Keeping up with the Accelerating Pace of Change

If the editorial published in the October 24 Capital, expressing support for the Crystal Spring project, is based on the most  recent Annapolis Comprehensive Plan, we have a problem.  The Plan was published in 2009.  While that date is 6 years ago, it should be noted that the Plan is based on a Transportation Issue Paper dated March 2007 and a Growth Management Issue Paper also dated March 2007.  Since these two issue papers were published in March of 2007, they were based on materials published or researched prior to 2007.

If you check out the Annapolis Comprehensive Plan Transportation Issue Paper, for example, and review the references they cite, some of those references date  back to 1995.  We are being asked to make strategic decisions based on materials some of which are 20 years old.  Surely, we can and should do better.

The Plan was updated as recently as September 2014.  However, the source documentation is out of date.  Elements of the Plan are being updated and implemented, but is that sufficient?  Additionally, the active consideration of annexation dates back to at least 1995.

Our world has changed and we have learned a lot about our natural environment and our community in the past 20 years.  The trajectory of change is steep.  We need to update our information and use the tools of technology to help us understand and evaluate the impact of that change.  We need current facts upon which to make decisions.

Oh, and by the way, what are you using to guide your future personal or professional life that was developed back in 2009 (and based on information from 1995)?   Were events like nuisance flooding even on our radar screen back then?

The Annapolis Comprehensive Plan noted that only 3% of Annapolis land was vacant and 7% was for recreation and open space.  If these percentages are accurate and continue to erode, is that indicative of a community on the decline?

And most importantly, what do these percentages look like today?  And, what is the impact of these percentages on the projects currently under review for our community?

Continuously using Economic Development as the basis for supporting a project rings hollow.  It is over-used and baseless.

Deriding the opponents of assaults on our environment and equating this stance to not caring about  the well-being of our elderly population would be a laughable accusation if it were not so sad.

At Best, A Zero Sum Game

We have been “assured” by our elected officials and project proponents that all of the projects should be approved because they lend themselves to economic development.  The knee-jerk reaction and the cloak they wrap themselves in is economic development.

Do we have any independent confirmation that, at best, these proposed projects will result in a zero sum economic benefit?  Will the benefits of these projects that result from property tax and/or other fees only offset the costs of providing city services?  If that would be the end of it, we could say “so what!”

However, let’s look at life cycle costs and, more importantly, the sustainability of returns on investment.  When you consider the impact on the environment, the loss of open space and the destruction of forest areas, the calculation quickly changes.  The costs outweigh the benefits by a substantial factor.

The proposed projects not only do not pay for themselves, they are a net loss to our community.  That cost is not recoverable once the environment is scarred.

The more our environment is degraded with each new project, the greater the impact. The remaining untouched area gets smaller and smaller.  The new projects overwhelm the remaining open space and accelerate decline.  We cannot sustain our present quality of life If we do not come to our collective sense and change the way we think and act.

Basing our economic future on a finite amount of property makes no strategic sense.  The incremental impact of the next project or the one after that could be significant for our roads, or schools, or sewer system, or the environment.

We cannot take the word of a developer or project proponent that all is well because of the promise of economic development.  We cannot keep losing pieces of our community for empty unproven promises.

I have challenged our elected leaders to think strategically.  Rethinking our economic future is not easy.  If it was, others would have come up with some ideas.  I have a suggestion that I will publish in the next post.  The suggestion builds on the intersection of at least two of the pillars that are needed to support economic development:  education and innovation.

Pulse Check

When politicians like our Mayor run for office, do they view their statements as worthy of documentation?  Is it okay to change viewpoint according to the audience of the moment?

I am referencing the double-speak of the Mayor on the Crystal Spring project.  He agreed that criticism of him, concerning his campaign pledge, was based on what he said, and what a reasonable person would conclude.  Now he’s doing the political walk-back and seems to be stating that people who remind him of what he said are actively reminding the community of what he said that won him the position of Mayor to begin with.  But that this is not what he really meant.

