[RP TownTalk] (no subject)

[Melissa Avery]

Wow! 3 businesses since 1999! Gee was that a parer rout, mowing lawns and a lemonade stand?


________________________________
 From: Jonathan W. Ebbeler <jebbeler at efusionconsulting.com>
To: towntalk at riverdale-park.org 
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 1:02 PM
Subject: [RP TownTalk]  (no subject)
 

Bruce/Jim –
 
As someone who has owned and run three small businesses since as far back as 1999, I am acutely aware of the issues at play.  I am inordinately sensitive to the challenges every entrepreneur faces.  I apologize in advance for the length of this post but some very key and crucial points are being put forth and I want to give them adequate attention and consideration.
 
At almost every meeting and every online forum there continues to be this underlying accusation that positions and opinions the Town has taken or people have are in some way ‘personal’ or that the town is out to get Jey because of the ‘history.’  That is not the case, it is a difference of opinion and I would hope we can all refrain from using conspiratorial language and debate the issues at hand.
 
At the core of the discussion is what I had brought up and talked about at multiple meetings including the RPBA – i.e. what is the vision for the town, what are compatible uses, what is the intent of the zoning etc.
 
In reading the many lengthy posts in regards to this subject it is clear that there are two opinions:
1)      Since historically Riverdale Park attracted lower-end development it is fine to continue to support those efforts and the town should welcome any developer with open arms who will develop anything.  We should not be concerned with the use, the impact to the surrounding neighborhood and community, and long-term economic development consequences or impacts.  We need to champion and respect that a land-owner’s rights are greater than the community’s
AND
2)      We should look at the historical land use decisions to find out what worked, what didn’t and not repeat mistakes while championing successes.  We also need to have a comprehensive vision for our business corridors (Route 1, Kenilworth, and Town Center) and evaluate every project parcel by parcel to see if the use is compatible with the intent and vision of economic development not just today but 10, 20, and even 50 years into the future.  This compatibility ensures a greater congruence between residential and commercial uses while offering businesses a greater chance of commercial success as a wanted, needed, and integrated community-supported business.
 
These are at their very core, mutually exclusive.  To the assertion that no one has any skin in the game other than the land owner, I will respectfully, politely, but very vehemently disagree and assert that as a community we all have skin in the game that is tens of millions of dollars greater than any single individual’s.  The collective skin in the game is an entire community that each put in hundreds of thousands of dollars with their mortgages.   The entire point of land use and zoning is predicated around that core and essential tenet.  Decisions made by individual land owners can have lasting negative and positive consequences for decades for the entire surrounding community.  
 
I am going to have to correct a factual falsehood that continues to be put forth.  The property owner has not obtained all PG County permits.  By law, any developer in the M-U-TC zone must submit permit plans and those plans must be stamped and approved by M-U-TC prior to the issuance of any County building permits.  The applicant has some significant permitting and procedural hurdles to overcome prior to obtaining all County permits.  
 
There are mandatory guidelines in the M-U-TC zoning that will be challenging for any applicant to meet when redeveloping a vacant property.  It is a flexible framework and we are willing to work with any developer to meet the intent of mandatory guidelines.  That being said, it is difficult if not impossible to render an opinion at this point, if this particular developer will be successful or not; the M-U-TC committee has yet to be presented with the requested and legally required information to date to even evaluate a decision, much less have an informed discussion on the merits of compliance.  
 
The last point you made Bruce is the most relevant and important one; I do want to hear from people and I have actively engaged in conversations with anyone who cares to talk about it.  PLEASE email me your thoughts pro/con concerning the potential eminent domain.  PLEASE show up to the work session and offer written or verbal testimony pro/con.  The law is very clear on the matter and the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment allows the Town, regardless of objections, regardless of improvements, the right to turn this site into a public use.  
 
I do appreciate that the town is having this debate at this moment in our history - it is long overdue.
 
Respectfully,
 
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/20130316/2eea8172/attachment.html>