Posts about Rushern Baker

According to other members of the committee, Gilchrist incorrectly thought the measure had failed in the delegation vote, so he thought he was supporting the wishes of the county by voting against it.

However, we also know that committee chairwoman Maggie McIntosh had concerns about the bill's ability to pass on the floor of the House. THe House has considered a tremendous number of new taxes and fees this session, and just last week approved raising income taxes.

McIntosh feared "fee fatigue" would doom the bill even though it would only indirectly create a new fee. McIntosh voted last in the committee vote, and there is no guarantee that she would have voted yea if hers had been the 13th and deciding vote.

Along with Councilmember Mary Lehman, the bill's champion on the Council, County Executive Rushern Baker personally worked hard to support the bill. Just Friday he released a press release reaffirming the need for the bill. As Baker is himself a former delegate, the committee warmly received his testimony during last week's hearing and he regularly reached out to leadership to check the bill's status and reinforce it as an executive priority.

The outcome likely would have been different had the delegation vote not been so close. It passed with the minimum 12 votes, with 9 opposed (two were absent). As DC experienced during its attempt to pass a container deposit in the 1980s, the industry opposition successfully couched the issue in racial and socioeconomic terms. They specifically appealed to central and south county residents in their tactics, relying on robocalls to mislead constituents and flood delegate offices with comments, and running ads on predominantly African-American radio stations and in newspapers.

These tactics prompted Delegate Veronica Turner, a co-sponsor of the statewide version of the bag fee, to switch positions, because she believed her constituents were vehemently opposed.

In response, advocates supporting the bill canvassed grocery store parking lots in Turner's district in Oxon Hill, and collected more than 300 signatures over a couple of weekends. They reported that shoppers were extremely supportive of the proposal once they learned that it was intended to reduce litter and create a fund for environmental restoration.

Turner was reportedly open to reversing her position, but she then fell ill and was hospitalized, and has since missed the rest of the legislative session. Her absence prevented a delegation subcommittee from giving the bill a favorable report, leading to the impression that the bill had died in February. (Perhaps this is the vote Gilchrist was remembering.)

Delegate Barbara Frush, who introduced the bill in the House, has faith that the county will eventually have a bag fee. The delegation leadership will change next year as part of the state's redistricting, potentially putting a stronger ally in the chairmanship.

In addition, the county has extensive environmental obligations, including reducing trash in the Anacostia River and dramatically improving stormwater management, and a bag fee would address both. While the county cannot enact a fee this year, other options are still on the table. The problems aren't going to go away on their own.

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.

National Harbor. Photo by Geoff Livingston on Flickr.

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.

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.

GOTV operations from county heavy hitters. Davis has the support of County Executive Rushern Baker, Delegate Dereck Davis and Delegate Aisha Braveboy.

Baker has the most to lose in this election. His Economic Development Incentive Fund (EDI) was unable to pass the council before their summer recess without amendments he opposes. Davis has promised his support to push it through.

A surprise victory by Mark Polk will kill any chance of legislation Baker wanted, since he is likely to oppose the entire plan. A victory by Arthur Turner might see the legislation passed, but not in the form that Mr. Baker wants, and with a lot more council oversight, which Mr. Baker also opposes. One of the biggest assets Derrick Leon Davis has going for him has been his support from big hitters like these three.

Former councilman Sam Dean, who is trying to marshal support for Arthur Turner. Dean faced off with Davis in 2002 for this seat, going on to beat him by 7%. Since announcing his support for Turner, Dean has been one of the most active surrogates and in some respects appears to remain very popular in the district.

Last year, during his campaign for County Executive, Dean came in third place not only countywide but in district 6 as well. In fact, in a few of the districts highest turnout areas, Dean performed very well after representing the community for 8 years.

What the Leslie Johnson voters do. Leslie Johnson may have only beat Mr. Davis by 8% of the vote, but she won just about every voting precinct, despite the fact that her husband was ending his two terms as executive somewhat unpopular. Polls throughout much of the race countywide showed voters turning to his longtime political enemy, Rushern Baker, everywhere except the 6th district. This district almost overwhelmingly turned to Sheriff Michael Jackson instead, whom the Johnsons supported.

Most of these voters are likely to stay home, but those who do come out to vote might not be looking for someone who has been the enemy of the Johnsons. The warm reception Leslie received at her swearing in after her arrest, and in community forums as the case played out, show how many voters are still loyal to her.

The community activist group People for Change, which is trying to get voters angry over the direction of the county and out to the polls. Special elections or off year elections are made up of two types of voters, those motivated and those pissed off. Sandy Pruitt, leader of People for Change, has actually been doing a great job of identifying issues voters should be pissed off about and pushing them to go outside the box and pick Mark Polk.

