Miscellaneous Building
Permit Fees in accordance with the Subtitle 4, the Building Code.

PLANNING, ZONING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
10:00 a.m. Room 2027
BUDGET
People’s Zoning Counsel
M-NCPPC – Commission Staff Overview





Thurs., April 16, 2009 LINK TO AGENDA
Planning Board MeetingFirst Floor County Council Hearing RoomCounty Administration Building14741 Gov. Oden Bowie DriveUpper Marlboro, MD 20772
Item Number
Agenda Item
Board Action(Resolutions will be posted as they are finalized.)
1
Commissioners' Items
2
Draft Minutes of PGCPB Meeting--None
3A
Legislative Work Session:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Discussion.(PIRET)
3B
Executive Session
Parks and Recreation Items (Inquiries call 301-699-2582)
3C
FACILITY OPS/M & D LANDSCAPING AT HIGH PROFILE FACILITIES BRIEFING
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: INFORMATION(GATHERS/WAGNON)
3D
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECRATION SUMMER 09 PROGRAMS AND STAFF TRAINING
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: INFORMATION(GATHERS/FORKER)
Consent Agenda
(Item Numbers 4A-4H) All items listed under the Consent Agenda have been distributed to each member of the Planning Board for review, are considered to be routine, and will be acted upon by one motion. There will be no discussion of these items as it has been indicated that there is no opposition to the staff's findings or recommendation. If discussion is desired, or if there is opposition to the recommendation, that item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately. NOTE: IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT AND OTHER PERSONS OF RECORD TO BE PREPARED TO DISCUSS ON THIS SAME DATE ANY ITEM THAT IS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION.
THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BEGIN AT 10:00 A.M.

DRAFT RESOLUTIONS – CASE HEARD ON MARCH 26, 2009
PGCPB NO. 09-53 - SDP-9211/01 - COLLINGTON CENTER RESEARCH LIBRARY CONSORTIUM
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL(ADAMS)

Zoning Section Items (Inquiries call 301-952-3530)
4C
DRAFT RESOLUTIONS--NONE
Countywide Planning Division (Inquiries call 301-952-3650)
4D
DRAFT RESOLUTIONS--NONE
Subdivision Section Items (Inquiries call 301-952-3530)
4E
5-09041 BEACON HILL, PLAT 1 6 Lots (15.88 acres)
5-09042 BEACON HILL, PLAT 2 6 Lots (14.47 acres)
5-09043 BEACON HILL, PLAT 3 5 Lots (12.68 acres)
5-09044 BEACON HILL, PLAT 4 5 Lots (10.95 acres)
5-09045 BEACON HILL, PLAT 5 6 Lots (11.63 acres)
5-09046 BEACON HILL, PLAT 6 2 Lots (11.32 acres)
5-09047 BEACON HILL, PLAT 7 4 Lots (13.81 acres)
5-09048 BEACON HILL, PLAT 8 6 Lots (17.00 acres)
5-09049 BEACON HILL, PLAT 9 3 Lots (9.78 acres)
5-09050 BEACON HILL, PLAT 10 2 Lots (9.16 acres)
Council District: 09 Tier: Rural.R-A Zone, 4-05074 and DSP-08028Located on the south side of William Beanes Road, northwest side of Crain Highway, opposite intersection with Gold Yarrow Lane. (PA 82A)Calvert, LLC, ApplicantBen Dyer Associates, Inc., Engineer
Action must be taken on or before 5/22/09.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL(NORDAN)
4F
5-09052 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 1 9 Lots and 1 Parcel (24.52 acres)
5-09053 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 2 8 Lots (13.76 acres)
5-09054 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 3 9 Lots and 1 Parcel (23.26 acres)
5-09055 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 4 10 Lots (19.27 acres)
5-09056 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 5 7 Lots (13.36 acres)
5-09057 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 6 7 Lots (14.77 acres)
5-09058 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 7 5 Lots (13.36 acres)
5-09059 WOLFE FARM, PHASE ONE, PLAT 8 4 Parcels (40.19 acres)
Council District: 09 Tier: Developing.R-A Zone, 4-04099 and Limited DSP-08028Located on the southeast side of Thrift Road, south of Tippett Road. (PA 81B)Wolfe Partners, LLC, ApplicantDewberry, Engineer
Action must be taken on or before 4/22/09.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL(NORDAN)
4G
5-09060 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 1 10 Lots and 1 Parcel (17.78 acres)
5-09061 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 2 15 Lots (18.50 acres)
5-09062 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 3 20 Lots and 1Parcel (22.33 acres)
5-09063 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 4 10 Lots and 2 Parcels (15.06 acres)
5-09064 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 5 12 Lots and 3 Parcels (25.05 acres)
5-09065 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 6 26 Lots (22.34 acres)
5-09066 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 7 8 Lots and 2 Parcels (13.65 acres)
5-09067 WOLFE FARM, PHASE TWO, PLAT 8 1 Parcel (33.14 acres)
Council District: 09 Tier: Developing.R-A Zone, 4-04099 and Limited DSP-08028Located on the north side of Thrift Road, south of Tippett Road. (PA 81B)Wolfe Partners, LLC, ApplicantDewberry, Engineer
Action must be taken on or before 4/22/09.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL(NORDAN)
4H
5-09071 IVY CREEK, PLAT 16 Lots and 1 Parcel, R-R Zone (3.20 acres)
5-09072 IVY CREEK, PLAT 29 Lots and 2 Parcels, R-R Zone (4.88 acres)
5-09073 IVY CREEK, PLAT 31 Lot and 1 Parcel, R-R Zone (8.80 acres)
5-09074 IVY CREEK, PLAT 42 Parcels, R-R Zone (1.84 acres)
5-09075 IVY CREEK, PLAT 56 Lots and 1 Parcel, R-R Zone (3.16 acres)
5-09076 IVY CREEK, PLAT 64 Lots and 2 Parcels, R-R Zone (2.37 acres)
Council District: 04 Tier: DevelopingR-R Zone, 4-05105Located northwest quadrant of Annapolis Road and Glenn Dale Boulevard (PA 70)Glen Dale Holding Company, LLC, ApplicantTech Group, Inc., Engineer
Action must be taken on or before 5/7/09.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL(BRESSLER)

Prince George's County Strip Mall in the Rural Tier; links to posting so far

· Historic Sites in and near Woodland Historic District -Crain Corner
· Prince George's County Considers the Destruction of History
· Developing Prince George's; a letter to the Council
· The Sucker's Bet; Destruction of the Prince George's Rural Tier
· When the strip mall comes to Crain Corner, what wi...
· Prince George, Pirates, and the US Constitution
· Prince George's County defines smart growth by shr...
· Prince George's County struggles with environmenta...
· Another strip mall is coming to the rural tier
· Prince George's County strip mall versus the Patux...
· Prince George’s County Legislative/Regulatory Dige...
· Prince George's County seeks to rezone a Strip Mal...
· Prince George's County and the Dynamics of Rural R...
· The Rural Tier & Development in Prince George's Co...
· Prince George's County to decide the fate of PG79-63 - a Potential Historic District Prince George's County's Commitment to the Rural L...
· Prince George's County and Development Axioms
· Prince George's County Considers a Strip Mall in the Rural Tier
· Prince George's County's 19th century land use plan
· Green is the color of the Prince George's County RuralTier
· Prince George's County & the Crain Corner Strip Mall
· Does Prince George's County have a Plan - that means anything?
· Prince George's County will consider another strip mall
· Endangered Species of the Western Branch of the Patuxent River
· Upper Marlboro development to feature a hotel with trash site over look
· Prince George's County proudly decides:A waste transfer station in the county seat
· Upper Marlboro's New Development Center Piece

When the strip mall comes to Crain Corner, what will we lose?

