gaithersblog.net

Update : A notice went out from the City today saying:

Dear Interested Parties:

Please be advised that HAWP-37E was removed from the agenda for tonight’s Historic District Commission meeting and will be placed on the HDC’s agenda for Tuesday, January 2, 2007. The City was notified that a particular piece of correspondence was not included in the public record and the HDC had not received a copy of it in their reading package.

We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.

Sincerely,

David B. Humpton
City Manager

The City has posted the agenda for the Monday, December 18, 2006 meeting of the Mayor and Council, with a mid-meeting hat change while they act as the Historic District Commission. There are a few agenda items of special interest:

• Policy discussion on Hamza Halici’s application to destroy a historically-designated property in the City, the Talbott House, also known as the Hair Bar. Mr Halici has asked permission to do this on financial-burden grounds, but has refused to submit any documentation which would effectively demonstrate the hardship the house supposedly creates. It will be interesting to see whether the Council will rule that this documentation is not required, presumably opening the door for any owner of any historic property in the City to obtain a demolition permit on these grounds, and in essence crippling future historic preservation efforts in the City.
• Announcement of the annual strategic planning retreat. Note that the public is invited to the Saturday sessions, which will be held in Annapolis.
• Two public hearings, one on T-380, an amendment to the I-3 zone (I-3 is used for IBM, Metropolitan Grove and GE Tech Park. I believe that the amendment has to do with issues in GE Tech Park specifically) and an amendment to the sprinkler ordinance, which would require the addition of sprinkler systems to apartment buildings that (a) lack them, and (b) are standing vacant for some minimum period of time. I believe that, in the immediate term, this issue was raised by the proposal to re-lease the East Deer Park apartments.
• The formal introduction of the proposed affordable housing regulations; those interested in this issue probably want to grab a copy of the background materials and read through it.
• Final action on the Defibrillator ordinance and on the Lakelands Lane in the Woods SDP.

City of Gaithersburg
AGENDA FOR A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MONDAY, DECEMBER 18, 2006, 7:30 P.M.

I. CALL TO ORDER

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

III. INVOCATION

Fitzgerald Clark, Baha’i Faith

IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of a Regular Meeting of the Mayor and City

Council Held December 4, 2006

TBA - Background Material (pdf format)

V. APPOINTMENTS

Resolution of the City Council Confirming Appointments and a Reappointment by the Mayor to the Ad Hoc Election Participation Advisory Committee, and Gaithersburg Senior Council
Background Material (pdf format)

VI. OATH OF OFFICE TO ALTERNATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER

• Geri Lanier

VII. PRESENTATION

The Gaithersburg Community Museum Train Annex Committee Update
Background Material (pdf format)

VIII. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
(public is invited to speak on any subject that is not a public hearing topic on tonight’s agenda – each speaker three minutes)

IX. FROM THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL/ANNOUNCEMENTS

• Upcoming City Events
• Strategic Planning Retreat Announcement

X. FROM THE CITY MANAGER

• Update on Market Square Issues
  Background Material (pdf format)

• Mid-Year Personnel Adjustments

  Background Material (pdf format)

XI. PUBLIC HEARING

1. JOINT – T-380, An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 24 of the City Code Entitled "Zoning," Article III Entitled "Regulations Applicable to Particular Zones,” Division 15 Entitled “I-3 Zone, Industrial and Office Park,” to Eliminate Redundant and Conflicting Provisions and Renumber Accordingly

   Background Material (pdf format)

2. An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 5 of the City Code Entitled "Buildings," to Create a New Article VI Entitled "Additional Fire Safety Requirements for Certain Multi-Family Residential Structures” to Create a New Section 5-11 Entitled “Automated Sprinkler Systems” to Require the Retrofit of Certain Multi-Family Residential Structures With Automated Sprinkler Systems

   Background Material (pdf format)

XII. RECESS MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEETING

---

HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION

1. Call to Order

2. Approval of Minutes

• Minutes of a Historic District Commission Meeting Held December 4, 2006
  Background Material (pdf format)

3. Certificates of Approval

• HAWP-99A (Amended) - Applicant: Alfred Riley, 10 Brookes Avenue, Conversion of Residence to Office, Install Parking Lot and Modifications to Rear of House
  Background Material (pdf format)

• HAWP-49B - Applicant: Barbara Lima, 12 Brookes Avenue, Tree Removal

  Background Material (pdf format)

4. Policy Discussion

• HAWP-37E Applicant: Stephen Orens for Hamza Halici/Halici, Inc., 309 North Frederick Avenue, Demolition of Talbott House
  Background Material (pdf format)

