More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as part of the upzoning plan includes rezoning a portion of areas for schools and the county is prepared to purchase land to build new schools, I’d be ok with this. Cramming more kids into our already overcrowded schools? Nope. I don’t want to hear, “house the kids first then worry about the schools.”

Schools don't need special zoning. Northwood, Blair, and Forest Knolls are zoned R-60. Odessa Shannon and Arcola are zoned R-90.

Great. Is the county allocating more funding to purchase properties and build more schools to support the families that will move into the new housing?

So, here's the issue.

The University Boulevard Corridor Plan makes recommendations. Even though the County Council adopts corridor plans (and sector plans, etc.), the recommendations do not have the force of law. Zoning does have the force of law, but again, zoning only establishes the framework for what can get built. Zoning doesn't build things. Meanwhile, there's MCPS, which is a whole, completely separate agency, and MCPS is who decides about schools. The Planning Board has no authority over MCPS decisions, with one tiny exception (forest conservation plans). And the County Council allocates money to MCPS but has no authority over what MCPS spends it on.

So if you expect the University Boulevard Corridor Plan to result in more funding to buy property to build schools on, well, it won't do that, because it can't do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new zoning state level zoning reform law is going to ruin many neighborhoods. It is a gift to developers that will keep on harming local residents. Most residents that live near bus stops don't even ride the buses, so tying zoning reform to buses stops makes no sense. The law about non-profits/churches getting special exemptions to zoning rules is also ridiculous. It violates the equal protection clause and gives some entities special treatment for land use rules.

I don't know whether you know that religious institutions already have special exemptions to zoning rules. For example, churches are not residences, but churches are allowed to build by right in areas that are zoned residential.

Also, it's misleading to call a BRT station a "bus stop". There are probably bus stops in your neighborhood, but that's not what the plan is talking about. There are BRT stations on 29 that you can take a look at, for example the ones next to Blair, and the ones next to Trader Joe's. Zoning changes around BRT stations are just another example of transit-oriented development, which everyone in the county should already be familiar with. It's better to put the housing near public transportation, so the public transportation is convenient for people to use, than to put the housing far from public transportation. Also, we're going to invest a lot in public transportation, so we should support this investment by enabling more people to live near and use public transportation.

DP from the PP, but not a NP.

The key, there, is "already." The zoning already allowed for houses of worship in those zones. Has for a very long time, if not from the origin of such zoning. The changes sought are not part of the ex-ante condition upon which many made significant life/living decisions that are not easily or inexpensively changed to maintain their originally anticipated result.

Similarly, BRT was not an ex-ante condition. Sure, allowing development closer to mass transportation makes sense, but placing mass transportation near preexisting higher-density zoning (and then relying on full use of that zoning prior to any expansion elsewhere) might have been the more appropriate approach than placing it near where some might want greater-than-zoned development and then back-dooring in that development allowance difference from ex-ante zoning expectation with the near-major-public-transit legislation. This is both from an efficiency standpoint and from that nod to significant life decisions that had been made.

[Anonymous]

PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

[Anonymous]

Again. Build a 3-D replica showing what all the “ante” lawyer speak is going in about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

Nah. My point is that the language used does not convey the understanding of importance to most of those current residents most likely to be affected by the zoning changes that likely are the aim, here.
Zoning change planning can provide a better outcome if well coordinated with greater input from well informed current residents most directly impacted.

If the county/planning department would do that, there wouldn't be the need for alarm. But they don't, so there is some concern warranted. And awareness is important, so that those in the neighborhood(s) who feel it would be better not to have that land use are able to advocate in a meanigful way.

What do you want? "THERE MIGHT BE CHANGES TO THE ZONING AROUND WHERE YOU LIVE" in giant flashing letters on a trailer that's towed around the plan area? They've already done a ton of outreach over the past year and a half, and they're doing more outreach. Do you live in the plan area? Have you received anything in the mail from the Planning Department?

No, again, to your strawman, there.

Mailers didn't go out in a timely fashion (see above from another poster where the postcard came too late for them to arrange to attend the live meeting), and not all who should be certain to be made aware are getting them. For example, inside-the-blue-dotted-line study area excludes the great majority of the Woodmoor, North Four Corners, etc., neighborhoods of which, as described previously, many of the properties prone to change under this study would be considered a part. That is, from a neighborhood perspective, even if planning recently has stripped those edges into their own, separate planning area to facilitate change/minimize the impact of potential opposition.

Alternate engagement is of the type blandly mentioned in this thread -- little or nothing about how the changes being considered might impact current residents of the community that would raise the appropriate concerns to be addressed at a time when they still effectively might be, and often through organizations that fail to reach representative breadth of the directly impacted communities. Did you see the pictures from the live meeting? The participants, there, had a familiar look of disbelieving consternation. I would not be surprised if all of the leadup engagement was with much more limited groupings, mostly from those involved in development/development advocacy, and that the scope of the study was determined without fullsome neighborhood input. If the meeting followed form, many of the questions and ideas that the few able to attend might have brought could be dismissed either as water under the bridge (perhaps referencing the fait accompli of recent legislation) or out of scope, leaving the bulk of the meeting to the planners describing that scope, deflecting pointed questions about impact and fielding comments from those pro-development interests in attendance who had linked in much earlier.

