Comments on: Dernoga Lets JPI West Through Relatively Unscathed http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/519/ Helping imagine a great college town for a great university Fri, 25 Jan 2013 04:03:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 By: Tom Dernoga http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/519/comment-page-1/#comment-64814 Tom Dernoga Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:53:07 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/519/#comment-64814 Fair comment and more praise than I'm used to. However, having spent 20 years representing civic groups and environmental groups (a fair share of NIMBY's) who had development projects foisted on their community that they found objectionable, I have deep-seated skepticism of promises made. I fully agree that there is "an important distinction between expecting excellence and getting any development". However, we rarely have "the perfect be[ing] the enemy of the good." It is more the "average" or "mundane" that is promised to be "perfect". There is a long history of this County accepting second best willingly, or claiming to accept first rate when everyone knows that the promises are hollow. I don't want to impede redevelopment at all, but I also don't want to accept whatever someone brings just because it is "something." But, criticism is a good thing. It makes people think and it makes decision makers evaluate (and possibly justify) their decisions. Fair comment and more praise than I’m used to.

However, having spent 20 years representing civic groups and environmental groups (a fair share of NIMBY’s) who had development projects foisted on their community that they found objectionable, I have deep-seated skepticism of promises made. I fully agree that there is “an important distinction between expecting excellence and getting any development”. However, we rarely have “the perfect be[ing] the enemy of the good.” It is more the “average” or “mundane” that is promised to be “perfect”.

There is a long history of this County accepting second best willingly, or claiming to accept first rate when everyone knows that the promises are hollow. I don’t want to impede redevelopment at all, but I also don’t want to accept whatever someone brings just because it is “something.”

But, criticism is a good thing. It makes people think and it makes decision makers evaluate (and possibly justify) their decisions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: David Daddio http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/519/comment-page-1/#comment-64091 David Daddio Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:06:24 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/519/#comment-64091 Thanks Tom. I've always held that we need to be realistic about our expectations for development. If we want to get more from developers, let's do it in an up front and proactive way. We're talking about more than undergrounding wires here of course. There is an important distinction between expecting excellence and getting any development at all. I'm glad to see your actions are starting to incorporate the middle ground and pursue that middle ground in timely fashion that is in line with the community's expectations for revitilzation. If that doesn't sound like an outright "thank you", then that's the best I can do at the moment. I'd rather not pillory anyone. Let's never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Thanks Tom. I’ve always held that we need to be realistic about our expectations for development. If we want to get more from developers, let’s do it in an up front and proactive way. We’re talking about more than undergrounding wires here of course. There is an important distinction between expecting excellence and getting any development at all. I’m glad to see your actions are starting to incorporate the middle ground and pursue that middle ground in timely fashion that is in line with the community’s expectations for revitilzation.

If that doesn’t sound like an outright “thank you”, then that’s the best I can do at the moment. I’d rather not pillory anyone. Let’s never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Tom Dernoga http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/519/comment-page-1/#comment-64078 Tom Dernoga Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:12:12 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/519/#comment-64078 I know that Dave Daddio and I have "disagreements" about development. I support the redevelopment, but I find that the developers are always busy trying to get waivers from defined standards and those desperate for any development are willing to take whatever is offered. I simply cannot support such an approach. Part of this issue arises with respect to the undergrounding of utilities. College Park and the Planning Board agreed to waive this requirement for pretty much every project along Route 1. I have refused to accept that decision. At least North of Route 193, I am working to make the undergrounding issue work. It won't be easy, but hopefully we can work it north piece by piece. JPI (East & West) and Mazza's commercial portion are to be undergrounding. The little Hollywood Station office building at Edgewood is paying a token fee into a fund. I have essentially agreed to try to obtain a revitalization tax credit for the JPI pieces to make the project financially feasible. The idea is to add those savings to the same utility fund. Ultimately, as Route 1 is funded for upgrade by the State - the first piece is in the special session financing package - we can get this effort incorporated into the upgrade program. Meanwhile, I will continue to push to get the utilities underground (or at least get underground vaults built to enable it) on a project-by-project basis. And, I might expect Route 1 re-developers to adhere to some standards of excellence. ... for which Dave will pillory me in public. But, that's ok - it's good for the soul. I know that Dave Daddio and I have “disagreements” about development. I support the redevelopment, but I find that the developers are always busy trying to get waivers from defined standards and those desperate for any development are willing to take whatever is offered. I simply cannot support such an approach.