What does the area of Upper Marlboro and Marlboro Meadows in Prince George’s County, Maryland have today, that when the strip mall comes will be lost forever. It has land that has been surveyed and is eligible for the National Historic Register, open space that keeps the Patuxent River and the residents healthy, a community of upscale executive housing with opportunity to build more large 3 acre home sites, and a reasonably low levels of crime providing neighborhoods with a quality of life suitable for all ages.

What will the strip mall give us? No more historic district; pollution, trash and stress on the environment; an influx of transient visitors; lower property values for the residential sites and thus lower tax income for all of Prince George's County; more traffic; more crime potential; a substantive end to a potential executive housing community with its attendant tax base; and a general overall reduction in the quality of life for those who live in Marlboro Meadows or the Woodland historic area along Old Crain Highway, an historic state highway that will also be lost.

If we were to actually follow the already established general plan or the sector plan, we would retain these positive attributes; if we override the community, we shall have none of it and everyone will lose.

Prince George, Pirates, and the US Constitution

When it comes to pirates, I wonder why the United States does not enact Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution? This authority in the Constitution enables Congress to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." It seems to me that this would give our “private” security firms something to do. They could escort our ships through the waters and when attacked respond legally to the threat. Fred E. Foldvary writes that “[t]he risk would then be concentrated on those who chose to engage in the reprisal. This empowers private citizens to protect themselves and other Americans.”

And you wondered how I am going to tie this posting to Prince George’s County?
Certainly Prince George, son of Frederick III of Denmark, husband of Queen Anne of Great Britain, Lord High Admiral of England, and name-sake of Prince George’s County, would have found this a reasonable response to the violent seizure of men and ships.

Prince George's County defines smart growth by shrinking the size of its open spaces

While other communities find a common vision making use of historic districts and clean up past environmental y damaged areas to reinvigorate their established , Prince George’s County at times takes the build and move on approach to development. Given the high cost to reinvest in already developed sections of the county, and given the “cheap” cost of open space, the county action plan is to build more and more by encroaching on the county’s general plan for a rural tier and preserved open space. The rubric for this action is, I want mine while the getting is good; the future is someone else’s problem.

The county should be strengthening municipal and established community finances in both the developed and developing tier per the county’s own plan by encouraging tax-generating commercial development in already environmentally ravaged areas. Prince George’s County should be encouraging the redevelopment and construction of “green” projects in these areas to meet the needs of over-looked residents, bringing jobs and retail infrastructure support. Development without a plan can “…drive disinvestment, reduce competitiveness, and degrade the environment.” A visionary county knows that new growth in the right place “… improves the economy and environment of existing communities.” Development in the 21st century mist reply on forward thinking ideas such as building “… places people want to live in for what they are, rather than for what they are not.” [1]

Building and developing in the right place is not using up every square acre of open space because it is cheaper today than redeveloping our established areas. “Smart growth uses the term “open space” broadly to mean natural areas both in and surrounding localities that provide important community space, habitat for plants and animals, recreational opportunities, farm and ranch land (working lands), places of natural beauty and critical environmental areas (e.g. wetlands). Open space preservation supports smart growth goals by bolstering local economies, preserving critical environmental areas, improving our communities quality of life, and guiding new growth into existing communities.” While there is a trend to preserve open space for the benefits this brings to everyone, Prince George’s County will be considering adding as an attractive feature yet another strip mall heading 180 degrees against prevailing upscale development efforts. According to the Sustainable Communities Network (SCN) “[t]here is growing political will (except evidently in Prince George's County) to save the "open spaces" that Americans treasure. Voters in 2000 overwhelmingly approved ballot measures to fund open space protection efforts. The reasons for such support are varied and attributable to the benefits associated with open space protection. Protection of open space provides many fiscal benefits, including increasing local property value (thereby increasing property tax bases), providing tourism dollars, and decreases local tax increases (due to the savings of reducing the construction of new infrastructure). Management of the quality and supply of open space also ensures that prime farm and ranch lands are available, prevents flood damage, and provides a less expensive and natural alternative for providing clean drinking water. The availability of open space also provides significant environmental quality and health benefits. Open space protects animal and plant habitat, places of natural beauty, and working lands by removing the development pressure and redirecting new growth to existing communities. Additionally, preservation of open space benefits the environment by combating air pollution, attenuating noise, controlling wind, providing erosion control, and moderating temperatures. Open space also protects surface and ground water resources by filtering trash, debris, and chemical pollutants before they enter a water system.”[2]

Why are we in Prince George’s County even thinking about reducing the size of the rural tier to build a strip mall in the Woodland Historic area of Upper Marlboro? Is it not bad enough that we bravely and cleverly decided to bring all of the county trash to a site 1.2 mile from a major tributary of the Patuxent River, and right next to nationally recognized critical habitats? Why are we still enamored with the failing development models of the last century? Where is the forward thinking county which would be a leader, not a follower? When will we begin taking care of our established communities, and reinvesting where the people are?

[1] Sustainable Communities Network (SCN); http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/byissue.asp?iss=2

[2] Sustainable Communities Network (SCN); http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/byprinciple.asp?prin=6

Prince George's County struggles with environmental stewardship

Prince George’s County Maryland is struggling with the concept of environmental stewardship. Some in the county think that other jurisdictions should pay for environmental costs incurred by the county’s flexible definition of open space and limited development - better know as the rural tier. Because open space is less costly than developed space the county deciders are seemingly bent upon reducing the amount of rural open space. The logic seems to be that while the rest of the world is concerned about climate change and water resources, Prince George’s County will continue along without concern for these matters until it has exhausted is precious supply of undeveloped open space. At that point in time, those who made a quick profit can let those who remain pay the price for mitigating the environmental damage.

Prince George’s County, Maryland will consider soon yet another strip mall of some 40 acres (perhaps up to 120 acres, but that will come later...one small step for development at a time) in the rural tier. 40 acres of open space grabs 40 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air every year. [1] Assuming about 1 pound of carbon for every mile driven, the development of the Crain Corner project will remove 80,000 miles of carbon savings or sequestration from the atmosphere. And in addition to being on the wrong side of climate change the county gets the opportunity to impact negatively the quality of the near by Patuxent River through run-off and ecosystem damage as well as to destroy a potential historic district. This one two three punch will be called progress for there surely is a need for one more strip mall - even though there is land across the street already zoned commercial. But in which direction goeth our county? For as the world goes one way, Prince George’s is determined to go in the opposite direction; against the environment full speed ahead, warnings be damned.