The problem with this is some voters might not just want to hear why they should be pissed off but hear solutions to those issues. People for Change or Mark Polk don't even appear to try to solve those problems. Arthur Turner might not be Rushern Baker's choice for the council, but the worst thing to happen for not only him but the other 8 members who already are lining up to support different individuals, is a Polk victory.

The September 20th special election will likely see a very depressed turnout, as was the case in special elections in the 1st and 5th council districts. The person elected will need to be ready to go right out of the gate and face immediate votes in touchy subjects like approving a redistricting map for the council and a possible resolution of the EDI fund issue. Term limits allow the person selected by 6th district voters to potentially hold that post for the next 11 years, far longer than all of his peers.

When it comes to bicycle and pedestrian issues, M-NCPPC and DPW&T are as different as night and day. "Bicycling and walking are the foundation of the county's transportation network, because no one parks a car in their living room," said Eric Foster, head of M-NCPPC's transportation planning section.

M-NCPPC requires new developments to include trails, sidewalks, and complete streets. The county master plan has a comprehensive network of bike routes similar to those in Arlington and Montgomery counties.

But DPW&T has not made bicycling or walking part of its core mission. DPW&T views the bike routes in the master plan as future bike routes if and when the road is widened, not as the network people should be using now.

Last fall, I suggested some signs and pavement markings to make biking safer along Church Road in Glenn Dale. M-NCPPC endorsed the request because it is an official bike route. But DPW&T declined because "by placing sharrows on the road, we would be endorsing riding a bike on Church Road."

Oxon Hill Road connects the $60 million Woodrow Wilson Bridge Trail to points south along the Potomac River. This road is potentially the gateway for thousands of bicycle day trippers from Virginia and the District. DPW&T agrees that this road should eventually have a bike lane.

Members of the county Bicycle and Trail Advisory Group suggested that during the planned repavement, DPW&T should post signs warning motorists that cyclists are using the full lane. The traffic office representative replied "we hope that people will not ride bicycles on Oxon Hill Road while it is being repaved."

Bringing DPW&T into the 21^st century has long been a goal of county cycling advocates.

In a recent letter to County Executive Baker which I helped write, the Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA) pointed out that other metro-area jurisdictions "each have full-time staff in their transportation departments explicitly tasked with improving cycling and walking; but Prince George's does not."

WABA recommended that Mr. Baker "create a full-time bicycle and pedestrian coordinator position within the county government, direct DPW&T to make bicycling and walking a priority using professional best practices, and develop a bicycle-pedestrian plan with specific milestones to be implemented in the next 4 to 8 years."

In his response, Rushern Baker generally agreed with WABA's goals, though not necessarily about the specific recommendations:

I also share your belief that walking and biking is beneficial for the environ­ment by getting cars off the road, as well as in addressing the physical well-being of individuals. ... I very much share your goals for looking to the transit oriented redevelopment model for creating a more vibrant, sustainable model for the County that emphasizes strong pedestrian and bicycle connections. ... I intend to work with our County agencies and specifically DPW&T.

Mr. Baker also endorsed the longstanding partnerships, in particular the Bicycle and Trails Advisory Committee headed by Eric Foster and Trails Coordinator Fred Shaffer, both of M-NCPPC. He added:

While your concern about staffing is well-taken, and that planning and implementation serve two different functions, it is important to note that allotted staff resources also include Daniel Janousek, a senior planner with M-NCPPC, who is dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian activities. DPW&T staff coordinates regularly with M-NCPPC on the implementation of plans and how to best fulfill walkable and bikable communities.

Mr. Baker's letter had about all WABA could have realistically expected: an affirmation that he wants to make the county more bikeable and walkable; a hint that he recognizes the need for implementation staff; and a pretty strong commitment to use the existing staff expertise as effectively as possible to move the county forward.

But the transition team report had a very different message. Released March 11, 2011, its report looked very broadly on what is needed to improve county government. But it also included some extremely detailed revisions to transportation planning.

It proposed to shift virtually all of the work by Daniel Janousek and Fred Shaffer from Eric Foster's transportation planning section at M-NCPPC to DPW&T, as well as the review of both the design and need for transportation projects. The transition team added:

Trails coordination is also an important transportation function, part of the overall network as there is constant conflict between DPW&T and Park & Planning for the size and location of a trail along the side of a road. This review authority should also be moved to DPW&T.

