Greater Greater Washington

Development


Prince George's can stop validating sprawl

Approvals for many long-ago approved but unbuilt subdivisions in Prince George's County will expire at the end of the year. But for the fifth year in a row, the County Council may decide to extend those approvals for another year. It may be time to stop.


Photo by Mark Strozier on Flickr.

Today, the council's Planning, Zoning, and Economic Development (PZED) Committee will consider three bills, CB-70-2013, CB-71-2013, and CB-75-2013, that would toll all deadlines for preliminary subdivision, site plan, and design plan approvals. Development plans approved as far back as January 2003 would remain valid through December 31, 2014.

By law, approvals for subdivision plans or site plans are only valid for 2 or 3 years, but some can last for up to 6 years. The County Council began granting extensions in 2009 to give developers flexibility during the economic downturn and prevent developments from being abandoned. But as the housing market steadily rebounds, recent analysis from county planners suggests it might be good to let some of these projects expire.

Prince George's doesn't need additional sprawl housing

Nearly 80 percent of the existing approved residential development in the county consists of low-density, single-family residences located outside the Beltway, far away from transit. County planners warn that this level of sprawl development damages the county's overall transit-oriented development goals and puts the county at a distinct disadvantage for attracting new residents in the future.


Pipeline Development as of December 2011. Image by M-NCPPC.

First, this type of scattered development makes it hard to create high-density development around Metro stations, as the county's General Plan envisions. Second, the construction of additional suburban single-family housing units does not help the county to meet future market demand for new housing.

Relying on two separate studies of housing demand conducted by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) and George Mason University, county planners expect that Prince George's will need to add up to 52,000 new housing units over the next 20 years. However, to meet the forecasted demand, more than 60% of these units (more than 31,200 units) will need to be multifamily units located in compact, walkable communities near transit. That means the county will only need about 20,800 new single-family units over the next two decades.

In Where and How We Grow, a recently-released policy paper, county planners warn that "without a recalibration of county priorities and policies that promote TOD and high-quality, mixed-use development, it is likely that the county will be at a continued disadvantage relative to its neighbors when it comes to attracting residents and employers who value the connectivity and amenities that other such communities provide."

Letting the validity periods expire may be best

So what should the county do with its current development pipeline? According to the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC), as of December 2011, there were 14,991 approved single-family housing units in the pipeline.

That accounts for nearly 70% of the projected future need for single-family housing in the county over the next 20 years. 88% percent of those approved housing units, or 13,247 units, were located outside of the Beltway, away from transit. Only 7%, or 1,105 units, were located inside of the Beltway.

I couldn't find any figures from M-NCPPC that detail how many of the pipeline units remained valid only as a result of the various extension bills passed by the council since 2009. However, it's safe to assume that a significant portion of those projects were approved earlier, since there were fewer development projects moving forward in the height of the Great Recession.

The county's land use policies have changed significantly since 2009. New subregional master plans and/or area master plans are in place for almost all significantly populated areas in the county. Additionally, the county has adopted stronger stormwater management standards and complete streets policies. And the county is currently revamping its General Plan. Many of the older single-family developments in the pipeline are not in line with these new and forthcoming land use policies.

By simply taking no further action to extend the validity periods on preliminary subdivision plans, site plans, and design plans, the County Council could significantly reduce the backlog of pipeline development. This is a step that M-NCPPC believes would serve the county well. In addition to helping slow down suburban sprawl, such a move would also allow previously proposed-but-unbuilt developments to be reevaluated under current land use policies.

If you believe the county should not take further action to validate sprawl, please take a moment to urge the PZED Committee to table CB-70, CB-71, and CB-75. You can email your comments to PZED Chair Mel Franklin, with copies to committee director Jackie Brown and committee administrative aide Barbara Stone.

(A version of this post appeared on Prince George's Urbanist on October 1, 2013.)

Bradley Heard is an attorney and citizen activist who resides in the Capitol Heights area of Prince George's County. A native of Virginia Beach, Virginia, Brad spent most of his adult life in Atlanta, Georgia before moving to Prince George's County in 2007. Brad hopes to encourage high-quality, walkable and bikeable development in the inner Beltway region of Prince George's County. 

