During the second public hearing on the AGP, held July 10, approximately 20 speakers came to discuss the project.
Business, environmental and citizen activist groups had divergent opinions about what is wrong with the new proposal.
While the building industry was not completely opposed to the idea of impact taxes, they had sharp disagreements with the way in which the taxes would be imposed, and deep concerns about the growth cap.
“The one percent growth rate cap appears to be unreasonably and unnecessarily restrictive,” said Stephen Elmendorf, an attorney with Linowes and Bolcher.
The cap is movable, and County Council would be free to adjust it upwards if conditions in the county warrant such a move.
Others arguments concerned the fear that capacity metering could mean that some projects would be allowed to proceed at the expense of others. “In the nonresidential arena, will one or two larger projects preclude economic development in other areas of the county?” said Mark Viani, of the Montgomery County Chamber of Commerce.
“A key factor in the success of this tax would be the ability of the developers and landowners to move forward with their projects upon payment of the tax. Accordingly payment of the tax must guarantee development certainty,” Viani said.
The building industry also pointed to housing costs and the economic principle of supply and demand, pointing out that by restricting the number of new houses, prices will likely go up.
“The growth in population will continue whether we build the houses or not,” said Rich Thometz of the Maryland-National Capital Building Industry Association. According to Thometz there is currently a deficit of 1,000 housing units per year in the county. “[There will be] an affordable housing and workforce housing nightmare,” he said.
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS said that the regulations were not strict enough.
“We do not agree with the one percent growth limit solution,” said Tina Brown of Solutions Not Sprawl. “Your proposal has not demonstrated that the new system will make things better in our schools and on the roads. Instead, it seems to say, since the current standards don’t work, we will have no standards at all.”
Brown also suggested closing a loophole for affordable housing. ‘We have seen that development providing a few MPDUs is now able to capture the benefits of the affordable housing category, regardless of its location or impact on the affordable housing supply,” she said.
Other groups challenged the one percent rate, saying it was too high. “Such growth could be accommodated with a growth rate far below one percent,” said Stephen Caflisch of the Sierra Club.
Caflisch echoed a sentiment of Brown’s when he discussed exemptions for certain projects, such as affordable housing. “We should favor certain types of growth over other types of growth within meaningful growth limits, not as an exception to those limits,” he said.
Others challenged the idea behind giving favorable treatment to areas with more transit.
“Will residents who can afford to live in the area match the characteristics of the jobs available?” said Natalie Goldberg of the Garrett Park Estates-White Flint Citizens’ Association. “We are angry at being continually being asked to accept more development simply because the opportunity for public transportation is available – whether or not we need to go where the transportation goes. We urge that the AGP be modified to consider a minimal rate of growth in those places where it is most needed.”