GRANOLAPARK: The enemy of perfect

The Takoma Park city council Feb. 19 meeting. Councilmember Kay Daniels-Cohen's chair is occupied by a gold star.

GRANOLAPARK • BY GILBERT

Dear Readers,

Kay Daniels-Cohen was back – by phone.

The Ward 3 councilmember was hospitalized a couple of weeks ago for an emergency hip replacement. She missed the Feb. 11 Takoma Park city council meeting, at which her fellow councilmembers expressed sympathy and concern for her condition.

She was represented at the Feb 19 meeting by a big gold star on her council dais seat. Each council member wore a gold-star lapel pin in her honor. Daniels-Cohen is known for handing out virtual “gold stars” to people or groups who have done well in her estimation.

She sounded like her old self, enthusiastically joining in on the discussion and vote on the hot topic of the day – Route 410.

Councilmember Kay Daniels-Cohen's gold star.

Councilmember Kay Daniels-Cohen’s gold star.

Mistake

The Takoma Park city council made a big mistake. It didn’t directly contact the 200 or so residents who live on Route 410.

It didn’t tell them the city was making a deal with the state to make sure it maintains 410. It didn’t tell them about the bill state delegate Heather Mizeur was championing that would prohibit state funds being spent to widen the road. it didn’t tell them the language of that bill would allow bike lanes. It didn’t explain the ups and down, around and abouts of 4 years negotiating with the State Highway Administration.

Nope. Instead the council left an information vacuum to be filled by interest groups such as Historic Takoma, Inc. and bicycle commuters. Historic Takoma, Inc. is, a local non-profit group that is vigilant against any state efforts to widen State Route 410. Their vigilance is explained by the SHA’s attempt in the 1960s to widen 410. Anyone can observe that 410 is 2 lanes wide in Takoma Park, but has been widened to 4 lanes on either side of the city.

All caps

Historic Takoma delivered flyers by hand to Route 410 homes and electronically to neighborhood e-mail lists headlined “CALL TO ACTION,” claiming “PROPOSED STATE LEGISLATION TO ALLOW WIDENING OF MD 410.” It claimed the city council “HAS NOT SCHEDULED A PUBLIC HEARING TO HEAR CITIZEN CONCERNS.”

Seeing these flyers, bike commuters realized that the “widening” Historic Takoma, Inc objected to was for a bike lane, which bike commuters would dearly love to have. So they spoke up in favor of the bill, and against Historic Takoma, Inc’s proposed changes what would disallow the building of bike lanes.

Choose it or lose it

So, the Peety-beeties (PTBT = Pitchfork- and Torch-Bearing Townspeople) swarmed the last two council meetings, raising the already high tension. The legislative bill had to have the council vote of approval before state delegate Mizeur shoved it into the legislative bill-passing machinery. It was technically past the deadline, so the city council HAD to pass it Feb. 19. or lose the opportunity.

The agreement with the state was also on the line. The council and staff were certain they had squeezed every concession out of the State Highway Administration (SHA) they were going to get. Though it was not everything they wanted, it was as good as they are going to get right now – or so they said. They were concerned that the SHA, which has changed its mind, administrator, and negotiators several times since the dealmaking began, would back off parts of the agreement – especially if the city kept tinkering with the language.

As the city attorney Susan Silber put it, “don’t let good be the enemy of perfect.”

The rush was suspicious to the Petty-beeties, especially those who were just getting into the issue. It looked to them as though the council was trying to push the bill and the agreement through, avoiding public discussion. Never mind that the city had been working on this, holding many, many public hearings, and making documents available online for 4 years. So what? They were just finding out about it NOW.

Different this time

Your Gilbert normally rolls his bloodshot eyes at outraged citizens who fail to pay attention – the types who think the city council should show up on their doorsteps to personally explain any issue that might effect them. This case is different, we feel. The council knows the level of anxiety about this issue, and several times they’ve seen similarly alarming fliers turn out crowds of misinformed, angry Peetie-beeties, whose minds are set against the council  – and  the facts.

What would it have cost the city to send notices and updates to the 200 dwellings on 410 at regular intervals? We can see what it cost them NOT to. Negotiations were made more difficult and at least once had to be abandoned and started over. Council meetings were made more difficult, and longer, having to listen and respond to livid, partially-informed citizens.

The Takoma Park city council Feb. 19 meeting. Councilmember Kay Daniels-Cohen's chair is occupied by a gold star.

The Takoma Park city council Feb. 19 meeting. Councilmember Kay Daniels-Cohen’s chair is occupied by a gold star.

Historic curbs?

Historic Takoma, Inc. and their supporters wanted the phrase that prohibits the construction of “through motor vehicle lanes” to be changed simply to “vehicle lanes,” eliminating possible bike lanes. The council said that the phrase was as carefully written by state delegate Mizeur, tacitly agreed to by the SHA and interested legislators.  Any editing would destroy the tacit agreements, they said, dooming it’s prearranged smooth passage.

Anyway, the council and staff didn’t WANT to make those changes. It would prevent building bike lanes and any curb reconfigurations needed for bus stops, storm water drains, or other future considerations. As council member Fred Schultz said last week “There is nothing historical about curbs!”

The votes

After the long, loud, and lambasting “exchange of views” with the public, the council approved the legislative bill unanimously.

The vote on the SHA agreement (called an MOU – for memorandum of agreement), was 6 to 1 in favor. Councilmember Terry Seamens was the lone “nay” vote. Councilmember Seth Grimes had misgivings, but voted “aye” he said, to share responsibility for the council decision. He said he also supported it because city staff did.