Comments

Add a comment »

No, it should not. Let them expire. It's time for a change. The short term benefits of green fields development are shrinking, and the long term costs, especially on lack of support for maintenance and improvements already built areas, is ridiculously apparent. We need to focus on improving the already built areas and preserving the rural tier as, well, rural.

by Greenbelt on Oct 2, 2013 10:40 am • linkreport

Bradley,

Thanks for this piece. Let them all expire and refocus on the bold TOD plan that was recently released. Extension of these plans is a step backwards for the county and supports random sprawl.

by ArchStanton on Oct 2, 2013 10:44 am • linkreport

Yep more anti-Growth bias towards PG County however there is almost never any talk of stopping "sprawl" growth in Fairfax County, Loudoun County, OW County, and Stafford County...

by Steve on Oct 2, 2013 10:46 am • linkreport

A bit of a leading headline... but yeah I agre especially when there is soo much TOD potential. Really I don't understand why the county isn't doing a better job of capitalizing on SIGNIFICANT transit resources from Metro to MARC to frequent bus service. Rhode Island/Baltimore Ave could be a major transit corridor like Rosslyn Ballston or Wisconsin Ave.

by BTA on Oct 2, 2013 10:46 am • linkreport

The number 1 issue with only concentrating on the already developed areas of PG County is dealing with Special Interest groups that don't want office towers and upscale retail build near the historic neighborhoods and historic preservationist using the court system to block new development.

by Steve on Oct 2, 2013 10:53 am • linkreport

That's hardly a problem that exists in PG county alone. They need to get their act together is all.

by BTA on Oct 2, 2013 11:02 am • linkreport

Just to draw you out a little more: What I take away from this is that there are a lot of projects which are in some sense grandfathered under old rules. So if the permits are allowed to expire and the developers want to proceed, the projects will be significantly improved. Maybe a few would be deterred, and perhaps at the margin, a developer that might want to proceed with more sprawl because he has a permit, would instead shift to a TOD because he has to get a new permit either way.

At some level, I guess the question is: Should PG validate Johnson-era sprawl or try Baker-era sprawl? Or: Should PG encourage nonconforming sprawl?

That represents a modest improvement, but it is worth pushing especially since all it takes is inaction, and extending these permits makes a mockery of the system.

Which citizens associations are weighing in on this? How much time do they have?

by Jim Titus on Oct 2, 2013 11:04 am • linkreport

BRA- high property tax, historic preservationist groups, and nimby groups further proves that it will be almost impossible to develop most of PG County inside the beltway like Arlington. Which goes back to my point that the commentator really do not support Business and Economic Growth for PG County/Suburban Maryland.....

by Steve on Oct 2, 2013 11:10 am • linkreport

@Steve, I disagree that taxes, preservation and/or nimbys are restricting inside-the-beltway growth in Prince George's.

What is restricting TOD and development inside or near the beltway is the existing suburban crap roadside car-oriented development along the arterials. Seriously, have you taken a look at Route 193 inside the beltway or Route 1 south of the beltway? It looks like crap. The poles need to be buried, the sidewalks need to be built or vastly improved, bike lanes and sidepaths need to be added, and landscaping and traffic calming added to make a person-friendly street instead of a gross uncrossable sewer for speeding cars.

These sorts of improvements are expensive and necessary. When the county starts investing in these streets to create nice places, people will move in, development will ramp up. It's already happening in some places along Route 1, despite the infrastructure lag.

Horrible arterial roads are the main problem, not nimbys, preservations, or taxes. Who wants to live near a six-lane high speed pollution concentrating highway-like paved atrocity littered with unkempt gas station entrances, drive throughs, and discount strips? Yet that's precisely what the county and state continue to build and rebuild, doubling down on a truly failed vision.

by Greenbelt on Oct 2, 2013 11:24 am • linkreport

"The number 1 issue with only concentrating on the already developed areas of PG County is dealing with Special Interest groups that don't want office towers and upscale retail build near the historic neighborhoods and historic preservationist using the court system to block new development."
-----

That's not unique to Prince Georges County. This is a situation that plagues the entire region. You can't build a molehill or a cow path anywhere in this region without opponents coming out of the woodwork.

by ceefer66 on Oct 2, 2013 11:33 am • linkreport

given the continued demand for autocentric SFH's, I think its simply too tempting to get the short term of benefits of relatively high value new housing. I dont think its realistic to stop all sprawl in the "developing" zone. OTOH it would be wise to A. try to make those developments as good as possible - in terms of design, layout, internal walkability, etc. B. To consider demanding proffers to offset some of the costs of sprawl in terms of infra. C. To lower (!) allowed densities in areas where providing even minimal transit will be difficult.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 2, 2013 11:36 am • linkreport

@ Jim: The Coalition for Smarter Growth sent in comments in opposition. Not sure what other groups have weighed in. As you might remember from earlier this year, there's a three-step process for approval of bills in PGC: presentation, introduction, and third-reading/passage. This bill is at the first stage, in committee.