Thus in a single week, the County Executive said that the county has a great team that will be energized to do great things. But his transition team said that the county's trails program is so dysfunctional that it needs to be shifted from an organization with the required expertise (M-NCPPC) to an organization with little demonstrated interest or capacity (DPW&T).

Is this an ill-considered proposal to gut the only program in the county truly working toward complete streets? Or did the transition team simply assume that once the policy decisions are made, DPW&T will be provided funding to hire a world-class team of people to carry out the mission? The two documents we saw this month were presumably drafted by staff with different experiences and perspectives, but not necessarily different goals.

Mr. Baker seems to be articulating the right vision and the right goals. Creating a county government that can carry out those goals may require some re-organization. But dismantling what works is probably not the best place to start.

Start with the best expertise: Your transition team features a good diversity of professionals whose expertise includes law enforcement, education, public administration, banking, finance, real estate and more.

Knowledge of these areas is critical to running any county government, but so is the ability to counter the tired arguments that responsible environmental management produces economic hardship, and that higher standards will stop redevelopment. This is antiquated thinking which results in missed opportunities for the county.

Appoint experts at the highest levels of your administration who can demonstrate the benefits of sustainability to citizens, decision-makers, and "insiders" alike. This can help the county catch up to its neighbors in getting its fair share of profitable transit-oriented development and new green jobs. These are the revenue sources of the future for the county's priorities.

Strengthen the authority of the Planning Board: Signal your intention to change how development in the county occurs by building a strong Planning Board which will inspire confidence from citizens, the County Council, and the development community.

We agree with a recent editorial that the County Council is too involved in development decisions. But we disagree that all councilmembers have held up cases simply to "shake down" developers for favors. Perhaps this has been true of some. What is also true is that some councilmembers have believed, rightly or wrongly, that their involvement would lead to better development than they believed the Planning Board approved.

But there's no evidence that Council involvement has led to better development in the county. If anything, anecdotal evidence suggests that this has led to more money spent in the review process, less capital investment in projects, and the refusal of some developers to bring their business to the county because of this uncertainty in the review process. Our neighbors do not do business this way, and they are doing a lot more business than we are.

On a practical level, what does this mean? It means appointing an experienced Planning Board with no conflicts of interest with other professional commitments. It means directing them to call for updated zoning regulations and a streamlined development review process so clear rules and processes are in place that both require and entice better development in the county.

It means supporting them to say "no" to developers who do not conform to this vision, even in a tough economy. And it means making Planning Board meetings more accessible by holding them in the evening when the 60% of the county's employed residents who do not work in Prince George's have the chance to attend.

Support good planning decisions with public education and the right incentives: The county must put more incentives in place to help developers redevelop around Metro stations. This requires prioritizing public subsidies for infill and redevelopment around existing transit resources, rather than new, auto-dependent town centers. It also means strengthening the Redevelopment Authority and the Economic Development Corporation with resources to achieve this.

Help educate citizens, business owners, environmentalists, developers, agency staff, and appointed and elected decision-makers about the benefits of and need for Smart Growth in Prince George's County. There are experts in Prince George's and the region who can provide needed understanding on topics like transit-oriented development, low-income versus workforce housing, the relationship of human health to neighborhood design, the fiscal impact of development decisions, the benefits of density to communities and the environment, rural preservation, and much more.

Usher in a new era of transparency in county government: Set an example for elected and appointed officials by instituting practices which "sunlight" the county's operations and increase government transparency and accountability.

Fight perceptions of insider politics by making the county's daily business dealings a matter of easy public access. Post your daily schedule and meetings online, and ask councilmembers, agency heads, and appointees to do the same. Improve the county's communication with the public through redesigned, user-friendly websites, including the ability to report problems with public services (e.g. trash pick-up, snow removal, code violations, etc) online.

Most of all, articulate how you will measure success in improving public safety and education and in bringing more economic development to the county. Communicate progress on these measures with the public frequently. Be clear about when and what changes and priorities may be needed in the short term to build a stronger county in the long term.

Address long-term challenges to successful county governance: The lack of at-large representatives on the County Council encourages parochialism. This has led to this body's inability to consistently pass legislation which addresses countywide problems, since the structure does not incentivize a comprehensive view of the county's affairs.

In the past, the price of obtaining votes for a councilmember's agenda has been supporting pet projects in other districts, which exacerbates a sprawling pattern of development. A better structure should be put in place so that the County Executive and the County Council take a holistic view of Prince George's.

The other major challenge to the long-term success of Prince George's County is addressing the limits on the county's ability to fund priorities due to TRIM, the limit placed on property taxes. Unfortunately, we believe that until dramatic measures are taken to restore trust in county government, Prince Georgian's will never overturn this limit.

