There are not many places where people are willing to spend Saturday morning listening to the details of an important, if somewhat obscure piece of public policy. Montgomery County is one of those places.
Almost 100 people attended a “teach-in” about the County’s Annual Growth Policy (AGP) on Sept. 13. “It’s going to be important for all of us,” said County Council Vice-President Steve Silverman (D-At Large).
The original AGP was designed to stop development if public facilities — primarily roads and school — were not able to support the new development.
In spite of this policy, the county has crowded schools and congested roads, leading many to believe that the policy does not work. “The public facilities have not kept pace,” said Planning Board Chair Derick Berlage.
Planners hope the newly revised growth policy will slow the pace of development and direct that development to areas of the county where it will have the least impact.
The draft calls for implementing a 1-percent cap on preliminary plan approvals and allocating those approvals to different areas of the county.
This cap will not affect projects which have already been approved, estimated to be 10 years worth of development.
“This is not a cap,” Berlage said.
Additionally, a substantial impact tax is proposed with lower rates in areas which are better served by mass transit.
AFTER THE INITIAL presentation, the program broke up into discussion groups where residents were given the chance to ask questions about the policy.
Several residents who came to the teach-in spoke out against the impact tax, saying imposing such a tax showed a lack of political courage since it is designed to tax people who are not yet residents of the county.
“Use property or income tax,” said Thomas Durek of Bethesda. “It’s just a way of tucking it in because Johnny-come-lately doesn’t vote.”
He was not the only resident who suggested raising his own taxes. “Wouldn’t it be better to have it spread out across the population, rather than just the new people?” said Rosalie Silverberg of Gaithersburg.
Others suggested that the impact tax be used as a facet of a larger tax package. “The impact tax is just a start and we need more taxes somewhere else,” said Dan Wilhelm of the Montgomery County Civic Federation.
The breakout sessions were administered by county staff from a variety of agencies, not the decision makers who will be voting, so they could not comment on the idea of increasing taxes in general.
The way the tax was implemented was also questioned. Wayne Goldstein, of Kensington, suggested that the school impact tax on residential development be assessed on a per-square-foot basis. The planning board had considered that idea but rejected it, reasoning that a larger house does not necessarily equal putting more students in the school system.
Additionally, the planning board will tax single family homes at a higher rate than apartments and since typically, single family homes are larger. “To some degree, that reflects those kinds of differences,” said Jeff Zyontz, chief of Park and Planning’s Countywide Planning Division.
Goldstein however, argued that taxing a 2,000-square-foot house at the same rate as a 10,000-square-foot house does not sync with the progressive taxation typical of this country, pointing to income taxes as an example. “You taxs the people who can afford it,” he said.