Planning Commission Hearing held on March 20, 2014 on the reauthorization of the CVCBD City Council Bill #14-0324. This report is a co-effort on the part of both Christian and Pamela Wilson.
Thursday, my wife, other community members and I attended the Planning Commission hearing on the reauthorization of the Charles Village Community Benefits District and it was an eye opener, to say the least.
We arrived early and sat in on a hearing on changes amending a PUD in Belvedere Square and the concerns expressed by the local community association. The association representative was concerned that the association had not received any advance notice by their Council Representative Bill Henry about the changes which impacted their community. She presented her position quietly and with respect for the Planning Commissioners and then was treated shabbily including by Councilwoman Spector who is a member of the Commission and who asked a question that attempted to discredit this woman, Spector asked “do you even have regular meetings?” inferring that if the association didn’t have regular meetings the woman’s request on behalf of her organization should be dismissed. She was further bullied by the Commissioners when all she wanted to say was that her community organization should have been informed about such changes to this PUD legislation and she wanted to be sure they would be in the future. My wife and I thought this is not unlike the disrespect most community associations and citizens face when attempting to discuss quality of life issues with this quasi-governmental body appointed by the Mayor of this City. I believe that members of the Old Goucher Community Association also experienced similar treatment when issues regarding the 25th St. project were heard at the Planning Commission.
I was not well-impressed by this hearing and thought that we would probably be doomed because we represented the “other side” which the Commission is usually not keen to deal with. Also, were not as well represented as we should have been considering this regards the renewal of a taxing governmental body. But since property owners paying the surtax were not notified by mail (as one would expect should be done unless you don’t want their input) and since even the latest “Charles Villager” had nothing about this extremely important issue for our community most people didn’t even know it was happening except for those contacted by the supporters. However, the Planning Department’s report to the Commission included a litany of surrounding community associations who received written notice of the reauthorization bill. A good number of which must be at some distance because we did not even recognize them. So it would appear that letters went out to everyone but not to the surtax payers and not to most of the Greater Village Community.
The supporters, mostly members of the Board of the CVCBD and employees thereof were in attendance in greater numbers than those who opposed the reauthorization. To clarify a point here, this is not the Planning Department, but an independent board of commissioners to which the Planning Department recommends actions supporting its decisions on issues. My wife was present about 8 years ago when the previous Planning Commissioner actually voted against reauthorization because he told the CVCBC that they had better work things out with us (the opponents) because he never wanted to see such contention over reauthorization again. It is also important to note that at the March 20th hearing Councilman Carl Stokes gave his testimony against this reauthorization. This is very unusual for a Councilperson to take a firm and decisive stand against the status quo but we believe that he has seen and experienced so much during his recent tenure on the CVCBD board that he is now firmly against them. Mary Pat Clarke supported the reauthorization.
Both Pamela and I worked for days to prepare our presentations in opposition of the reauthorization of the CVCBD because we wanted to be on firm footing before we made our speeches to the Planning Commission. Steve Gewirtz also gave good testimony. We photographed several areas where the CVCBD did not clean up as they state that they cleaned twice a week or even once a week but not even once in two months; we presented them with photographs where a pile of trash was laying on the sidewalk near the curb, next to a school for at least several weeks; and we pointed out in an alley where a mattress had been laying for two months without it being picked up proving that the CVCBD never even comes through the alleys as they allege once a week or they would have reported the mattress to the City because the CVCBD is, they tell us, prohibited from picking up such items because of problems with bedbugs. Thinking that this time-dated photographic evidence would prove that the claims made by the CVCBD to the Planning Commission were false. I could never have believed that this evidence would be used against me. The Planning Commissioner, demanded, “Did you report these incidents to the CVCBD?” I replied that I had previously reported many issues to the CVCBD which were never resolved, and then was told that it was my responsibility to report these instances to the CVCBD. So it appears that while the CVCBD states in their reports that they clean the sidewalks and gutters twice a week and that they clean the alleys once a week, if they don’t or if they can’t see a big pile of garbage it is now my duty to advise the CVCBD that they missed it. I pay surtax to the CVCBD who report repeatedly that they do the work, but I am expected as a surtax payer to walk behind them and note their activities and report each infraction to the Supervisor of the CVCBD in charge of the “Clean Team”. My house can have a lien put upon it if I don’t pay the tax for services that I don’t receive, but I am now expected to personally supervise the activities of the CVCBD.
Pamela’s testimony was based on the non-democratic aspect of the CVCBD where, with the exception of one vote for one quad rep, that seat being the only one for which you can run unless appointed by an association or the board itself, we are denied the democratic participation we have in voting for and running for elected office. This creates an ever widening gap between individuals in the community and the CVCBD which can appoint seats to whomever they wish when vacant. She described how this makes it easy for a small group, on the board and behind the scenes, to control and pack the board. She explained how she and others have served on the board and tried to reform it from within but could not abide either being marginalized or being part of the illegal activities that are allowed to persist.