There was a PZED committee meeting earlier today, and I'm not sure what action was taken. Assuming they passed it out of committee, then we'd be at stage 2 (introduction). Either way, there's still time to weigh in with public comments.

by Bradley Heard on Oct 2, 2013 11:41 am • linkreport

ceefer66, you should be aware that NOVA does not get as much anti-Growth static that Suburban Maryland has been plagued with for decades...

by Steve on Oct 2, 2013 11:41 am • linkreport

Steve,

Until Prince Georges gets its act together, it will never attract the type of development going up in Tysons, Arlington, Bethesda, Alexandria, or even in DC.

The County has a well-earned reputation for corruption, incompetence, cronyism, failing schools, blight, and litter (our roads are the most-trash-strewn in the DC region if not the entire East Coast).

Not trying to trash PG - I live here, too. But face it. The place is a mess.

by ceefer66 on Oct 2, 2013 11:47 am • linkreport

Not to mention crime.

by ceefer66 on Oct 2, 2013 11:56 am • linkreport

"you should be aware that NOVA does not get as much anti-Growth static that Suburban Maryland has been plagued with for decades... "

We don't have any contributors or (AFAIK) even regular commenters here from Loudoun, PWC, or Stafford. And FFX simply doesn't have any greenfields left, so its new development is all in "developed" areas.

But there is still plenty of oppposition to NoVa sprawl.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Oct 2, 2013 12:02 pm • linkreport

I can't believe anyone who actually reads this blog would say there is no criticism of sprawl in NOVA here. Let's just focus on the topic at hand.

by BTA on Oct 2, 2013 12:09 pm • linkreport

Are we to assume none of the developments would be "good" developments?

by selxic on Oct 2, 2013 12:47 pm • linkreport

1. It's really great that you are becoming (maybe by default) the leading PG County commentator here (like Dan Reed for Montgomery County. It's a significant addition to the discourse, not only on GGW but generally. The next step will be for you to try to get the Gazette papers to carry you as a column in the two PG County editions.

2. wrt AWITC's comment about continued demand for autocentric SFH, that's true to a point. OTOH, those areas in PG County also suffer seriously from the foreclosure crisis, and it's arguable that the particular form of development is a good long term bet for PGC.

3. That being said it's damn damn damn hard to transition from traditional sprawl development to what the New Urbanists call TND in general, let alone specifically in PGC because of the above-mentioned issues.

4. WRT the more general transition, a colleague who deals with developers all the time says that he is told that as long as PGC has higher taxes and worse schools compared to the jurisdictions to the west, it isn't worth it for them to develop there.

And separately I learned that allegedly EYA lost more than $20MM doing the artsdistrict hyattsville project--that was because of timing. We don't know what would have happened if there hadn't been the crash.

Plus the various foreclosures in the developments around PG Plaza.

So it's very very difficult to change developer calculations about undertaking projects there, other than developments that can leverage demand derived from the University of Maryland. Otherwise, it's really hard to entice what we might term the "better" or more enlightened developers to go there.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the Cafritz development in Riverdale Park, if that begins to change developer calculations about moving forward there. Such projects are key in changing the paradigm. With H Street NE, I shudder to think if Martin Jawer or the H Street CDC would have done a redevelopment of the Childrens Museum site instead of Jim Abdo.

5. Let alone the general LU development paradigm in PGC, plus the failure within the county's leadership (despite all the statements) to really understand what "TOD" means and to have more enlightened development policies generally.

I am about to write something about Takoma Crossroads/Langley Park as an opportunity to re-set the development paradigm in low income areas/transit opportunity zones with transformational approaches to redevelopment focused on retention of residents as much as adding new development. (In a way it's a piece presaging the one I hope to write about DC's Wards 7 and 8.)