5. Adjournment

---

XIII. RECONVENE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEETING

XIV. ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, AND REGULATIONS
(ordinances, resolutions, and regulations to be introduced or adopted following appropriate procedures required by the City Code, or resolutions that may require discussion by the Mayor and Council prior to approval)

Introduction of the Gaithersburg Affordable Housing Program Regulations (Public Hearing scheduled for 1/2/07)

Background Material (pdf format)

XV. POLICY DISCUSSION AND STAFF GUIDANCE
(discussion by the Mayor and Council about previous public hearing topics and other policy matters)

1. SDP-06-003, Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of Gaithersburg Granting Approving of Schematic Development Plan, SDP-06-003 as an Amendment to Schematic Development Plan SDP-L5, Lakelands, Lane in the Woods, the Subject Property is Located in the Lakelands Subdivision and is in the Mixed Use Development (MXD) Zone (Ready for Final Action)
   Background Material (pdf format)

2. An Ordinance to Amend Chapter 2 of the City Code, Entitled “Administration”, Article II, Entitled “Municipal-County Relations”, Section 2-6 Thereof, Entitled “Exemption From Montgomery County Legislation and Regulations Within the City” so as to Include the Provisions of Section 24-211A Entitled “Fitness Centers-Defibrillators” of Chapter 24 of the Montgomery County Code Entitled “Health And Sanitation”, as Being Applicable and Enforceable Within the City (Ready for Final Action)

   Background Material (pdf format)

XVI. FROM THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS, CITY ATTORNEY AND OTHER STAFF

XVII. ADJOURNMENT

---

Notice to the general public is hereby given that the
Mayor and City Council of the City of Gaithersburg

will not conduct a work session the
week of December 25, 2006.

---

THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

WILL BE HELD TUESDAY, JANUARY 2, 2007, 7:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 31 SOUTH SUMMIT AVENUE

---

UPCOMING COUNCIL MEETING AND WORK SESSION ITEMS
This list is not all-inclusive, and does not reflect priorities or scheduling
But is intended to provide a glance at future items to come before the City Council.

Jan 2 Meeting

Public Hearing
Affordable Housing Program Regulations (tentative)

Policy Discussion
T-377 - Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for the City of Gaithersburg

- Ordinance to Repeal and Reenact With Amendments Section 15-4 of the City Code, Entitled “Loitering,” so as to Clarify Existing Language With Regard to Prohibited Conduct, and Section 15-9, Entitled “Solicitation In Roadways,” so as to Expand the Applicability of the City’s Prohibition on Solicitation Specific to this Chapter

---

Notice to the general public is hereby given that the
Mayor and City Council of the City of Gaithersburg
will conduct a special work session on Monday,
January 8, 2007, to gather citizen input on
the Draft 2007 Strategic Plan.

In addition, notice to the general public is hereby given that
the Mayor and City Council of the City of Gaithersburg
will hold their Annual Strategic Planning Retreat on
Friday, January 19 and Saturday, January 20, 2007.

An agenda and draft 2007 Strategic Plan will be

posted on the City’s website in January 2007. Anyone who
would like more information about the retreat may contact
the City Manager’s Office at 301-258-6310.

---

MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS

ARE TELEVISED LIVE ON CABLE CHANNEL 13
AND ON THE
INTERNET AT
www.gaithersburgmd.gov/tv

TO CONFIRM ACCESSIBILITY ACCOMMODATIONS,
PLEASE CONTACT DORIS STOKES AT
CITY HALL, 301-258-6310

---

Hand held signs brought into the Council Chambers may not be displayed in a manner which
disrupts the meeting, blocks the view of spectators or cameras and poses a safety
concern [e.g., signs mounted on stakes]. Your cooperation is appreciated.)

OK, this doesn’t have anything to do with Gaithersburg specifically; file it under miscellaneous. I noticed this story when I was looking for follow-ups on the Mamaroneck situation I mentioned a few days ago. Happily, it seems that not everyone in that community is hostile to Hispanics.

As reported by Candice Ferrette in the Westchester Journal-News:

“We are really touched,” said Eva Amaya, 45, a housekeeper from Larchmont. “They are giving more than just gifts to my children.”

Amaya said the gift her daughter gets will go under their tree and won’t be opened until Christmas Eve.

Yesterday, she was among the 250 people who attended a Christmas party hosted by members of the Westchester Jewish Center for the families of the Hispanic Resource Center of Larchmont and Mamaroneck.

The annual event took place last night in the recreation room at St. Thomas’ Episcopal Church on Boston Post Road.

A mariachi band entertained guests as dozens of children played games, sang songs and received presents.