She also reported that the CVCBD has employed a person who is an attorney disbarred on 11/23/12 “for signing multiple individual’s names to various documents filed with the Register of Wills without authorization”, a very serious matter, and who is now in a management position with the CVCBD. She also reported that the CVCBD allowed people to sit on the Board of Directors of this governmental body when in one instant that individual represented a non-existent association that had forfeited its State Charter and another who owed City real estate taxes while voting to tax the rest of us. And both were Presidents of the board. However, one person who sat in a non-voting seat was removed because he didn’t agree with their actions.
Pamela pointed out that the board spent 5 years working to give themselves new bylaws (merely a guide to running a meeting) so they could reply on mere bylaws to give them more power than the actual law allows and that the response from a CVCBD founder to concerns we raised one time was “Laws? Schmaws.” They confound City officials and think they are untouchable. But none of this, no indication of a corruption of the law or its intention, fazed any of the Commissioners. It was as if they heard nothing. Pamela even gave a solution if the CVCBD were to cease existing: let the community associations (CVCA claims they are large and active and there are many others in Greater Charles Village) use JHU’s donations themselves to run the off-duty policing, continue the Walkers program which is a volunteer association program, work with the City to get commercial property owners to clean their streets as is required by law, and raise money for those desiring fall leaf cleanups. But one Commissioner at the end of the session said, “But I didn’t hear any solutions offered in place of the CVCBD.” As TV’s Judge Judy would have said, “They didn’t have their listening ears on.”
What brought the CVCBD the most impressive support testimony for the Commissioners to approve reauthorization came from a young man in a business suit who had moved into the Harwood community. He advised the Commissioners that he supported the CVCBD because of their safety and security programs and that therefore he felt safe and noted how clean the neighborhood is and was when he and his wife moved in. He also proudly claimed that his real estate taxes had gone up which he felt was due to the increase in property tax values in the community. This pleased the Commissioners a lot, however, it also contradicted the complaints of the CVCBD that income from the property taxes was down. And, we did not have a chance to say that we who have been here a few more years than this young man saw our property real estate tax values fall.
In the closing remarks of the Planning Commission Board one of the Commissioners said something disturbing. He said that the young man living in Harwood impressed him the most with his testimony. He said in so many words that he loved having young people who made a determination to move into our community and wanted to see more of these young people who would do things for the community. There was definitely a sense that he felt that if you are over 25 you are no longer of use to the City and I wondered if this even gave pause to those present who all the supporters present who pointed to the fact that they had lived in CV for decades. Based on his physical appearance I would believe that the Planning Commissioner hasn’t seen the sunny side of 26 in many years. I hope he has found a safe haven in the County, because in his opinion those of us who have spent decades working for the City and for our community are considered a drag. If this opinion is shared by our City government, this individual better get his retirement soon, because the City may decide that he is too old to deserve it.
Ultimately what happened was the Planning Commission decided to reauthorize the CVCBD. One Commissioner suggested there be an audit of the CVCBD’s work. Obviously he did not know this was demanded by the Mayor several years ago so the CVCBD did their own audit of their own work and found it quite adequate.
In closing, the Planning Commission just rubber stamped the CVCBD. But Carl Stokes said he is saving his full argument for the right time and that would be for the vote by the full City Council and then the Mayor. So I urge you to read up on, investigate and discuss this 20 year old, non-democratic governmental entity and decide for yourselves. A lot of history and information can be viewed on this blog by clicking the category on the right hand side entitled “Information about the Charles Village Community Benefits District”. During the 20 years many illegalities were allowed to exist and in some cases made retroactively acceptable to allow the CVCBD to continue. Law suits lost by opponents succeeded in correcting some of their obvious problems but in some cases forced the CVCBD to wreck the law even further to cover their behavior. To get people to vote for on the original and only referendum establishing the CVCBD the core group of founders promised the community 24/7 security patrols and then admitted they knew they couldn’t do it. They promised to community that if they voted for the CVCBD they would have a second vote in 3 years to either continue or end it knowing full well that the community would never have a second vote. Pretense from start to now does not a good government make. Consider ending the pretense and write to your City Council Representative and the President of the City Council, Jack “Bernard” Young, as well as the Mayor.
As a last thought, we understand that Midtown has a Benefits District with a reported excellent reputation and since the Charles Village Community Benefits district has such a reputation of distrust and lack of performance, why not merge the two for a 4 year experimental period to see if they can improve the CVCBD’s performance and get rid of the current management team that has led to this 20th year battle? What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment