Then in January of 2011, a small number of neighborhood activists complained, and the Rockville City Council reversed years of planning to request that Maryland reroute the transitway outside of King Farm. In April, the State of Maryland responded. Rockville has its answer, and it's a resounding "no way."

Drat. The value of my inside-the-Beltway rowhouse just fell by 2.3%. Come on "Outer Beltway"!

by oboe on May 19, 2011 11:16 am  

It's a simple matter... the transitway was planned prior to the development being built...the residents knew it was coming when they bought there. Tough cookies.

by Katie C. on May 19, 2011 11:44 am  

I live in KF - actually in a condo - actually one you can just barely see in this picture on the left side of the street where the light is. It is fascinating to see the discourse on the KF google group about this light rail, and how it will make a "berlin wall" in the middle of the neighborhood.

by Aaron on May 19, 2011 11:44 am  

I'm with you @Katie C.

by Matt Glazewski on May 19, 2011 11:48 am  

If those activists want it rerouted then they can pay the difference themselves. If the state's putting tons of money into this project, that means it's money coming from a hell of a lot of Marylanders who will never even see this project, and it would be a disservice and irresponsible to make the project more expensive than it has to be all because of NIMBYism.

by Martin on May 19, 2011 11:50 am  

I hear you Aaron. But I am sure there has got to be some way for safe at-grade crossings for pedestrians, etc.

by Paul C on May 19, 2011 11:52 am  

its about time the state didnt changed a plan that been on the books for decades just to please a few people

by Jerome on May 19, 2011 11:54 am  

I have to wonder if they've ever seen a light rail line... I'm amazed how many people picture them as Amtrak or even a CSX train fully loaded with toxic radioactive addictive death drugs. Pedestrians & light rail are like peanut butter & jelly.

by Bossi on May 19, 2011 11:55 am  

@Aaron -too bad those people can't go back in time and visit Berlin when the wall was still standing - and then turn around and get on tram. The comaprison is almost descending to...oh I forgot the term... the law on the internet when eventually you compare the person you disagree with to a Nazi.

by Tina on May 19, 2011 12:02 pm  

Aaron, do the opposing neighbors understand the difference between light rail and Metro? Do they understand that there won't be a wall, and that it will look like this, not this.

What do we need to do to get people to understand that the CCT will NOT look anything at all like the Metro on Rockville Pike?

by BeyondDC on May 19, 2011 12:04 pm  

@Tina:
"Godwin's Law".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

by Matt Johnson on May 19, 2011 12:04 pm  

@BeyondDC:
OH MY GOD! OVERHEAD WIRES!

So, it's actually going to be worse than the Berlin Wall!

by Matt Johnson on May 19, 2011 12:06 pm  

Isn't the proposed system a BRT, not light rail?

by charlie on May 19, 2011 12:20 pm  

@charlie:
The mode hasn't been determined. It might be BRT or it might be LRT.

by Matt Johnson on May 19, 2011 12:24 pm  

^
Probably, but it could still go either way.

Here is a picture of a BRT transitway in a grassy median, from Eugene, Oregon.

by BeyondDC on May 19, 2011 12:24 pm  

@Aaron It is fascinating to see the discourse on the KF google group about this light rail, and how it will make a "berlin wall" in the middle of the neighborhood.

A Berlin Wall -- minus of course the minefields, the shoot-on-sight orders, the barbed wire, and the 14-foot-high concrete walls with watch towers.

by Miriam on May 19, 2011 12:24 pm  

@Miriam-

Actually I'm pretty sure those were all along the proposed alignment.

by Bossi on May 19, 2011 12:27 pm  

get the CHRS and the Committee of 100 involved- these two NIMBY groups always take a stand on important issues outside of their domain

by anon on May 19, 2011 12:48 pm  

That would only work if it were the Maryland Avenue Transitway.

by William on May 19, 2011 1:14 pm  

It's a simple matter... the transitway was planned prior to the development being built...the residents knew it was coming when they bought there. Tough cookies.

And I couldn't agree more with Katie C.

Now, why is it though that some GGWers have a problem with the same concept applied to a different situation. For example, we were recently talking about Giant's request to upzone the area around its Wisconsin Avenue property to allow for higher building heights and more types (and numbers) or structures on their parcel. And by and large, the GGWers couldn't understand that this parcel had been planned out for years to have a lower density and less height. Why didn't the GGWers in that case not say you want to increase the height and the density here? 'tough cookies ... this has been planned for years with less density and less height'... ?

