gaithersblog.net

The City has published Notice of a Public Hearing, to be held a week from today on Monday, November 20, 2006, on the proposed anti-soliciation ordinance. I’ve discussed this issue in several previous posts.

Update: Sebastian Montes writes in the Gazette:

With a key shift in wording, Gaithersburg’s proposed anti-solicitation law is headed to public hearing Monday night as a pedestrian safety issue, not a day-laborer issue.

A primary difference between the first draft and what the city will consider at 7:30 p.m. Monday at City Hall is the new language that says increasing levels of solicitation in Gaithersburg ‘‘has caused a significant attendant increase in safety hazards within the city.”

‘‘It’s coming from everywhere,” [City Manager David Humpton] said in an interview Monday when asked to cite specific data. He did not cite research or police statistics that show a spike in such hazards.

City Attorney Cathy Borten explained that ‘‘the findings are based on staff’s understanding of how we see the problem.”

The ACLU, which has been monitoring Gaithersburg’s deliberations and has successfully challenged similar laws across the country, isn’t yet convinced that the wording change makes the law substantially different.

ACLU opposition of such laws is based on First Amendment rights.

‘‘Framing it a different way does not change the fundamental rights at stake. … Asking for or offering a job is clearly a protected form of free speech,” said Meredith Curtis of the ACLU’s state chapter.

For its part, a coalition of religious leaders that supports the day laborers was at a loss Monday morning in formulating how it should react to the ordinance.

The loose association, which has seen dwindling numbers after coming together two months ago, wants to make its presence felt at the hearing but could not craft a unified position.

The clergy representing churches in the coalition — which include Episcopal Church of the Ascension, St. Martin of Tours Catholic Church and Grace United Methodist Church — have stressed that their participation in the coalition comes as individuals, not necessarily as representatives of their congregations.

Update: The City has posted the video from this meeting.

The work session was about an hour and a half long. There was considerable discussion of the regulation’s details, especially with regard to the equity sharing issue — at what point, and to what extent should buyers of affordable housing be able to benefit from increases in market value of their properties? The draft regulation said that the last owner of a property at the point at which the property came out of regulation (at 30 years) would be able to keep, for each year they had lived in the property, 5% of the windfall profit from the first open market sale of the property. Thus, if a property had sold as an MPDU in the twenty-fifth year after construction for, say, $200,000, and then sold five years later as a market-rate property for $800,000, then the person who owned the house for that five-year period would be allowed to keep one quarter of the gain, or $150,000. Many among the Council felt that this was not fair, especially to previous owners who may have lived there even longer. It also would seem to create a pricing anomaly that was ripe for abuse.

Other concerns included:

• that other exceptional situations, such as the death of a family member, could result in unfair consequences
• the limited means of some affordable housing residents could result in many of these properties not being properly maintained; there was some sympathy for requiring a City inspection of these properties when they are resold
• that even just requiring a “fee in lieu of” for Olde Towne may be too much to require for an area that is struggling to attract development

As usual, the video is your best source for learning the details of what was discussed. The next step for these regulations is probably a public hearing. Staff will be making several revisions to the draft prior to that time.

Reminder: Mayor and Council meeting tonight: Work Session on Affordable Housing Regulations.

Update 4: Ernesto Londoño writes in the Washington Post:

According to a charging document, [the assailant, 31-year-old Julio C. Ramirez] had been drinking at a house that night with Francisco Diaz and other men. An argument between the two men became physical, and Diaz was stabbed with a 10-inch kitchen knife, police said.

According to the brief, police do not believe that the incident was gang-related.

Update 3: The City has posted more information on the Crime Summary Page:

Aggravated Assault

On 11/12/06, at 8:27 p.m., an aggravated assault was reported in the 600 Block of South Frederick Avenue. Investigation revealed that two known individuals were involved in a verbal dispute. The dispute escalated. One of the men stabbed the other man with a knife multiple times. The victim was transported to a local hospital where he was treated for his injuries. The injuries were not life threatening. The suspect was arrested while fleeing the scene and charged with attempted 2nd degree murder

Update: This incident is now mentioned on the City’s Crime Summary Page:

Aggravated Assault

On 11/12/06, at 8:27 p.m., an aggravated assualt was reported in the 600 Block of South Frederick Avenue. The suspect was arrested while fleeing the scene.

This one occured on South Frederick, near Walnut Hill. (*)

MoCo Progressive has the details.

(*) Although if it turns out it occurred in the Walnut Hill shopping center or the neighborhood behind it, that’s actually not within the City.

Update 2: Actually, the 600 block of S Frederick is the block just north of Walnut Hill Shopping Center, and is definitely in the City. Walnut Hill is where the Bottom Dollar (formerly Food Lion) and the MVA express are located. Things in the 600 block include the Macroland building, Gaithersburg Presbyterian Church, Goodwill, the Chinese Resturant where Bare Bones used to be, and a Chevron Station. There also is an older strip shopping center called “Walnut Center”, which causes me, at least, no end of confusion.