SHA-MOU the whale

Both Grimes and Seamens felt the MOU was unnecessary. The SHA has seen the error of it’s ways, they said, and is now maintaining the road, as it maintains all state routes. Why do we need an agreement?  Maybe, they said, this MOU will have unintended consequences in the future.

They did NOT express any concern that the MOU would lead to road widening. The two council members were not aligning themselves with Historc Takoma, Inc’s positions. The MOU is concerned with road maintenance, traffic signals, signage, and permits to dig holes in the road.

These issues have long been a problem for Takoma Park. Since it is a state road, the city has almost no control over it. So, traffic light timing, for instance, is out of our hands. We have to plead with the SHA to come fix it.

The council majority felt that even though the state is now maintaining the road, the SHA can’t be trusted to keep doing so. This whole business started when SHA ceased maintenance 3-4 years ago – saying it was the city’s responsibility. The council majority said the MOU would prevent that happening again, and though not all the MOU provisions are perfect, future negotiations might get the city more concessions.

Bike lanes forever

As for Historic Takoma, Inc’s concern that bike lanes could be later converted to automobile lanes, Seth Grimes looked up state code on the matter. He reported that state code forbids converting a bike lane to a motor vehicle lane.

– Gilbert

Twitter feed:
Follow @Granolapark

Like us on Facebook:
Granolapark

The Voice

About the Author

Gilbert
Gilbert is the pseudonym of a hard-bitten, hard-drinking, long-time Takoma Park resident who maintains the granolapark blog. Gilbert and William L. Brown — Granola Park's mild-mannered chief of staff, researcher, and drink pourer — have never been seen in the same place at the same time.

9 Comments on "GRANOLAPARK: The enemy of perfect"

  1. Gilbert, regarding notice to residents who live on 410, in my own defense I will offer that I’ve sent a variety of messages regarding the city deliberations to the e-mail lists for the Ward 1 neighborhoods along 410 (a.k.a. Philadelphia Avenue), to the PEN, Hodges Heights, and North Takoma lists. I’ve posted most of those messages to my One Takoma blog (http://sethgrimes.blogspot.com/), which anyone can read, and posted links to my blog on my Facebook page and Twitter account. In retrospect, I should have distributed my own flyer to my constituents, but all the same, many or even most did find out about the deliberations from me.

  2. By our count all of the irate citizens but one couple were from other wards, so maybe your outreach worked. So, ok, you get a cookie.

    Hopefully, the council will remember this in its upcoming street projects: Grant Ave. and Flower Ave. If they want cookies, too.

  3. Sabrina Baron | February 22, 2013 at 4:33 pm |

    And Tim Male, whose constituents in Ward 2 are most impacted by 410 did his usual nothing. He has repeatedly refused to respond to my husband, with whom I own property on 410.

    Thanks to HTI for getting out the word most effectively, when no one else can be bothered.

  4. Sabrina Baron | February 22, 2013 at 5:02 pm |

    In fact, I decided I needed to get actively involved in this issue AGAIN because of information from Granola Park that loopholes in this MOU (which stands for Memorandum of Understanding by the way) would allow the construction of sidewalks on the north side of Ethan Allen. I have literally been fighting this issue for ten years, since 2003. As I said the other night at the council meeting, this is typical of zombie initiatives in Takoma Park. They’re long dead, yet they continue to walk. What a waste of time and resources.

    So kudos to Granola Park for also getting the word out.

  5. What Sabrina is referring to is here:
    http://tpssvoice.com/2013/02/15/granolapark-the-route-to-mou/

    Citing the provisions of the MOU we said, “The SHA may find funding to build sidewalks where there are now none (along Ethan Allen Ave), but once built, the city takes on sidewalk maintenance.”

    Ethan Allen was given as an example of a section with no sidewalk, though we can’t think of another sidewalk-less section offhand. Nobody said there was a plan to put a sidewalk there. So, don’t get too alarmed.

    The issue behind this clause is that the state only wants to take responsibility for the road curb-to-curb. It doesn’t want to maintain anything past the curb. The point of this clause is to make sure the city doesn’t get stuck with the bill IF new sidewalks are built anywhere along 410. Then the city has to maintain them.

    Here’s the clause from the MOU draft 1/11/13:

    “Installation of new sidewalks along State highways where none exist today may be eligible for construction funding under the provisions of SHA’s Sidewalk Retrofit Program. Once constructed and in accordance with the Annotated Code of Maryland relating to Construction and Maintenance of Sidewalk (8-630(6)(i), the maintenance
    and repair of sidewalk would then become the responsibility of the political subdivision in which the sidewalk is located. The SHA will continue to upgrade sidewalk ramps and curb cuts to current ADA standards and in accordance with SHA’s Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities along State Highways when work is performed on or adjacent to a state road. Under the Annotated Code, absent a capital improvement project for the adjacent highway, the local jurisdiction is responsible for securing rights of way for the placement of new sidewalk and may be required to provide a funding match.”

    This clause may actually protect you. The state is more likely than the city to take property. Here the state is saying it doesn’t want responsibility for anything outside the curb beyond the road. It says if they want a sidewalk not only does the state have to pay for it, it is the city not the state that secures rights of way for the sidewalk. So, if the city refuses to secure the rights of way – no sidewalk.

  6. Steve Davies | March 4, 2013 at 9:41 am |

    Not sure what Susan Silber actually said, but usually the phrase is, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good,” not the other way around.

  7. Steve Davies | March 6, 2013 at 12:37 pm |

    That’s where you’re wrong — I don’t expect it 😉

  8. Oh, the _burn_!

Comments are closed.