gaithersblog.net

According to an article (on the second page) in today’s Washington Post, Bob Dorsey is questioning the results of last Tuesday’s primary against Phil Andrews:

Dorsey Questions Results

Rockville City Council member Bob Dorsey said Monday that his loss in the County Council primary to incumbent Phil Andrews (D-Gaithersburg-Rockville) was “suspicious” and he believes there may have been election tampering.

“I just don’t see any other explanation,” Dorsey said of the lopsided outcome in which Andrews won with 76 percent of the vote. Those votes don’t include provisional ballots.

Having seen a widely publicized simulation of a tampered election, in which Benedict Arnold defeats George Washington after electronic voting, Dorsey said his race seemed similar.

“Benedict Arnold’s margin of victory was surprisingly like my margin of loss,” Dorsey said. “There was too much in my case parallel with the contrived results.”

He added that people closest to him said that he had been “robbed.”

Dorsey brought up his suspicions after Mayor Larry Giammo announced during Monday’s City Council meeting that he no longer would support the electronic voting system for use in Rockville.

Andrews said he was a little surprised.

“If Mr. Dorsey had bothered to look at the absentee ballot results, which are cast on paper ballots, he would have found that the margin among the absentee ballots was the same as on the machines. That would strongly suggest to anyone looking at it that there was an accurate tabulation of the votes.”

Andrews defeated in Dorsey in 2002 as well.

In the same article, it also discusses Stephen Abrams’ flirting with the County Republican Party for a position on the November Council at-large ballot.

Channel 4 today (9/21/06) updated its story on the day laborers so that it now says:

Police said Wednesday that they will no longer enforce trespassing laws at a Gaithersburg, Md., shopping center.

Police were supposed to start issuing citations for anyone caught trespassing Wednesday morning at the shopping center, but none showed up.

[…]

County officials said Wednesday evening that they would not spend any more time on patrolling the area. The county instead plans to put its resources into creating a day laborer center in the area.

As I’m sure anyone who reads the City Manager’s statement would suspect, this is not exactly correct. Giving Channel 4 the benefit of the doubt, they are probably reporting on statements from the County Police. The county, as one would suspect from Mr. Romer’s letter, seems not to be particularly inclined to enforce any trespassing laws in Gaithersburg. However, Gaithersburg has its own police force, and they have every intention of enforcing the trespassing laws. One wonders, however, if the incompleteness in Channel 4’s reporting is deliberate or if it just reflects their ignorance of Montgomery County politics.

The City has posted notice of a public hearing of the Historic District Commission (Mayor and Council with different hats) regarding the demolition of the historic Talbott House, currently being used as the Hair Bar. The hearing will be held on October 9, 2006:

The application requests a certificate of approval from the City’s Historic District Commission for the demolition of the historic Talbott House at 309 North Frederick Avenue. Section 24-228 of the City Code (Zoning Ordinance) requires a historic area work permit for altering exterior features of a historic resource. The subject property, located on Lot 84 in Realty Park Subdivision , is a locally designated historic site. Contact the Planning and Code Administration City Planner (listed below) at 301-258-6330 if you should have any questions and/or to learn more about this process and your ability to offer testimony and input.

I’ve written about this before. Mr. Halici is asking for this permit on the basis of “economic hardship” without providing any verifiable evidence of economic hardship. He obtained such a permit in 2003 after a four-year process, but this expired after three years (which includes an extension). He is asking in this hearing that the HDC reject the unanimous recommendation of the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee that the application should be denied.

The City has posted notice and background materials regarding a proposed adequate public facilities ordinance:

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 24 OF THE CITY CODE ENTITLED “ZONING” SO AS TO CREATE NEW ARTICLE XV ENTITLED “ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES” SO AS TO REQUIRE THAT PUBLIC FACILITIES BE DEEMED ADEQUATE TO SERVE DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO VARIOUS LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS AND TO SET FORTH APPLICABLE PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOR THE DETERMINATION THEREOF.

The public hearing will be held on Monday, October 9, 2006. The draft ordinance states:

It is the purpose and intent of this Article to:

1. Implement the authority granted to the City of Gaithersburg pursuant to Article 66B, §10.01, Md Code Ann.
2. Control and manage growth in an orderly, efficient, cohesive and safe manner consistent with the economic and land use planning policies of the City and for the health, safety and welfare of its inhabitants.
3. Provide a mechanism and standards to evaluate and ensure that the public facilities hereafter specified are adequate or will be adequate to serve the needs generated by land use development in the development approval process.
4. Provide for the phasing or staging of development, conditional approvals including but not limited to requiring provision of public facilities and/or traffic mitigation to ensure the adequacy of public facilities. Ensure that premature development does not occur and to require that development approvals are not rendered by an approving authority without a determination of the adequacy of public facilities or that such facilities will be made adequate within the reasonable foreseeable future.

Public facilities specifically addressed in the draft are roads, schools, water and sewer as well as fire and emergency services.

Earlier today I received a copy of the letter that Bruce Romer sent to City Manager David Humpton declining to allow Gaithersburg City Police authority to enforce trespassing at the 17 N. Frederick Ave location that the day laborers now appear to be using. I asked Mr. Humpton for his reaction to this and, if possible, a copy of the letter that Mr. Romer had been replying to. Mr Humpton provided both, via Public Information Director Britta Monaco. You can download copies of of Mr. Humpton’s original letter as a pdf and Mr. Romer’s response as a Microsoft Word document. Here are Mr Humpton’s comments as relayed by Ms. Monaco:

City Manager Humpton asked to me to respond to your inquiry. The statement below and the two attachments referenced in the statement were sent to a local neighborhood listserv this afternoon. This statement will also be posted on the City’s website tomorrow:

A Statement from City Manager David B. Humpton Regarding Trespass Enforcement
September 21, 2006

As you may know, the property owners of the shopping center at 117 North Frederick Avenue, the Duvall Shopping Center, and the Duron Paint store have granted the Gaithersburg City Police agency to enforce trespassing laws at these locations. As a result of our recent enforcement, a number of the day laborers have moved to the vacant property at 17 North Frederick Avenue (the County-leased property) and the adjoining public right-of-way.

