The group leading the effort to turn Columbia into a city is calling for the nonprofit Columbia Association to support bringing the issue to a vote of residents -- an election that could spell the association's demise.
Rabbi Martin Siegel, the group's spokesman, also is urging other "stakeholders" in Columbia's future -- most prominently the Rouse Co., Columbia's developer, and founder James W. Rouse -- to join the debate over incorporation and endorse holding a referendum to allow residents to determine the unincorporated community's destiny.
"I'd hope the players, some of whom have been hiding, would come out and join in a real dialogue," Mr. Siegel, spokesman for the pro-incorporation group, the Coalition of Governance Concerned Columbia Residents, said at a news conference Friday. "We could have a real vote. I'd like them to support the vote.
"We want a referendum to establish the principle that the people govern here," he said, adding that Columbia has "symbolic democracy," not "real democracy."
"If we can bring democracy to South Africa, we certainly can bring democracy to Columbia," Mr. Siegel said.
But representatives of the Columbia Association (CA), the Rouse Co. and CA's policy-making board, the Columbia Council, said Friday that the incorporation coalition has not even approached them to discuss the issue.
None said they favor a popular vote. They said many questions remain unanswered about the costs and benefits of turning the planned community of 80,000 residents into a city with its own government.
"Unlike others who jump on the bandwagon or not, we try to understand what the issues are, what the facts are, before we lend our name to anything or form an alliance with anyone," said the Rouse Co.'s senior vice president and general manager of Columbia, Alton J. Scavo.
Longtime CA President Padraic Kennedy, who Mr. Siegel says should speak out on the issue as Columbia's "major figure," asked, "Is there a debate?"
Mr. Kennedy said it's the Columbia Council's duty -- not his -- to address the issue.
"My role is not to debate," said Mr. Kennedy, CA's president since 1972. "My role is to fulfill the policy of the council. . . . I don't consider myself anywhere near the most important person in Columbia."
Though the leaders of Columbia's most powerful institutions may not be eager to endorse a vote on incorporation or become engaged in public debate, an election may be inevitable. The coalition is circulating a petition requesting a referendum.
To get the measure on the ballot, the coalition -- which advocates a more cost-efficient, open and responsive government -- must collect signatures from 25 percent of Columbia's registered voters, or roughly 8,000 people. So far, it has gathered about 3,000 signatures.
Then, the Howard County Council must approve a referendum, which would include a proposed city charter outlining powers, functions and limitations of the government.
Theoretically, a new city government could replace or significantly diminish the role of the CA -- a huge, private, multiservice homeowners association with a $32 million budget that imposes an annual levy on Columbia property owners to maintain parks and manage recreational facilities and community programs.
Legal obstacles, particularly property covenants that include CA's right to an annual levy from Columbia property owners, complicate matters.
Mr. Siegel identified three principles paramount to the coalition's vision of a new order for the proposed city of Columbia: simplicity, fiscal integrity and responsiveness.
He said the coalition wants the "least government possible," adding that he wouldn't support a proposal that would increase costs or bureaucracy.
The coalition also wants to give citizens more direct control in deciding what services or programs are provided, how money is spent and the rate of the annual levy. For example, he said, the levy could be put to an annual vote of residents.
"We want to bring government as close to the people as possible," he said.
Though CA does an admirable job providing services, Mr. Siegel said, the organization "lacks legitimacy" because it was established in 1966 by the Rouse Co. before the first residents moved in. "They've never consulted the people," he said. "The community needs to be consulted. The referendum is the vehicle."
But Rouse Co., CA and Columbia Council officials said the incorporation coalition hasn't shown why a referendum would be desirable, and they questioned its tactics.
David W. Berson, Columbia Council vice chairman, criticized the coalition for calling for a referendum before defining the pros and cons of incorporation or presenting other options, saying the group is "putting the cart before the horse."
"Their procedure is exactly backwards," said Mr. Berson, leader of the council's own committee studying Columbia's governance. "I'm unwilling to help with a procedure that may not lead to a good result for the people."
He invited the coalition to help in the council committee's effort to study the issue. The committee, which was formed in November 1993, plans to have three symposiums in March featuring experts on governance issues. "Our process is more likely to give a good result than their process," Mr. Berson said.
Mr. Kennedy, CA's president, agreed with Mr. Berson that a thorough investigation of the complex issues should precede debate. "There's interest in the questions but not knowledge," he said.