And for a couple years I have been making the point that PGC has been given a second chance to adopt a transit-centric development paradigm because of the Purple Line.

We'll see what happens.

by Richard Layman on Oct 2, 2013 4:43 pm • linkreport

@Greenbelt 11:24 -- +1!!

by Tina on Oct 2, 2013 4:51 pm • linkreport

Greenbelt, Tysons Corner and Crystal CIty have 6 lane and 8 lane roadways and they are no where near as run down as Baltimore avenue in clollege park and it only has 4 lanes.

by Steve on Oct 2, 2013 4:58 pm • linkreport

@ Richard:

Thanks for the kind words! Happy to contribute to the discourse of these issues when and where I can.

On your 4th point, I've heard this argument about PGC's taxes, and it's sort of a curious point to me. Right now, the county offers some of the best bargains (i.e., lowest prices) in the region in terms of property values, so even if the taxes are somewhat higher, the actual tax burden is probably still lower than in other areas. Also, isn't it often the case that when property values increase to a point where jurisdictions are taking in more than they need to fund their budgets, they will reduce the millage rates accordingly? I don't see why PGC would be any different in that regard, if that were to ever be the case.

On Point #5, what's the "LU development paradigm"?

by Bradley Heard on Oct 2, 2013 5:20 pm • linkreport

wrt "taxes", PGC's are lower because the property value is lower. We considered buying in Mt. Rainier at the same time we ended up buying in DC. So glad we didn't buy in PGC, as the property values dropped so significantly with the crash. We would have been underwater (for years). DC properties hold their value.

Plus the incorporated towns have higher taxes because of the town tax + the county tax (this is an issue in Takoma Park and Rockville in MoCo too).

But the schools issue is paramount as well.

LU is an abbreviation for land use.

by Richard Layman on Oct 2, 2013 7:06 pm • linkreport

@Richard Layman-We bought in MR 4 years ago precisely b/c of the massive potential of the Rt. 1 corridor. The original plan was to stay 5-7 years and then move, perhaps to DC or MoCo, but it looks more and more like we'll try and stick it out. The Arts District has given some amenities and we'll see how the Cafritz prop pans out. Also, MR is working on a mixed-use development at Eastern/Rt. 1 that we think will be a real catalyst. Brentwood is in the early stages of planning for another property at 38th/Rt. 1 and there has been strong support for mixed-use vs. car-centric CVS plan. The biggest barrier still seems to me to be the SHA and the STROADS they push through communities. Queens Chapel and Rt. 1 are barriers to active transportation and quality development. Finally, there have been at least a dozen young families that we know of that have moved here since we did and we think, with our support and pressure, our schools will improve. The elementary school already is quite good. It's a question of middle and high schools..and we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

by thump on Oct 3, 2013 9:26 am • linkreport

My joke is that the Rte. 1 corridor is the skunk stripe of Prince George's County. Regardless, it has a lot going for it. Easy access to DC especially, some service from the Metro and MARC, and most importantly the UMD campus as a job and culture generator. The shopping options available northward, etc.

And schools in that corridor are decent, although I argue that they could be repositioned some around the arts to better leverage the arts district concept, not unlike my point about how that should have been done around H Street NE.

FWIW, I do plan to get around to an assessment piece on the Gateway Arts Plan and the ATHA plan too (it's been more than 10 years for both), although given other projects on my plate, it will be sometime this fall, hopefully. I was taking some photos up there a week or two ago (I am on the board of Community Forklift so I get up there from time to time),

In any case, the payoff will still take along time. There is opportunity, as you point out, to deal with SHA and the state road element of Rte. 1.

Again, this is an opportunity to propose piloting my "Signature Streets" concept, which I first began developing when I worked in Baltimore County.

The basic point is that counties should consider their main roads from the standpoint of the foundation of a complete mobility network, and give these roads the urban design treatment that they deserve. The broader "Sig. Streets" concept provides a way to define foundational roadways, and package them into a campaign, and bonding program to raise the money for the improvements.

The concept is discussed most recently here:

http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2013/03/arlington-countys-bus-shelters-and.html

-----
wrt the Arts District Plan post I intend to write, I am doing a writing project for the Goethe Institut related to the program that the European Union DC cultural cluster is doing in Baltimore in terms of transit and placemaking and working with the three arts districts in the city.