What's fair is fair ...

by Lance on May 19, 2011 1:20 pm  

Oh, Lance! You're so clever! No, seriously? The reason? Possibly because this is a blog to promote smart growth, public transportation, and walkable urbanism and most GGWers are going to necessarily lean towards decisions that advance those goals.

by Syrine on May 19, 2011 1:25 pm  

@Lance:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

by John M on May 19, 2011 1:27 pm  

@Syrine, and most GGWers are going to necessarily lean towards decisions that advance those goals.

But if they do so by inconsistently applying their 'judgements', wouldn't you agree they are ultimately undermining their own credibility?

by Lance on May 19, 2011 1:34 pm  

@John M ... there's no strawman here. It's simple, if an advocacy's opinion is to be respected, the judgements it makes need to be applied consistently and fairly ... Otherwise, it becomes a case where 'the ends justify the means' ... And you'll eventually lose all credibility and support for your cause.

by Lance on May 19, 2011 1:36 pm  

Lance, the city also has lots of policies promoting Smart Growth, meaning that the most you can say in regards to the Giant site is that the city has conflicting policies. It is not nearly as cut and dry as a street designed and built from the get-go for a particular function.

by BeyondDC on May 19, 2011 2:20 pm  

@Beyond Lance, the city also has lots of policies promoting Smart Growth, meaning that the most you can say in regards to the Giant site is that the city has conflicting policies.

The Comprehensive Plan and the zoning laws take precedence over any and all 'policies' because they get voted on and incorporate authorities which simply Divisional, Departmental, or evan Mayorial policies cannot. So, yes it is pretty cut and dried. Actually more so than 'a street designed and built from the get-go for a particular function'. Much more so.

But again, we see a willingness by the GGWers to selectively choose which laws and rules to follow ... depending on which best advance their cause ... whatever that cause may be ...

by Lance on May 19, 2011 2:45 pm  

Lance -- I'm sure this is obvious, but the two situations you tried to analogize are completely different. Transit and living space efficiency can be measured pretty objectively. Ahh, but L'Enfant's original vision for the city, we'll just have to believe whatever the Committee of 100 Landowners says it is, right?

by aaa on May 19, 2011 2:50 pm  

Lance, I'm trying to clarify your argument against the "tough cookies" support of the smart growth at King's Farm.

Are you saying that a smart growth advocacy must recognize that everything that is pre-established must be persevered with no regard to its value? Because that indicates consistency and consistency equals credibility?

by m on May 19, 2011 3:06 pm  

@aaa and m ... Either you're really pretending you don't understand what I said ... or you really don't understand how zoning and comprehensive plans work. (Hint to aaa: the Comprehensive Plan is the development plan for the city that sets the parameters and constraints of where we're heading ... It gets put together with input from the constituencies in the city via public meetings and gets voted on and given legal force by the Council. Note that there's also a another Comprehensive Plan which we live under that gets formulated by the feds. Neither of these are the 'L'Enfant or MacMillan plans ... but do draw their basic inspirations and constraints from both.

by Lance on May 19, 2011 3:16 pm  

@m, I'm simply saying that you can't justify one thing you like with 'the residents knew it was coming when they bought there' and selectively not jusitify something you don't like even though 'the residents knew it was coming when they bought there'.

Inconsistencies like that ... and the complete lack of knowledge on matters related to planning and the law ... will do more to harm your cause than anything else can. Except for maybe David's lumping of all interests in one basic as he did today with his 'slate' for what you should support as a supposed smartgrowther.

by Lance on May 19, 2011 3:19 pm  

I have to wonder if they've ever seen a light rail line... I'm amazed how many people picture them as Amtrak or even a CSX train fully loaded with toxic radioactive addictive death drugs.

Weirdly enough, we already do that with heavy rail in some cities, and it's still pretty safe, despite the initial "OH MY GOD, THERE'S A TRAIN IN THE STREET" reaction that most people (including myself) get.

by andrew on May 19, 2011 3:20 pm  

Lance, the Comprehensive Plan is only absolutely 100% clear in saying what you think it says in your mind. Lots of people, professionals with the city, bloggers and commenters on here, think it says something else, and acknowledge that it's a bit vague and contradictory in places.

You are doing exactly what you are attacking everyone else for doing: being inconsistent. You argue that residents of an area should decide on things, except sometimes that only means certain residents, depending on whether those residents support change or not, but sometimes it's great that the federal government is actually in the position of overriding residents.