[1] Pine plantations in the Southeast can accumulate almost 100 metric tons of carbon per acre after 90 years, or roughly one metric ton of carbon per acre per year (Birdsey 1996). http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html

Statistical information for those who would not see: http://www.worldometers.info/

Another strip mall is coming to the rural tier

The strip mall (Crain Corner) is coming to the rural tier in Woodland, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Few will mourn the environmental loss because the environment is free and infinite and has no value until it is no more. We seek out unique places for their differences and local specialties and then to accommodate our sense of want we build chain stores which destroy the very reason we came in the first place. How much open space should we preserve? New York had to secure almost 2000 acres (Drinking water for New York City comes from reservoirs in a nearly 2,000-acre watershed located in Delaware, Greene, Schoharie, Ulster, Sullivan, Westchester, Putnam, and Dutchess counties. Together, these reservoirs provide about 1.4 billion gallons of drinking water per day.) in upstate New York to secure drinking water, but here in Prince George’s County being far mores savvy environmentally we know that water comes from the tap and is infinite and always there. We have no good reason to protect a river for a few fols to enjoy, so let’s build parking lots and retail stores.

Prince George’s County drew a line and said no more urban development past this line, but lines are political so the county is thinking about redrawing the rural tier demarcation so that a few property owners can make some money, and the rest of us shall simply pay more taxes for any clean up of the environment that happens to come along later. This is the money now idea that got the country into its current economic morass and is the problem that is getting the world into the environmental sink-hole. The building of the mall is couched in terms of why we can’t get some of what you have, but the result is to destroy the we have and give the new residents a damaged and dysfunctional ecosystem. The issue is sometimes cast in the light of the old ethnic majority versus the new, as if the new majority does not care about environmental issues, but rather is inclined to pave everything over. I think this wrong and slightly insulting.

Most people I know would never pay to live next to a strip mall; some might pay to live in a rural area, others to live in an urban area with green space, but so far I so not see any real estate advertising “house next to trash containers behind strip mall…good quality of life location.” If yet another strip mall for Prince George’s residents is a mandatory necessity, then let us build the mall next to the residents in need in areas planned for development; let us not carve up more open space that is finite and irreplaceable, and say how wonderfully we are developing our county. Let us rather have the visio9n to contain our sprawl and redevelop areas with in the planned development zones, areas where the ecosystems are already destroyed. Let us fix up neighborhoods and bring retail to them if they want it or green spaces if they need them, let us not pave over the rural tier of Prince George’s County

Prince George's County strip mall versus the Patuxent River Policy Plan

To think we can build a commercial strip mall in the rural tier of Prince George’s County, Maryland close to the Patuxent River in Upper Marlboro and do no harm flies in the face of reason. The point of the rural tier is to protect the ecosystem of the river. Urbanization is not free, and carries a heavy environmental cost that impacts everyone, those who live in the rural tier and those who live in the rest of the county. We all will pay the price down the road.
Urbanization affects the water cycle that every resident of Prince George’s County depend upon. When a parking lot for the strip mall is built, rain water will carry “… nutrients, pesticides, heavy metals, sediment, and other pollutants that it washes from lawns, roads, and other surfaces. In urbanizing areas, the result of the altered hydrology and the greater pollutant loads is physical and biological degradation of the receiving ecosystems, including streams (Paul and Meyer 2001) and wetlands (Ehrenfeld 2000). The degree of degradation is correlated with the amount of impervious cover in the watershed (Schueler 2003). Even cover values of 10 percent or less have been associated with changes in stream fauna in some areas.”[1]

What is the recommendation for land near a major tributary, but to minimize the extent of paved surfaces because impervious cover and altered hydrology are so closely linked? In terstingly enough there is a Patuxent river Policy Plan that states in a report from 1997 that we should “[c]ontinue to restore, improve, and protect the habitat function of aquatic and terrestrial living resources; [c]oncentrate new development in and around existing developed areas and population centers while protecting rural lands and the associated agricultural economy; [e]nhance the environmental quality and community design in new and existing communities; [d]evelop a sense of stewardship for the Patuxent River and its watershed through increased public education and participation programs.”[2]

Where is a strip mall in this plan? Will our deciders follow their own plan or will they look the other way and move to the river’s edge with pavement and concrete and retail stores? Where is the line?

[1]Susan W. Vince and Martha C. Monroe. Forest Management in the Interface: Water Management. This document FOR 181, is one of the Forest Management in the Interface series of the School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Florida Cooperative Extension Services, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. This fact sheet was first published in 2006 as part of Changing Roles: Wildland-Urban Interface Professional Development Program. It was reviewed and revised for EDIS in July 2008. Visit the EDIS Web Site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/. < http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/document_fr246#FOOTNOTE_1 >

[2] Patucent Policy plan < http://www.mdp.state.md.us/info/patuxplan.htm >

Prince George’s County Legislative/Regulatory Digest: April 4 – April 10, 2009

Prince George’s County Legislative/Regulatory Digest: April 4 – April 10, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009

County Council
LINK TO FULL COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA
9:30 A.M. AGENDA BRIEFING – (ROOM 2027)
10:00 p.m. County Council

CB-3-2009 (DR-2) - AN ACT CONCERNING TAXICAB REGULATIONS for
the purpose of amending provisions of the Code relating to regular taxicab rates and
the emergency fuel cost surcharge.
(Introduced by Council Members Olson, Harrison, Dean, Campos and Dernoga on
3/17/2009; favorably reported out of PSFM on 3/4/2009 with amendments)

CB-5-2009 – AN ACT CONCERNING AMENDING THE ENERGY REAL
PROPERTY TAX CREDIT for the purpose of amending the tax credit for real
property for residential homeowners who utilize solar energy conservation devises.
(Introduced by Council Members Olson, Dernoga, Campos, Turner and Harrison on
3/17/2009; favorably reported out of PSFM on 3/4/2009)

CB-6-2009 – AN ACT CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION OF THE SALE,
OFFER OR DISTRIBUTION OF CERTAIN CIGAR PRODUCTS for the
purpose of amending the provisions of the County Code prohibiting the sale, offer or
distribution of cigar and cigar products intended for or designed for the use in
ingesting, inhaling or otherwise introducing marijuana, cocaine, hashish, or hashish
oil into the human body to minors and in quantities fewer than packages of five.
(Introduced by Council Members Dean, Harrison, Bland and Knotts on 3/17/2009;
discharged from HEHS Committee on 3/17/2009)

CR-9-2009 (DR-2) – A RESOLUTION CONCERNING VICTORY CREST
SENIOR APARTMENTS for the purpose of approving a $1.3 million HOME Loan
for the Victory Crest Senior Apartments project and amending the Prince George’s
County “Annual Action Plan: FY 2006” and “Annual Action Plan: FY 2009” to
include project and project funding.
(Introduced by Council Member Campos on 2/10/2009; favorably reported out of
THE on 3/26/2009 with amendments)


Thurs., April 9, 2009 LINK TO AGENDA

DRAFT RESOLUTION – CASE HEARD ON MARCH 19, 2009
PGCPB NO. 08-178(A) – 4-08022 – QUINCY MANOR
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL(HIRSCH)

DRAFT RESOLUTION – CASE HEARD ON MARCH 19, 2009
PGCPB NO. 09-45 - DSP-89010/02 – INGLEWOOD BUSINESS COMMUNITY, LOT 46
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL(ADAMS)

