Another response to HoCoBlog
My intention is really not to go after HoCoBlog – he just posted a few things that I feel need clarification. As you saw above, I responded to his HFStival post, and this is in response to his “Dryer’s Ice Cream and Town Center” post, which was also written today.
In it, he expresses concern about the cost of upgrading our wastewater plant in order to accommodate the Dreyer’s Ice Cream plant in Laurel. It looks like Dreyer’s is footing half the bill ($42 million of the $85 million total), but HoCoBlog is more concerned about the plant sticking around, especially in light of Nestle S.A.’s recent acquisition of the Dreyer’s brand.
What we don't know is if Dreyer's will be here in 30 years and what Nestle S.A.'s plans are for their new business unit they took control of in January 2006. Who can predict that far out?But, that’s not really what I want to talk about (and, for that matter, neither does he). The bulk of the post is spent discussing the Town Center master plan and what effect it will have on our wastewater treatment capabilities. He quotes this FAQ put out by the Department of Planning and Zoning that describes amount of wastewater that would be created by the current plan.
Sewer: DPW projects the design peak sewerage flow for the proposed development will range from 2,128,000 gpd to 3,400,000 gpd. DPW already has capital projects underway for both expansion of the Little Patuxent Water Reclamation Plant and for additional capacity for three sewer interceptors within Town Center and the Little Patuxent parallel sewer interceptor from Columbia to the Water Reclamation Plant in Laurel (about 8 miles). DPW will have its consultant study the anticipated additional capacity needed for Downtown.Well, that certainly sounds like a lot of gallons per day, but given the current capacity of the plant – 18 million gpd – and the capacity it will have at the end of its expansion – 25 million gpd – the Town Center discharge starts to look a little smaller. But, what do I know? HoCoBlog then quotes an anonymous “someone:”
"[This is] massive ... compared to Dreyers, [the] increases in water and sewer use will blow the entire utility system out of the ground. ...the top utility guys ... think the TC plans are DOA, because of this overlooked fact. The capital improvements planned for utilities barely take this ... expansion into account. Additionally, a study, if it can be done, would take months. The big question is this. Why is DPZ flying on autopilot without checking with DPW to address the feasibility of the whole plan? Another $1/4 million or more down the toliet, literally, due to totally incompetent planning from DPZ. The TC master plan is nothing more than ... delusions of granduer passed along to an inept county planning group. One of those "looks great on paper" ideas [but] are impossible to build. If the approach to roads is, 'We will deal with the traffic issues as they arise.' so is the approach to sewer and water. That meanthey will take care of the problems after they occur, which is not the kind of planning I want done in my backyard.Whoever it is, the person he quotes is making statements without basis, though HoCoBlog seems to think he/she is worthy of being listened to. His/Her statement is so full of cynical, not-provable and not-sourced stuff that I don’t see how it can be taken seriously. Yes, I acknowledge the irony in me calling out an anonymous person, but at least I try to provide links to back up claims.
Treatment plant upgrades can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and that is only if MDE [Maryland Department of the Enviroment] grants a permit for expansion. There should be no increases in density until the permitting process is well underway. You can't build the toliets either until the plant upgrade is complete. Just the upgrade and permits could take 5 years. with everything going just right."
So, what claims are without merit? “Top utility guys” means nothing. That is no source. Saying the DPZ has failed to coordinate with DPW is patently false. See the excerpt from the FAQ above – those numbers didn’t come out of thin air.
Criticizing the charrette, which was a citizen-driven process – despite what so many who are upset with the outcome are now trying to claim – is not going to engender positive reactions from those who participated and who continue to participate. Maybe this person didn't like what he/she heard, but I did. That's doesn't make either of us right or wrong, though. These are value judgements.
But perhaps the worst part of all is the flawed notion that we have to figure everything out before the plan goes through. I think HoCoBlog said it best earlier in the post when referring to a different 30-year plan: “Who can predict that far out?”
Infrastructure needs to be in place to accommodate development. A plan is not development. Infrastructure does not need to be in place to approve a plan. A plan for infrastructure, perhaps, but this – I can assure – is being worked on.
The Town Center master plan is a process, and we’re still in the middle of it. Asking for outcomes before the process is finished only serves to prolong and possibly harm the process.
5 comments:
Call me Judith Miller, but I stand by my source, who wants the TC project be successful.
This person has forgotten more about DPW/DPZ/GPD/MGP than I will ever know. I trust their judgement and experience.
How come you have all the sources? I don't have any. It's no fair?
