Posts by Bradley Heard

A police department statement pointedly noted that Toles's "violations [were] observed by a uniformed patrol officer operating a marked police cruiser on the Capital Beltway..."

Apparently, it took more than the usual amount of effort from police to stop the speeding councilmember. The Examiner reports that Toles's vehicle was "surrounded by officers"—indicating that multiple vehicles and officers were involved in the chase prior to the vehicle being stopped on Branch Avenue. WJLA states that "some officers approached Toles's car with their guns drawn."

Multiple officer accounts state that Toles repeatedly identified and referred to herself as the District 7 county councilmember and acted in a belligerent manner toward the officers throughout the traffic stop.

After police realized that they had stopped a member of the county council and not some ordinary scofflaw, they decided to issue her a citation only for an unsafe lane change, which carries a $90 fine and one point against her driver's license. The officer gave Toles a written warning for speeding.

Police defend their actions, claim no preferential treatment

Police were quick to defend their initial handling of this matter. However, they also left open the possibility that additional charges may be forthcoming after further review of the situation by police brass.

In response to growing concerns from the media and the public about apparent preferential treatment of a county official, the police stated:

The issuance of a warning citation for the speed is consistent with the typical discretion applied by police officers to speeding motorists. The traffic violations were captured on the police officer's in-car camera, and the incident will be subject to command review. At the moment, the video is evidence in a pending District Court traffic case, and will not be released.

Clearly, most drivers who are observed by a uniformed police officer going 50 miles over the speed limit would be immediately ticketed, and possibly arrested for reckless driving. This is especially so if, like Toles, they are crossing multiple lanes on the Capital Beltway, not immediately stopping in response to multiple police lights and sirens, and acting belligerently toward police, who felt the need to draw their weapons in response to the traffic stop.

For the county police to suggest that the issuance of a warning under such circumstances is "consistent with the typical discretion applied by police officers to speeding motorists" defies logic.

Toles released a statement shortly after the incident, stating that she "consider[s] moving violations serious matters," that she regrets the incident, and that she intends to pay the $90 ticket for the unsafe lane change. She later said she would temporarily give up her county vehicle and also take a driver safety course.

Toles is no stranger to serious traffic violations

Based on her driving record over the past couple of years, the public has ample reason to question whether Toles genuinely regards moving violations as "serious matters."

On August 5, 2010, Toles pled guilty in Upper Marlboro District Court to making an unsafe lane change on March 31, 2010, at Martin Luther King Jr. Hwy and Greenleaf Road. She paid a $90 fine. This is the exact same charge for which she received a ticket in the February 22, 2012 incident.

On April 1, 2011, Toles pled guilty in Hyattsville District Court to driving off the roadway while passing a vehicle on September 7, 2010, at the Capital Beltway and Pennsylvania Avenue. She also pled guilty to failing to display her registration card upon demand by the police during that same incident. She paid a total of $150 in fines.

In both of those 2010 instances, court records reflect that Toles' driver's license was temporarily suspended for several weeks, prior to her guilty pleas, after the councilmember failed to appear in court to answer the charges.

Justice and fair play require that Toles face charges

After the Jack and Leslie Johnson scandals, the last thing Prince George's County needs is for another of its public officials to get away with gaming the system by trading on their political office.

Two days before Toles was stopped by police, another driver killed herself and injured 4 others in a horrendous crash. She was driving similar 100+ mph speeds on Martin Luther King Jr. Highway. Like Toles, the driver in that fatal incident was a repeat traffic offender. Indeed, she actually had received a ticket on January 22 for traveling 91 mph in a 55 mph zone—which is 14 mph less than Toles' alleged speed on February 22.

Toles knew exactly what she was doing when she belligerently and repeatedly identified herself as a county councilmember after leading police on a high-speed chase. She wanted to intimidate the police into not charging her with serious traffic violations. And in that effort, she has been successful—at least up to this point.

Based on the police officer accounts that have been reported thus far, there appears to be ample probable cause to support charging Toles with multiple serious traffic violations arising out of the February 22 incident, including but not limited to reckless driving, fleeing or eluding police, and obstruction of justice.

Police claim that one of the reasons the ticketing officer did not cite Toles for exceeding the speed limit initially was that the officer had no radar, had not properly calibrated his speedometer, and did not have time to pace her actual speed while giving chase. However, the determination of Toles's precise speed is not an essential element to either of the above charges.

Under Maryland's point system, a conviction on these traffic charges could result in mandatory suspension or revocation of Toles's license, in addition to any other applicable fines or jail time.

The Prince George's County Police have said they will review the situation and may charge Toles with additional violations. Hopefully, Chief Mark Magaw, Assistant Chief Kevin Davis (301-772-4740), and the rest of the executive review panel will take this opportunity to do the right thing and charge the council member in the same manner as any other driver would have been charged under similar circumstances.

If the police don't do their job, then it is up to the State's Attorney's Office to protect the interests of Maryland's citizens in Prince George's County. The office's District Court Division, headed by Chief Mary Brennan (304-952-3967) and Assistant Chief Michael Glynn (301-952-2875), is ultimately responsible for prosecuting misdemeanor crimes in Prince George's. That office should not hesitate to pursue these charges directly if the county police department lacks the political will.