5-09027 DISTEL SUBDIVISION 12 Lots (3.74 acres)
5-09028 DISTEL SUBDIVISION 6 Lots and 1 Parcel (4.74 acres)
Council District: 09 Tier: Developed. R-80 Zone, 4-05103 Fee-in-lieu Located on the south end of Donna Street and Karen Street, west of Suitland Road. (PA 76A)Foster Communities of Maryland, Inc., Applicant Greenhorne and O’Mara, Inc., Engineer
Action must be taken on or before 4/17/09. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL(NORDAN)

V-09002 SANDY SPRING ESTATES, SECTION 7 Petition to Vacate part of Old Sandy Spring Road (Maps)Council District: 01 Municipality: None.Tier: Developing.Located in the northeast quadrant of Old Sandy Spring Road and Misty Pine Road. (PA 60)R-R Zone (.36 acre)Sandy Spring Estates, LLC, ApplicantRifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, LLC, Attorney
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with condition(BRESSLER)

Landover Gateway Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment
Approve resolution to adopt the Landover Gateway Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment (SMA) Council District: 05
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL of staff recommendations and the resolution to adopt the Landover Gateway Sector Plan and endorse SMA for transmittal to the District Council(OSEI)

Three (3) reservations will expire on June 30, 2009 at various locations. They consist of the following:
Two (2) for Branch Avenue/Surratts Road Interchange One (1) for the US 301 Upgrade
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL to submit affidavits to the owners of the properties for consent to continue certain reservations for additional periods of time as noted in the staff Memorandum dated April 9, 2009(FOSTER)

Preliminary Countywide Master Plan of Transportation – Planning Board Worksession
Planning Board review of the digest of testimony from the February 3, 2009 Joint Public Hearing and staff responses to testimony, and proposed changes to the Preliminary Countywide Master Plan of Transportation, pursuant to Section 27-645(a).
Countywide
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL of the proposed changes to the Preliminary Countywide Master Plan of Transportation(FOSTER)

CSP-08002 ARIEL’S HAIR SALON Council District: 03 Municipality: Hyattsville.Tier: Developed.Located on the southern side of Ager Road, approximately 90 feet east of its intersection with Jamestown Road. (PA 68)M-X-T and T-D-O Zones (0.02 acre) Zulma S. Romero, ApplicantRequest: Waiver of the application fee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL of a partial fee waiver(GROVER)

Prince George's County seeks to rezone a Strip Mall into the Rural Tier

Very soon the wise men and women of Prince George’s County will decide whether to “adjust” their general and master plans by dropping a strip mall into the rural tier along the east side of US301. The concept of extending the strip malls of Charles County comes to mind as there is a tendency to ,add more and more malls until they exist side by side, wall to wall mall. A trip through Waldorf is a possible vision of the historic district of Woodland just east of Upper Marlboro, Maryland. And with the plethora of parking lots and shopping centers anchored by “upscale” stores such as Target, residents can expect an increase in traffic which in turn will mean more time in the car.[1]

The development vision which sees little or no value in open space or historic districts will rezone Crain Corner into a power center anchored by one or two big national chain boxes, just as some areas are trying to figure out what to do with these large stores when the retailer moves on. Julia Christensen writes that “[a]merica is becoming a container landscape of big boxes connected by highways. When a big box store upsizes to an even bigger box "supercenter" down the road, it leaves behind more than the vacant shell of a retail operation; it leaves behind a changed landscape that can't be changed back. Acres of land have been paved around it. Highway exits lead to it; local roads end at it. With thousands of empty big box stores spread across America, these sites have become a dominant feature of the American landscape.”[2]

The uniqueness of the Woodland and Upper Marlboro area will be subsumed by “…perhaps a grocery store, bookstores, pet supply shops, electronics retailers, or a variety of other retail establishments and fast food or chain restaurants.”[3] Prince George’s County will lose the identity of place and become homogenized by the sameness of macadam and concrete. “With the rise of the big box store, a strip mall is now more likely to have uniform architecture, where all buildings have a central theme or resemble each other, making them more aesthetically pleasing” , and thereby removinga the eye sore complaint at the expense of losing the uniqueness that was Woodland.[4]





[1] http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-strip-mall.htm
[2] MIT Press Web site: http://mitpress.mit.edu/shared/legal/default.asp
[3] http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-strip-mall.htm
[4] Idem

Prince George's County and the Dynamics of Rural Rier Development

Washington Business Journal reported nearly five years ago that “[a]s developers continue snapping up large swaths of farmland near Upper Marlboro, Prince George's County officials are calling for a comprehensive plan before the piecemeal projects get out of hand. "I want to look at that entire area and say, 'This is how we should build this area out,'" says Samuel Dean, chairman of the Prince George's County Council. "All of these development applications are coming in separately. That doesn't do anything for us, to have it built in a hodgepodge manner. "[1]
When it comes to eastern Upper Marlboro’s historic Woodlands area, one can hope that Mr. Dean will continue to follow his own words. Because the hodge-podge of small pieces is coming before him soon, we can hope that he might put the brakes on the rezoning of Crain Corner for a strip mall in the rural tier. Of course Councilman Dean is clear that his preference is to build on, out and over the open space as if it were a blank canvas of no value except when developed and paved over. But he is consistently opposed to overriding and overlooking local community involvement and desires. There is hope, then, that he is hearing and listening to the residents of Woodland and Marlboro Meadows and will not run rough shod over their concerns.

Developers look at open space because it is cheaper then redevelopment costs in established communities. This dynamic leads to the pattern of suburban development where most of the wealthy people settled in rural parts of the region, leading to mall developers and employers wanting to locate there, leading to more highways there, destroying the reason the people moved there in the first place. The wealth then leaves moving further out to restart the process again. In the mean time, developers and investors are loath to redevelop in our established communities because the return is not so great as plowing under a field and planting it with asphalt.

All of this takes place as everyone agrees to blindly assume that the destruction of ecosystems and their services is someone else’s problem and cost, or in this county’s case, no one’s cost because it all is free, just call in the bulldozers. Ask your self, how many SUV’s can we have on the roads because the green space of the rural tier absorbs the carbon? The answer is in the tens of thousands.

[1] Washington Business Journal, 20-Dec-2004; http://www.pillsburylaw.com/bv/bvisapi.dll/portal/ep/newsReleaseDetail.do/pub/00004EBA/ruleType/PUB_FIRMNEWS_MENTIONS/channelId/-8593/tabId/5/pageTypeId/9208

The Rural Tier & Development in Prince George's County

John Peter,
This entire subject of the Rural Tier has been an extremely hard topic for me to get my arms around as there are some very different and opposing views on this topic. Cool heads must prevail on this important topic as we do not get a second chance to do it over. '

I constantly hear from those who are living out in the Rural Tier that they do not want anything or anyone encroaching on the beauty of this area and to let them be to enjoy its serenity and beauty. I can agree 100% with what they are saying because I to want to preserve it for generations to come so they can see the beauty of the wildlife and nature found in the Rural Tier. Plus, where else do we have any resemblance of farming so close to the Nation's Capitol.