They are planning a conf. for next year and I suggested that the state program overseeing the arts districts ought to be involved, that it provides the opportunity to do some assessment.

The problem with Gateway is the difference between arts as consumption and arts as production. There isn't critical mass.

And a lot of the projects pushed, like the envir. center in Bladensburg and the African-American museum in Brentwood, in my opinion, are more focused on education for school kids. That's great, but doesn't generate much beyond that in terms of revitalization energy.

The Station North Arts District in Baltimore, the Creative Alliance at the Patterson, part of the Highlandtown Arts District in Baltimore, and the Penn Ave. Arts Initiative in Pittsburgh offer better models.

cf. http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/07/art-culture-districts-and.html

That being said, it won't happen without the long term commitment from people like you (and Bradley).

by Richard Layman on Oct 3, 2013 12:02 pm • linkreport

@ thump & Richard (or anyone else who may know) --

What exactly is SHA's deal? From all the chatter and from my very limited experience with them, they seem to be ultra-resistant to efforts to make their state highways more multimodal in urban areas -- whether that be reducing lanes and speed limits, adding sidewalks, pedestrian refuges, crossing signals and stoplights, etc. It's almost as if they view their singular purpose to be moving automobiles quickly through Maryland, regardless of the effect it has on connectivity, walkability, or smart growth.

I get that that's usually the perspective of the "highway folks," but I'm curious as to how/why there's such a disconnect between SHA and the rest of the O'Malley administration's "Smart, Green, and Growing" initiatives. Why hasn't SHA received a mandate from the governor or the Maryland Secretary of Transportation to get with the smart growth program, at least in urban areas, and especially in transit-accessible areas?

by Bradley Heard on Oct 3, 2013 12:15 pm • linkreport

Here's the problem. SHA's top planners and MDOT community planners are reasonably enlightened. But the agency is still tasked with road building. And in the end that shapes everything. The people who do it are civil engineers. Even though as a state, Maryland has better practice guidance for inclusion of bike and ped facilities within road projects.

It becomes more complicated because SHA is set up into districts, and the district's planning personnel may or may not be enlightened, but even so, the general thrust of the agency at the district level is road building.

SHA District 3 covers MoCo and PGC. I have never engaged with them, but that is the key locus for your state road issues. (Bossi, who comments on GGW, would have way better insight than I do into District 3 issues.) Note that MoCo has the same problem with SHA on Rockville Pike, although there MCDOT isn't in tune with sustainable transportation objectives, it's more from the trenches.

http://roads.maryland.gov/pages/districts.aspx?did=d3

FWIW, in the SHA District covering Baltimore County, at least in FY2010, the SHA people were better than the Baltimore County DPW people as it related to sustainable transportation. Since then, Baltimore County passed an ordinance--based on my plan--that among other elements, included complete streets requirements, which I think by now have been written into regulations, processes, and procedures.

That being said, SHA does have requirements for integrating walking and biking infrastructure that are stronger than what most of the counties (excepting Baltimore and Montgomery) are likely to have.

That being said/2, if local plans specify better treatments in terms of urban design etc., then SHA will be more inclined to put in the stuff into their projects, when they normally wouldn't.

I haven't seen the finished product, but a trail crossway was included within a new bridge for Frederick Road crossing the Baltimore Beltway in Catonsville, because a trail crossing the freeway had been in previous iterations of the Baltimore County Master Plan. Otherwise, they wouldn't have done it, despite the theoretically good requirements in the rules. Although the issue was brought to the attention of the Office of Planning by the advocates in Catonsville.

I wrote a section of recommendations about bridges and shoulders and SHA for the plan I did in Baltimore County, but that section was excised. My boss said "this isn't a design manual." I countered that I knew that, but it is extremely important to provide "experiential guidance" with regard to the expected outcomes of roads in terms of accommodating pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. I am especially concerned about the quality of the crossing of bridges for pedestrians and bicyclists. And note in the DC area there are a number of instances of freeway crossings for bikes (Woodrow Wilson Bridge, 14th St. Bridge in particular) and not in Greater Baltimore.

----
Anyway, I outlined the Signature Streets concept in a discussion at a planning meeting, to one of MDOT's top planners, a way for Maryland to change the paradigm for transportation planning towards regular achievement as the preferred outcome, great places-placemaking-quality of life improvements as a routine result from transportation (not just road) projects.

