More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or both. For both things.

The Council gets elected and appoints members of the Planning Board, sure, but so did conservatives that packed SCOTUS. Should there be no activism against some of the more unpopular decisions just because they were elected and operated inside the technical definition of the law? Is the next election the sole recommended remedy? Come on...

And there should be that involvement in what Planning is actually doing, now. Well informed involvement. Involvement that seeks to regain any agency lost via lack of proper past engagement, as well. One can be involved presently while pointing out past inadequacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

We have this fantastic idea. It's called the Triangular Trade. Why don't you engage in the process? We can book you on the Middle Passage!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

We have this fantastic idea. It's called the Triangular Trade. Why don't you engage in the process? We can book you on the Middle Passage!

You're comparing the University Boulevard corridor plan to the trans-Atlantic slave trade

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

We have this fantastic idea. It's called the Triangular Trade. Why don't you engage in the process? We can book you on the Middle Passage!

You're comparing the University Boulevard corridor plan to the trans-Atlantic slave trade

No, he or she is simply using hyperbole to mock the PP statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

[Anonymous]

Reminder, tonight is the virtual meeting to discuss this plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

[Anonymous]

Zoom link for 495 to 4Corners area meeting tonight sent via email not too late to sign up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

And your house is a car stop. And Bethesda Metro is a subway stop. And the Port of Baltimore is a ship stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

When the decisions are made ahead of time it is no longer community "engagement" but rather community management.

What decisions have been made ahead of time, who has made these decisions, and how do you know?

It sounds like you'd rather complain about the process than engage in the process.

The expansive definition of transit center.

Density in White Oak, Silver Spring, etc is good and useful. Density along the in between stops is not and cannibalizes efforts to revitalize the hubs.

The proposed STATIONS (not "centers", not "stops") in the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Plan are at University Boulevard and

-Amherst Ave
-Inwood Ave
-Arcola Ave
-Dennis Ave
-Colesville Rd

They are bus stops. It's this sort of word game that annoys people.

The word game is being played by you, and yes, it's annoying me. You are deliberately using "bus stop" as misinformation.

People who want to know the difference between a bus "stop" and a BRT "station" can go look at Columbia Pike next to Trader Joe's. That permanent construction with the ticket machine? That's a station for the FLASH bus, which is supposed to be BRT, although unfortunately it mostly isn't, because it has to operate in the same lane as cars. That sign on a pole, near a bus shelter? That's a bus stop for the Z Metrobuses and the 21 and 22 RideOn buses.

They're still bus stops. They have the potential to be something more down the line if the system works. At this point in time it is foolish to jump the gun on density with regard to the potential of those peripheral stops. The success of the project hinges on the big core terminuses that connect to the metro, beltway, etc.

You know what will really help the BRT system to work? More housing around BRT stations.