However, the playing field was not level when the opportunity to purchase and own a piece of "Heaven" in the Rural Tier was occurring many years ago when it was and still is owned by primarily White Prince George's County residents. To say you cannot move into this area now that you have the money to do so is somewhat of a problem and that is exactly what we are saying if we tell a new generation of Minorities that you cannot build your home in this area and secure your piece of "Heaven." Yes, their lifestyle is different from those who have lived on the land for sometime only because they were unfairly kept out of this area and do not hold the same sentimental value.

They want to see infrastructure and necessities within a reasonable proximity to where they can now own their piece of "Heaven." The Rural Tier is not just for those families who own the property now to be able to continue to pass it on from generation to generation enjoying the beauty and serenity and possibly farming while others who want to cannot. We cannot continue to let a small segment of society enjoy the fruits of the land at the expense of another segment who must continually experience overcrowding, no open space and green areas, poor air quality, and high crime rate.

We must compromise and carefully select those areas within the Rural Tier that truly have an environmental impact or historical significance worth preserving so as to not give the impression to our residents of Prince George's County that one's home area is more important than another and the lifestyle of those living in that area must be kept at a better level than those living in another. Yes, we are Prince Georgians and we have a unique and distinctive heritage and a bright future for all. We have some tough decisions in front of us and I know we are up to the challenge.

Henry C. Turner, Jr.
Chairman
Commission for Veterans
240-678-8709

Prince George's County's Commitment to the Rural Legacy Program is spotlighted by rezoning of land east of US 301in the rural tier

As the date for deciding the fate of Woodland draws near, the environmental impact weighs heavy on those who would stay after the rezoning takes place and the bulldozers alter forever the ecosystem of the Patuxent Rive around Upper Marlboro. The proposal is to site a strip mall in the middle of at least three of the planned green areas for central Prince George’s County. The county’s current General Plan calls for the staging of the development of recreational facilities to be proportional to population growth in specific areas. Future needs for parkland were anticipated (in 1982 and 1992) for the northern, central, and southern portions of the county. The open space goals, established by the General Plan, are redefined by each Area Master Plan where achievable and measurable growth objectives are established. The county is an active participant in the state’s Rural Legacy Program[1], though active may be an ironic appellation if the re=zoning ofr Crain Corner goes through..

Collington Branch is a component of the Patuxent River watershed that originates near Bowie, runs southerly and connects to the Western Branch tributary in Upper Marlboro, which continues into the Patuxent River. The Collington Branch is also planned for a proposed multi-use trail that will connect Bowie with Upper Marlboro. The county owns much of the corridor and plans to fill in any gaps through acquisition and the development process. The Prince George’s County Bicycle and Trails Advisory Group recommended this trail as the number seven trail/bikeway priority in the county.

Patuxent Regional Greenway (Ecological Greenway)The Patuxent Regional Greenway is a partially established regional greenway that includes seven jurisdictions extending from central Maryland through southern Maryland. The Patuxent River serves as the spine for the greenway which runs through Howard, Montgomery, Anne Arundel, Prince George’s, Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary’s counties. DNR currently owns about 15,000 acres along the Patuxent River and isworking with local officials to extend protection along the mainstem. In Prince George’s County the Patuxent River forms the northern and eastern county boundaries. Public properties under the management of DNR, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, M-NCPPC and WSSC make a substantial contribution to the Patuxent Regional Greenway. These lands provide many opportunities for nature study and outdoor recreation. Prince George’s County has adopted land-use and development regulations for the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area and the Patuxent River Primary Management Area to channel development away from sensitive areas in the Patuxent corridor. Public acquisition of the Patuxent Regional Greenway will continue, and these policies will provide a mechanism for protecting water quality and riparian resources on non-public lands.

The Western Branch is a stream valley greenway that originates near Glenarden and connects into the Patuxent River south of Upper Marlboro. Major tributaries of the Western Branch are Bald Hill and Folly and Lottsford branches. Connections will occur with Collington Branch, Southwest Branch, and the Chesapeake Beach Rail Trail corridor. M-NCPPC owns sections in all of these corridors. The Western Branch Greenway is second in size only to the Patuxent Greenway in Prince George’s County. The corridor is under continuing acquisition and will have the longest trail system of any Patuxent tributary in the county.

[1] http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/download/greenways/atlas/pg_TEXT.pdf

Clear Choices in Prince George's County: Strip Mall or...?

Gazette staff and HPC Commissioner Thompson,

I hope the Gazette editorial page and Greg Holzheimer give coverage to the issue that Commissioner Thompson has kicked into the public arena with his blogsite editorial “PG 79-63 A Potential Historic District for Upper Marlboro.” It merits wider discussion, and the Gazette provides an excellent forum.

There’s a very clear choice facing Upper Marlboro residents. And Thompson points out that the decision is not between doing nothing or developing another commercial strip akin to Alexandria’s nightmarish Rt. 1 corridor. Upper Marlboro could seek historic district designation.

Colonial Williamsburg, for example, is a model for Upper Marlboro. Their planning decisions demonstrate how massive new commercial, housing and other development can enhance and be inspired by a designated historic district. Thompson boldly points out that some prominent locals who oppose historic district designation have privately stated their intention to rezone their land, then “sell and get out of town.” John Peter makes a highly controversial point – it reminds me of chap who shouts out the obvious point in the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” And Thompson’s shout should make good newsprint. He’s sadly correct when he challenges the genuineness of tears being shed by some local preservationists who nonetheless intend to destroy the treasures in their stewardship. They must be reminded of their moral obligation to save the archeological and architectural gems left to us by earlier residents of this County.

I don’t know why this point needs to me be made, but it does: Although it’s the “Upper Marlboro way,” the fact that some of these historic properties were built by ancestors of the current owners doesn’t legitimize their decisions to build strip malls atop them. It makes their decisions more embarrassing.

A balanced solution: Upper Marlboro residents must discern a middle ground between the obligations to one’s community, and a crass interpretation of one’s individual property rights. A balance can be found. Establishing a historic district with it’s Local Advisory Committee (LAC) in greater Upper Marlboro could provide those communities with a review board that ensures future new growth is not just a “quality dollar maker” for the developer, but also a quality, aesthetic addition that enhances your tremendous historic heritage.

Any editorial, and the article by Greg, might put Upper Marlboro’s historic district proposal in context. There are a number of other County areas that are aggressively trying to designate themselves as historic districts. This is the latest wrinkle in the campaign by our Historic Preservation Commission and the rapidly emerging preservation constituency to improve the County’s long-term future. Prince George’s can become the Washington region’s “preferred living environment” among its neighboring jurisdictions. But not by building more schlock like Fairfax County’s Route 1 corridor.

