Following you will find the long email I had sent to the Examiner reporter. It has, as you can see, many quotable sentances, none of which he chose to use. Before this email we had a telephone conversation and after it, we had one more email exchange, where he tried to get me to complain about undocumented immigrants, but I refused to take the bait. He called me mid-day yesterday but I wasn't able to return the call until about two hours later -- a bit after 3:00 pm; I left voice mail and sent another email but he never got back to me. I assume that this was past his deadline on this story.
I never said precisely the sensationalized quote he put in the article (as far as I know I don't say things like "I'm talking about...", and "We've got kids ...") and I have no idea why they printed a picture of the train station, which is more than a a quarter mile away from the proposed center. Possibly it is because they sent a photographer to take pictures of a Day Laborer site at 3:00 in the afternoon (my wife saw him there and spoke to him briefly), found that there was nobody milling around, and needed something with people in it. The Washington Times has a picture of the proposed site itself.
The Examiner story says that the City Council will "convene next Tuesday at Grace Church", but the City Council does not "convene" at Grace Church and the meeting next Tuesday is an informal one that some City officials plan to attend and try to explain the situation to residents and the Church congregation. It is *not* a public hearing on the issue, and as far as I know it will not be part of the public record -- except for the presentation to the City Council a couple of weeks ago, there *is* no public record on this issue. At least he spelled my name correctly.
Note that one interesting statement in the Washington Times article is "Mr. Humpton said a master plan is a vision for the city, not a law, and that the Planning Commission must approve a zoning change to build the center. A hearing is expected in November." What is interesting about this is that, as far as I know, this is the first time anyone in the City or County has admitted that Planning Commission review was required. They have been working on this for months, the lease was signed by the County and the City has been doing inside demolition and outdoor site work (taking down an old fence and cutting down weed trees). NOW they need planning review? I believe that this is the first positive reaction to our protest. It is also the case that the City has in the past rejected site plans because they weren't consistant with the master plan.
Jon, Pasted in at the end of this message are the text of some emails I sent to a neighborhood mailing list. There is currently no website for our group, and I have email from other neighbors but I'd rather not forward them without explicit permission. I'll ask around and see if anyone else would like to speak with you directly in the short term. The proposed site is at 17 North Frederick Ave. To get there, you go up 355 just over the Cuddy bridge over the CSX tracks; stay in the right turn lane on the bridge and turn onto Brookes. Then turn immediately right into a mostly vacant lot, it is right next to the ramp up to the bridge. there's an old (1924) building that was most recently a water filtration systems store -- that's the building they want to use. The laborers currently congregate about four hundred feet to the North, in the parking lot just South of Grace UMC church and North of a small shopping center. [location of tonight's meeting deleted] Some of our main concerns are that: * This doesn't belong in a residential neighborhood such as ours. The property they've selected is zoned commercial (CBD) but it is part of a narrow strip of such zoning at the end of our neighborhood. There isn't enough of a buffer. * The presence of all these construction workers, many of whom don't get jobs on any given day, present a security threat. The City has not done anything to refute this -- they are talking about fencing in the property for security reasons. We already have been experiencing trespassing -- people walking up to homes and washing themselves at outdoor faucets -- public urination and drunkenness, catcalling, etc. Our neighborhood is in walk-to-school range according to the County, and that site is right on the way for any of the kids going down to the high school. * The site is too small for the kind of long-term plans that they have. It is unclear whether they will even be able to expand the structure, because part of the property that they've leased was a gas station for many years, right up until they built the new bridge. No one can recall them digging up the old fuel tanks, and the ground is likely to be contaminated. * The process they used to develop this site was all wrong. We can find no evidence of any public hearings or announcements of this process by either the City or the County. A Gazette reporter attended several of their meetings, but only because he found out about them himself, and he wasn't given information about where the site would be until the lease was already signed. They were planning this site, and even signed the lease on the property, at the same time that they were engaging in a special study of the area for the City's master plan. The master plan was adopted and presentations were made to volunteer committees outlining the plans for that site (residential/retail up to four stories) even though they had already decided to place the day laborer center there. * As far as any of us know, there have been no traffic impact studies or normal planning review that would have been required for an activity like that. They want to direct the traffic back on to East Diamond via what is now a dead-end street that used to connect to 355 before the SHA built that bridge. But