Competing Interests as Debate Begins

A small business owner in Rockville urges Montgomery County's council to halt new construction until it fixes the jammed roads that force him to pay workers to sit in traffic.

A developer with land in Damascus warns that a proposed hefty tax hike on new homes will cripple his business.

And a civic activist in Silver Spring says the county's growth policy, now being revised, should serve as a manifesto for affordable housing, clean air, and liveable neighborhoods.

As council members start debating new development rules this week, those are among the competing consituent concerns they'll have to weigh in a county where the median price for newly constructed single-family homes has topped $1 million but an increasingly diverse population needs more classrooms, better public transit and cheaper housing.

The outcome in one of the Washington area's largest counties could influence other goverments in the region trying to balance growth and services.

Council members have given themselves until Nov. 15, when the current growth policy expires, to complete their work. Their decisions will determine the amount of the taxes paid by developers to build new homes and by homebuyers and sellers at closing; when developers will have to pay to reduce traffic congestion; and how new projects can blend better with the environment. Their starting point is a package of proposals approved last week by the planning board that would put most of the tax burden on new projects.

Before the end of County Executive Isiah Leggett's term in 2010, Montgomery's population is expected to reach 1 million. In the last 12 years, the county has added 157,000 people, 92,000 jobs and 48,000 homes. While its rapid expansion has tapered off and county planners say it has "entered a phase of slower growth," Montgomery is on track to steadily add new employment and residences even as the land available for new construction is dwindling.

The real estate market remains relatively robust: home prices have continued to climb, although houses are staying on the market longer, up to an average of two and a half months this year, compared to less than one month in 2005, according to the Greater Capital Area Association of Realtors.

Council president Marilyn Praisner (D-Eastern County) said members have a range of concerns about how to settle questions about measuring traffic, figuring out when schools are too crowded, and still ensuring that longtime residents don't foot too much of the bill for the effects of new construction.

"Are the tests realistic?" she asked. "Do they adequately capture conditions today?" And proposed tax increases, which the planning board last week recommended, will compel the council to balance "the escalating costs of infrastructure with the volatility of the market." Members are worried that too much taxation could hamper the business climate in the county, she said.

As the council's committee with jurisdiction over development began debating the new proposals yesterday, some members were sharply critical of the planning board's approach, saying it would allow new development but did not do enough to improve public transit or limit traffic jams. Planning board chairman Royce Hanson defended the proposal as allowing an expected influx of new residents and jobs while building a more liveable, transit-oriented community.

The details of constituents' worries differ, but ultimately they sound the same refrain: When the rules for managing growth are rewritten, how will it affect my daily life?