As another poster noted, this is what politicians do when they want to get something through that a majority of the people most directly affected wouldn't want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again. Build a 3-D replica showing what all the “ante” lawyer speak is going in about.

It is not possible to build a 3-D replica of something that does not exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

Nah. My point is that the language used does not convey the understanding of importance to most of those current residents most likely to be affected by the zoning changes that likely are the aim, here.
Zoning change planning can provide a better outcome if well coordinated with greater input from well informed current residents most directly impacted.

If the county/planning department would do that, there wouldn't be the need for alarm. But they don't, so there is some concern warranted. And awareness is important, so that those in the neighborhood(s) who feel it would be better not to have that land use are able to advocate in a meanigful way.

What do you want? "THERE MIGHT BE CHANGES TO THE ZONING AROUND WHERE YOU LIVE" in giant flashing letters on a trailer that's towed around the plan area? They've already done a ton of outreach over the past year and a half, and they're doing more outreach. Do you live in the plan area? Have you received anything in the mail from the Planning Department?

No, again, to your strawman, there.

Mailers didn't go out in a timely fashion (see above from another poster where the postcard came too late for them to arrange to attend the live meeting), and not all who should be certain to be made aware are getting them. For example, inside-the-blue-dotted-line study area excludes the great majority of the Woodmoor, North Four Corners, etc., neighborhoods of which, as described previously, many of the properties prone to change under this study would be considered a part. That is, from a neighborhood perspective, even if planning recently has stripped those edges into their own, separate planning area to facilitate change/minimize the impact of potential opposition.

Alternate engagement is of the type blandly mentioned in this thread -- little or nothing about how the changes being considered might impact current residents of the community that would raise the appropriate concerns to be addressed at a time when they still effectively might be, and often through organizations that fail to reach representative breadth of the directly impacted communities. Did you see the pictures from the live meeting? The participants, there, had a familiar look of disbelieving consternation. I would not be surprised if all of the leadup engagement was with much more limited groupings, mostly from those involved in development/development advocacy, and that the scope of the study was determined without fullsome neighborhood input. If the meeting followed form, many of the questions and ideas that the few able to attend might have brought could be dismissed either as water under the bridge (perhaps referencing the fait accompli of recent legislation) or out of scope, leaving the bulk of the meeting to the planners describing that scope, deflecting pointed questions about impact and fielding comments from those pro-development interests in attendance who had linked in much earlier.

As another poster noted, this is what politicians do when they want to get something through that a majority of the people most directly affected wouldn't want.

You're posting about what you believe must have happened at a meeting you didn't even attend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Again. Build a 3-D replica showing what all the “ante” lawyer speak is going in about.

Three visualizations, one of current condition, one with maximal use based on the ex-ante zoning and another with maximal use based on anything that might be considered in the study, each noting road usage, school occupancy vs. capacity and other public facility adequacy measures, would be very useful.

The prior post suggesting that planning and the County Council have little to no control over school planning/capacity is incorrect and intentionally daft.

The Council has the power of the purse (and has consistently underfunded school capital needs for decades). It has taxation authority (and has decimated impact taxes that would help fund schools in many instances in pursuit of development). It has both zoning approval authority (where upzoning/exceptions might be denied if adequate public facilities are not easily foreseen to be available) and authority over acquisiton, disposal and use of county land that might be used for schools (or parks, or...). All of this may be used directly or as leverage to achieve better school facility outcomes.

Montgomery Planning/M-NCPPC is intended to work with MCPS, both to facilitate student population forecasts based on existing trends and when considering changes such as those represented in this study. They also have input regarding MCPS planning for construction that would need eventual County approval (and MCPS regularly has to alter designs -- properly so, at least notionally -- to accommodate that input).

MCPS is already way behind the 8-ball and has been without the support of the County Council over these decades to reserve additional land in closer-in areas that might provide for the space needed to serve the now-existing population, much less that which would come with any of the additional development. And that development in these areas would be infill, not large greenfield where 10% (guess) of the acreage out of hundreds to thousands might be reserved for public facilities such as schools. With continued underfunding even for improvements/expansions of existing facilities, there has been little realistic opportunity for them to propose new facilities in the area, though I wish they would do so if only to give the issue greater visibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new zoning state level zoning reform law is going to ruin many neighborhoods. It is a gift to developers that will keep on harming local residents. Most residents that live near bus stops don't even ride the buses, so tying zoning reform to buses stops makes no sense. The law about non-profits/churches getting special exemptions to zoning rules is also ridiculous. It violates the equal protection clause and gives some entities special treatment for land use rules.

I don't know whether you know that religious institutions already have special exemptions to zoning rules. For example, churches are not residences, but churches are allowed to build by right in areas that are zoned residential.

Also, it's misleading to call a BRT station a "bus stop". There are probably bus stops in your neighborhood, but that's not what the plan is talking about. There are BRT stations on 29 that you can take a look at, for example the ones next to Blair, and the ones next to Trader Joe's. Zoning changes around BRT stations are just another example of transit-oriented development, which everyone in the county should already be familiar with. It's better to put the housing near public transportation, so the public transportation is convenient for people to use, than to put the housing far from public transportation. Also, we're going to invest a lot in public transportation, so we should support this investment by enabling more people to live near and use public transportation.