Once properly charged, Councilmember Toles should be afforded all the constitutional protections and presumptions that any other criminal defendant would have under our justice system—including the presumption of innocence, the right to a jury trial, and the requirement that the state prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Repeated reckless driving on Maryland's roads is, to use Karen Toles's own description, a very "serious matter." Nearly 600 people die each year in Maryland as a result of automobile crashes. If the police saw the councilmember engaging in such conduct on February 22, as multiple media reports suggest, they should not turn a blind eye toward that conduct, and neither should the State's Attorney's Office.

In America—including in Prince George's County—no one, regardless of their position in government, should be above the law.

The bill would make a new and much-needed regional hospital dependent on building the casino, a link that Baker specifically opposes. On the positive side, the bill would dedicate a portion of the gambling profits to the county's economic development incentive fund and education trust fund.

Baker was right to specify National Harbor as preferred choice for a casino

County Executive Baker says the casino should locate at National Harbor, because that picturesque Potomac River site would be a better draw for tourists than Rosecroft Raceway. Also, the existing transportation infrastructure would better support the anticipated traffic, and impose less of a burden on traditionally residential areas.

By making the specific proposal for National Harbor, Baker is attempting to provide some much-needed local perspective and guidance in this brewing debate. Any casino that comes to Prince George's must be "high-end," Baker says. He wants the developer to invest $1 billion in the facility, to ensure it doesn't become a low-grade "slots barn."

State Senate president Thomas "Mike" Miller, whose support for Rosecroft Raceway is well known, rejected Baker's expression of support for National Harbor, and also opposes decoupling the casino from funding the county's new regional hospital.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Baker's decision, it's exactly the type of decisive action that the head of county government should take in this kind of situation. Indeed, this is the very type of action that I recently called for the county to take in its effort to lobby the GSA to relocate the FBI's headquarters to Prince George's.

Just as the county will ultimately be better served by articulating a specific site and vision for any new casino (e.g., National Harbor vs. Rosecroft Raceway; "high-end" vs. "slots barn"), so will it be better served by recommending to the GSA a preferred site for the relocation of the FBI headquarters, like the Morgan Boulevard Metro Station area.

Casino must not receive public subsidies

To ensure that the county wins and doesn't "crap out" on this move to bring Vegas to the Potomac, it must insist that not one penny of public money goes to assist the developers or the property owners at National Harbor in constructing the casino.

No tax-increment financing (TIF) districts, special assessment districts, public bond issues, or tax breaks—nothing. If expensive roadways, overpasses, and parking garages have to be built to accommodate the additional anticipated vehicle traffic, they must be fully funded and guaranteed by the developers.

Additionally, to alleviate the need for at least some of the expensive roadways and parking garages, the developers must be required to contribute a substantial sum to improve the public transit connections to National Harbor.

And no, this does not mean bringing Metro or the Purple Line to National Harbor. That would entail significant amounts of public expense that the county cannot afford right now. Frequent express bus service between National Harbor and one or more of the existing Metro stations should suffice.

This "no public subsidy" stance is important for several reasons. First, regardless of whether it is actually true, the county simply cannot afford the negative perception that this casino project is just the latest in a series of Upper Marlboro- or Annapolis-brokered developer sweetheart deals fueled by corruption, political favoritism, or some other under-the-table influence.

For example, people are already asking whether Sen. Miller's vociferous support for Rosecroft Raceway over National Harbor is the result of an off-the-grid deal between the senator and Penn National Gaming, the organization that recently bought the Rosecroft property out of bankruptcy.

To combat any perception of payoffs, bribery, or any other undue influence, this casino deal needs to be a squeaky-clean, completely above-board process that does not involve government handouts of any variety.

Second, this stance is consistent with the county's stated (albeit rarely followed) policy of incentivizing transit-oriented development and neighborhood revitalization efforts around its 15 Metro stations and in surrounding inner-Beltway communities.

In 2010, the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission launched a comprehensive, countywide community planning effort called "Envision Prince George's." Among the Envision recommendations (which were subsequently adopted and endorsed by the County Council) was the position that the county should focus 66% of its future growth around its 15 Metro stations and other densely-populated, inner-Beltway corridors.

To ensure that the county meets its TOD goals, Envision recommended that the county "[a]lign public expenditure policies and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) items with the goal of encouraging development in these areas and discouraging further sprawl development in other areas of the County."

Public funding of a National Harbor casino, both far away from a Metro station and outside the Beltway, is simply inconsistent with the county's stated TOD policies.

Third, the casino doesn't need public investment or subsidies. A casino is a natural moneymaker. If you build it, people will come, and they will spend a lot of money. Baker has rightly proposed that, in exchange for building a higher-quality casino, the developers should keep a larger share of the profits than the current 33% provided in state law, and possibly even greater than the 40% proposed by Senator Peters in SB 892.

Prince George's County certainly doesn't need a casino to be economically viable. But having one wouldn't necessarily be the worst thing in the world, either—as long as the county doesn't put any money on the table to get it.

I had the opportunity to experience the Tide's inaugural weekend while visiting my parents in my hometown of Virginia Beach. We were among the over 75,000 people who boarded the trains during the first three days, when HRT was running a free promotion to introduce the community to the new light rail system.

Initial weekday ridership during the first year was projected to be only 2,900. However, the 6-month data shows that those early projections have been blown away. About 4,642 people ride The Tide during an average weekday. An even higher number—4,850—use the system on Saturdays, with 2,099 usually riding on Sundays.

Virginia Beach wary of light rail, but preserving its options

Originally, HRT had planned for The Tide to extend from downtown Norfolk all the way to the Virginia Beach oceanfront, along an abandoned Norfolk-Southern rail right-of-way. However, the transit agency needed the consent of both cities to move forward, and Beach residents voted down the proposal in 1999. Therefore, Norfolk proceeded on its own.