Mr. Mayor…  What?

Your future seems to be in the project development community, and I don’t mean that in a good way.

Aren’t these signs of a larger problem?  Are the words of our leaders here for the moment, written on an etch-a-sketch?   If words don’t matter, what are we, the community, left with?  Do we end up with a life-cycle bill to forever clean up the mess that thoughtless narrow self-serving developers and their proponents impose on us?

Look, project implications are not isolated, they are connected, integrated and cumulative.  The proposed projects for our area, including Crystal Spring, impact such areas as (but not limited to) public facilities, roads, water usage, public services and the environment.  Now, just for one example, throw into the mix the current discussion about limiting new residential development because of the long-term impact of increased population on our schools.

This hodge-podge of impacts cannot be adequately evaluated one by one, or through conversation, or by the use of a simple computer spreadsheet.  They must be assessed using the tools of technology for computer simulation and modeling.

How will this help?  It can help define the scope of a proposed project, build models to generate data on the linkages of project components and impacts, develop scenarios looking at alternatives, and deliver findings to help advise the community and decision-makers.  If we don’t use these tools we are tying both arms behind our backs and giving developers carte blanch with the future of our community.

So what are we actually doing?  Well, it looks like we just keep on rolling right along doing business as usual.  The old way.

 

Open and Transparent (and Secrets)

I have introduced myself.  Our neighbors who send editorials to the Capital identify themselves.   Our politicians and political appointees have their names associated with their proposals and positions.  Therefore, shouldn’t those who are project proponents be fully acknowledged?

At the planning work group months ago where the Planning Commission heard from proponents of the Crystal Spring project…you know, the work group where the public (us) had no voice, a Commissioner stated he had no contact, in his official capacity, with anyone representing the project.  Word parsing?  If there is a project before the Planning Commission the Commissioners are always in their official capacity when talking to a project proponent.  All discussions, correspondence, and other forms of communication should be reported and recorded for public information.  We, the public, may not have had a direct voice but we should know if there are backroom discussions and directions or guidance between Commission members and project proponents.  If there are secrets, we have a problem.

Oh, and by the way, we were told there would be a follow-up work group sometime in September where the public, the opposition, would be heard.  ???  Maybe in October?  When?

A while back, I presented a plan for organized transparency, based on need:  We need the following:

1. A Community Comprehensive Master Plan (CCMP) – many existing documents were adopted in 2008 – that is current, detailed and enforceable.
2. All projects currently under review to be held static until a revised CCMP is completed. No new projects would be accepted during this period. All projects would have to comply with the Plan.
3. As an alternative until the Plan is completed, all proposed projects currently being considered must be viewed in the aggregate for their impact on the total Community, both short and long-range.
4. All projects must be evaluated using computer modeling and simulation tools and techniques to assess their cumulative short and long range impacts on the Community. These costs will be borne by the project proponent.
5. All projects over a pre-determined cost and scope threshold will be subject to a Community-wide referendum. These costs will be borne by the project proponent.
6. An Office of Community Public Defender in association with P&Z will be established to ensure that there is an entity that has the legal and planning process knowledge along with the responsibility and authority to protect the public interests in matters of project development. The costs of the Office will be borne by project proponents. This Office will be overseen by community representatives.
7. No public portion of a project will be permitted until the project that is under review or appeal has fully completed the process. Anyone not adhering to that statute will be charged significant fines, be subject to criminal proceeding and be subject to public ridicule.
8. The Planning and Zoning office will establish a project-specific website. The site will be updated at least monthly and/or each time there is a change in any project, such as requesting a permit or project scope or cost change. All projects other than home owned or owner occupied changes over $100,000 for all or any part of the project will be included on the site.
9. We need an iron-clad method of acquiring property that is deemed environmentally sensitive.

Nowhere in  there is there any room for shrouding planning decisions in secrecy.  It is a well-ordered, transparent process open to the community.  This list should be part of a living, evolving statement of support for the future of our community.