Growing debates...

On this blog there are few things I enjoy less than defending politicians who are certainly capable of defending themselves. That said, before we strain our collective neck by nodding in agreement, let’s get a little perspective on the Ulman vs. Merdon showdown.

In the papers today, Chris Merdon leaves no doubt about his plans for the next two months: go after Ulman on the issue of growth. Here’s what he said to the Examiner about the results of the primary and Harry Dunbar’s 5,000 or so votes:

“I think a lot of those votes were protest votes against Ken Ulman’s record on development,” said county executive candidate and Council Member Christopher Merdon, R-District 1, who accused Ulman of pushing a public forum for the redevelopment of Columbia’s Town Center into an urban area, before traffic and school impact studies were prepared.

Meanwhile, in the Post, we get this:

Yesterday, Merdon called Ulman “pro-development” and noted Ulman’s vote for a controversial rezoning bill last year. He also criticized the planning process for redeveloping downtown Columbia, a project championed by Ulman.

Leaving aside the simplistic, “you’re either with us or against us” generalization of “pro-development,” which one could just as easily (and inappropriately) ascribe to Merdon’s record on growth prior to his decision to run for county executive, he attacks Ulman with the old stand-bys of Comp Lite and the charrette. But how much moral authority does Merdon have to criticize based on these issues?

I know I’m delving into a world of rage with this one, but with Comp Lite, Merdon’s vote against it was a great bit of political theater and maneuvering. With respect to actual development in this county, however, it will have almost no impact whatsoever.

These rezonings would (will) happen with or without being tied together in a comprehensive bill – in fact, some have already been granted (with Merdon’s support, no less). Of course, spot rezonings don’t usually draw county-wide attention or the participation that Comp Lite did, making it easy to vote for them and, by extension, more development while covering yourself politically with a meaningless vote on the bigger, controversial package.

As for the Town Center issue, I still think we’re lucky to be having the problems we face. Prior to the charrette, there was hardly any detailed, citizen-oriented long term planning for downtown. Development was up to the whims of the developers (for the most part) and stuff like pedestrian connections, public transportation, infrastructure, public spaces, and cultural facilities were planned on a fractured, ad hoc basis. The charrette and master plan process changed this, and part of why it has taken so long is because creating a truly comprehensive vision for Town Center is a massive undertaking.

Merdon now thinks the process was broken, which is strange because we heard no such complaints from him before the charrette – or at the charrette, which he was more than happy to participate in. It wasn’t until the political winds shifted that he decided to jump on board with criticism for the process, criticism that should largely be directed at those who designed and implemented the process, the Planning department, rather than those who, like Merdon and Ulman, simply approved the funding for it.

Apparently, one of Merdon’s complaints, according to the Examiner, is that the charrette occurred before “traffic and school impact studies were prepared.” But this is exactly how it was supposed to happen. When we create a community plan, do we generally let the details dictate the vision or the vision dictate the details? Of course it’s the latter. If we want to achieve something worthy of our community, we must first craft a vision that suits us and then work through the messy details and compromises need to make it work.

This is exactly how the charrette was supposed to occur. But more importantly, this was the process used to create Columbia itself.

I wonder, too, how Merdon would have addressed the Town Center issue, since all I've heard so far is criticisms and not suggestions from him.

Development debates in this county extend well beyond Comp Lite and Town Center, but these are the only ones worth discussing by some because they can be used for partisan gain. And Merdon, I would wager, has been on the side of development interests probably as often as Ulman, yet now he’s trying to claim the mantle “slow growth” from Harry Dunbar? One wonders how he feels about this development (which is strongly supported by his boy for Governor) or the prospects of large-scale development at Doughoregan or extending the water and sewer boundary.

Now that Harry Dunbar is out, nobody in the county executive race really has any authority to cast stones about development. And the more times we here things like “pro-development” and “slow growth,” the further from reality the debate will drift. These are not simple matters of black and white. However, by trying to paint them as such, politicians may gain something in the short term, but in the long term, the community loses.