“It’s rewarding. This is the side of our community that doesn’t go to Christmas parties all the time and aren’t able to buy their kids anything they want,” said Mike Miller, 16, a member of the synagogue and a student at Mamaroneck High School.

John Gitlitz, president of the Hispanic Resource Center, agreed.

“The symbolism of a Jewish synagogue throwing a Hispanic Christmas party at an Episcopal Church is what this country is all about,” Gitlitz said. “I love it.”

Ernesto Londoño writes in today’s Post:

Three Montgomery County banks on the same busy thoroughfare were robbed yesterday within minutes of each other, and detectives believe the first two were robbed by the same man.

Police got the first call at 9:52 a.m., after the man, who was wearing an eye patch, walked into United Bank at 16268 South Frederick Ave. in Gaithersburg, passed a note to a teller announcing the robbery, implied that he had a gun and left after receiving an undisclosed amount of cash.

Minutes after leaving the United Bank branch, police said, the man entered the Sandy Spring Bank at 484 North Frederick Ave. and followed the same routine, once again leaving with an undisclosed amount of cash.

Police said the robber is a black man who is about 50 years old, 6 feet tall, approximately 200 pounds and has a light complexion and a salt-and-pepper beard. During the robberies, he wore a camel-colored leather coat, blue jeans and a black beret and a carried a black shoulder bag.

About 10 minutes after the second robbery, police were notified that the Bank of America branch at 12099 Rockville Pike in Rockville had been struck. Frederick Avenue and Rockville Pike are different names for Route 355.

Investigators found no connection between the third robbery and the earlier two.

Jaime Ciavarra has written an article for today’s Gazette headlined “What is the price of progress?“:

John Small, 81, has lived in a two-bedroom, red brick apartment in Gaithersburg for more than half of his life.

He watched his two children grow up there. His church, grocery store and mechanic are just down the street. More than 41 years worth of memories adorn the apartment’s beige walls.

But Small — who now lives on a fixed income of about $4,000 a month and pays $774 in monthly rent — could be losing his home in the name of progress.

Broadstone Apartments on West Deer Park Road, the 41-year-old rental complex where Small lives, is slated for redevelopment, meaning his home and those of 350 other families could be demolished to make way for townhouses, condominiums and a new apartment building.

The article goes on (and on) in this vein. But one major question that goes unaddressed is: What, specifically, does anyone propose be done about this problem? Do the Gazette, and the housing advocates they quote, propose that the many “affordable” apartments in central Gaithersburg be left untouched in perpetuity? Is this land forever to be “rent controlled”? By what mechanism do the advocates propose to mandate that an inexhaustible supply of low-rent apartments will forever be available in this part of town?

And why in this part of town? Should there not be $799/month apartments in Crown Farm, Watkins Mill or even Kentlands as well? What is special about the older parts of town that the apartments there have to be so inexpensive? Certainly it isn’t because of the large number of low-income jobs available or the excellent public transportation in Olde Towne. Could it simply be that central Gaithersburg needs to be preserved as a place for the economically disadvantaged to live because so much of the rest of the City has been allowed to be built out without any such requirement? Have the years of disinvestment in Olde Towne, engendered in no small part by the great Niagara of cash flowing into the sure-thing, far-from-affordable greenfield developments elsewhere in the City, sealed Olde Towne’s fate? If yes, perhaps it is time to start discussing how property owners will be compensated for this taking. If not, then I think that we need to hear more about practical proposals for maintaining the availability of $799/month apartments elsewhere in the City, or maybe — just maybe — a little less about any specific obligation property owners may have to provide units at such rates.

Update: Reading the print edition of the Gazette this morning, I note another passage, and a letter from AIM. First, from the above-cited article,

‘‘I think we’re looking at a dynamic process that we’ll adapt as we need to,” Sesma said. ‘‘Our growth will include all segments of the population.”

But at 81, John Small doesn’t want to move. Still, he’s been consolidating his old scrapbooks and World War II memorabilia just in case.

‘‘I’m not any kind of a real estate expert,” he said. ‘‘What I am is an old settler fighting for the homestead from big city developers. And I’m hoping that whatever happens, they’ll remember we are people. These are our homes.”

Here is what seems to be the essential misunderstanding. Mr. Small is not a “homesteader” in any traditional sense of the word, which generally means someone who claims ownership of public land by virtue of his occupation thereof. The Broadstone apartments are not, as far as I know, public land. Mr. Small is there presumably according to a contract into which he himself chose to enter with the property owner, and I would be shocked if that contract did not allow the property owner to cease making the apartment available for rent. Of course, as a renter, Mr. Small does have rights, and those rights have recently been expanded by the City. But I am not aware that a renter, no matter how long his or her tenure, has a right to claim any ownership of the property based on that tenure.