In recent years, however, the resort city has signaled that it may be warming up to the idea of light rail. For example, Virginia Beach's 2009 Comprehensive Plan adopted a new urban growth strategy that is designed to direct the majority of the city's future growth to 8 defined "strategic growth areas" (SGAs). Six of these SGAs are located along the city's portion of the abandoned Norfolk-Southern right-of-way currently used by The Tide in Norfolk. The comprehensive plan even gives a positive mention to light rail as an "alternative transportation" option.

In 2010, Virginia Beach contributed the $15 million in matching funds necessary to purchase the 10.6 mile stretch of Norfolk-Southern right-of-way which runs from the city's Newtown Road border with Norfolk to Birdneck Road in Virginia Beach—approximately a mile from the oceanfront. Additional right-of-way will need to be acquired to extend the existing rail lines to the city's convention center and ultimately to the resort area near the oceanfront.

Tide promises a "tsunami" of smart growth possibilities for region

For The Tide to become the truly regional transit system it was intended to be, it must extend to the Virginia Beach oceanfront. The resort city's portion of the abandoned Norfolk-Southern railway corridor has already been identified in the Hampton Roads Regional Transit Vision Plan as a priority rapid transit extension corridor.

HRT has begun a federally required transit extension study / alternatives analysis to determine what mode of rapid transit, if any, is appropriate for the corridor. The four alternatives being considered are (1) doing nothing; (2) enhancing local bus service; (3) building a bus rapid transit (BRT) line; and (4) extending The Tide's light rail line.

According to the study, an extension of The Tide light rail system to the Virginia Beach oceanfront would bring approximately 1.1 million square feet of residential and commercial development within a quarter-mile of the corridor, or 90,000 SF per corridor mile—the highest and most dense level of transit-oriented development predicted in the region. Those development projections double when taking into consideration the whole half-mile transportation analysis zone (2.3 million SF / 191,000 SF per corridor mile).

The study anticipates that the Beach extension of The Tide would have 8 stations, all of which lie within the city's 2009 Comprehensive Plan-designated strategic growth areas.

After being inspired by my inaugural Tide ride in Norfolk, and prior to looking at any planning documents, I decided to create my own map of potential Virginia Beach light rail stations. Based solely on my knowledge of the area from growing up there, I was able to identify all 8 of the stations that HRT recommended in its study, plus a ninth one (at North Plaza Trail). Here's my map:

In April 2011, HRT suspended the Virginia Beach Transit Extension Study until it could get 9-12 months of actual ridership data from The Tide's initial Norfolk segment. Having now obtained 6 of those 9-12 months of data, HRT should have no problem concluding that regional ridership will support the extension of light rail to the Beach.

Particularly in light of Amtrak's recent announcement that its popular Northeast Regional trains will directly service Norfolk's Harbor Park by the end of 2012, it makes even more sense to extend The Tide to Virginia Beach. That way, tourists and business travelers from as far north as Boston could seamlessly travel to most of the region's prime destinations without ever having to rent a car.

To paraphrase (in a shamelessly corny way) an early 1980s Blondie hit, The Tide is High—in Norfolk. Virginia Beach needs to catch the wave and extend the region's light rail system to the oceanfront as soon as possible.

The yellow-shaded area, directly across Central Avenue from the station, is more than large enough to accommodate the FBI headquarters. The dark purple area, adjacent to the FBI, is ideal for the hospital, while mixed-use offices could occupy the lighter purple areas and mixed-use residential in the brown area. The county could create a pedestrian path with a Main Street character, lined with storefronts, from the station to Central Avenue where employees cross to get to the FBI.

Because it's across a major arterial from the station, the restrictive security constructs would not pose a problem with developing quality mixed-use TOD at the Metro station. Yet, because it is within ½ mile of the Metro station, it would be easily accessible to the thousands of federal employees who would be working at the FBI. Moreover, many of those same employees would have to pass through the station's core commercial area twice a day, thereby creating a natural patron base for any business located there.

Currently, the Morgan Boulevard Station's secondary area is populated with scattered automobile-oriented industrial uses. However, the county could quickly assemble and redevelop that land into a large-acre parcel suitable for the FBI headquarters facility. The existing industrial uses can be easily relocated to one of the many other nearby industrial office parks with vacant space. If there's one thing the county has plenty of (other than developable land around Metro stations), it's vacant industrial space.

Prince George's officials should make a compelling case to the GSA as to why a location like Morgan Boulevard would be a win-win for the federal government as well as the county and state governments, and specifically why it would be better than the GSA-owned property at Franconia-Springfield Metro Station in Fairfax County. Here are a few suggestions:

Morgan Boulevard is closer to DC. It is 9.5 miles from the DC core, while Franconia-Springfield is 15 miles from downtown. It is also inside the Beltway, while being equally as accessible via Metro's Blue Line.

It is one of the least-utilized Metro stations. In fact, in 2007, Morgan Boulevard had the fewest weekday riders of any Metro station. Unlike the Franconia-Springfield Station, a busy transit terminus in already-overcrowded Fairfax County, Morgan Boulevard could easily accommodate the influx of thousands of additional riders a day.

