The County has put up a series of web pages describing what they call their “Property Use Initiative”. These pages contain extensive information about their plans to relocate several County functions to a number of mostly further-up-county sites, with detailed analysis of each site. There is a 30-minute video giving an overview of the plan, as well as a flowchart showing how the uses are likely to be redistributed; a small copy of the flowchart is pasted in below, click on the image to load the PDF from the County’s website.

County Land Use Flow Chart

There is also a page on the GE Tech Park, containing many of the statements that we have heard from them many times before. On the most sensitive of topics, they remain as vague as ever:

  • The property is I-3 zoning which permits the County to uses including office, warehousing and manufacturing.
  • An additional 700,000 square feet of I-3 development and uses are permitted on the site “by right” under the Annexation agreement. However, the County does not plan to construct additional buildings on the site.
  • The tenant, GXS, is willing to vacate the building and the size of this building allows the County to immediately consolidate in one location certain uses that are currently dispersed throughout the County.
  • The GE Tech Park is surrounded by natural and man made buffers that separate the areas of the site where new development is likely to occur from existing adjacent residential development and the County is considering enhancing these buffers.

But in the FAQ they state:

  • Can you put deed restrictions on the property to ensure that there will be no other uses? No, we cannot bind the future government in this manner.

Which I read as saying that they feel that at this point in the process they can tell any story they think will lower the community’s resistance, but on the other side of the next County election — which if you think about it will be held before any major expansion would be likely to begin — any promises they make now are null and void. They do not, I note, answer the question I’ve heard asked many times: How is it fiscally responsible to buy and hold valuable land that you have no intention of using?

  • Will you control the employee traffic through the residential streets? We want 100 percent of the traffic to enter from route 28.

Well, you know, you can’t always get what you want. Note that they do not say they will do anything to control this. They do have a link on that page to a recent traffic study (PDF format).

The FAQ contains many statements along these lines:

  • Will you reduce the parking lot to create a larger buffer between the property and the residential? We can look into that. Will also relocate the warehouse loading bays if necessary.

Well, yes, they can look into that. I’m sure they look into all maner of things, but how many of these things get done?

  • Can the lakefront property be deeded to the city? The County plans to preserve and improve that portion of the parcel by adding benches to make it usable for residents.

Note that they don’t even answer the questions in their own FAQ. And they are silent on the obvious follow-up question of why they would hold on to property that would be that expensive to maintain if they don’t plan on using it for anything beyond seating. Note that they have not proposed to make this a formal County park. They do mention on another FAQ page that they plan on putting a public safety memorial near the lake, but I don’t think that this is intended as part of a park so much as a monument in an office building complex.

  • What is the impact to city tax revenues? Will the county reimburse the city? That has not been determined, but the County has plans to discuss this with the city.

Another thing to look into.

  • Will this affect the construction of the aquatic center? This will have no effect on the construction.

Why does the limiting of this question to the construction of the aquatic center leave me feeling that there’s more to this story?

  • What has been the City of Gaithersburg’s reaction to the general proposal for a substantial public safety presence at the GE Tech Park site? The City of Gaithersburg has not opposed our proposed uses. Some officials voiced support, other cautious support and others were non-committal.

Again, I’m not sure this tells the whole story. From what I’ve seen in public meetings on this topic, City officials have had a large number of questions which the County staff have not been willing or able to answer. But in the end the tone of this FAQ entry seems to suggest that it doesn’t really matter to the county how the City reacts.

  • The study proposes moving the District 1 Station from its current location on Seven Locks Road to the GE Tech Park. Chief Manger told the Committee that the move will not only provide upgraded facility but will allow Headquarters to become a 24-hour facility. However, the GE Tech Park is just barely in District 1 and would be quite distance from many residences and businesses in the District. What are the service impacts from this relocation? Should consideration be given to establishing a centrally located satellite or sub station? Has the City of Rockville been asked for their reaction to the relocation of the District 1 station? If so, what were there comments? The District 1 Station will be located on the extreme edge of the district that it serves. This will have no impact on the officers’ effectiveness or the speed of responses because to a large degree, calls are dispatched to officers in their roving vehicles, not from the station. It will be less convenient for residents on the other side of the district to get to the station and in the future we may consider a substation more centrally located. Preliminary conversations have been held with the City of Rockville. Additionally, of course the City of Rockville’s police services supplement those of the County and the impacts of the proposed 1st District should not be significant.

In other words, they don’t really have a good answer to this.