In the Sept. 3 editorial endorsing Sidney Kramer's candidacy for reelection as Montgomery County executive, The Post leaves the reader with the impression that Mr. Kramer has merely implemented development guidelines that were already in place before he took office. The editorial suggests that Mr. Kramer's only sin in the eyes of his opponent is that he has acted all too efficiently in administering those guidelines.
The editorial does a great disservice to Neal Potter's longstanding opposition to uncontrolled growth by stating that many of the Montgomery County Council's development decisions had the approval of Mr. Potter. This implies that Mr. Kramer's developmental policies were somehow pursued with the approval of his opponent. No mention is made of Mr. Potter's opposition to the Shady Grove Development Plan, the largest potential development in the area, or to the many other development initiatives of Mr. Kramer's administration.
The issue facing the voters is whether Mr. Kramer has only followed the development policies of the council or whether he and his executive department have violated them. It is the opinion of various citizens groups throughout the county that the latter is the case. Time and time again groups in Potomac and throughout the county have vigorously opposed the decisions of Mr. Kramer's various executive departments (particularly transportation) as direct violations of the Montgomery County Master Plan and particularly the Potomac Subregion Plan. The battle to save Potomac's few surviving rustic roads (Piney Meetinghouse and Glen roads, e.g.) is indicative of this opposition.
The desperate proposals to obliterate some of the more historically significant and idyllic of Potomac's neighborhoods by Mr. Kramer's transportation director, Robert McGarry, in order to detour traffic away from already overdeveloped and overcrowded primary routes are a direct result of Mr. Kramer's misuse of the county's master plan.
Indeed Mr. Kramer's policies concerning roads have often pitted communities that have suffered because of too much development and too few primary roads against settled communities that are threatened by Mr. Kramer's attempt to destroy the rustic quality of their semi-rural roads to relieve the suffering of the first group. This type of divisive leadership is hardly what could be called keeping Montgomery County on an "even keel." DOUGLAS P. FAUCETTE Potomac