Ample roadway capacity already exists. Unlike the Beltway area around Franconia-Springfield, the roadways around Morgan Boulevard are able to accommodate the workers who would choose to drive to work. The same multiple paths that allow many thousands of fans to drive to FedEx Field for Redskins games would also accommodate the substantially fewer number of federal workers that would be driving to the new FBI headquarters during the work week. And the use of the same reversible lane technologies employed on game day should assist with traffic flow during the work week.

It would bring more parity to the region. From a policy standpoint, bringing the FBI headquarters to Morgan Boulevard would allow the federal government to better equalize the regional distribution of federal employment sites. Prince George's supplies more than a quarter of the region's federal workforce and is entitled to a fairer allocation of the job sites.

The area is comparatively less well-off economically. Unlike wealthy Fairfax County, the surrounding inner-Beltway community near this station is one that could more greatly benefit from urban revitalization, thus allowing the federal investment to accomplish multiple goals.

These are the type of specific, fact-based arguments and actions (among others) that will make a worthy case to the GSA for why it should bring the FBI headquarters to Prince George's County.

Make a specific site recommendation. Give specific justifications. Articulate a sensible TOD and neighborhood revitalization strategy. Provide quick, responsible, and decisive action by local officials.

Prince George's County deserves to attract the FBI headquarters and other large federal government offices. If it wants to do so, though, it needs to step up its game dramatically.

Talk of relocating the FBI has been brewing since at least 2010, when Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) obtained funding for a study on that question. The Government Accountability Office issued a report to Congress on November 8, 2011, stating that relocating the FBI headquarters from the J. Edgar Hoover Building in DC to another transit-accessible location in the region was both the cheapest and quickest option to allow the FBI to consolidate its workforce and maintain operational security.

One month later, on December 8, 2011, the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee authorized the General Services Administration to move forward with finding a site for a new FBI headquarters. The committee required that the new headquarters occupy federally-owned land within 2 miles of a Metro station and within 2½ miles of the Capital Beltway, among other requirements.

Within a month, Fairfax made a specific pitch for a specific and highly competitive location that meets the requirements in the Senate EPW Committee's resolution.

By comparison, Prince George's resolution is rather amorphous. It provides that the county government has "strong support for relocating the FBI and other Federal agencies and acquiring other Federal leased space in Prince George's County" and "is prepared to be a partner with the GSA and the private sector in utilizing appropriate economic incentives, to facilitate the location or relocation of Federal agencies to Prince George's County, Maryland."

Okay, great. What county government wouldn't want a huge federal agency, with all its employees, coming to town?

The resolution also highlights that Prince George's has historically gotten the short end of the stick when it comes to federal employment sites. Though more than 25% of the federal employees in the National Capital region reside in Prince George's, the county has only 5% of the region's federal office space. Certainly true enough and worth pointing out.

But exactly where does the county want the facility to go? How would the GSA and the federal government benefit from locating the FBI headquarters in Prince George's rather than Fairfax or any other neighboring jurisdiction? The county's apparent answer thus far: we don't know yet.

The county's unfocused approach doesn't prioritize Metro station development

The County Executive's press release announced the formation of "an inter-agency task force that will regularly meet and analyze possible sites in the County that are in accordance to" the GSA and Senate EPW Committee specifications. That sounds like an excruciatingly long, bureaucratic nightmare of a process, especially given that Fairfax County is already bringing specific proposals to the table.

Time and time again, the ubiquitous "task force" is where many worthy proposals are sent to die a slow and painful death.

Prince George's formation of such a task force at this late date raises a more significant and troubling question: Why hasn't the county already done that basic site analysis groundwork if the idea of relocating the FBI's headquarters has been floating around since 2010?

The answer is simple, and probably best explains why the county doesn't already have more of its fair share of large employers (federal or otherwise), quality retail destinations, and attractive housing choices around its Metro stations. Despite all of its lofty pronouncements over several administrations, the county simply hasn't taken enough tangible action to prioritize Metro station development and revitalization of its existing, transit-rich urban core inside the Beltway.

Moreover, as I wrote recently, the county unfortunately often actively undermines its own stated transit-oriented development goals by advancing massive mixed-use projects that are too far away from existing Metro stations, thereby reducing the market for similar development at the Metro stations.

That's why in 2007, for example, we saw an elaborate master plan being developed for Westphalia, a sprawling greenfield development on rural farmland located outside of the Beltway and far from a Metro station.

Westphalia was the brainchild of former county executives Jack Johnson and Jim Estepp; former District 6 county councilman Samuel Dean; and two corrupt crony developers, Patrick Ricker and Daniel Colton. Johnson, Ricker, and Colton have all now pled guilty to federal corruption and bribery changes and are heading to prison.

Despite the ignominious legacy of corruption and misguided policy that underlies Westphalia, the Baker administration apparently remains committed to bringing the suburban sprawl project to fruition, even while claiming that "one of [its] top priorities will be maximizing the potential at our Metro stations." Baker's spokesperson, Scott Peterson, said in June 2011, "[T]he [Westphalia] development is important to the residents of the community and the county, and we'll be working hard to keep the project on line."

At the same time it develops and actively pursues detailed proposals for suburban sprawl developments like Westphalia and Woodmore Towne Center, the county lacks a coherent strategy for developing the four largely vacant Metro stations along its Blue Line corridor (Capitol Heights, Addison Road, Morgan Boulevard, and Largo Town Center), or the three stations along its Orange Line corridor (Cheverly, Landover, and New Carrollton).

Only recently has the county begun to turn its attention to those station areas, with such efforts as the Blue Line Corridor TOD Strategy Implementation Project and the New Carrollton Transit District Development Plan.