Dave Turner

Prince George's County to decide the fate of PG79-63 - a Potential Historic District

Prince George’s County will soon decide whether to permanently destroy a possible historic district. The inclusion of a shopping mall in the district will adversely and permanently alter the character of the northern part of the proposed Woodland district of eastern Upper Marlboro. As some people are at this time considering designating Upper Marlboro itself as an historic district, commercial development is looking to put an end to one already in place. But, the residents of Old Crain Highway decided not to apply for historic status because it would hamper individual efforts to ultimately negate the history of place. The desire of some residents is based upon a personal market strategy which is to sell the land at maximum return and eventually leave the county while those who stay will have to deal with the changes in traffic, crime, and pollution. Designation of an area as a historic district will not directly affect property values, unlike inclusion of a strip mall in a rural historic setting. Because Local Historic District properties are protected from insensitive development, owners may be more inclined to make improvements to their properties, and this may increase the value of all property in a given district. [1]

This is the issue here in Crain Corner; some will make money at the expense of the rest, rather than all raising the aggregate value together through common purpose. National and statewide economic studies show that historic district designation first stabilizes property values, and then slowly values begin to rise. In most cases properties in local historic districts appreciate at rates greater than: (a) the local market as a whole, and (b) similar neighborhoods that are not designated. This is akin to the principal behind subdivision covenants, which are put in place by a homeowners association to ensure quality improvements and to enhance property owners’ investments (though private covenants are often more restrictive than public ordinances). A historic district that is aesthetically cohesive and well promoted can be a community's most important attraction. The retention of historic areas as a way to attract tourist dollars makes good economic sense. The protection of local historic districts can also enhance business recruitment potential. Companies continually re-locate to communities that offer their workers a higher quality of life, which is greatly enhanced by successful local preservation programs and stable historic districts.

[1] Frequently Asked Questions about Local Historic Districts

Prince George’s County Legislative/Regulatory Digest: March 30 – April 3, 2009

Prince George’s County Legislative/Regulatory Digest: March 30 – April 3, 2009
Tuesday, March 31, 2009

County Council
LINK TO FULL COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA two agenda together at this link scroll down

1:00 p.m. County Council Agenda Briefing (Room 2027)
1:30 p.m. Call to Order (Council Hearing Room)

CB-13-2009 – AN ACT CONCERNING THE BUILDING CODE for the purposeof amending the Prince George’s County Building ordinance, adopting certain amendments to the 2006 Edition of the International Building Code, International Mechanical code, International Energy Conservation Code, and International Residential Code for One- and Two-Family Dwellings, and amending certain Sections to include modifications as it relates to building standards.
The Chairperson (by request – County Executive); referral to PZED

CR-13- 2009 - A RESOLUTION CONCERNING SCHEDULE OF MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING PERMIT FEES for the purposed of adopting a schedule of miscellaneous building permit fees under the Building Code. The Chairperson (by request – County Executive); referral to PSFM

(a) Letter to Samuel J. Parker, Jr. concurring with the Planning Board’s request for a three-month extension to prepare the Preliminary Subregion 4 Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment. The Chairperson (by request – Planning Board)

7:00 p.m. Joint Public Hearing – (Council Hearing Room)

Subregion 5 Preliminary Master Plan and Proposed SMA:

“The Joint Public Hearing for the Preliminary Subregion 5 Master Plan and Proposed SMA will be held on Tuesday, March 31st at 7:00 p.m. (doors will open at 6:00 p.m.) in the Council hearing Room on the First Floor of the County Administration Building in Upper Marlboro, MD. This is an opportunity for all interested persons to express their views concerning the preliminary master plan and proposed sectional map amendment.

The Prince George's County Planning Department is preparing a master plan and sectional map amendment for the Subregion 5 area. The goal of this project is to update the 1993 master plan for the Subregion to further the policy recommendations of the 2002 General Plan

A master plan is a written report, approved by the District Council, which establishes how the county would like the land in the project area to develop in the future. It establishes recommendations that guide the county officials in making decisions on the use of land within the project boundary.

A sectional map amendment (SMA) amends the county’s official zoning map to implement the recommendations in an approved master plan.”

Wed., April 1, 2009

PZED Committee Meeting (Room 2027) 10:00 a.m.

CB-7-2009 (Dean) - An Ordinance concerning Validity Periods for Detailed Site Plans and
Specific Design Plans for the purpose of temporarily suspending or tolling the validity periods of all approved applications for Detailed Site Plans and Specific Design Plans that are currently in a
valid status.

2. CB-8-2009 (Dean) - A Subdivision Bill concerning validity periods for Preliminary Plans of
Subdivision for the purpose of temporarily suspending or tolling the validity periods of all approved applications for Preliminary Plans of Subdivision that are currently in a valid status.

Board of Appeals
CASES FOR HEARING - 6:00 P.M.
NEW CASES
VARIANCES
V-7-09 Roger & Helen Wirin - Request for a variance of 2 feet side street line setback for an accessory building to validate an existing craft cabana and obtain a building permit to construct a deck and screened room at 14711 Cambridge Drive, Upper Marlboro.

V-8-09 Camark Land Company, LLC - Request for a variance of 223 feet setback from an existing ball field and playground to construct a facility for the incidental retail of gasoline at a vehicle repair and service station at 12300 Old Baltimore Pike, Beltsville.

OTHER ZONING APPEALS
V-123-08 Family Auto Auctions, LLC - An appeal from the determination of the Zoning Inspector to issue Violation Notice No. Z-886-9-09, dated December 11, 2008, citing Petitioner for use of the property not in conformance with the use and occupancy permit and/or accompanying plan and use of a building, structure and land for vehicle sales and/or public auction without a use and occupancy permit, on I-1 (Light Industrial) zoned property at 12405 Crain Highway, Brandywine.

V-3-09 4004 Branch Avenue, LLC - An appeal requesting an extension of the grace period for the correction or cessation of Zoning Violation Notice No. CPZ-0365, dated December 15, 2008, issued by the City of College Park, Department of Public Services, citing Petitioner with violation of Prince George's County Code Sections 27 551(a)(1)&(2) (Parking lots are for the sole purpose of accommodating the passenger vehicles of persons associated with the use which requires the parking lot. Parking and loading areas and their access driveways shall not be used for any other purpose), requiring Petitioner to reserve the parking lot for the purpose of accommodating
the passenger vehicles of those persons associated with the use and cease all other uses of the parking lot, on M-U-I (Mixed-Use Infill) zoned property at 9031 Baltimore Avenue, College Park.

