From Gina Kazimir:
I wanted to share this with The Dagger readers. I was one of many people who spoke against proposed Bill 14-21 at the County Council hearing on Tuesday. As a private citizen this Bill concerns me, as Candidate for County Council in District C it embarrasses me. I sincerely hope that the current Council members will not just hear but listen to the voices of the citizens and not abdicate their responsibilities to the public. Gina Kazimir, Candidate for County Council District C
President Boniface and members of the Council:
Bill 14-21 is an egregious dereliction of duty on the part of the Council. That so many of our current Council members co-sponsored this bill is a sad statement on the value they place on both the responsibilities members have been elected to carry out, and on protecting the rights of real people in the County.
This Bill would make Harford County the ONLY Maryland County with no appeals board. It would make it prohibitive for an average citizen to have any recourse to the decisions of the Hearing Examiner – a position which is not elected and is not accountable to the citizenry. And it would be an abdication by the Council of one of their fundamental responsibilities to their constituents.
Some members of the Council are claiming that this Bill is necessary to allow Council members to speak freely with constituents on zoning issues that might possibly go to the Hearing Examiner. With all due respect, that statement is misleading at best. Two years ago, that issue was addressed in Bill 12-33, which contained a clarification amendment that expanded Council members’ ability to speak with constituents on zoning issues. That amendment was voted on by the people who elected this Council, approved and is a current part of the Harford County Charter, so there is no reason for any Council member not to speak to any constituent on any zoning issue that is not before the Hearing Examiner.
Under the current county charter, the Council sets the zoning law and oversees all changes that occur through time, including Comprehensive Rezoning and piecemeal rezoning requests. Eliminating the Board of Appeals means taking away citizens’ rights to have elected representatives enforce the rules they themselves have enacted. It removes the ability of most of our citizens to have their viewpoint duly considered. The fact is, most people cannot afford the costs of going to court, costs which must be paid by the party filing the appeal. And the court can only rule on whether or not a case was properly handled; it cannot do anything to modify a decision to ensure that land use truly reflects the County’s development plans, as well as the community’s wishes.
Do the current members of the Council really want to abdicate their responsibility to their community? How is it fair to the citizens of the county to force them to pay to disagree?
We still, at least in theory, run our country on the basis of a government that is, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “by the people, of the people, for the people.” Not a government by courts and lawyers, or one by or for developers. Yet that is just what this bill would give us. Bill 14-21 is a mistake, and I urge every Council member who has sponsored it to withdraw their support and put it where it belongs – with the real people who elected them.
Protection against newbies moving in and ruining the tranquility of rural neighborhoods with their tacky commercialization schemes needed.
As I was trying to point out last night, the problem is not with the system the problem is with the people running the system and their selective interpretations of what constitutes “influence.” Councilman Boniface apparently does not understand that the acceptance of campaign contributions from developers within a month of a project going public is a form of “influence.” Councilman Boniface further does not understand that passing three zoning bills to benefit a developer two days before plans go public is also a result of developer “influence.” So when we look at the six weeks that preceded the Eva Mar plans going public, it is abundantly clear that developers were talking to the government and attempting to influence them. They were getting their ducks in a row. The developers were clearly successful as evidenced by the passage of the three zoning bills which essentially amount to the granting of back door variances. So tell me, Councilman Boniface and Councilman Slutzky, how does this not constitute “influence” by the developers? These types of “influence” absolutely need to be part of the discussion on this issue, but I guess you just don’t want to hear it.
The reason why we are so upset about this is because of the contradictory positions the Council takes on the issue NOT because of the fact that they won’t help us. Councilman Slutzky tells us that he cannot talk to us under any circumstance. (How do you reconcile that position with the actions of the Council in the early stages of the Walmart case?) But on the flipside, it is clear that the developers had full access to county government prior to the plans going public. And not only did they have full access, but the Council actually took action to help them with the passage of those three bills. We are upset because the Council has no problem helping developers prior to plans going public, but then acts all righteous and tells residents they cannot help them under any circumstance. It is that contradictory position that we have a problem with. And further the very act of you remaining silent HELPS the developers.
What is even more frustrating is that in the Eva Mar case we do not need help on zoning issues. The case will never even get before the Board of Appeals. The zoning issues are pretty black and white for the most part. Even the best attorney in the country is not going to be able to argue that the zoning code does not allow a CCRC to be built on R1 property. What we need help with are issues like traffic on Route 543. That is a state road managed by SHA. We need you to tell SHA to get their act together and demand the necessary traffic improvements for safety and congestion. We need help with gathering support to have some of the property set aside for park space which would help with environmental and density issues. None of these issues have anything to do with the Board of Appeals unless you take a really broad interpretation of what constitutes “influence”.