Richard Layman aptly captured Prince George's Metro station TOD dilemma in a comment to a previous post: "[M]ostly, developers won't be choosing to do speculative development in most of [Prince George's County], including at Metro stations[,] without superlative station plans and great incentive packages anytime soon." Richard's comment rings true both for private developers and for public ones, like the GSA.

County should make detailed proposals for specific Metro sites, and soon

Fortunately for Prince George's, its past history of poor focus on Metro station TOD does not have to constrain its future course. The Baker administration and the current County Council are much better equipped and, by and large, more willing to embrace and pursue true TOD than Jack Johnson & Crew. But if they're going to do so, they need to adjust their thinking and sharpen their focus, so that the county's actions match its policy goals.

The task of identifying suitable space for the FBI headquarters building does not have to be made that difficult and should not entail endless deliberation by an ad hoc task force. The county already has a stated policy that assigns "top priority" to transit-oriented development around Metro stations.

This county policy priority also comports with the GSA requirement for the new FBI headquarters site to be located within 2 miles of a Metro station. So the first decision point in the selection process should be clear: locate and recommend an available site near a Metro station if at all possible.

By my count, there are only 5 Metro stations in Prince George's County that are within 2½ miles of the Beltway: Branch Avenue, Largo Town Center, Morgan Boulevard, New Carrollton, and Greenbelt. The goal should be to find a suitable site around one of those 5 stations. Within a span of a few hours, anyone working with the county's GIS mapping system and Google Earth should be able to identify which of those 5 locations has the 55 acres of developable or re-developable land the FBI needs.

Matt Johnson argued several weeks ago that putting a high-security fortress like the FBI headquarters directly on top of a Metro station site was not ideal, because such a complex would not be conducive to creating the type of walkable, open, and public environment that should define TOD at a Metro station.

He suggested a couple of alternate greenfield sites near the federal courthouse in Greenbelt, which is about a mile away from the Greenbelt Metro station. However, it appears that one of those sites is not large enough to meet the GSA requirements, and the other site is already committed for another use.

Ideally, the best location for the new FBI building would be in the "secondary area" of a Metro station. In his book The Next American Metropolis, famed architect and urban planner Peter Calthorpe explains that the secondary area of a transit station area is located within a mile of the station, often across a major arterial street.

The secondary area is an appropriate location for uses that should ordinarily not be located in the principal commercial core of a transit area, like lower-density single-family homes, automobile-oriented uses like gas stations and repair shops, and large employment-generating uses that may not fit within the compact, walkable block structure that is essential for proper pedestrian circulation in a TOD—such as a 55-acre FBI headquarters campus that requires a massive security moat around it.

Tomorrow, I'll suggest the ideal site in Prince George's County for the FBI headquarters, one that's large enough, meets the Senate committee's requirements, and lies within the secondary area of a Metro station.

The Cafritz owners want to build 2 million square feet of mixed-use commercial, residential, and hotel space, including a Whole Foods Market. Building the retail there would make stores less likely to locate at other sites which are closer to transit and already zoned for high-density mixed-use development, like the Boulevard at Capital Centre near the Largo Town Center Metro, University Town Center at Prince George's Plaza, or Arts District Hyattsville.

On February 2, the Prince George's County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) will resume its deliberations over whether to recommend the rezoning to the County Council. The County Council will then hold a second public hearing and receive additional public comments before deciding whether to rezone the property.

Recently, I argued that the Boulevard at Capital Centre is a better location for the Whole Foods and the rest of the project. Alex Block argued, "Metro isn't the be-all and end-all of transit. The [Cafritz] project is a perfectly reasonable infill development site."

The Cafritz property site may indeed be perfectly reasonable for some kind of infill development, such as a suburban residential subdivision of 200 homes with some limited "corner store"-type convenience retail. But 2 million square feet of development, including 995 housing units and more than 370,000 square feet of retail, office, and hotel space, is not a reasonable infill project for that location. That's more than 4 times the size of the current development at the Boulevard at Cap Centre, near a Metro station.

Without excellent existing transit options, this much development will induce a disastrous amount of auto traffic. Even the Planning Board staff says the traffic generated by this proposed development will exceed countywide master plan of transportation vehicle limits for the US-1/East-West Highway area. (See pp. 33-36 of the staff report.)

Meanwhile, the 69-acre Boulevard site can easily accommodate the level of development proposed for Cafritz Property. It's also already zoned for high-density mixed use development. In fact, the county's 2002 General plan designated the Largo Town Center station area as a "Metropolitan Center," suitable for the most intensive "downtown-style" development in the county. The county Revenue Authority owns the Boulevard site, so it could easily facilitate this development.

The Boulevard site is already cleared, so developing there would not require further deforestation and could even improve stormwater treatment by replacing the existing sea of surface parking with buildings and additional trees. The Largo Town Center Metro would absorb more of the travel demand, and deevlopment here would be more consistent with the county's master plan of transportation and with smart growth principles generally.

Besides taking retail and housing demand away from potential Metro sites, the Caftitz project could detract from nearby mixed-use projects already in progress. The brand-new 25-acre Arts District Hyattsville development is just 1 mile south of the Cafritz site. Although construction is still underway on the first phase of that development, the entire project will eventually have 500 housing units and 40,000 SF of commercial space when completed.

Similarly, about 1.3 miles to the west of the Cafritz site, near Prince George's Plaza Metro Station, sits the 56-acre University Town Center development. Construction began in earnest on that site in the 1990s and was really beginning to gain momentum in the mid-2000s, until the economy tanked. Recently, several buildings in that development were foreclosed upon and are being held by Wells Fargo, until the original developer can recover or a new owner is found.