I enjoy seeing your shifting arguments that take sometimes totally opposite tacks to always argue for the same philosophy that almost any change of any type is bad. But I can't hold my tongue when you then actually argue that everyone else is being irresponsible and inconsistent for interpreting different situations in different ways than you do.

by David Alpert on May 19, 2011 3:27 pm  

@David,

Can you please explain why 'the residents knew it was coming when they bought there' is okay to say when it's in reference to a planned streetcar/light rail in MD, but not okay to say when referencing that Giant knew its building constraints when it bought the Giant Property. (You do realize that exemption from those rules were required to get that level of density in there ... don't you?)

by Lance on May 19, 2011 3:48 pm  

@David,

Btw, I'm going to be sending you a pdf report on the feasibility of wireless streetcars prepared by Ben Redd of Russo and Redd Consulting Group. This firm has done considerable work on streetcars. They counseled DDOT during the last administration to sell the 3 streetcars in Europe and not bring them here; redo the tracks; develop a management and procurement plan; and commit to wireless. And their reasoning is based on cost.

It would be nice if you published it.

by Lance on May 19, 2011 3:54 pm  

You are doing exactly what you are attacking everyone else for doing: being inconsistent.

Here I think you're being a bit unfair. Lance is the model of consistency: he supports those things which are convenient for, or benefit in some way, Lance. He opposes that which is not, or does not.

For example, he occasionally rides his bicycle from Dupont Circle to 14th Street, so of course, segregated bike lanes along this route are an integral part of Pierre L'Enfant's immaculate vision for the Federal City.

On the other hand, he drives his car from Dupont Circle to Georgetown, so universal free valet parking at the corner of Wisconsin & M is a non-negotiable aspect of the Comprehensive Plan, and any bike infrastructure there is, of course, completely unworkable and a betrayal of our social compact as District citizens.

:P

[Note: This is not intended to be a factual statement.]

by oboe on May 19, 2011 4:04 pm  

Intentionally left blank

by Tina on May 19, 2011 4:15 pm  

Lance: I don't personally make the argument that "it was planned when you moved in so don't complain"; I think people always have the right to petition to change plans that are in the works or change conditions that exist.

In general, I never suggest that anyone is not entitled to advocate for a change, whatever the change; that's why we have this rule that anyone can comment on an issue regardless of where they live, for instance.

I'd rather you didn't say "the GGW crowd" says something, when it's just a few commenters who might or might not be saying the same thing as all the other people reading. Most of our articles get thousands of views; I don't know what the rest of "the crowd" thinks or doesn't think. All we know here is what Dan thinks, and what certain commenters think.

But I would challenge your argument that zoning is something we should consider inviolable because people bought homes with the expectation that it would remain the same. Actually, zoning changes, as does the comprehensive plan. There is a fixed process for making changes or variances, a process which people knew about when they bought the house.

Therefore, rather than saying "they moved in expecting the zoning permitted 60 foot buildings" we should say "they moved in expecting that there was a legal process in place by which buildings greater than 60 feet would require added approvals to construct."

The same applies in reverse to the CCT. People who bought in King Farm indeed could say that they bought there with the understanding that the CCT was planned to be built, but also with the understanding that a legal process existed by which they could try to stop it from being built. Some of these people are indeed availing themselves of this process, though they are not being successful in this case.

There should however be a general presumption toward uncertainty. The zoning might say that a certain building type is allowed by right, but we know that with PUDs, variances and potential changes to zoning, there is also uncertainty; you shouldn't absolutely expect building sizes to remain constant. Likewise, a plan might say that a transit line will go in, but with funding problems or potential opposition, there is also uncertainty; you shouldn't absolutely expect the transit line to go in.

Broadly, the only thing that's really fair to expect is that things might or might not change. Someone who buys somewhere expecting to know for sure about any change or any lack of change is the one being unreasonable.

by David Alpert on May 19, 2011 4:17 pm  

Mentioning foreknowledge as a way of denigrating complaints is not the most polite thing to do, I guess, but it's just rhetoric here.

Appealing to foreknowledge as an inviolable and fundamental part of community planning is self-justifying legalism.

In both cases, though, homeowners purchased houses knowing that they could have a light rail line built through their town - or that the zoning could change. But it's much harder to carve out a right-of-way than it is to change zoning through a PUD, or even just to change the zoning altogether.

by Neil Flanagan on May 19, 2011 4:29 pm  

@David I'd rather you didn't say "the GGW crowd" says something, when it's just a few commenters who might or might not be saying the same thing as all the other people reading.

That's a fair enough request ... since not every individual viewpoint is necessarily reprentative of whatever group/movement/cause they belong to.

So, I guess I should have instead just pointed out to Katie C. that her statement that '...the residents knew it was coming when they bought there' could be a double-edged sword if it got applied to a law/reg/plan that she wanted to see changed.

