[RP TownTalk] Full disclosure on Cafritz meeting

Wed Sep 7 17:38:02 UTC 2011

Thank you Kate for sharing this and thank you Jonathan for the response.

From: "mrs.ahkelly at gmail.com" <mrs.ahkelly at gmail.com>
To: towntalk at riverdale-park.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2011 1:19 PM
Subject: [RP TownTalk] Full disclosure on Cafritz meeting

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; i.e. 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 M-U-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
_______________________________________________
TownTalk mailing list
To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription processing only
http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk

For more information about Riverdale Park, visit http://www.riverdaleparkmd.info
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20110907/79aa9634/attachment.html>