There is still oodles of space remaining at UTC for high-density mixed-use residential and commercial development of the type proposed for the Cafritz site, without the need for any zoning changes or clearing of wooded land. Furthermore, UTC is within a half-mile of a Metro station and can accommodate any additional need for high-density retail, residential, and commercial development in the surrounding retail market area, which includes nearby Riverdale Park.

Before authorizing the up-zoning of new greenfield sites like the Cafritz property, the county should insist that developers maximize the development potential at existing Metro stations, such as the Boulevard at Cap Centre or University Town Center, or at existing inner-Beltway mixed use projects like Arts District Hyattsville. If Prince George's County is going to be successful in attracting the type of quality investment and development it says it wants around its Metro stations, its leaders have to be disciplined about following the county's comprehensive land use policies.

The county can't keep approving the wrong type of development in the wrong locations just because a particular property owner or developer wants it. It would be great for the county to gain 2 million square feet of high-quality transit-oriented development, but that needs to happen at the Largo Town Center Metro or one of the other existing Metro station areas in need of such high-intensity development.

It is located just off of the Capital Beltway at Arena Drive—steps away from the Largo Town Center Metro Station on the Blue Line, and approximately one mile away from FedEx Field.

Borders Books was one of the Boulevard's original anchor tenants. However, in 2011, Borders shut its doors as part of the company's bankruptcy and eventual nationwide liquidation. The space, pictured below, has been vacant ever since.

Based on the guidelines established by Whole Foods for consideration of new retail locations, the old Borders space at the Boulevard is an ideal site. This is what the retailer says it is looking for:

• 200,000 people or more in a 20-minute drive time
  
• 25,000-50,000 square feet
  
• Large number of college-educated residents
  
• Abundant parking available for our exclusive use
  
• Stand alone preferred, would consider complementary
  
• Easy access from roadways, lighted intersection
  
• Excellent visibility, directly off of the street
  
• Must be located in a high traffic area (foot and/or vehicle)
  

Let's see how the old Borders space matches up. In terms of demographics, more than 252,000 people live within a five-mile radius—well within a 20-minute drive. In addition, all Blue Line Metrorail stations from Capitol South eastward to Largo Town Center are within a 20-minute ride of the Boulevard (and within a 20-25 minute drive on a good day). This dramatically increases the population count within the target area of this retail space.

The average household income in the immediate three-mile radius is $80,600, and more than 64% of the adult population within a one-mile radius of the Boulevard has either attended or graduated from college. Taking into account the entire area within a 20-minute drive or Metro ride of the Boulevard, including the affluent and highly-educated Capitol Hill neighborhood, the household income and educational attainment levels increase significantly.

The old Borders space is also very well situated, meeting all of Whole Foods' desired site location criteria. It is clearly visible from Arena Drive, just off of a lighted intersection. There are multiple signalized vehicle access points to the Boulevard—two from Arena Drive at the north end, and one from Harry S. Truman Drive at the south end. In addition, there is a lighted pedestrian path (near Truman Drive) that provides direct access to the Boulevard from the Largo Town Center Metro station.

Finally, there is ample parking directly in front of the store space that would be available for the near-exclusive use of Whole Foods customers. Simply put, in terms of foot and vehicle traffic, visibility, and parking availability, few locations in Prince George's County can match it.

Aside from the necessary construction to convert the old Borders space from a bookstore into an upscale specialty grocery store, Whole Foods would need to do very little work to get the store up and running. At 22,915 square feet, this one-story stand-alone space is currently slightly smaller than the Whole Foods stated minimum goal of 25,000 square feet. However, as you can see from the above picture, the space was built with a faux second floor, complete with ample window lighting.

Although I am not an architect or structural engineer, it seems that it should be feasible to add the necessary floor and ceiling to convert this space into two actual stories—in which case, there would be nearly 44,000 square feet of usable space. If not, the existing space is sufficient for a specialty grocer like Whole Foods. Similar competitors, like Greensboro, North Carolina based The Fresh Market, regularly build stores that are about 20,000 square feet.

So what would be the downside, from Whole Foods' perspective, of coming to the Boulevard? Sure, the Boulevard has had its challenges over the years with crime and rowdy teens, but so have other great Metro-accessible shopping centers, like Gallery Place and DC USA in the District. The Boulevard has also had the misfortune of having three of its anchors—Borders, Circuit City, and Linens 'N Things—file for bankruptcy and close their doors.

Recently, though, things have been looking up for the Boulevard. HH Gregg and Shoppers World have taken over the Circuit City and Linens 'N Things spaces, and a new T.G.I. Friday's recently opened in the space vacated by Uno's Chicago Grill. The Boulevard's property managers have instituted a "Parental Escort Policy" that has been successful in discouraging teenagers from loitering.

Increased security and police presence throughout the Boulevard have improved both public perceptions and the realities of safety. Furthermore, it should be noted that the old Borders property is located on the opposite end of the mall, far from the movie theater and other venues that attract many of the youngsters.

The success of the nearby Woodmore Town Center development, which houses a Wegmans grocery store, Costco, Best Buy, and other retailers, shows that there is sufficient spending power in central Prince George's County to make a speciality grocer like Whole Foods extremely profitable.

Indeed, locating a Whole Foods at the old Borders Books store at Boulevard at the Capital Centre offers two advantages that Woodmore Town Center cannot: walkable proximity to Metro and direct visibility from a major street. (Not to mention that Whole Foods probably could not open at Woodmore anyway, given the likelihood of a restrictive covenant in favor of Wegmans that would prohibit another grocery store in that development.)

Whatever decision the Prince George's County Planning Board and County Council eventually make regarding the rezoning of the Cafritz Property in Riverdale Park, it will likely result in years of litigation before Whole Foods, or any other commercial retailer, can start developing there. Local opposition to that new greenfield development is stiff (e.g., see here and here.)

Whole Foods cannot and should not wait that long to bring a store to Prince George's County. Neither should Whole Foods think that there can be only one of its stores in the entire county. The old Borders Books at Boulevard at Capital Centre in Largo is "transit ready" and waiting for a store like Whole Foods.

If you agree that Whole Foods (or another specialty grocer like The Fresh Market) should come to the Boulevard, contact the following people and let them know you support the idea:

• Whole Foods' Master Broker for Maryland: Mark J. Katz, H&R Retail, 2800 Quarry Lake Drive, Suite 320, Baltimore, MD 21209; Email: mkatz@HRRetail.com; 410-308-6366.
  
• The Fresh Market's Director of Real Estate for the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Region: James Dewey, 628 Green Valley Road, Suite 500, Greensboro, NC 27408; Email: jamesdewey@thefreshmarket.com; 336-272-1338.
  
• Property Manager for Boulevard at the Capital Centre: Mark Nicholas, Inland US Management, LLC, 2901 Butterfield Rd, Oak Brook, Illinois 60523; Email: nicholas@inland-western.com; 866.646.5263.
  
• Brokerage Contact for Boulevard at the Capital Centre: Ryan Wilner, KLNB, LLC, 100 West Road, Suite 505, Baltimore, MD 21204; Email: rwilner@klnb.com; 443.632.2058

It's worth calling into question the provenance of such a buffer in the first place. One assumes it was to be set aside to preserve the wooded view for the 12 to 13 houses across from the property on the west side of Route 1. Those houses are already facing a four-lane arterial highway.

One would have to entertain a willing suspension of disbelief to think those houses are anywhere but on a busy road. Shielding the development from these dozen or so houses would make it nearly impossible for passing traffic to realize there is commercial space behind the trees, and the lack of visibility would almost certainly be a turn-off for business proprietors.

Right now, the proposed development site is zoned R-55 (residential-single-family). Before the Cafritz developers can build any portion of their proposed mixed-use development, they will need to obtain a zoning change from the Prince George's County Planning Board of the Maryland-National Capital Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), and from the District Council (which is what the County Council calls itself when it sits as a zoning agency).

The M-NCPPC and the District Council approved a mixed-use town center plan for the Town of Riverdale Park in 2004. This plan covers the commercial areas of the town just south of the Cafritz Property. Thus, one rezoning option that the Cafritz developers would have is to apply to extend the Riverdale Park Mixed Use Town Center (M-U-TC) zone northward, to cover their property. This would allow them to build the Whole Foods along with the other commercial and multifamily residential components of their proposed development.

The Riverdale Park M-U-TC zoning regulations for that portion of Route 1 just south of the Cafritz property specifically prohibit parking between the street and the front of buildings. The intent of those regulations, according to the plan, is "[t]o retain and create a consistent street wall (abutting buildings aligned along a build-to line) that promotes a sense of enclosure (a street room), defines the sidewalk, and frames the street."

Instead of designing its project to follow the streetscaping requirement of the plan, however, the development team uses creative language to explain its intent to sidestep those standards:

[W]e intend to deviate from the Riverdale Park MUTC Plan development district standards in one way. The current MUTC Plan encourages development to create a Route 1 street wall, with buildings tight to the Route 1 sidewalk. We intend to deviate from this pattern primarily because, in order to be compatible and respectful to the existing houses across the street, we are proposing a landscape buffer zone as our transition from Route 1 to our proposed multilevel retail/office buildings. In keeping with the spirit of the Riverdale Park MUTC Plan, our buildings will be tight to the internal sidewalk to create a comfortable and lively pedestrian experience, along our internal streets and not Route 1.

These "internal sidewalks" are simply pedestrian walkways alongside their parking lots. The "internal streets" are simply the driveways for the parking lots. By playing fast and loose with language, the proposed plan sounds like it's adhering to good urban design principles, while it's really a standard suburban big-box development.

The Riverdale Park MUTC Plan's build-to line design standard is a "shall" command, which the Plan describes as "mandatory and not discretionary." It says:

All new buildings shall be built within a specified distance (the build-to line) of the face-of-curb depending upon location, plus or minus the allowable variation.

In that area of Route 1, the mandatory build-to line is 10-15 feet from the curb, depending on the size of the sidewalk, with a permissible 4-foot variation. Therefore, if Cafritz wishes to obtain the M-U-TC zoning approval necessary to construct its project, the M-NCPPC and District Council should insist that Cafritz's proposed development conform to the mandatory design standards of the Riverdale Park plan for Route 1.

The question is, will they? Unless somebody who becomes a party of record (like a neighborhood association or concerned citizen) raises the issue—both in writing, before the public hearing, and at the public hearing itself, it's unlikely.

Even then, if history is any guide, the county will often strain to find a way to either ignore the standard or find a way to grant the developer a departure. But at least if the issue is raised, the M-NCPPC and the District Council will have to address it. The good news is anyone can become a party of record by filling out this form and/or by appearing at the hearing and testifying.