The property at 17 North Frederick Avenue is under lease to the Montgomery County government. Yesterday, I corresponded with Montgomery County Chief Administrative Officer Bruce Romer and requested that the County government grant agency to the City Police so we could also enforce trespassing laws at 17 North Frederick Avenue (the County-leased property). Unfortunately, the County has denied our request. Please see the attached letters.

While the City Police cannot enforce trespassing at 17 North Frederick Avenue (the County-leased property) at this time, I have directed the Police Department to monitor the property closely and proactively enforce all existing laws addressing issues such as public consumption of alcohol, urinating in public, and disorderly conduct.

Please note that during their September 5, 2006 meeting, the Mayor and City Council unanimously agreed that 17 North Frederick Avenue (the County-leased property) was not a suitable location for an employment center, and I have relayed this position to Montgomery County officials. Be assured that this issue remains a top priority for the City and we are committed to developing a measured and appropriate response. Please contact me at 301-258-6310 if you have any questions.

Britta Monaco
Public Information Director
City of Gaithersburg
31 S. Summit Ave.
Gaithersburg, MD 20877
Phone: 301-258-6310 x2111
Fax: 301-948-6149
www.gaithersburgmd.gov

Update: This statement, and the letters, are now available on the City’s website.

Update 2: I missed this when it was put up a few days ago at the Washington Post: Video of Gaithersburg worker protest

Nancy Trejos‘ article in the Post has been updated since I last wrote about it:

Last year, the city agreed to refurbish a nearby building, at 17 N. Frederick Ave., if the county leased it. But those plans were scuttled when residents complained. Since then, city officials have been searching for another site, but county officials have questioned their commitment.

“We remain committed to assisting the City in getting a center operable, but are concerned that Gaithersburg has made little progress in identifying a permanent site,” the county’s chief administrative officer, Bruce Romer, wrote to Gaithersburg City Manager David B. Humpton on Tuesday.

Humpton said the city has worked for a year to find a center, considering and rejecting 30 locations. He said the city is in discussions with another shopping center owner. “It is difficult here,” he said. “It is difficult everywhere to find a worker site.”

The City did not reject the 30 locations. In most cases, the property owners refused to lease the properties for this purpose, and in some cases the day laborer advocates rejected the locations. How hard is this to get right?

Yesterday morning, police officers watched quietly as clergymen and day laborers prayed and waved signs that read “To Work is Not a Crime” and “Dignity for All.”

They are not being told that they cannot work, or that to work is a crime. They are being told not to use private property without permission, and to treat other property and property owners with respect. By the way, if you watched the video at Channel 4, at one point the camera pans to the ground, where there is a large pile of such signs carefully prepared for the occasion (many of the day laborers are not or are only minimally literate even in Spanish) but not in use because of the low turnout.

“This is not fair. This is not justice,” said David Rocha, pastor of Gaithersburg’s Camino de Vida United Methodist Church and one of the day laborers’ key leaders.

Isaias Hernandez, 36, a Gaithersburg resident who left his native Mexico 13 years ago, burst into tears as he told his story. “It makes me sad that we are treated this way,” he said in Spanish. “I’ve been here for 14 years and believe me, I haven’t done anything wrong.”

Rocha was reportedly asking the regular day laborers to stay away, and recruiting legal immigrants to attend so that they could tell such stories.

After a brief prayer vigil, the laborers and their supporters marched along Route 355 to City Hall to demand a meeting with the mayor or city manager.

Humpton complied. He sat across from Hernandez at a picnic table and heard his plea for a center. “I want you to know that the mayor and the overwhelming majority of the council supports a center,” Humpton told the day laborers. “The question is where.”

Gosh it must be frustrating for the advocates when their adversaries refuse to act like bigots.

Update: The Post also has a video on the events.

In the DC Examiner, meanwhile, Courtney Mabeus reports:

County Chief Administrative Officer Bruce Romer sent a letter to Humpton late Tuesday expressing concern that the city has “made little progress in identifying” a permanent site. The county last year entered into a five-year lease on a site located at 17 N. Frederick Ave. for an employment center and has set aside $125,000 to help the city operate it, according to Romer.

The Sentinel also chimed in:

Shortly after proclaiming Sept. 15 through Oct. 15 as “National Hispanic Heritage Month” in Gaithersburg during Monday’s city council meeting, Humpton reported that the property owners of the parking lot, next to the Grace United Methodist Church, sent a letter to inform the city that they will close the parking lot as an informal day laborer site beginning Wednesday. The city has since put up signs along Walker Avenue and will soon put them up on Route 355 warning motorists not to stop or stand on the road, meaning employers will not be able to pick up any of the day laborers for work since they are no longer allowed to pull into the parking lot.

[…]

After the members of the clergy said a prayer with the day laborers, the group marched down Route 355 and down to city hall to ask city officials to come out and speak with them. The clergymen and day laborer spokesman Isaias Hernandez were able to bring Humpton out to speak to the crowd in front of city hall.

Hernandez begged Humpton not to kick the men off the shopping center property at least until a center can be found. He said it is the only way for him and other men to make money and provide for their families.

“Please don’t move us, please,” Hernandez said through bouts of tears. “I have a family. I have no work now. We are good people, we just want to work.”

Hernandez’s family lives in Gaithersburg with him and said to cover monthly costs, he needs to make at least $2,000 a month.