Btw, I don't disagree with you that plans (all plans) can be changed ... and like you said, good plans usually have a provision for changing them ... e.g., the US Constitution. But I would point out respectfully, that where it's the case where one wants to change an existing plan, it's really not fair to call those who don't want to see an existing plan (or rule or whatever) NIMBYs. They are the ones with the force of law (or rule or custom or whatever) behind them. Those advocating for change have the greater burden of proof ... the burden to show and convince that change can be better for the greater good. If those effected by those proposed changes haven't been convinced that it is better to change, I'd say the fault lies with those trying to do the convincing ... i.e., those with the greater burden that is required to make a change from the status quo. Name calling shouldn't be a part of the process ... It is not only counter productive, but indicative that the person/group advocating from the change doesn't believe enough in their own cause to think they can convince others to espouse it. It's an unfair and unhonorable method of winning your argument by putting down your opponent. I.e., exactly the kind of thing which you under other circumstances would not permit on this blog.

by Lance on May 19, 2011 4:34 pm  

@LAnce: Those advocating for change have the greater burden of proof ... the burden to show and convince that change can be better for the greater good.

So, as the plan was laid out already before King Farms was built, it is up to those who wish to chagne the plan to come up with their proof of how their requested change to the plan is for the greater good.

Right?!?!

by greent on May 19, 2011 4:51 pm  

@greent So, as the plan was laid out already before King Farms was built, it is up to those who wish to chagne the plan to come up with their proof of how their requested change to the plan is for the greater good.

YES! (did you read my comment to Katie C. made at 1:20?)

by Lance on May 19, 2011 4:53 pm  

Yes Lance, i did read that you directly stated you agreed with her point. I read pretty well for my age. ;-p

But, then you say otehr things that confused me like But I would point out respectfully, that where it's the case where one wants to change an existing plan, it's really not fair to call those who don't want to see an existing plan (or rule or whatever) NIMBYs.
If the only reason they advocate change is nimby, then calling a person a NIMBY is accurate, is it not?

And this: They are the ones with the force of law (or rule or custom or whatever) behind them.
Both "sides" have the rule of law (custom whatever) behind them. To state that only those who oppose this project have the law behind them is disingeneous, is it not?

and then If those effected by those proposed changes haven't been convinced that it is better to change, I'd say the fault lies with those trying to do the convincing ... i.e., those with the greater burden that is required to make a change from the status quo.
This makes no sense to me. The status quo is the plan is in effect, and the LRT/BRT will be going thru. Those who wish to change this plan and who have the greater burden of proof are the King Farms people. Those affected by the proposed changes in this case are those affected by King Farms folks attempting to change the plan, not the King Farms people.

I am simply attempting to understand, as I got confused over who you meant is attempting to change the status quo.

Thanks for clarrifying.

by greent on May 19, 2011 5:25 pm  

Lance, kindly go away and stop this petty little attempt to draw attention to yourself.

by JustMe on May 19, 2011 6:04 pm  

@greent This makes no sense to me. The status quo is the plan is in effect, and the LRT/BRT will be going thru. Those who wish to change this plan and who have the greater burden of proof are the King Farms people.

And while you read what I wrote it certainly doesn't sound like you understood it. Again, I agree the LRT/BRT should go through and that the people trying to change it have the burden of making a case for changing the plans. Just like Giant has the burden of making the case for changing the zoning for their Wisconsin Avenue parcel.

And simply put, calling someone a NIMBY is pure and simple an adhominen attack which serves no purpose in discussing the merits of a situation. I wouldn't call the neighbors opposing changing the zoning for Giant NIMBYs anymore than I would call the people opposing changing the plans to put in a LRT/BRT that appelation.

by Lance on May 19, 2011 11:25 pm  

Neighborhood opposition to a road through or near their community:

Concerned citizens protecting their neighborhood against traffic and pollution and fighting "sprawl".

Neighborhood opposition to light rail through their community:

A truly ridiculous example of anti-transit paranoia.

Thanks for clearing things up.

by ceefer66 on May 20, 2011 11:00 am  

@ceefer66:

Thanks for clearing things up.

Eight lane highway through one's community: Bad.

Trolly car in one's community: Good.

You're welcome; glad to help.

by oboe on May 20, 2011 12:42 pm  

@ceefer66:
Thanks for clearing things up.

Eight lane highway through one's community: Bad.

Trolly car in one's community: Good.

You're welcome; glad to help.

---------------------------------

That answer would make a lot of sense if this region had built many "Eight lane highways through neighborhoods".

Fact is, we haven't built many 8-laners to speak of anywhere in the region; the few we have don't go through any neighborhoods. Not even the Beltway has much 8-lane right of way. The "terrible" ICC only has 6.

So I'm "welcome"? To what? And exactly why is a "Trolly (sic) car in one's community: good:?

I could have done without the highway-hating self-parody.

Thanks for nothing.

by ceefer66 on May 20, 2011 2:03 pm