And that is my point (that Boniface did not want to hear last night), when it comes to serving developers certain Council members take a very narrow interpretation of “influence” but when it comes serving the general public they take a very broad interpretation. At the end of the day, what we have here is a case of certain Council members now caught in a trap. They do not like the fact that they are now being called out on their questionable behavior. So now they try to shift focus and blame the system. It is NOT the system that is the problem. The problem is Council members who do not take consistent positions with respect to this issue. We do not need to abandon the entire system that has worked for 40 years because of the questionable behavior of a few Council members. We need to develop a set of guidelines for Council members to follow that are applied equally to developers and citizens.
Based on Councilman’s Boniface’s comments last night, he either sees nothing wrong in what the Council has done, or he knows they did something wrong and does not want the public to hear it. Either way this is why our government is in the shape it is in right now. We have absolutely no leadership at any level. It is lacking a moral compass and has no idea which way to go or how to tell the difference from right and wrong. This is a shame and can only be corrected one way – that is by voting these guys out of office and putting some fresh faces in office who actually have the courage to do what is right.
You’re just pissed because the council either has to side with the developers or you and you didn’t win. Put your money where your mouth is and take them to court if you think you are right.
I don’t care if the council sides with the developers after hearing both sides of the case in a fair hearing. By passing the bill related to the building heights PRIOR to the plans going public, they essentially granted a variance without notifying the surrounding property owners and giving them a chance to be heard. If due process were followed and we lost, then fine so be it. But this is a case of special favors being granted to well-connected developers. Then after helping the developers to this degree before the plans go public, they turn around and have the nerve to tell us they can’t talk to us. Their silence on the issue is in effect a big help to developers in and of itself.
And yes, I know I am right and fully intend to pursue an ethics case against those involved and/or other legal action.
Indeed…the quid pro quo was clear and evident in the case of Eva Mar. The idea that a series of meetings prior to plan submission that has to have involved planning and zoning, at least 2 on the council and of course the county executive and his best bud, also involved in his campaign, Snee (not to mention on the board of Presby Homes) and yet none of them seem to think they had any ability to reason to have communications with the citizens. Can’t imagine a series of events more dismissive or disrespectful to the people in the neighborhood. Why would anyone with an ounce of ethics think it’s OK to clear the legal playing field before any citizen had any opportunity to respond…and then with both Craig and Snee’s responses, so arrogant, so full of haughty superiority…unreal.
I missed Councilman’s Slutzky’s defense of his position at the Council last night. But now read that he refers to a letter he received from the Walmart attorneys apparently threatening criminal action for the Council’s behavior in that case. It all makes more sense now.
Had we not been put on time limits last night and had I not been dismissed by Councilman Boniface, I would have addressed the Walmart case as well. With Walmart you had a situation where the Council fell all over itself running to the aid of those protesters. They went so far as to introduce legislation that would have essentially blocked the Walmart altogether. Of course the Walmart attorneys got upset at that behavior. That is the opposite of what the Council did with the three zoning bills in the Eva Mar case. I would protest that too if were one of Walmart’s attorneys. So the Walmart attorneys wrote the Council a threatening letter.
Now flash forward to Eva Mar, having been completely scared by the letter signed by 30 attorneys on the Walmart, the Council now swings the pendulum so far in the other direction to the point of saying “We can’t help you at all. We can’t even talk to you about it.”
As I said, the problem here is not with the system. The truth lies somewhere in between the Walmart case and the Eva Mar case. You have the Walmart case where the Council went way too far in attempting to help those residents. Of course, it is always good press for them to fight the evil corporate empire of Walmart. Then after getting appropriately yelled at by Walmart’s attorneys for going too far, they swing all the way the back and go too far in the other direction by claiming they cannot help us at all.
This is a problem of interpretation. The appropriate interpretation is somewhere in the middle. I think both sides, developers and residents, are just saying don’t take it too far in either direction. Surely we can put our heads together, use some common sense and come up with a set of guidelines for when it is and is not appropriate for the Council to help its citizens.
The Wal-Mart and Eva Mar cases are more similar than you wish to believe. Both issues, at their core, focus on traffic and its impact on the neighboring communities.
As was explained at the County Council meeting discussing the bill you believe went too far, the Council had no intent whatsoever to ever block the expansion of the new Wal-Mart, but to prevent other overly large stores from popping up in the so-called development envelope.
I’m sure that those being affected by Eva Mar have sympathy from those affected by the Wal-Mart, as both parties will be relying on the State Highway Administration to do the job that the County Executive and Council should be doing, such as mitigating traffic concerns.
Good luck to you in your letter writing campaign to the SHA.
I absolutely agree with you on the similarities between our two situations. I would love to see both our groups form a united front against the actions (or inactions) of our Council. I wish that you and I could connect offline to discuss in greater detail. I am sure we are on the same page regarding all of the issues and problems we are facing.
If traffic is the problem now, it’s not evamar or walmart’s fault as they do not exist yet.
Fix the roads to accommodate a larger tax base, the sooner the better cause we aren’t getting smaller any time soon.