traffic on East Diamond can be horrendous at times, and access to there from 355 is far from straightforward. As the property abuts the historic district and the building is more than 50 years old, normal process would require courtesy review through the City's Historic Preservation mechanisms, and none of that was done -- in fact they failed to mention this activity to the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee when that site was being discussed in a review of the proposed master plan. * The City has been working with the neighborhood for five years now to find ways to calm down the cut-through traffic on our streets, and they've invested in some significant street projects, including narrowing the nearby Maryland Ave. Also, they are supposed to be putting attractive entrance features at the ends of our streets -- and a fenced in day-laborer center is not what we had been talking about. * A little more than fifteen years ago, when the historic district was put in place, our neighborhood was in serious decline. Since then, there has been a great deal of investment in private properties, and we've all returned it into being a desirable, quiet place to live. The City has had tours of the neighborhood to show off what they've done. They are placing all this at risk. * The special study done for the master plan was intended to spur investment in the Olde Towne business district. It seems likely that this center could represent a setback for those plans. We are just beginning to talk to the business owners in Olde Towne, and from some initial contacts it seems that to the extent that they know about it, they're not happy. * While we expect some supporters of the Day Laborer center to respond that we are reacting to the presence of the Hispanics and growing diversity, this is far from the truth. Many of the local storefronts now have ethnic businesses. There is a church on Brookes that holds Korean and Hispanic services. Grace church provides many services to the homeless. The Spanish Catholic Center used to be in the shopping center near the Church. We've objected to none of this. Our objection has nothing to do with ethnicity, it has to do with crime, traffic, and just generally with the secret and deceptive nature of the process the City and County went through to get here. Thanks for your interest, --Bob Drzyzgula [address and phone numbers deleted] Following are the emails I mentioned: ------------------------- Earlier, Cathy posted information on how to watch last night's Mayor and Council meeting on Cable Channel 13 or on the City's website, using Windows Media Player. I just finished watching it from the website, and I highly recommend that everyone in the neighborhood find the time to watch it as well. Some highlights: * According to Mr. Humpton, the City Manager, the meetings addressing this issue were held by an "Ad Hoc Workgroup" consisting of representatives of the County Executive's office, Council Member Mike Knapp, the Upcounty Regional Services Center, the City Of Gaithersburg, County Police, Grace Church, the Church of the Ascension, CASA of Maryland, and a number of community activists. A gazette reporter attended most of the sessions, writing three articles for publication. Later, the Mayor mentioned that he had attended many of the meetings. Also later, a citizen mentioned that the reporter told him he had "stumbled upon" it -- the reporter had not initially been invited by the City. The workgroup met "approximately ten times". * It was stated that the day laborer center would be closed in the evening and that, when open, consumption of alcohol would be prohibited at the center. Police would enforce the no-trespassing-after-hours rules. Therefore, it appears that the existence of the center would do nothing to reduce the presence of day laborers in the surrounding residential areas in the evenings, and in fact may make it worse, as the staff and police will shoo the workers away at closing time. Also, any worker wanting to have a brew after being brought back from a job would presumably need to do so away from the center, and I imagine that our neighborhood would be far enough away for this purpose, and quite convenient what with the 7-11 just around the corner. * It was mentioned that the day laborer problem was not something that could be addressed through "traditional police enforcement"; the problem seems to be that City and County Police could not enforce INS law. Demos Chrissos wondered, as they were unable to enforce the laws now with the open-air system, how they would be able to enforce the laws just because many of the workers had been moved inside. I do not recall there being an answer to this. Mr. Chrissos mentioned that there was a Federal program to train local police so that they could enforce INS law. It is unclear whether the City would ever pursue this. * While there were mentions of the concerns of the Church, neither the presentation nor the Council discussion included mention of the problems faced by residents. Mr. Humpton stated that the meetings were held at the request of "the two affected property owners and community activists", as though there were only two affected property owners. He also cited complaints from businesses and Grace Church, but did not mention that any residents had complained. I regret not having made it to the meeting last night, although it isn't clear how much good it would have done given that it wasn't a public hearing on the topic -- no such hearings are planned or believed to be required by the City. * Council Member Marraffa appeared to me to mostly be concerned that (a) the City and Council could get sued as a result of problems related to the City facilitating the hiring of undocumented workers, (b) that his construction company, and others like it, would have to compete with companies hiring undocumented workers and not paying workman's compensation, and (c) that the undocumented, uninsured and untaxed workers would be using taxpayer-funded resources. But it's possible I just wasn't understanding what he was trying to say. * A question was raised by Demos Chrissos as to whether Maryland's Open Meetings Law may have been violated. The Assistant City Manager responded that, as there was never more than one elected official present, the Open Meetings law was not triggered. Mr. Felton stated that the law only applied to meetings among elected officials. It is unclear to me whether he was saying that the group was specifically set up in such a way as to avoid this problem or simply that they would have followed the law if it had applied. However, a quick reading of the state's manual on this law [1] would seem to suggest that meetings of appointive bodies are also covered by the law. Admittedly, I am no expert at interpreting the law. To some extent it may hinge on whether the group was properly an appointive body, but at a minimum it would appear to not be as simple as Mr. Felton claimed. * There were three sites along the Frederick Avenue corridor that were considered for the laborer center, but the City had "serious concerns about the suitability" of two of them. There was no mention of what the other two sites were, nor what concerns the City had. It was also stated that the site selection process was handled by a small number of people because of the sensitivity of the real estate negotiations: Upcounty Regional Services Center Director Cathy Matthews, Assistant City Manager Fred Felton, a representative of County Council Member Mike Knapp's office, and the Montgomery County Real Estate Office. Thus, one of the most politically sensitive aspects of this whole process -- where to put the center -- was done in such a way as to severely limit how many people knew about it or could have input into the process. * If I understood correctly, the County has taken the lease on the property, and will be paying the rent as well as paying CASA to operate the center. The City has offered to fund the improvements to the property, and had initially budgeted $20,000 for this effort. However, after doing some initial demolition, they discovered some structural problems with the roof. At this point they are attempting to convince the property owner that this is his responsibility, but there is a risk that the cost of the improvements could be significantly greater than the $20K budgeted. The City also expects that there may be increased costs in the future related to enhancements to the services provided. --Bob Drzyzgula [1] http://www.oag.state.md.us/Opengov/Openmeetings/support.htm >From the Maryland Open Meetings Act Manual (5th ed. October 2004), Chapter 2, "Scope of the Open Meetings Act": | | [...] | | the Act applies to "any multimember board, | commission, or committee appointed by the | Governor or the chief executive authority | of a political subdivision of the State, | or appointed by an official who is subject | to the policy direction of the Governor or | chief executive authority of the political | subdivision, if the entity includes in | its membership at least 2 individuals | not employed by the State or a political | subdivision." | | [...] | | Some officials have expressed concern that | this aspect of the definition of "public | body" would extend the Act to informal | citizen groups -- for example, if the mayor | of a town appoints a committee of citizens | to make recommendations about the siting of | a new playground. The definition is indeed | broad, and such a committee, if appointed by | the chief executive, would be a "public | body." And if, as in this example, the | committee is carrying out an "advisory | function," the Act would apply. | | [...] | ------------------------- The 9/19 council meeting can be watched from the City's website at [1]; you'll need windows media player; the interesting part starts at about 14 minutes into the program. The public appearances start at about 35 minutes in, just following the day laborer presentation. Fred Felton's bizarre statement that the Open Meetings Act only applied to meetings of elected officials is at about 38:30, immediately following Demos' comments. Following Fred's statement there is an unrelated comment. Then Lou Piel speaks in support of the center. The last commenter is a lawyer whose name I had trouble understanding; it is worth listening to him as well. I'd highly recommend that everyone watch that video if possible; if you lack the facilities to do so I'd be happy to have you over to watch it on one of my systems. I'd be interested to hear if others agree that the Council members seemed a bit behind the curve on this issue, especially so when the Mayor lectured them a little bit by saying that their concerns had in fact been discussed by the ad hoc working group. [1] http://video.gaithersburgmd.gov/MCM_091905.wmv ------------------------- Some articles on this issue: Council debates labor center; Repair costs soar, legal concerns aired; September 21, 2005: http://www.gazette.net/stories/092105/gaitnew194615_31891.shtml And some previous stories on the topic: Md. City Smoothed Path for Laborers September 5, 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/04/AR2005090401393.html Workers tour day labor center August 3, 2005 http://gazette.net/gazette_archive/2005b/200531/gaithersburg/news/287787-1.html New upcounty center for day laborers on track for July May 4, 2005 http://gazette.net/gazette_archive/2005b/200518/germantown/news/272836-1.html Site chosen for Gaithersburg day laborer center Mar. 23, 2005 http://gazette.net/gazette_archive/2005b/200512/germantown/news/265893-1.html City and county scope options for day laborers center Feb. 16, 2005 http://gazette.net/gazette_archive/2005/200507/montgomery/news/260280-1.html Day laborers center planned in Gaithersburg Feb. 9, 2005 http://gazette.net/gazette_archive/2005/200506/gaithersburg/news/258992-1.html ---------------------------- Just FYI to anyone who would like to read what the master plan says about that site: The Olde Towne Master Plan is available on the City's website at: http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/Documents/083005_olde_towne_plan3.pdf [1] One needs a copy of Acrobat reader to open it. The relevant parts are on pages 27-28, 31-35 and 39. The site is identified as site type 4 in Sector 4, labeled "Retail/Residential Mix" [2] It includes one of the very few street improvements proposed in the master plan, providing better connectivity to Diamond Ave by bringing the traffic behind the property, meeting up with Brookes directly across the street from the back entrance to Mattress Discounters, instead of the dead end street that is now jammed up near the bridge. [Actually, this does raise the question of how the City expects the people hiring the day laborers to get in and out of that site, since there is currently no direct access to that site from Diamond, or from MD 355 as is possible for the current site.] Buildings on the site were proposed to be up to four stories high, with a surface parking lot. While the plan marks this site as being in an area of "long-term improvements", I believe that this was intended as a guess at the realities of market demand; I don't think this meant that there would be a delay in implementation of any controls associated with the master plan. As far as I know, any redevelopment of the site would normally be expected to conform to the master plan (see the "implementation strategy" from the master plan, quoted below [3]). Even if the proposed rehabilitation of the existing property (surely there were building permits?) and the clear change of use did not trigger such a planning review (perhaps others on the list would know what the policy here would be) one might ask the question of whether the City should be engaging in activities which could be predicted to discourage redevelopment of adjacent properties in line with the master plan so recently adopted. Also, in case anyone wants a reference, the minutes of the April HPAC meeting can be found here: http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/poi/default.asp?POI_ID=1187&TOC=310;985;1187; The relevant part is at the end, "V. RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL: OLDE TOWNE MASTER PLAN "Fred Felton, Assistant City Manager, Greg Ossont, Planning and Code Administration Director, and Mark Depoe, Long Range Planning Director, reviewed the Olde Towne Master Plan and asked for recommendations from the committee as to which properties should be retained, redeveloped and which properties are historic in nature. Staff will prepare a separate report with detailed information regarding this review." The meeting was held on April 7, two weeks after the March 23 Gazette article stating that a site had been chosen for the day laborer center. [4] --Bob Drzyzgula [1] More Master Plan documents can be found at: http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/poi/default.asp?POI_ID=664&TOC=664; Other planning documents can be found here: http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/poi/default.asp?POI_ID=83&TOC=107;83; [2] Elsewhere, on page 32, the land use is identified as "Office". The 2003 Master Plan Land Use Map, available at http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/documents/mp_03_land_use.pdf. colors that site as "Mixed Use", while the Planning Department's 2005 "Zoning Map", at http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/documents/zoning_3_2005.pdf, Colors at as being in a "CBD" zone. I have no idea how one reconciles all these controls. [3] From the Olde Towne Master Plan: | IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY | | The diagram at left prioritizes areas of the Preferred | Draft Plan for near-term, mid-term, and long-term | improvements. Near-term improvements strengthen the | historic commercial core by encouraging mixed-use, | retail, office, and residential development at | key opportunity sites. The increase in residential | density in the near-term would encourage and support | future revitalization efforts. Mid-term improvements | expand and connect the historic core by encouraging | additional residential, office, and infill retail | development; by consolidating surface parking; and | by implementing proposed roadway and hiker/biker | trail connections. Long-term improvements extend the | “Main Street” character of Diamond Avenue westward | to Chestnut Street. | | The chart above illustrates the proposed development | program of the Master Plan. In the near-term, | the program is consistent with the depth of demand | projections shown on page 17. Unpredictable shifts | in the economy and other market forces will alter | this program as development progresses in the mid- | and long-term. Additional studies to determine the | adequacy of public facilities (schools, traffic, | water and sewer, EMS services, etc.) will be required | as development persists. It is recommended that | appropriate public facility studies accompany all | development proposals for city review and approval. | | Following the adoption of the Gaithersburg Olde | Towne District Master Plan, the City should begin | formulating a collection of design guidelines for | the five Planning Sectors. Concept plan proposals | should be submitted to the Planning Commission for | courtesy review and comment. The Planning Commission | will utilize the established design guidelines in | their review of concept plans. [4] http://gazette.net/gazette_archive/2005b/200512/germantown/news/265893-1.html ----- End forwarded message -----