Don’t get me wrong — I certainly do feel sorry for Mr. Small and the others profiled in that article. But I also appreciate the desire of the developers to improve the return on their investment in that property. Which brings me to a letter also published in today’s Gazette, headlined “City should rethink its affordable housing plan“, and written by two people who do not live in Gaithersburg: Patrick Ryan and Alisa Glassman, the co-chair and lead organizer of Action in Montgomery. They state:

Exempting developers from citywide policies is the wrong tool to encourage revitalization. Giving governmental permission to displace thousands of residents from their current affordable homes is morally wrong.

In addition to the potential large reduction in the existing supply of affordable and moderate-income housing in Olde Towne, the city’s new proposed affordable housing requirements for the rest of the city are substantially lower than requirements in the rest of Montgomery County.

The county mandates a 12.5 percent moderately priced dwelling unit (MPDU) set aside, with an additional 10 percent for workforce housing in developments near Metro stations. Gaithersburg is considering a 7.5 percent set aside for MPDUs, with an additional 7.5 percent for workforce housing.

However, from a sidebar in Ms. Ciavarra’s article, we learn that there are 1,881 moderately priced dwelling units that have been available for purchase in Montgomery County, and there are 823 rental MPDUs. This affordable housing policy has been in effect in Montgomery County for about thirty years, and in the entire County there are fewer rental MPDUs than there are affordable apartments just in Gaithersburg’s Olde Towne? This is the policy they want to emulate?

Moreover, as I imagine AIM would be the first to admit, an MPDU as currently defined will do nothing for someone who is able to afford only $799/month for an apartment. I saw nothing in their letter, except possibly their mention of the “tax credits, higher zoning density, affordable housing trust funds or subsidized financing” (in other words, turning tax dollars over to the economically disadvantaged) used by other jurisdictions around the Country, that would give any hope to those who currently can only afford these older, neglected properties. However, perhaps if AIM can encourage the City to impose development rules in Olde Towne which make it extremely difficult for a developer to obtain a reasonable return on a redevelopment project, then the developers will stay away, and Olde Towne will stay just like it is — at least until the existing structures deteriorate to the point that they are simply uninhabitable.

Instead, the City has noted that Olde Towne has been almost devoid of redevelopment projects for several years now, and what projects that have been completed over the past decade or so have been subsidized by the City in one way or another. Possibly the City’s recognition that they shouldn’t be making a bad environment for development even worse is what worries AIM.

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

The City will hold a work session tonight, a major topic of which is the Crown Farm development. Note that there are sixteen new documents posted on the Crown Farm/SDP-06-005 page. One major concern is that the the Crown Farm plans could get ahead of the historic preservation review process. As part of the annexation agreement (section 10 (b), pages 18 and 19 of the agreement, pages 46 and 47 of the pdf), the historic structures on the Crown Farm property are to go through the City’s normal historic preservation process, but with some language that says that this review will not delay various other parts of the planning process. However, to my knowledge, HPAC has yet to be asked to review any properties. And as the agreement states that the City will bear all the costs associated with historic preservation, I would think it would be the City that needs to get a move on here. I’d encourage anyone concerned with the impending loss of historic structures in Crown Farm to make your concerns known to the City, possibly by coming to the work session tonight.

Another concern I have heard has to do with the planned density in some parts of Crown Farm; many people believe that some of the proposed densities are too high. However, I would generally be supportive of having some pockets of very high density, especially near the planned transit stop. In order to have a successful pedestrian center in a development like this, you need there to be a large number of people within a short walking distance, and you need to make it easier to walk and take public transportation than to drive. I believe that this is one thing that has not worked well in, for example, Kentlands. While they built a large number of properties within a reasonable walking distance of a retail center, they kept the overall density of Kentlands low, and designed everything around the the automobile according to the classic suburban pattern — retail may be only a five minute walk away, but it also a two-minute drive. The retail center itself is dominated by large, sprawlish parking lots which are daunting to cross on foot, and the most pedestrian-friendly parts — notably Market Square near the movie theater — face away from these parking lots and as a result many people don’t even have any idea what stores are in there. I would hope that Crown Farm would not repeat this mistake, and that they are able to build a vibrant, high-density, modern urban core, near high-quality public transportation.

City of Gaithersburg
JOINT WORK SESSION
Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
Monday, December 11, 2006

7:30 p.m.