They are bus stops. It’s a bus. It’s in the name.

Bus Rapid Transit.

Clever how they have even included the word “transit” in the acronym so that it sounds more urban as an excuse to build, but it’s still the bus. A handful of people will take the neo bus and join the handful of people will ride their bikes, and in the end the majority get to suffer the consequences of this godawful plan.

Buses are transit. That is generally known.

And yes, BRT buses stop at BRT stations, which I guess makes them bus stops, in the same way that train stops are places that trains stop at, and airplane stops are places that airplanes stop at, and ferry stops are places that ferries stop at, but we usually call them train stations, airports, and ferry terminals.

Bus stations, like airports and train stations, are places where multiple lines begin and end in order to facilitate transfers. A bus stop is, as the name implies, is a place along a route where a bus breifly stops if there are passengers.

Bus stations are permanent fixed locations while bus stops are not. Bus stations are mass transit hubs. Bus stops are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new zoning state level zoning reform law is going to ruin many neighborhoods. It is a gift to developers that will keep on harming local residents. Most residents that live near bus stops don't even ride the buses, so tying zoning reform to buses stops makes no sense. The law about non-profits/churches getting special exemptions to zoning rules is also ridiculous. It violates the equal protection clause and gives some entities special treatment for land use rules.

I don't know whether you know that religious institutions already have special exemptions to zoning rules. For example, churches are not residences, but churches are allowed to build by right in areas that are zoned residential.

Also, it's misleading to call a BRT station a "bus stop". There are probably bus stops in your neighborhood, but that's not what the plan is talking about. There are BRT stations on 29 that you can take a look at, for example the ones next to Blair, and the ones next to Trader Joe's. Zoning changes around BRT stations are just another example of transit-oriented development, which everyone in the county should already be familiar with. It's better to put the housing near public transportation, so the public transportation is convenient for people to use, than to put the housing far from public transportation. Also, we're going to invest a lot in public transportation, so we should support this investment by enabling more people to live near and use public transportation.

They are bus stops. It’s a bus. It’s in the name.

Bus Rapid Transit.

Clever how they have even included the word “transit” in the acronym so that it sounds more urban as an excuse to build, but it’s still the bus. A handful of people will take the neo bus and join the handful of people will ride their bikes, and in the end the majority get to suffer the consequences of this godawful plan.

Buses are transit. That is generally known.

And yes, BRT buses stop at BRT stations, which I guess makes them bus stops, in the same way that train stops are places that trains stop at, and airplane stops are places that airplanes stop at, and ferry stops are places that ferries stop at, but we usually call them train stations, airports, and ferry terminals.

Bus stations, like airports and train stations, are places where multiple lines begin and end in order to facilitate transfers. A bus stop is, as the name implies, is a place along a route where a bus breifly stops if there are passengers.

Bus stations are permanent fixed locations while bus stops are not. Bus stations are mass transit hubs. Bus stops are not.

Go look at the BRT stations on Route 29.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

…and the powers that be really don’t like it when you question their methods and motives.

https://www.arlnow.com/2024/04/30/missing-middle-critic-subpoenaed-as-county-seeks-to-know-what-forces-are-behind-lawsuit/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, this is an argument for never allowing any change, on grounds that the change would be change.

But change happens, one way or the other, even if you don't allow it.

And we don't give current residents veto power over the future.

No. It is an argument for change to come with proper input, principally from those most directly affected. Government by consent of the governed-type stuff.

This involves well-informed compromise, neither veto from the one side nor railroading from the other -- which largely is what we see, today, with limited exception for those most wealthy/powerful.

The Planning Department RIGHT NOW is collecting that input. Everyone has their opportunity RIGHT NOW to offer their input. Actually everyone has had their opportunity to offer their input for well over a year, but there is even more opportunity RIGHT NOW.

Government by consent of the governed comes when the Montgomery County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County, officially adopts the plan.

Great. Then right now, there should have been:

Postcards received 2-3 weeks ago by all of the residents of neighborhoods of which any of the study might reasonably be considered a part (this clearly did not happen),

Providing the kind of reasonably fullsome understanding as noted above (e.g., 3 suggested visualizations with public facility impacts), and

Allowance for meetings long enough to permit free-form input from any of those residents who wish to provide it and all of that input considered for changes to the scope of the study, itself, as that requisite level of impact awareness was not a part of the well-over-a-year part of the engagement.

The County Council is politically astute enough (as is the planning board) to make sure that the public engagement box has been checked (you don't see presentations on these matters without a slide showing that timeline) so that they can claim consent of the governed. Those in the system, Councilmember and otherwise, are also politically astute enough to adopt approaches that limit likely opposition to their policy aims.

Well, no, the County Council gets the consent of the governed when the County Council gets elected.

If I were you, I would stop complaining about the community engagement that I thought the Planning Department should have done, and start engaging with the community engagement that the Planning Department is actually doing.