Thurs., April 2, 2009
HEHS Committee Meeting (Room 2027) – 10:00 a.m. Agenda not posted as of March 29th 9:00 am
Planning Board Meeting April 2, 2009First Floor County Council Hearing Room
Administrative/Parks and Recreation Items 8:30 a.m.-
Development Review Items 10:00 a.m.-‘ ‘
5-09051 PRINCE GEORGE’S BUSINESS CENTER Council District: 05 Tier: Developed.1 Lot, I-1 and I-2 Zones (7.89 acres) 4-07070Located on the east side of Claybrook Road, north side of Sheriff Road. (PA 72)American Resources Management Group Limited Partnership, Applicant
Landover Gateway Sector Plan and Sectional Map Amendment Work session to Review Digest Testimony and Resolution to Adopt the Landover Gateway Sector Plan and SMA Council District: 05
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL of staff recommendations on testimony analysis and the resolution to adopt the Landover Gateway Sector Plan and endorse SMA for transmittal to the District Council (OSEI)
SDP-0802 BOWIE CITY HALL (Maps)(TCPII/006/09)Council District: 04 Municipality: Bowie.Tier: Developing.Located directly south of the intersection of Evergreen Parkway and Excalibur Road. (PA 71B)M-A-C Zone (6.17 acres) (12/3/08)City of Bowie, ApplicantRequest: Bowie City Hall/Police Station.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • SDP-0802 – APPROVAL with conditions • TCPII/006/09 – APPROVAL with conditions
DSP-01037/01 PRINCE GEORGE’S MUSLIM ASSOCIATION PROPERTY (Maps)(AC-08021) Council District: 03 Municipality: None.Tier: Developing.Located northwest of the intersection of Lanham Severn Road and Main Street. (PA 70)R-55 Zone (5.46 acres) (4/24/08)Prince George’s Muslim Association, Inc., ApplicantRequest: 375 Square-Foot Addition to existing Mosque and Private School.
70-day limit has been waived.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • DSP-01037/01 – APPROVAL with conditions • AC-08021 - APPROVAL
DSP-08067 THE SHOPS AT QUEENS CHILLUM (Maps)Council District: 02 Municipality: None.Tier: Developed.Located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Queens Chapel Road and Chillum Road. (PA 68)M-X-T Zone (6.05 acres) (2/4/09)Chillum Center, LLC, ApplicantRequest: Amending the Table of Uses for West Hyattsville TDDP.
Action must be taken on or before 4/15/09.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions
CSP-08005 THE SHOPS AT QUEENS CHILLUM (Maps)Council District: 02 Municipality: None.Tier: Developed.Located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Queens Chapel Road and Chillum Road. (PA 68)M-X-T Zone (6.05 acres) (2/4/09)Chillum Center LLC, ApplicantRequest: Amending the Table of Uses for West Hyattsville TDDP.
Action must be taken on or before 4/9/09.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL with conditions
05070 GREEN HILLS Council District: 08 Municipality: None.Tier: Developing.Located on the west side of Lumar Drive and approximately 1,500 feet south of Allentown Road. (PA 76B)9 Lots, R-E Zone(9.94 acres) (3/16/09)Krause Design and Construction, Applicant
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL of a one-year extension

Prince George's County and Development Axioms

Development Axioms
As we consider the re-zoning of land in Woodland, Upper Marlboro so that someday we can build a strip mall at Crain Corner, the wicked, messy world of land use policy comes in to clear focus. I am indebted to the work of Dr. Robert Lackey for my land use "riff" on his essay: Axioms of Ecological Policy, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon 97333

Policy Axiom 1 — The policy and political dynamic is a zero-sum game

The most unsettling part of development, land use and ecological policy for most residents and stakeholders is that the selection of any proposed policy will result in winners and losers. There is no “win-win” policy, which we of course expect our politicians to find; the search is fruitless even at a superficial “political” level of analysis. To quote Dr, Lackey, “There are always winners and losers even though people running for office may try to convince the voters otherwise.”

In the escalating quest for land, a finite resource, in areas of expanding human populations or expanding economic activity, the competition for developable land can be fierce and nasty. Any land use decision results in a set of winners and another set of losers. The winners and losers may be those in this generation or future generations, obvious or vague elements of society, or in near or distant regions. The benefits and costs may be both monetary and nonmonetary; may be realized immediately or over many years; and may be diffused across many segments of society or concentrated on a few. As in most policy options result in some interest groups getting what they want (or at least most of what they want), others getting little or none of what they want, and still others ending up somewhere in between. In short, the role of the policy analyst is often to identify for the policy maker who are the winners and who are the losers. In contrast, the role of the policy maker is to decide who wins and who loses.

Searching for the nonexistent but ever politically tantalizing win-win solution
often ends up frustrating everyone. Except for the most trivial policy issues, compromise is necessary to craft a proposed policy that is democratically possible. Thus, Land-use and its sub set of ecological policy winds up as the classic zero-sum game. Accepting this reality encourages serious discussion about how to best resolve complex development, land use and ecological policy issues.

Policy Axiom 2 — The distribution of benefits and costs is more important
than the ratio of total benefits to total costs

Benefits are the consequences of a policy options or decisions that are categorized
as good outcomes. Benefits are sometimes measured solely in terms of money, but are
more broadly encompassed by all the desirable things that are most likely to happen.
Conversely, the costs are the undesirable outcomes that are likely to happen (often, but
not always, measured in monetary terms). Complicating policy analysis is that, exclusive of money, one person’s benefits may be another’s costs. Preserving a wetland, for example, is a benefit for those wishing to preserve such land in its unaltered condition, but such a policy option is a cost to those who wish to ditch and drain the same land to build a retail strip mall.

To the uninitiated it may seem that the most important factor in decision making
is weighing the total benefits against the total costs. Rather, it is usually the case that the most important factor is the perception of who receives the benefits vs. who will bear
the costs.

Weighing costs vs. benefits is tricky. Because costs and benefits are not simply the things that are measurable, but include loss of personal freedoms, religious or spiritual preferences, individual rights, etc. Benefits and costs can be categorized as either “real” or “perceived.” Real benefits and costs are the things that analysts are keen to measure, perhaps mostly because they can be measured. Perceived benefits and costs, however are the things that people mostly weigh in determining their position on a particular policy issue. They are arguably impossible to measure with much confidence.

Policy Axiom 3 — The most politically viable policy choice spreads the
benefits to a broad majority with the costs limited to a narrow minority of the
population

Democracies theoretically operate on delegated compromise validated by periodic voting. To gain sufficient political support (votes) for a proposed policy, it is prudent for
the decision maker to spread the benefits across a sufficiently large number of people to garner majority support. The corollary is that those (including future generations) who bear the costs should be a minority and the smaller the better. In political dialog the narrowly-defined minority is often labeled pejoratively as a “special interest” or some other term meant to isolate the group from the majority and weaken the force of its argument.

Consider the question of whether a particular dam should be removed to help
restore native aquatic species. Almost assuredly the policy debate will be framed as a
conflict between the general interests of society (e.g., providing reliable electricity,
protecting native species, or maintaining cheap barge transportation) vs. special interests (e.g., greedy electric power companies, elite environmentalists, or corporate grain farmers). To market their policy preference, proponents will try to couch their choice as that of the majority (mainstream) and the opponent’s position as being that of a small minority (special interest).

Or consider the strip mall proposal which is framed as one of economic activity in construction and jobs as well as one of providing service to the greater community versus the environment and history. Each side of this debate will claim to be in a majority

None of these policy advocacy tactics necessarily are wrong, immoral, or unethical, but rather reflect the nature of democratic debate. Those involved in policy analysis or providing science to help inform policy debates, however, should be attuned to such tendencies.

Policy Axiom 4 — Potential losers are usually more assertive and vocal than
potential winners and are, therefore, disproportionately important in decision making

With many policy questions, those who bear the costs, the losers, have a disproportionately greater influence on the decision making process. While policy analysis tends to evaluate the rationality of competing policy arguments, the political process tends to weigh breath and vigor in support of each competing policy option.
Issues of perceived fairness are important in the political process, but difficult to quantify
in policy analysis.

For example, consider the possible listing (under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
or the Canadian Species at Risk Act) of a fish species found only in a relatively small
geographical area. Except for committed preservationists, most people see the issue as
not pivotal although they may philosophically support species preservation in general.
In contrast, those whose land and livelihood will be adversely affected are likely to be
aggressively hostile to the proposed listing.

Policy Axiom 5 — Many advocates will cloak their arguments as science to
mask their personal policy preferences

Technocrats, as I apply the label, are individuals with scientific training who are responsible for implementing law, land use or zoning codes or ecological policy. There is an understandable impulse by technocrats to insert what they think is or should be the appropriate public policy goal or option. For example, should ecological restoration be aimed at recreating the ecological condition that existed at the beginning of the Holocene, just prior to 1492, or at the end of last week? The answer requires making a value judgment C a policy choice which is necessarily a political judgment C and it is not a scientifically derived decision. Ecologists and other scientists should assess the feasibility and ecological consequences of achieving each possible restoration target. Selecting from among the choices, however, is a societal enterprise.

Similarly, notions of degraded or damaged ecosystems, the metaphors of
ecosystem health or biotic integrity, or the relative importance ascribed to natural
conditions vs. altered conditions need to be calibrated by societal values and preferences, not by those offered by scientists and technocrats. For example, one person’s Adamaged@ecosystem is another person’s Aimproved@ ecosystem. A Ahealthy@ ecosystem can be either a malarial swamp or the same land converted to an intensively managed strip mall. Neither can be seen as objectively Ahealthy@ except through the lens of an individual’s values and preferences.

Policy Axiom 6 — Demonizing policy advocates supporting competing policy
options is often more effective than presenting rigorous analytical arguments

Some people become frustrated when they fail to recognize that political debates are partly logical argument and partly image. Negative images are often considered more effective in swaying people than positive ones.

In fractious land use policy debates, proponents often spend more energy demonizing their opponents than sticking to rational policy analysis. Experience shows that such tactics are often effective in policy debates; many people are moved by negative arguments.

The conflict is over which of the myriad competing human priorities is most important — food, electricity, water, transportation, fishing, or a host of others. To label proponents of abundant electricity, efficient farming, cheap transportation, or shopping malls as “enemies of the environment” is unfair in policy debates and counter productive. Rather, each policy choice or priority tends to constrain others.

Policy Axiom 7 — If something can be measured accurately and with
confidence, it is probably not particularly relevant in decision making

The most important factors in policy making cannot be quantified or at least not quantified in a credible way. Examples of such unquantifiable but important
factors are weighing the relative importance of electricity vs. the well-being of threatened species, balancing a prosperous farming sector vs. maintaining runs of wild salmon, or sustaining a high degree of personal mobility vs. a high level of air quality through emission regulations on automobiles, or even protecting a open space habiat vs. creating a strip mall..

The disconnect between what matters most to policy makers and what can be measured is a reality that should recognize and which will not likely change in the foreseeable future. In a pluralistic society, with a wide array of values and preferences competing for dominance, the land use policy debate is usually centered around whose values and preferences will carry the day rather than over scientific or technical information.

Policy Axiom 8— The meaning of words matters greatly and arguments over
their precise meaning are often surrogates for debates over values

Many citizens get frustrated in land use and ecological policy debates because
the advocates of various competing choices often seem to argue over semantic nuances rather than getting on with making decisions. The precise meaning ascribed to key words is important and is often the battleground over what policy option is ultimately selected. The debate over definitions is really a policy debate. How should pivotal words such as “ecosystem health,” “sustainability,” “degraded,” “biological integrity,”
“endangered,” “wild,” “congested”, “declining property values” and “impaired” be defined? Definitions chosen will lead (at least in the mind of the uninformed) to a particular policy option. Thus, the debate over what might appear to be semantic nuances is really a surrogate debate over values and policy preferences. Because certain definitions tend to help support one particular policy preference, participants in policy debates devote considerable energy to trying to get their definitions adopted.

Citation: Lackey, Robert T. 2006. Axioms of ecological policy.
Fisheries. 31(6): 286-290.

Prince George’s House Leader Optimistic About Soccer Study Law and Transit Development Goals

Prince George’s House Leader Optimistic About Soccer Study Law and Transit Development Goals

Press Release March 27, 2009
Griffith Presses For Full Disclosure of Stadium Prospects.

Annapolis, Md. – Prince George’s County House Delegation Chair Melony G. Griffith (D-25) announced today that she is moving forward with legislation authorizing the County Government and Maryland Stadium Authority to decide whether a professional soccer stadium for DC United should anchor an upscale transit-oriented development project.

“Our bill gives the County a fighting chance to join all the other jurisdictions in this state that already have called upon the Maryland Stadium Authority to evaluate similar projects,” Griffith said. “My constituents want to know what the experts think about this one.”

Griffith says she is “unabashedly optimistic” the bill (H.B. 1282) will clear the Maryland House in time for the Senate to take up the plan next week. She already has crafted a series of amendments to the bill to mirror community feedback. Under Griffith’s amendments, the bill:

• Withholds any State investment in building a stadium until a site design, cost estimate, and comprehensive financial plan are complete.
• Creates a public process to study the site design and cost of the stadium.
• Drives attention for a potential stadium to locations that promise a transit-oriented mixed-use development project that planners say is sorely lacking in the County.
• Empowers Prince George’s County Government to study co-location of a county headquarters for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

The amended bill will require the State to pass a second law – perhaps as early as next year – before any public financing can be committed to building a stadium project. Griffith believes that opposition voiced may be well intentioned but fueled by misunderstanding.

“My bill is only about getting good information,” Griffith said, “and we shouldn’t wait until the next recession to find opportunities for Prince George’s County to enhance its commercial tax base. I am not interested in a stadium project for the sake of a stadium project. I want to know if this project will spark development of an employment center at one of our underutilized Metrorail stations.”

Griffith’s proposal has garnered support from some local elected officials and planners. County Executive Jack Johnson testified last week before the House Appropriations Committee that a stadium project would enhance prospects for commercial development at the Morgan Boulevard Station located near FedEx Field. In a recent letter to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority about the proposal, Park and Planning Chairman Samuel J. Parker, Jr., urged the transportation agency to work with County leaders to keep the possibilities open.

“[P]articularly during this time of intense economic challenge, we believe the public interest would be well served if we seize this unique opportunity to spark a redevelopment initiative of major significance for Prince George’s County,” Parker wrote. “The coordinated project would bring hundreds of jobs to an area in serious need and ultimately result in vibrant place where people work, live and play every day.”

According to Griffith, passing her bill is “only a first step in the right direction” to find out if the project really is feasible. The planning process spelled out in the legislation authorizes the Maryland Stadium Authority, DC United and the parks commission to hammer out an agreement to jointly fund a careful study and site design for the proposal.

“The bill by no means makes anything a done deal,” Griffith said. “By my estimation, the community and County leadership will have more than a half-dozen opportunities to vet any plan in public before deciding whether to go forward, and several other occasions to shape the project if it actually gets off the ground.”
“I want to give our taxpayers the benefit of all the best minds working to solve a serious problem for our County’s long-term fiscal health,” she said. “There’s really no good reason to delay a workable process for gathering such critical information.”

For more information, contact:
Gerry Eggleston
301 858-3074
410 841-3074
Prince George’s House Leader Optimistic About Soccer Study Law and Transit Development Goals