• Presentation of the Cultural Arts Advisory Committee’s "Cultural Arts Programs, Facilities, and Initiatives Plan," Followed by Selected Cultural Arts Update
  Background Material (pdf file)

• Joint - SDP-06-005 - Crown Farm (Proposed Plan Includes a Mix of Uses, Including 2,250 Residential Units and 320,000 Square Feet of Future Commercial Uses on approximately 180 Acres of Land)
  Background Material - Part 1 (pdf file)
  Background Material - Part 2

As posted on the City website,

In advance of their annual retreat on January 20, the Gaithersburg Mayor and City Council will hold a special work session to gather citizen input on the 2007 Strategic Plan. The televised meeting will take place on Monday, January 8 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 31 South Summit Avenue.

Covering everything from transportation planning and public safety to recreation programs and emergency preparedness, Gaithersburg’s Strategic Plan helps each department focus resources and measure progress and effectiveness in all areas of operation. Throughout the year the Mayor and Council receive regular updates on items outlined in the plan.

The January 8 meeting will include a review of the eleven Strategic Directions outlined in the 2006 Plan and will highlight proposed changes for the coming year. To provide a framework for discussion, City staff will also present municipal trends and a financial overview.

“We encourage citizens to come forward with both short and long term goals for Gaithersburg,” said City Manager David Humpton. “Through this very open process we hope to identify key issues that the Mayor and Council can then discuss in-depth at their annual retreat.”

Following the retreat the City Manager will finalize the document and present the formal 2007 Strategic Directions at a subsequent Mayor and Council meeting.

A copy of the 2006 Strategic Plan is available below. The Draft 2007 Strategic Plan will be posted on the website in January. For more information please contact the City Manager’s office at 301-258-6310 or cityhall@gaithersburgmd.gov

The 2006 strategic plan can be found here.

Mamaroneck is a village in southern New York State, on the west end of Long Island Sound, about half-way between New Rochelle and the Connecticut state line. For the past few years, this village has had what they viewed as a problem with day laborers in the Village. So the Village appears to have tried to get rid of them. According to Judge Colleen McMahon of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York, the way the Village went about this task was reprehensible. For reference, I’ve obtained the ruling from Pacer. [For some reason, the document from Pacer is missing the cover page, which also contains the first two findings (which are just the identies of two of the John Does). I called the Clerk of that Court and spoke to someone who made it pretty clear that they really didn’t much care that it was missing. However, another source had a scanned/bitmapped PDF of the enitre document (the Pacer document contains searchable and selectable text). I’ve extracted the cover page from that document and made it available as a jpeg here.]

Understand that I’ve certainly seen first hand the clueless and unfair judgement of a liberal press, so I’m taking most of this with a large grain of salt. But while I have no particular difficulty believing that day laborers could have caused trouble, the littany of missteps on the part of the Village is startling. Quoting an editorial in the New York Times,

The problem was concocted. Mayor Trifiletti said publicly that the crackdown was necessary because “a vast number of laborers,” more than 200, had swarmed in from outside the village, upsetting what had been a manageable status quo. In fact, the number of laborers was less than half that and the great majority were village residents.

The crackdown was discriminatory. “That the village acted with malicious or bad-faith intent to injure the day laborers is easily proven,” the judge wrote. The police officers who blitzed contractors with tickets and intimidated laborers showed striking tolerance toward other people in town. Latino drivers who were not wearing seat belts got tickets; white drivers got a friendly gesture urging them to buckle up. Mothers and fathers dropping their children off for school and day care were not hounded or ticketed as the contractors were, even when they blocked traffic.

Something was out of control, but it wasn’t the laborers. Judge McMahon put her finger on it. About the only thing that had appreciably changed, she said, was “the increased hostility of local residents and businesspeople” to Latino men who had been congregating in the village without incident for many years.

It is always hazardous and often unwise to pin labels of racism or bigotry on people. Unless a person is proudly wearing that ugliness — in Klan robes, say — it is best not to throw such words around. But it is impossible not to consider race and class when pondering the reasons for Mamaroneck’s foolish and reckless assault on some of its own residents, men who are browner and far poorer than the homeowners who complain about and hire them. And once you affix a label to a class of persons, it is far easier to generalize about their bad intentions. The trustee who called Mamaroneck’s day laborers “locusts” spoke for everyone who has ever used demeaning epithets to dehumanize and abuse innocent people.

Herb Pinder, in the Westchester Journal-News, summarizes some of Judge McMahon’s findings of fact:

- In March, police told “John Doe No. 1″ and other Latino men on a nearly daily basis that they could not stand in certain locations on Mamaroneck Avenue and that they had to keep moving; John Doe No. 8 was ordered to move on 15 to 20 occasions by one officer. Such findings were numerous.

