Letter to the Editor: Berliner Responds to WMCCA Meeting Accusations

The following is a letter from Roger Berliner, Montgomery County Council president and District-1 representative, in regards to :

 

During a meeting with citizens from Potomac Jan.11, community members expressed continued outrage over the lack of public input and transparency prior to the County Executive’s decision last year to secure school property off Brickyard Road in order to add four soccer fields. This property, nestled in a quiet residential neighborhood, has been leased to an organic farmer for many years.

Community members expressed anger that I had not “fought” for them. I understand their frustration. But let me set the record straight with respect to my own actions on behalf of the community that I represent.

• I was first advised that the County Executive was considering this matter in September, 2010 at the end of an hour long meeting on other topics with the Director of the Department of General Services. I immediately indicated that I thought that the community would be upset by such a proposal, and requested that the Administration look at alternative uses and perform a traffic analysis prior to moving forward. I was not told then that the County Executive had already requested that the school system transfer the property for this purpose more than a year earlier.  

• During the meeting last night, community members cited a September 30th email from Director Dise in which he indicated that he had met with me and that I had asked for time to brief the community. The community wondered why I had not informed them of this conversation at that time. Today, Director Dise clarified the matter in an email to me:  

“The referenced e-mail is subsequent to a meeting we had September 30th between 1:45 and 2:15 the purpose of which was to brief you on the status of the Davis Library and North Bethesda Recreation Center projects. As I recall, during the course of this meeting the Brickyard project was also discussed. I have no notes from that meeting and grant that my recollection of any offer by you to contact residents regarding this Executive initiative may be inaccurate but I do recall that at this meeting you asked Executive staff to communicate with the community prior to rolling out the initiative, to explore other possible uses for the property, to conduct a traffic analysis before meeting with the community (as noted in the referenced e-mail), and to keep you informed when Executive staff would meet with the community. Many of these things we did do after obtaining approval of the lease from the Board of Education.

• Rather than study alternatives, or do any of the other things that I had requested, including briefing the community, the County Executive pressed the school system to put the matter on their agenda in March of last year, the first time that either I or the community were put on notice of their decision to proceed without public engagement. At that time, I took several steps on behalf of the community I represent:

(1) I issued a strong public statement decrying a terribly flawed process for a county that prides itself on transparency and open government;

(2) I formally asked the school board to postpone consideration to allow for greater public input and

(3) I pressed the Administration to back off and start over by engaging the community in a public dialogue regarding the highest and best use of this particular parcel.  These efforts were not successful – I was told by school board members that the County Executive’s team had been working this issue hard and by the County Executive’s team that he had committed to making this happen years ago and would not budge.  

• When it became clear that the County Executive was not going to change course, and after attending several public meetings in which the community made abundantly clear its opposition, I met with the farmer who has worked that land for so many years to discuss whether he could continue to operate there in conjunction with 1 or 2 soccer fields.  Based on those conversations, and with the support of Councilmember George Leventhal, we wrote the County Executive and asked him to reduce the number of fields by half and to allow the organic farmer to stay there.  The request for proposal (RFP) issued today by the Administration reflects in part that “compromise” approach, asking for dual use proposals -- although it does not rule out the possibility of more than 2 fields.

• In December, I met with the leaders of the efforts seeking to “Save Brickyard.” They asked what more I could do. I informed them that I did not see any mechanism at the Council’s disposal for stopping this process; that it was, unfortunately, within the County Executive’s authority to proceed in this matter.

Again, I understand the outrage of citizens who feel that their lives are being negatively impacted by county government on an issue where their views should have been sought from the very beginning.  We should not be afraid to engage our public.  But that I, as their council representative, have not produced the result that these citizens seek does not mean that I have neglected my responsibilities to the community.      

 

Have an opinion about the development on Brickyard Road in Potomac or government transparency? Send a letter to the editor to katie.griffith@patch.com to have it featured on the site.