In closing, we understand that education, crime, and economic development are your priorities, and rightly so. We think as difficult a task will be providing more transparent decision-making and setting forth a new vision for the county's development. We hope to support you and help you in whatever way we can.

Congratulations again, Mr. Baker. We'll be rooting for you as you work to address an unenviable set of challenges, and hoping that you'll inspire us with a bold agenda that will make Prince George's greater.

There are several reasons why we have requested anonymity, from sensitivity about blurring personal opinions and official agendas, to concern about potential displeasure from colleagues. We don't believe this diminishes our contribution, any more than it does for the anonymous readers who comment here at GGW.

In the first part of this letter, we'll review a few of the political problems which we believe have kept Prince George's County from making the most of its transit resources, generating greater job growth and improving economic opportunities for all residents, reducing crime, and more. In part two we offer ideas for transforming the way Prince George's County does business and plans for future growth.

How did the County get to where it is today: with its Executive and his wife, an incoming Councilmember, being arrested, along with several police officers, business owners, and possibly others to follow?

Unfortunately, these aren't just a few bad apples engaging in illicit and illegal behavior. There is a long history of insider politics, cronyism, and outright corruption in Prince George's County. The players are white and black and new and established immigrants from around the world (see in the County.)

In the wake of Jack Johnson's arrest, a number of the Post's articles have touched upon previous cases of corruption and cronyism in the county, but they've stopped short of a more systematic analysis of the problem which would, among other things, lead them to recommend more solutions to "clean up" corruption in the county.

Before there was Jack Johnson, there were Anthony Cicoria and Jesse Baggett, who gave zoning and support for development projects away in exchange for money and influence. According to a 1975 New York Times article profiling several high-level Maryland officials in trouble, "the root of corruption in Maryland was clear; it was the land itself. As the corridor from the Delaware line to Washington became more urbanized, the value of the gently rolling farmlands skyrocketed. A minute change in a zoning classification could mean that a parcel of land might increase in value by 500 percent."

To be fair, Maryland wasn't alone in land-related scandals at the time. In nearby Fairfax County in the late 1960s, 15 elected officials, developers, and land use attorneys were indicted. Eight were convicted of similar charges, including 3 elected officials from both parties. A recent article in the Washington Business Journal discusses this case and other, more contemporary ones from around the region.

The difference is that things never cleaned up in Prince George's, and questionable to corrupt behavior continued through the '80s and '90s. Unlike other jurisdictions in the region with stronger commercial and office tax bases, Prince George's "bread and butter" since the 1980s has been low-density residential development. With some recent and welcome exceptions, there has been tremendous pressure for it, along with sprawling commercial development to serve it.

The pressure has come from market forces and some citizens who rightly want to be able to meet their retail needs in the county. It has also come from insiders—certain developers, land use attorneys, and politicians—who have benefited (in some cases for decades) from an antiquated development model. Zoning changes and development project approvals don't account for the long-term costs like heavily congested roads, long commute times, damage to streams and waterways, and more.

We recognize the need for economic development in Prince George's County, and welcome it, but it must take a new form. Much of it should take the compact, transit-oriented form that has been embraced by some of our neighbors. This is a form that the insiders seemingly do not embrace, understand, believe that government can support, or some combination thereof.

The cumulative impact of several decades of a low-density development model on the county's economy is unclear. So is the damage that the recurring political scandals and related misallocation of public resources on the County's reputation. The tax base and population have expanded over the last 40 years, but several catgories of crime have also increased and concerns about public schools remain. And while the county has recently attracted some high-end development like National Harbor and Wegmans, poverty in some of the county's communities persists. Then there is the perception that Prince George's is losing some of its affluent African-American residents to other counties, that retailers don't want to do business in the county, and more.

In this, perception is almost as important as reality. Perception may be enough for some citizens to lose confidence in their government and to believe that it's not worth their time to be engaged in local politics. Thankfully, many Prince Georgians do continue to work to make the County a better place. Perception could be enough to make prospective employers and retailers decide not to bring their business to the county. It may also be enough to dissuade future residents from bringing their talent and tax dollars.

Despite all of this and a constrained fiscal environment, you have a tremendous opportunity to remake the County's image. We believe that you have the talent required to be the County Executive that the residents of Prince George's County have long deserved. But a clear understanding of "what you're up against" is a must for this task, which is why we feel the need to delve into not just the cases of illegal behavior but the more pervasive "insider politics" in the County. In the second part of our letter, we'll offer our ideas for how you can become the best County Executive in Prince George's County's history.