[RP TownTalk] Full disclosure on Cafritz meeting

[mrs.ahkelly at gmail.com]

Here's what CM Ebbeler has had to say about my original note. For the  
record, I'm grateful to him for a careful, considerate discussion. I hope  
that he will not object to my sharing that discussion even more widely by  
sending it along to this list. (Boy, it's a lot to read, though!)
KK

Hi Kate –

No problem at all. Your concerns are all valid and deserve feedback. We are  
a small enough town where this is or at least should be expected of our  
elected officials.

You bring up very thoughtful and well-considered points. And just so that  
my position on this is known, I do not support in any way the current CSP.  
I thought and continue to think that it was a terrible first step. However,  
this is a carefully orchestrated dance. They know we are not going to  
support the CSP, and we know they will take whatever they can get if we do  
not stand up to them.

I have watched the 'just say no' approach in negotiations and it has a very  
mixed set of results. This was the primary method employed by Hyattsville  
on both EYA and UTC. As Mayor Tartaro communicated at the work session,  
there were missteps involved because of how they approached the beginning  
stages. Part of why I am taking a different approach is to learn from the  
mistakes of others. Developers count on and expect the 'just say no' as  
part of their strategy. By removing that part of the dance it effectively  
puts them on the defensive and gives the town an upper hand. One major  
disadvantage of this, as Tartaro pointed out, is that this is the stage  
where towns need to firmly flesh out their positions and get concessions.  
We have more negotiating power in the beginning than once the Detailed Site  
Plan is filed since at this point we can help shape the conversation vs.  
later when hundreds of thousands if not millions have been spent towards a  
direction we later decide is not tenable.

An example of this is Joe's plan. The town could vote against the Cafritz  
property as mixed use in favor of what Joe proposes only to have this  
completely overturned by the Planning Board and the County Council. Our  
only recourse would be to sue, assuming we could find some technical  
violation of their rules of procedure. This was the similar history of the  
National Harbor development. While the case was adjudicated, ultimately the  
construction proceeded forward and the opposition won the battle but lost  
the war since their concerns over which they sued for were ultimately not  
included in the development. I have been pushing Joe's plan with Chip and I  
am hopeful that there will be a carve out of 30 or so homes that will  
reflect homes that are 'off the grid.' The Cafritz team is open to these  
ideas right now because most of what they have on the residential side are  
just placeholders. By shaping their development instead of just saying no,  
we have a much better shot of getting what we want and need.

You have identified most of the core issues and what keeps us up at night.  
To your point though, what you touch on is precisely what I believe we need  
to advocate for. On development this large there are bound to be missteps  
and I trust the public will be there every step of the way to dot the 'Is'  
and cross the 'Ts'. I do not expect that we will win every battle on this  
with them, but I do think we will win most.

JWE


Thanks for writing back so quickly. I really am grateful for your  
engagement as well.

I guess as just a regular citizen I have the advantage of not having to  
breast my cards. I am not against development, despite my objections to  
this project. But as I see it, the only point of strength the town might  
have in this negotiation is to simply to say no to anything other than a  
proposal like Joe Kelly's to take the development in an entirely different  
direction. If the county and the developer were to understand that as the  
town's position, then it seems the developer might respond with something a  
little friendlier to the town and the planet. Our current circumstances  
give no guarantee of anything other than something we could have lived  
without.

The plans we've seen are just another set of Lego buildings along Route 1.  
Could be New Jersey, could be Hyattsville, could be Richmond. I doubt any  
plan further along will bury the parking; plant more trees; preserve the  
oxygen content in the neighborhood; figure out the storm water problem; use  
green-enough design and materials; keep my property taxes where they are;  
or build more and better classrooms for the kids already here or create  
sustainable, living-wage jobs for their parents.

Seems like we're giving up a lot here for a pretty hazy set of benefits.

Thanks for listening.
KK


Hi Kate –

I appreciate your letter as well as the Kelly family continued involvement  
in the Cafritz question. I will try to address each of the valid concerns  
you bring up.

1) Transparency
I too share your concerns and frustrations in regards to this and have done  
what I can to keep the information that is available as part of the public  
record. I realize realistically that only a small percentage of the town  
will review the material but I will take the oversight of even one person  
over none any day to ensure that we are doing our jobs effectively and with  
integrity.

That being said, we have very little knowledge concerning Cafritz's  
position and where they are willing to acquiesce on certain points; the  
only positive corollary to this is, at this time, they do not know ours  
either. If we kept these discussions public we effectively remove the  
current level playing field and tilt every negotiation and discussion to  
their favor. If we are to engage their team in a careful and deliberative  
way we first must decide internally what our positions are and our method  
of engagement going forward. By keeping these discussions as part of the  
open record it would effectively be like going to buy a car from a  
dealership where they already know what options are mandatory and what the  
maximum price one is willing to pay – it guarantees you will only get the  
bare minimum of what you want yet have to pay the maximum price; ie the  
Town will always arrive at non-optimal outcomes due to the information  
disparity between the two negotiating parties.

The danger with this is that it leaves the public in the dark concerning  
what we are going to do with the Cafritz team and people are left to their  
own imaginations. There is not much we can do to ameliorate this other than  
to say our positions will be readily known by both Cafritz and the Town in  
the near-term.

2) Local Benefit/Cost
I would be happy any time to have an open dialogue concerning the benefits  
of the property as well as your concerns and objections. The property value  
increase and inclusion of Whole Foods as a tenant are only of ancillary  
interest to me and not why I support MU-TC zoning for this site. I realize  
in the end we are both running our own cost benefit analyses and arriving  
at different conclusions which are hard to reconcile. Regardless of the  
disparity in our positions, I think it is important that your concerns are  
heard and incorporated into the direction of the project as appropriate.

3) Grocery Store Development
I share your concerns that we properly characterize the development and  
have attempted to do so in any of my public comments. I for one, am looking  
at the property not only in the totality of its own development, but how it  
fits in with the M-Square build-outs, the Route 1 Expansion, our Town  
Center, the future East Campus development, and integration with the  
nascent Purple Line.

4) Traffic
As with any negotiation, everything is initially on the table by both  
sides. Vehicular access to Maryland/Rhode Island has not been demanded by  
the developer nor offered, or likely to be supported, by the Town. What has  
been discussed and ultimately likely to be demanded through covenant with  
the Town, is a vehicular crossing over CSX to connect the M-Square  
development, metro accessibility, and encourage the use of Kenilworth over  
Rt1.

I believe the comments at the Work Session were probably made by myself,  
and if so I would like to clarify my position. When I spoke in regards to  
the access it was only for Police, Fire, shuttle/bus traffic in a similar  
fashion as Queens Chapel off Rt 1. I would like a shuttle running every  
10-15 minutes during peak times (morning, lunch, evening) that would do a  
loop from Town Center, through the Cafritz Property, up to the CP metro  
with stops on River Road for the M-Square Development.

The developer has not offered a cogent traffic mitigation strategy to date  
but this does not mean the Town will abdicate its responsibilities. We are  
having SHA come speak to us this month to address the current traffic  
issues on Rt 1 and EW Highway. In addition, with the expansion of Dumm's  
Market we will be looking at the overall traffic flow in the  
Lafayette/Rhode Island, Queensbury area.

Again, I appreciate your continued involvement and hope that although our  
core positions may differ on the property, that you stay highly engaged and  
involved. I tried to communicate at least my position to each concern with  
the information we have to-date. I am happy to provide any additional  
clarity at any time and apologize for any miscommunication, especially in  
regards to point #4.

Best,

Jonathan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20110907/19eb8532/attachment.html>