Didn't sound like developers to me
By the time I reached the end of the second paragraph of Jill McCuan's letter ("Why make developers scapegoats?" Nov. 8) I did a double take, wondering if I was actually reading about the selfless volunteers in "Habitats for Humanity."
But, by the end of her paean to developers, there was no mistaking the subject or that her letter would bring a smile to any marketer intent on improving his/her client's "image." However, leaving out the hype and propaganda, what do we have?
Well, the usual canard that "we have all the laws and regulations in place to ensure adequate facilities and comprehensive planned growth," etc. But is "adequate" enough? Do our schools, for example, have quality facilities? Is there a decent teacher-student ratio with resources to match? Evidently, slow-growth voters don't buy it. ("In suburbs, voters favor slow growth," Nov. 8).
How about "comprehensive planned growth?" Do we really have that? Our roads and schools are being overwhelmed and resources depleted. All for what? Suburban sprawl and development.
I wonder about laws "fulfilling the people's will" if zoning exceptions and other loopholes can easily be taken, thanks to politicians cozily aligned with the interests of developers.
And what about developers themselves? My brother, who worked for someone in real estate development (in Florida) once said to me: "Show me an ethical developer, and I'll show you one who's on his way to bankruptcy." As for any comparison with "unethical salespeople" or "sanitation engineers," that is ludicrous. One or two unethical developers can wreck whole communities.
Are all developers bad? No. But I suspect that the cutthroat nature of competition forces the majority into compromising principles.
What we desperately need is a new kind of vision that unequivocally values family, community and quality of life, and that won't sacrifice them on the altar of "the market" at every turn.
Philip A. Stahl
Columbia
Commission seeks input on crime
According to a citizen survey, despite substantial increases in prison spending in the past 10 years, citizens remain concerned about crime -- especially violent crime.
According to the same survey, citizens want violent offenders sent to prison but believe that some prevention programs show more long-term promise in reducing crime. Addressing these and other criminal justice concerns is the task of the Maryland Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy.
In 1996, the Maryland General Assembly recognized the need to review the sentencing and corrections practices used by the judiciary and the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.
The legislature created the Maryland Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy. The commission includes leaders from the legislature, judiciary, criminal law, law enforcement and corrections, and victims' advocacy groups. The commission's work is expected to culminate in major recommendations for the legislative session. The citizen survey mentioned above is one way the commission collected information for its recommendations. The commission has also carefully analyzed sentencing and corrections data to better understand current practice and identify areas in need of improvement.
One major task of the commission is to consider courtroom practices that allow citizens to understand the announced sentence in court in terms of the actual time spent in prison.
The commission is considering proposals that increase truth in sentencing and recommending a closer correspondence between time spent in prison and the announced sentence. Regarding parole, the commission expects to recommend that post-release supervision should be retained. Parole could be restricted, but each restriction requires study.
Regarding violent crime, the commission expects to recommend concentrating prison space on career offenders and violent offenders. The commission is investigating options that provide citizens with greater assurance that violent offenders will be sentenced to prison.
Regarding nonviolent crime, a major focus is control through prevention and punishment. The commission is concerned that high levels of offender drug abuse lead to a revolving door, incarceration followed by release and recidivism.
To address this problem, the commission is investigating options that provide sentencing judges with community programs that combine greater surveillance than standard probation, with drug treatment and severe sanctions after positive drug tests.
Some may argue that crime rates are declining, and this is not the time for reform. However, correctional spending is at historic high levels, and the respite from crime increases may be brief. The commission is committed to recommending action now to improve the criminal justice system for ourselves and future generations.
Over the next three months, the commission will hold final meetings and complete its work for the legislative session. Maryland residents are encouraged to share their ideas and concerns.
Write the Maryland Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy, Room 2220, LeFrak Hall, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742-8235. Call 301-405-2926 or fax 301-405-4626. More information is available from the commission's Web site: www.gov.state.md.us/sentencing.
Marna McLendon
Ellicott City
The writers are, respectively, Howard County state's attorney and a state senator representing the 14th Legislative District.
Well-being of community overlooked for church
The Howard County Board of Appeals recently approved a special exception and multiple variances for a church to be built on a lot at the end of my quiet, little street.
The proposed building would be 4,894 square feet and 26 parking spaces are needed. Two driveway entrances will serve drop-off traffic. The setbacks must be reduced on all four sides of this lot to accommodate the use. This may not sound too unusual.
However, this lot measures only 6/10ths of an acre,and my street is a narrow, local road with no shoulders and no sidewalks. Children ride their bikes and elderly people get their daily walks while using caution to avoid the local traffic. The approved use for this site will certainly change the lives of my neighbors.
The approval of the Board of Appeals was made despite the recommendation for denial by the Department of Planning and Zoning technical staff.
The approval was made despite the recommendation for denial by the planning board.
Our only recourse was to file a "request for reconsideration" of this decision by the Board of Appeals. Fifteen days are allowed for this request. A request for judicial review must be filed at the Circuit Court within 30 days.
We requested a reconsideration by the Board of Appeals, but, the case will not be reviewed because we also filed with the Circuit Court.
We had to file with the court before the board reconsidered our case to comply with the time frame outlined in the county procedures. Thus, we were denied the right to have the case reconsidered. Now we have no choice but to pursue a costly defense to protect our neighborhood at a court hearing.
Staff members at the Department of Planning and Zoning have been aware of this flaw in the procedure for some time, yet no one has corrected it. It puts citizens at a disadvantage.
Andrea Thomas
Ellicott City
Montgomery a model for Howard
Harold Jackson ("County lacks vision on affordable housing," Oct. 11) has hit the nail on the head.
Concentrating subsidized housing in one place lets the social challenges that accompany poverty feed on each other and increase disproportionately into serious problems. The policy of concentrating subsidized housing was well-intentioned, but the unintended social consequences prove it undesirable and obsolete.
If this is clear in Columbia, it is even clearer in Baltimore where the problem is multiplied 1,000-fold over Columbia.
There, the concentration of poor and their social needs overwhelms services and schools. Even great infusions of economic and development aid (empowerment zones, Inner )R Harbor, convention center, stadiums) have not been able to raise the average income of Baltimoreans. The problem is not that people are poor, but that so many are in one area. The concentration is too great for services and the economy to catch up.
Fortunately, there are models of subsidized housing that work.
Montgomery County, for example, has not built subsidized housing in concentrated areas since 1973. New developments of 51 or more houses or rental units are required to set aside 5 percent of the houses or rental units for heavily subsidized families and 10 percent for moderate-income families.
In exchange, developers can build 22 percent more units. The diffusion of poor families in new housing developments pre-empts the NIMBY ("Not in My Back Yard") syndrome.
No one knows whose rent is subsidized since the housing, in most cases, is architecturally the same. Not overwhelmed by concentrated numbers, the appropriate schools, social services and economic opportunities allow the poor to work out of poverty.
According to author David Rusk in "Baltimore Unbound," housing in these mixed developments in Montgomery County has appreciated 14 percent, whereas housing in Montgomery County a whole has appreciated 12 percent. "Baltimore Unbound" also includes other models around the county that reduce social challenge to manageable levels by diffusing low-income housing.
Howard does not need to re-create the wheel. For housing "vision," it need only look next door.
Bob Krasnansky
Ellicott City
Pub Date: 11/15/98