Currently, the financially strapped and poorly managed Prince George's Hospital Center (PGHC) in Cheverly is the only trauma center serving southern Maryland, including Prince George's, Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary's Counties.

The partnership, which involves the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS) and Dimensions Healthcare, seeks to develop and implement a strategy that will bring a new state-of-the art regional medical center to central Prince George's County.

The new hospital will be supported by a comprehensive ambulatory care network, including the existing PGHC facility in Cheverly. An initial study by UMMS estimates that it will cost $600 million to implement this new strategy.

Barry Rascovar, a communications consultant and state legislative columnist, correctly notes in a recent Gazette op-ed that this partnership agreement is only a first step, albeit an important one, to realizing the goal of a new regional healthcare center. However, one assumption that he makes is rather alarming for those of us who value the ideas of TOD, environmental sustainability, urban revitalization and sprawl avoidance.

Rascovar posits that the success of the new facility "assumes 100 acres of land can be found in the central part of the county, preferably near the Capital Beltway and US Route 50." One hundred acres? Really?

It is unclear upon what authority Rascovar is basing his assumption. The 100-acre requirement does not appear in the partnership agreement, and I could not find any statement from UMMS, the state, or the county imposing such a requirement. Forcing the hospital to be located on such vast acreage would almost guarantee that it could not be placed near an existing Metro station in central Prince George's County.

Fortunately, there are countless examples of urban regional medical centers being built on substantially fewer than 100 acres, and near rapid transit stations. New York City's Columbia University Medical Center, for example, is located on 20 acres in uptown Manhattan, immediately adjacent to the 168th Street subway station. The George Washington University Hospital, located next to the Foggy Bottom Metro Station in northwest DC, is on substantially less than 20 acres. GW's entire downtown campus, including the hospital, occupies less than 45 acres.

Instead of trying to find 100 acres of nonexistent land next to the Beltway and US-50 for this new regional medical center, why not locate it at the Morgan Boulevard Metro station, on the Blue Line? Aside from Redskins games and other FedEx Field events, the station gets very little use. WMATA actually proposed closing the station on weekends in 2010 due to very low daily ridership.

As you can see from the above map, the Morgan Boulevard station sits virtually undeveloped on 56 acres, at the corner of two existing major arterial roads—Central Avenue (MD-214) and Garrett A. Morgan Boulevard / Ritchie Road. It is also within one mile of the Capital Beltway, and within central Prince George's County. As such, it meets all the major location criteria that state and local officials have articulated for the new regional hospital facility.

The site is fully accessible to cars and would require no expensive new roadways and interchanges, thus making it a more economical option. There is space enough to build hospital facilities more than twice the size of the Columbia University Medical Center.

Moreover, the hospital would be convenient to patients, visitors, and staff who don't own and/or can't afford automobiles. This is fully consistent with the mission of the partnership agreement to provide high-quality, affordable, and accessible healthcare to the region's residents.

Over time, the influx of skilled professionals coming daily to Morgan Boulevard will create increased demand for quality housing and retail amenities throughout the Central Avenue corridor, and particularly at the nearby Addison Road and Largo Town Center stations.

In short, locating the new Prince George's regional medical center near existing rapid transit at Morgan Boulevard will prove to be both an economic boon to the county and a better service to the region's residents. Who could argue with that?

Sponsored by Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller (D-Dist. 27) of Chesapeake Beach and the Prince George's County House delegation, the legislation sought to improve existing state ethics laws by prohibiting developer payments to so-called "slates," which are campaign committees made up of a group of candidates rather than a single candidate.

Existing law prohibits developer payments to the county executive and to an individual council member's campaign committee or PAC while certain development applications are pending before the Council, or within 36 months of the filing of those applications. However, payments to slates are allowed.

Similarly, existing law forbids council members from participating in certain development review proceedings if their campaign committee or PAC received a contribution from an affected developer, but not if a slate to which they belonged received such a contribution. SB 902 and HB 1089 fix those problems by treating slates in the same manner as a council member's individual campaign committee or PAC.

The problem is that the two bills fail to fix the other gaping loophole in existing law, which excludes "detailed site plans" from the definition of "Application" to which the developer pay-to-play ban applies. Detailed site plan review is required for most significant forms of development in Prince George's County, including but not limited to:

• Attached housing, such as townhouses and multifamily dwellings;
  
• Planned employment parks;
  
• Planned mixed-use developments;
  
• Large parking compounds;
  
• Recreational community developments;
  
• Screening or buffering as a necessary design element;
  
• Large single-use developments;
  
• Development on environmentally sensitive land, or land that contains important natural features that are particularly worthy of attention;
  
• Development which is potentially incompatible with land uses on surrounding properties;
  
• Buildings or land uses that are a part of particularly sensitive views as seen from adjacent properties or streets; and
  
• Development on land in Development District Overlay Zones, Transit District Development Zones, Commercial Regional Center Zones, and Waterfront Entertainment/Retail Complex Zones.

Without including detailed site plans in their purview, these otherwise well-intentioned bills do nothing to change the odious pay-to-pay culture that has come to define, taint, and cripple the development review process in Prince George's County.

Although the legislature's April 11 adjournment leaves no opportunity to fix these bills now, lawmakers will have another chance to do so later this year, when a special legislative session is convened to adopt congressional redistricting plans. The Prince George's County legislative delegation and Senator Miller should make sure that this quick-and-easy fix to these ethics bills is done at that time.