The ideas are the ones outlined in the citation above. But I haven't worked it up into a presentation.

I think there might be an opportunity to get them to adopt this kind of change.

-----
Note that SHA/MDOT has a manual on working for road improvements in traditional "Main Street" like districts, but it's more about process.

You might want to take a look at the equivalent manual from Oregon:

http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/tgm/docs/mainstreet.pdf

Plus, I mentioned the Smart Transportation Guidebook in the above-cited post. The manual already needs an update, but it offers some useful changes in transportation infrastructure approaches, by working to make roadways, operating speeds, and roadside characteristics more congruent with the land use context.

by Richard Layman on Oct 3, 2013 12:51 pm • linkreport

P.S. the Smart Growth Maryland blog from the Maryland Dept. of Planning has an extensive review of a book on Complete Streets policy. We need to read the book, and arm ourselves with the argument.

http://smartgrowthmd.wordpress.com/2013/09/18/complete-streets/

The author offers a code for a 20% discount:

If you’d like to purchase a copy from Island Press, you can use code 4STREETS, which is good for a 20% discount.

by Richard Layman on Oct 3, 2013 12:53 pm • linkreport

Plus, you need to engage these people on these issues:

http://www.princegeorgescountymd.gov/sites/CountyCouncil/News/Pages/COUNCIL--TRANSPORTATION--HOUSING-AND-ENVIRONMENT-COMMITTEE-CONVENES-OCTOBER-3.aspx

A roundtable, workshop, etc. on these issues, including transit! and what transit oriented development really means in practice.

by Richard Layman on Oct 3, 2013 12:56 pm • linkreport

@richard. I think you may be laying too much at the feet of the districts, who only do system preservation.

The state highways are often the only roads that connect all the way through, which inherently puts the pressure on to maintain capacity. The road rebuilds are adding bike lanes and sidewalks, eg US-1

The Office of Traffic and Safety resists 10' lanes. And nothing gets done without them either concurring or being over-ruled. They are over-ruled on occasion. That takes a showing of political support for a position already being advocated internally.

The bike and ped guidelines seek to optimize bike and ped for a given travel speed or speed limit. They are resistant to even explaining or acknowledging that fact in their guidance, though a series if meetings with Waba are at least exploring it.

by JimT on Oct 4, 2013 6:52 am • linkreport

JimT -- system preservation is pretty important, since for most counties, including PGC, the road network is built out, and bike and ped infrastructure have to be retrofitted. That being said, there are many examples of this being done by SHA, such as bike lanes on Riggs Road (which I use when I ride to or from UMD).

by Richard Layman on Oct 4, 2013 1:47 pm • linkreport

Another great article, Bradley. I'm glad you are covering this stuff. On top of everything you said, passing a blanket extension like this removes some incentive for developers to expeditiously build the developments they are proposing.

Developers just put this in there and expect the council to pass it. If the council hears from their constituents that people don't like it because it will enable sprawl and let bad development off the hook, they are likely to listen. Mel Franklin needs to hear from you!

by Ian on Oct 4, 2013 2:30 pm • linkreport

PS: By "you" I mean "us."

by Ian on Oct 4, 2013 2:32 pm • linkreport

@Richard: But for the most part, real improvements don't happen with system preservation because of guidelines adopted by HQ. Even new sidewalks are pretty rare, for example the new sidewalks on md202 are from a tiger grant.

Was the bike line of which you speak already a good shoulder on which parking was rare?

If thump is still here, why doesn't mt Rainer strictly enforce the speed limit and pedestrian crosswalk rule? If drivers obeyed all laws the state highways would not be too bad.

by JimT on Oct 4, 2013 5:17 pm • linkreport

@bradley et al. Did CSX put out an alert on this? I missed it.

by JimT on Oct 4, 2013 5:18 pm • linkreport

UPDATE: The PZED Committee voted to move these sprawl bills forward. That was disappointing, but not altogether surprising. What was surprising was that council member Derrick Leon Davis decided to double down on the bills by amending the 1-year extension to a 2-year extension—in a transparent bow-down to developers, who showed up in droves to support these bills.

Read more in my post on Prince George's Urbanist.

by Bradley Heard on Oct 7, 2013 9:49 am • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or

Support Us