- John Doe No. 6, drinking a soda in Columbus Park, was told to move by a police officer because “the location where he was seated was where children played”; during the U.S. Open golf tournament at Winged Foot in June, John Doe No. 8 and other Latino men “were told to find another spot to stand where people cannot see them.” John Doe No. 6 observed police force a worker who had been picked up by the contractor to exit the contractor’s vehicle, “then walk two blocks before re-entering the vehicle.”

- Police ticketed contractors as they were about to, or immediately after, they picked up day laborers; John Doe No. 1 was detained for up to two hours and asked where he was from before being released; “Chief Flynn specifically directed his subordinates that commercial vehicles that stop in Columbus Park . . . should be brought to the harbor and subjected to” extensive and time-consuming safety inspections. Flynn said he was acting upon complaints about unsafe vehicles picking up workers. The judge said, “This is not credible.”

- McMahon found “No evidence in the record suggests that anyone other than the day laborers is subject to the kinds of law enforcement actions [e.g., restrictions on their movements or presence] that are described in the” complaint; “Village police did not enforce with equal rigor, and sometimes even ignored, traffic and parking infractions that occurred in other parts of the Village or that were committed by persons other than contractors.”

- One store owner “observed Latino drivers being ticketed outside his store for not wearing a seatbelt; but when police officers saw white drivers not wearing their seatbelts, they made a gesture to show that the drivers should buckle their seatbelts but did not give these drivers a ticket.”

Now, understand that Judge McMahon is not universally loved. On the Right, we learn from Judicial Watch:

The president of the organization that represented the migrants, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, said that city officials had engaged in intentional discrimination that was motivated by racism and pro immigration groups across the country applauded the ruling, saying that this judge saw how racism robs people of their humanity.

These appear to be the only groups praising Judge McMahon, a Bill Clinton appointee with a controversial history. She ranks second on a list of 10 judges that should be impeached for abuse of power. Her critics say she regularly makes inappropriate statements in open court (such as, “this is not a gun society any more.”), she refers to her duties on the bench as “torture” and “pain and suffering” and she often ignores the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Comments on that and other right-wing and otherwise conservative blogs bring the expected rants about illegal immigrants, the need for the rule of law and the decline of society as midwived by liberal judges. Still, there are some things that really bother me about the chronology in the ruling (I’ve deleted all the references and anotations to make it easier to read; refer to the ruling document to get that information):

28. For half a century or more, immigrants – who typically numbered from 20 to 30 – have gathered on a daily basis in the Columbus Park area of the Village for the purpose of soliciting employment.

29. Columbus Park, a public park adjacent to the Mamaroneck train station, is located in an area of the Village of Mamaroneck known as Washingtonville. Washingtonville contains businesses and residences and is a dense and active neighborhood. It is also a very diverse neighborhood, with a large Latino population, as well as Chinese, Italian, Irish, African American and Caucasian residents.

30. Before the early 1990s, those seeking employment were predominantly white.

31. Today, those seeking employment (hereinafter the “day laborers”) are almost exclusively Latino.

Thus, taken at face value, the day laborers were accepted until they became predominantly Hispanic. It is also possible that some of the Hispanic day laborers were less well-behaved than the white laborers they replaced; I haven’t read completely through the ruling but I haven’t seen that this question was addressed. Personally I would speculate that there have always been problems. Perhaps the sorts of problems that arose were less familiar and less well-tolerated to the long-time residents. Still, I think that the essential point is that it appears that this location had been considered an acceptable pick-up point for more than fifty years.

Again from the ruling:

37. By way of background, plaintiffs allege that Village officials began a “campaign of harassment and intimidation” against the day laborers in response to pressure from Park View Condominiums, the developer of a luxury condominium across the street from the day laborer site. The parties have stipulated that in January 2006 construction did begin on a new luxury condominium building across the street. Further, plaintiffs allege and defendants concede that John Lese, an agent for the developer, wrote several letters to Village trustees and/or its attorneys prior to the commencement of the construction. However, since plaintiffs have not submitted the letters into evidence, and there is no other evidence of either their content or the dates on which they were sent in the record, this court cannot conclude, as plaintiffs allege, that Village officials were under pressure from the developer in or about August 2004, when the activity that forms the basis of this lawsuit began.

Whether or not the developer really did try to pressure the City into doing somthing about the laborers, it does appear to be the case that there were new economic pressures on this traditionally ethnic part of the Village. [From the description in the ruling, I’m guessing that this is the area being discussed; there’s a newish looking complex in the upper left, I don’t know if that is the condo in question, but in any event the pickup site would appear to have been between that building and the train station]. Discrimination based on socioeconomic status can be as powerful a motivating force as racial discrimination; the two combined even more so.