The Friends of Harford formed 12-15 years ago with the idea of forming a united front against development. Unfortunately, from my experience, most people don’t pay attention to this issue unless it’s in their own back yard and they don’t seem to want to expend any effort if the proposed development is on the other side of the county.
Not everyone is a Ludite.
Correction: The Friends of Harford formed 12-15 years ago with the idea of forming a united front against ALL development EVERYWHERE.
Translation: We’re here. close the door.
The zoning changes for evamar are merely procedural, changing only the appearance. None of the changes made by the council effect the overall development or density of the project. It would be a hoot if the council rescinded it’s last hour changes and evamar went to some ugly ass buildings that fall well withing the previous guidelines.
You people have no clue what you are messing with.
That is not true. One bill changes the NRD level in order to build to the density of the next higher zone. As Eva-Mar was, with I believe roughly 26% NRD areas, any developer who built there would be held to the R1 density for that property. Since the Council lowered it to 25% (convienently apllicable to Eva-Mar), now any builder/developer can build R1 housing but to an R2 density. All that translates into more homes (more people/traffic) on the same space and feeding into same roads/schools.
Technically, they could probably still build an ugly building – nothing regulates taste. They just wouldn’t attract big money that way.
At least if they rescinded/repealed the three statutes that were passed on the eve of pubic notice for Eva-Mar, residents would be appeased that maybe our local officials really aren’t “in bed” with developers. Maybe you should go to the next council meeting and propose that – sounds like you are an Eva Mar supporter (Elm Street/CCRC), I’m sure it would mean alot coming from you!
*applicable
*public
Sorry, I am just a stickler for spelling errors (should have done a better job proofreading) – even when they are funny!! I couldn’t figure out a way to edit my original comment…
R2 development would allow 400 houses on the property yet the proposed development is for 140 houses. So how did this change effect the development?
See this is exactly how the residents are screwing the pooch. They have no clue what is actually allowed on that property yet I’m sure the owners are more than fully informed on their legal rights.
Keep up the fight people old Rob Wagner is no doubt chomping at the bit to get town houses on the property he has not turned into high density housing yet.
Buncha sheep.
Opps I’m sorry it’s not 400 houses it would be 600.
My bad.
I’m curious how you arrived at that figure….
Still waiting……..
If you understood zoning and the changes the council made you would know where the figure came from but apparently waiting for someone else to educate you is all you have…. that’s sad.
I will consider your inability to answer that question as evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about. I understand both the code and the changes. I am perplexed that, in your effort to be so self-righteous and condescending, you are not leaping at the opportunity to educate me.
I can only presume that you, sir, are an idiot.
Consider it a dare. I dare you to show your mathematical equation and explain how you arrived at 600 dwelling units on 105 acres. School me. Please.
You can’t.
“You people have no idea what you’re messing with”? Really, is that supposed to be a threat to the citizens…you suggesting the mob now runs this county and unless we sit down and zip it something bad will happen? Jeez…not so skeert really.
Not a threat at all and you must be a frightened individual if that’s the way you took it. Change the bills back and see what the developers do. I dare you.. The development would look lovely with those trashy white vinyl sided town houses instead of a CCRC and single family homes and it would do wonders for the surrounding home values. But the grand old trees will be awesome.
@ wonorato
I watched the Council meeting last night on TV. By not staying for Slutsky’s speech, I can say you didn’t miss much in terms of substance. It was, however, very well delivered, with the necessary dramatic pauses and quotes of unnamed sources of authority.
The core of his argument over why the Council is helpless to discuss the zoning issues and whether or not changes could be made to the code prior to the building plan being approved rests on the caveat that doing something could mean that in large, controversial cases like Eva-Mar and Wal-Mart, plaintiffs could argue that the Council is biased and have their appeal of the hearing examiner be brought to the Circuit Court, effectively bypassing any opinion of the Council. It was a bit more long-winded than that, but that is the gist of it.
I personally couldn’t follow the logic that it is better to do nothing than run the risk of having the Council’s decision overturned on appeal.
On a side note, the many residents in the area of the Eva-Mar project did a very good job of making their opinions known, as did the only supporter of the project. What I did note was the absence of the Eva-Mar and Wal-Mart apologists/quislings speaking at the meeting.
When writing to the SHA, remember that they won’t kill a project, as we are still getting the new Wal-Mart, but they can make the developer and their allies on the Council come up with the money to alleviate traffic. This is why so many build at any cost types who troll this website revile the SHA so much.
Good luck to you, it appears you are facing quite the uphill struggle.
@PhilDirt: FOH is NOT and never has been against “ALL DEVELOPMENT EVERYWHERE” as you so inaccurately put it. FOH is PRO common sense land use (put development in the Development Envelope). And LEGAL land use (enforce all current laws). AGAINST croneyism of any kind (developers’ big bucks should not get bad plans approved). Check your facts…see what they have proposed and opposed.