Part of this issue arises with respect to the undergrounding of utilities. College Park and the Planning Board agreed to waive this requirement for pretty much every project along Route 1. I have refused to accept that decision.

At least North of Route 193, I am working to make the undergrounding issue work. It won’t be easy, but hopefully we can work it north piece by piece. JPI (East & West) and Mazza’s commercial portion are to be undergrounding. The little Hollywood Station office building at Edgewood is paying a token fee into a fund. I have essentially agreed to try to obtain a revitalization tax credit for the JPI pieces to make the project financially feasible. The idea is to add those savings to the same utility fund.

Ultimately, as Route 1 is funded for upgrade by the State – the first piece is in the special session financing package – we can get this effort incorporated into the upgrade program. Meanwhile, I will continue to push to get the utilities underground (or at least get underground vaults built to enable it) on a project-by-project basis.

And, I might expect Route 1 re-developers to adhere to some standards of excellence. … for which Dave will pillory me in public. But, that’s ok – it’s good for the soul.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Mike Green http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/519/comment-page-1/#comment-62289 Mike Green Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:09:36 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/519/#comment-62289 While I have not had a chance to examine all the issues surrounding "undergrounding" the utilities along Rt 1, I would echo the comments made by others in this thread that it would seem to be very shortsighted to undertake the overall cost of redeveloping this corridor with new buildings, improved road, etc, and still leave it looking like something out of the 1940's with power/telephone lines along the sides. Surely, it might be possible to get the state, county and business community together to examine how this might be done as part of the overall plan, including how the costs might be defrayed. In the long run, I think the costs will be small compared to the ROI achieved by cleaning up this eyesore. While I have not had a chance to examine all the issues surrounding “undergrounding” the utilities along Rt 1, I would echo the comments made by others in this thread that it would seem to be very shortsighted to undertake the overall cost of redeveloping this corridor with new buildings, improved road, etc, and still leave it looking like something out of the 1940′s with power/telephone lines along the sides. Surely, it might be possible to get the state, county and business community together to examine how this might be done as part of the overall plan, including how the costs might be defrayed. In the long run, I think the costs will be small compared to the ROI achieved by cleaning up this eyesore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Robert Catlin http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/519/comment-page-1/#comment-61365 Robert Catlin Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:23:25 +0000 http://rethinkcollegepark.net/blog/2007/519/#comment-61365 Undergrounding utilities is very expensive and I am not sure that doing it piecemeal over many years is viable. The best time to do it is when the road is rebuilt, as the poles and wires would have to be moved at a great cost anyway. Just relocating poles and wires is a $10+ million cost. All poles are not created equal, some single poles have a $2 million cost to underground which would actually make some properties impossible to redevelop without financial assistance. The need is for a fund to assist in the payment of undergrounding costs in a section by section approach. It is also important to get the State to do the final design and engineering work for rebuilding Route 1 so that any work that is done dones not have to be redone at a later date. JPI West will underground its four poles as per its approval, though it expects (needs?) the County to authorize redevelopment tax credits for so doing. A small office project at Route 1 and Edgewood Road was charged a small fee in lieu and not required to underground utilities. Terrapin Station moved the poles and utilities to the rear of the property, behind the building. Princess Garden Suites only had a pole to service the near door Exxon Station. Apparently PEPECO will relocate the pole to the Exxon property at no cost to the hotel. Undergrounding utilities is very expensive and I am not sure that doing it piecemeal over many years is viable. The best time to do it is when the road is rebuilt, as the poles and wires would have to be moved at a great cost anyway. Just relocating poles and wires is a $10+ million cost. All poles are not created equal, some single poles have a $2 million cost to underground which would actually make some properties impossible to redevelop without financial assistance. The need is for a fund to assist in the payment of undergrounding costs in a section by section approach. It is also important to get the State to do the final design and engineering work for rebuilding Route 1 so that any work that is done dones not have to be redone at a later date.

JPI West will underground its four poles as per its approval, though it expects (needs?) the County to authorize redevelopment tax credits for so doing. A small office project at Route 1 and Edgewood Road was charged a small fee in lieu and not required to underground utilities. Terrapin Station moved the poles and utilities to the rear of the property, behind the building. Princess Garden Suites only had a pole to service the near door Exxon Station. Apparently PEPECO will relocate the pole to the Exxon property at no cost to the hotel.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]>