It appears that, while the laborers used to be picked up directly on the street, the site they were moved to — a parking lot at the north end of that block — required the contractors to leave the street and pass through the lot. That pickup location was allowed to operate for seventeen months, during which time the laborers and the contractors appeared to be under quite a bit of scrutiny.

At the end of the seventeen months, however, the Village seems to have rammed through a surprise ordinance that effectively shut that site down:

104. The resolution to close the parking lot as a day laborer hiring site was not on the agenda for the Board of Trustees Meeting on January 23, 2006.

105. It was unusual for the Board of Trustees to vote on a resolution that had not been placed on the agenda.

106. At the meeting, Trustee Thomas Murphy questioned the legality of the proposed resolution, and testified that he believed that the better course of action would have been to put it on the agenda for a subsequent meeting and allow for public comment.

107. Representatives of the Hispanic Resource Center were not present at the January 23, 2006 meeting and were unaware of Trustee Angilletta’s resolution.

108. By a vote of 3-2 the Village Board of Trustees passed a resolution stating:

RESOLVED, that the day laborer’s site at Columbus Park be closed as of February 1, 2006 to April 1, 2006, and will remain closed until further notice, based upon the response and participation of the Village of Mamaroneck’s neighboring communities in opening up a day laborer hiring site.

Mayor Trifiletti and Trustee Murphy voted against the resolution.

109. The intent and the effect of the resolution was that neither day laborers nor contractors would be able to use the parking lot as a day laborer pick up Site.

110. The decision to close the Site was motivated by the uncorroborated complaints of residents of the Washingtonville community (like Fava) and businesspeople in the area (like Marni Ranani-Nigro).

111. Following the January 23, 2006 Board meeting, Trustee Angilletta made public comments comparing day laborers to “locusts,” stating that they “are takers. They come in here and take, and they won’t ever give back to the community.”

Any sympathy I might have had for the Village of Mamaroneck Board of Trustees starts to evaporate pretty quickly when I read this. The lack of notice alone is, in my mind, a clear sign that they had no intention to be fair. Certainly they could have voted the same way after having providing notice and at least giving the opponents to this action an opportunity to participate in the discussion. Lack of notice and opportunity to participate was one of the Olde Towne Residents’ principal objections to the creation of a day laborer center in Gaithersburg over a year ago; this is no way to run a government.

I started writing this post about a week ago, and it’s been sitting as a draft in the blog software since that time. Mostly I haven’t been quite sure how I felt about it or what to say; not having been in the middle of the situation and not knowing the people involved, I have a hard time drawing conclusions with certainty. I also spent some time attempting to find someone other than the Mamaroneck officials who were defending their actions in specific. While I was able to find expressions of support for the general idea of shutting down day laborer sites, I had less luck finding defenders of the approach Mamaroneck took toward this goal. I’m afraid that this blog isn’t going to be any help whatsoever to the next person who conducts such a search.

As a follow-up, I note that the Judge just granted an extension period to allow the parties to figure out how to respond to the ruling. Interestingly, two new trustees, both Democrats, have been voted into office, shifting the ideological balance of the Board.

Candice Ferrette writes in the Journal-News:

Lawyers have asked a judge for more time to discuss what should come out of the federal ruling that found the village discriminated against its Hispanic day laborers.

The extension has been granted to Jan. 5. At that time, lawyers for the laborers are expected to submit their recommendations for a remedy to be imposed on the village and their request for legal fees, unless a settlement between the two sides is brokered.

This week, the situation was at somewhat of a standstill. Lawyers for the day laborers aren’t talking about what they might ask the court to impose on the village. Village lawyers are waiting to meet with the new Board of Trustees on Monday before they take action.

Two new trustees, both Democrats, were sworn into office Monday, shifting the balance on the board away from the Republicans.

That article has more detail on the discussions that are on-going:

The lawsuit charged the municipality with closing the former day laborer gathering site at Columbus Park and stepping up law enforcement in the area so that the day laborers would leave.

In her 70-page decision, McMahon said village police “disproportionately affected Latino day laborers and the contractors who sought to hire them.”

The mayor, however, in a news conference a week after the judge’s decision, said the police officers did nothing wrong and treat all people in the village equally. Police Chief Edward Flynn echoed his remarks and disputed the judge’s claims of “racial animus.”

Mariana Boneo, executive director of the Larchmont-Mamaroneck Hispanic Resource Center, said, “We’ve had enough dialogue.

“I think the village already knows the needs of the workers. At this point, there’s a ruling, and we’re in a different place,” she said. “What would come out now would have to be a legal document.