You source has a funny way of expressing a desire to see the TC plan succeed.
Anyway, a point that I forgot to make about this was development -- even high density stuff -- would have gone in TC, regardless of if we created a master plan. GGP had the right to develop commercially as they saw fit, with no input from the community.
Instead, in exchange for giving them some residential allocations, we took control of the planning process, something that happened only six months ago. We're working on a 30-year plan that affects almost every aspect of our lives. It's a little unreasonable, I'd say, for people to expect that in only six months we would go from no plan to fully developed master plan. This stuff takes time.
Thankfully we do have 30 years to address the issue. Let’s not wait 30 years to address it. Maybe the sky isn’t falling, but they are legitimate questions.
I am all for TC redevelopment and the high density. Citizen input is great. That has been, if I am not mistaken, the long term plan for TC. When my kids are out of the house and my wife and I decide to downsize we will always talked about going back to Baltimore City. What I see happening with TC may make me reconsider retiring their. If that happens I don't want the toilet in my condo backing up on me while I am sitting down to read the Sunday comics.
Although we can’t predict what politicians might do with tax policy in 30 years, we have the ability to predict the redevelopment of TC with a lot more accuracy and provide ample information for long term planning.
Yes, it takes time. My sources' point is that DPZ isn't properly engaging DPW or MDE and those studies and processes take up to 5 years to get through (according to my source). They are addressing the public perceptions, managing the public view, presenting all the pretty drawings, but haven’t properly addressed the infrastructure. If true it needs to be called out now not later.
When Marsha McLaughlin says DPZ will address traffic problems as they occur (after the fact) that doesn't give me a lot of confidence.
I don't know a lot about these things (so I talk to people who do), but when I see the county spending $80M on upgrades (that are necessary) then I wonder about the impact of such density on those same systems and what is being done to address them. Just saying improvements will need to be made is not adequate – especially when that part of the planning can add 5 years to the process, and it may cost another $80M in improvements. That isn’t proper planning.
I do know that the kind of density being called for is not in the County's Master Plan, and the MP is used to guide the budget development process over 5 - 10 years.
The sooner DPW and MDE are engaged the better I would feel about the DPZ's work in leading this. Maybe Jim Irvin should be running this?
Thankfully we do have 30 years to address the issue. Let’s not wait 30 years to address it. Maybe the sky isn’t falling, but they are legitimate questions.
I am all for TC redevelopment and the high density. Citizen input is great. That has been, if I am not mistaken, the long term plan for TC. When my kids are out of the house and my wife and I decide to downsize we will always talked about going back to Baltimore City. What I see happening with TC may make me reconsider retiring their. If that happens I don't want the toilet in my condo backing up on me while I am sitting down to read the Sunday comics.
Although we can’t predict what politicians might do with tax policy in 30 years, we have the ability to predict the redevelopment of TC with a lot more accuracy and provide ample information for long term planning.
Yes, it takes time. My sources' point is that DPZ isn't properly engaging DPW or MDE and those studies and processes take up to 5 years to get through (according to my source). They are addressing the public perceptions, managing the public view, presenting all the pretty drawings, but haven’t properly addressed the infrastructure. If true it needs to be called out now not later.
When Marsha McLaughlin says DPZ will address traffic problems as they occur (after the fact) that doesn't give me a lot of confidence.
I don't know a lot about these things (so I talk to people who do), but when I see the county spending $80M on upgrades (that are necessary) then I wonder about the impact of such density on those same systems and what is being done to address them. Just saying improvements will need to be made is not adequate – especially when that part of the planning can add 5 years to the process, and it may cost another $80M in improvements. That isn’t proper planning.
I do know that the kind of density being called for is not in the County's Master Plan, and the MP is used to guide the budget development process over 5 - 10 years.
The sooner DPW and MDE are engaged the better I would feel about the DPZ's work in leading this. Maybe Jim Irvin should be running this?
For all of everyone's sake, let's hope your toilet doesn't back up ever, regardless of the section of the paper you're reading at the time.
Although you have a point about DPZ managing public perception (however ineffective) and I hate getting into the role of defending DPZ, I seem to always go back to the thought that what we have now is a million times better than what we would have had if the charrette never happened. And doing too much harm to the process now could seriously endanger its credibility, which may ultimately leave us worse off.
Maybe I'm too patient, but I can't help but feel that we're asking too much in too soon a time frame. The master plan won't be approved until at least next year, and even then we're still just a few steps away from the starting line.
Post a Comment