First, however note three things:

• The City has posted the video and outcomes of the 12/04/06 Council meeting.
• Also Posted is the video and outcomes of the 12/05/06 meeting of the Planning Commision
• This is my 200th post since starting Gaithersblog in August.

Next Monday, December 11, 2006, there will be a joint Mayor, Council and Planning Commission work session:

• Presentation of the Cultural Arts Advisory Committee’s "Cultural Arts Programs, Facilities, and Initiatives Plan," Followed by Selected Cultural Arts Update
  Background Material (pdf file)

• Joint - SDP-06-005 - Crown Farm (Proposed Plan Includes a Mix of Uses, Including 2,250 Residential Units and 320,000 Square Feet of Future Commercial Uses on approximately 180 Acres of Land)
  Background Material - Part 1 (pdf file)
  TBA - Background Material - Part 2 (pdf file)

I’ll update this post when I see that the remainder of the Crown Farm background is made available. Also note that the agenda, as posted on the City’s website, may in fact contain the first public statement of the Rocha Rule:

Hand held signs brought in to the Council Chambers may not be displayed in a manner which:

• Disrupts the meeting
• Blocks the view of spectators or cameras
• Poses a safety concern (i.e., signs mounted on stakes)

The following week, on Monday, December 18, 2006, the Mayor, Council and Planning Commission will hold a joint public hearing:

The City of Gaithersburg Mayor and Council and Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing at the time and place noted below.

Meeting: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Application Type:TEXT AMENDMENT

File Number:T-380
Applicant: GREG OSSONT FOR MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Day/ Date/Time:
DECEMBER 18, 2006 AT 7:30 P.M.

Place: GAITHERSBURG CITY HALL

IMPORTANT

This is a proposal to amend Chapter 24 of the City Code (City Zoning Ordinance), Article III, Division 15, “I-3 Zone, Industrial and Office Park” §24-143, entitled, “ Uses permitted by right,” to eliminate redundant and conflicting provisions and renumber accordingly. This is an opportunity to publicly participate, other than providing written testimony that must be submitted before the public hearing record closes . 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.

• DRAFT Text Amendment T-380 (pdf file)

Jaime Ciavarra has two reports on gangs in today’s Gazette.

For first time, data on who’s at risk for gangs:

The survey, analyzed by research students at The George Washington University, assessed the teens’ socioeconomic status, perception of safety, peer pressure and family and school connections.

Funded by a $22,000 Montgomery County Empowerment Grant, the survey results will be shared with school and police officials, and will help guide programming at area nonprofits.

Gangs are a growing concern in Montgomery County, a region that in the past two decades has been met with the violence and crime often associated with these organized groups.

In September, county police reported 28 gangs operating around the county with 930 documented members. Over the past year, crime attributed to gang members has increased at a steady and alarming rate, police report.

Most recently in Gaithersburg, a 17-year-old was stabbed in the abdomen and severely wounded in a fight between the Bloods, a typically black gang, and MS-13, a traditionally Latino gang, in a neighborhood near Gaithersburg High School last month.

Most of the teens involved were students at the school, police said.

The survey was done by Identity, a Gaithersburg-based nonprofit that serves Latino youths and their families.

Youth who felt less connected to their families or who felt disliked by their peers were significantly more likely to join a gang, according to the results.

Nearly half of the youth surveyed said they spent the hours after school unsupervised and nearly half said they felt lonely more than one day a week.

And 17 percent said they did not feel that family members listened to them.

‘‘Family needs to show them love and interest. If they don’t, gangs will,” said Sergio, a former gang member who counsels youth through the Identity program. ‘‘Love is what starts the flame.” Given his prior gang involvement, The Gazette is not identifying Sergio’s by his last name.

Ms Ciavarra also reports, Former gang leader warns kids of ‘dark side’

At age 7, Sergio had gang members in Los Angeles buying him clothes, shoes and ice cream.

By 13, he had ‘‘jumped into” the gang MS-13 and began pushing drugs and carrying guns.

After nearly two decades of living on the streets and behind bars, Sergio, now 27, has reformed.

He has gotten his GED and a new job at a Gaithersburg nonprofit. He is getting a gang-related tattoo — a daily reminder of where he once belonged — removed.

And he is beginning to steer other youth away from the lifestyle.

Chris Robinson reports in the Gazette:

Criminal penalties could join a list of responses proposed by a Gaithersburg task force to halt overcrowding and illegal occupation of homes in the city.

Currently, housing code violators face municipal fines up to $500 per incident, but some City Council members called for a more aggressive response during a task force presentation on Monday.

‘‘To me, these are serious violations that could threaten life, not just property, and I think we should look at that fine structure and make that much more severe,” said Councilman Stanley J. Alster […]