Image from Montgomery County Council public video, via Bethesda Magazine.

Last Thursday, the Montgomery County Council chose Germantown consultant Tina Patterson for an open seat on the Planning Board. They selected her over Greater Greater Washington contributor and editor Dan Reed and other finalists Bruce Romer and Peter Myo Khin.

The public vote was 8-1, with only at-large councilmember George Leventhal opposed, because of an agreement that, unlike in the past, they would identify the majority choice and then cast a consensus vote publicly. However, two members—Hans Riemer (At-Large) and Nancy Navarro (District 4)—subsequently broke the silence and stated that they’d preferred Dan as their first choice.

At the hearing, Riemer said, “I first got to know Dan ten years ago. He’s a wonderful guy, has been a real leader for an entire generation of young people, getting involved in planning issues and community development and empowerment issues. You never win your first election, or usually you don’t, but you keep working on it and keep improving.”

Patterson may move the county in the wrong direction

Patterson may turn out to be a fine Planning Board member. However, parts of Patterson’s statements on a Sierra Club questionnaire are troubling. On the proposed M-83 highway versus Bus Rapid Transit, she said, “I think M-83 should be built with the understanding that the impact on the environmentally sensitive areas must be addressed first … I support the BRT, but I am aware that the BRT will not address many commuters’ needs due to other factors (e.g. work schedule, other commitments). Considering this, I’m not certain that rededicating lanes of auto traffic to the BRT is efficient.”

On the Agricultural Reserve, she was unwilling to commit to protect the county’s rural space, saying, “I do think the current protection of the Ag Reserve is adequate, but will most likely have to be reviewed in the next 5 to 10 years as the County continues to grow to determine the impact growth in the UpCounty on the Ag Reserve (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions).”

So the new Planning Board member supports M-83, is uncertain about dedicating lanes to Bus Rapid Transit, and wants to review protection of the Agricultural Reserve. These positions seem wildly inconsistent with the views of several councilmembers who ultimately voted for her.

Also, two of the board’s five current members are Republicans, per a state law that only three can be members of one party (with Democrats being a supermajority in the county and holding every seat on the county council). Patterson is an unaffiliated voter, meaning that for the first time in recent memory, Democrats will be a minority on the board.

Party affiliation is not necessarily representative of people’s planning views—certainly the Democrats on the council differ greatly on their thoughts about urbanism. And some county councilmembers said Patterson’s background as a mediator was a factor in her selection. At-large councilmember Nancy Floreen said, “Tina brings to the position incredible mediation experience, and if the Planning Board is nothing, it’s a mediation board for resolving community issues.”

It's also common for Planning Board decisions to involve race, gender, and geographic considerations. Several of Patterson's supporters on the council explicitly pointed out that she is a woman of color filling a seat formerly held by another African-American woman. She also lives in the upcounty area, and councilmembers expressed concern about ensuring upcounty perspectives were heard in the planning process. (Dan Reed's ancestry is African-American and East Indian; he'd also have brought valuable perspectives to the board as a gay person who grew up in an immigrant family in the east part of the county.)

One lesson is that the smart growth movement needs to get mobilized for the next election. It appears some of the councilmembers were more afraid of smart growth skeptics than of smart growth advocates—even though Dan’s supporters were very vocal and many of them communicated their support to the council through emails, phone calls, and social media. If this dynamic doesn’t change, the county is looking at a future that could include the construction of a destructive highway that just induces more driving, “BRT-lite” projects that move buses poorly through mixed traffic in congested areas, and watered down transit-oriented development.

Why did the vote go as it did?

The non-contested vote was a surprise because for many recent Planning Board selections, councilmembers openly debated among two or more finalists. At least four have resulted in split public votes: the appointments of Casey Anderson in 2011 (a 7-2 vote), Joe Alfandre in 2008 (a 5-4 runoff), Art Holmes as Chair in 2001 (a 6-2-1 runoff), and Allison Bryant in 1997 (a 5-4 vote).

Planning Board appointments are among the most important decisions made by the County Council. The Planning Board has enormous influence in the county, making recommendations to the council on master plans, zoning text amendments, capital budget items and other land use issues. They have jurisdiction over record plats, environmental reviews and site plans. They also oversee the county’s parks system. Their agency has a budget of more than $140 million and employs more than a thousand people.

All of this makes the five Planning Board Members among the most powerful officials in county government. A free and fair debate would uphold public confidence in how the county makes its decisions far more than opaque proceedings outside of public view.

Roger Berliner, the council’s chairman and District 1 representative, said when reached by phone, “The council as a body concluded it was better to have a united front rather than a fractured front. There was a desire by the body to vote by acclamation once the sense of the council had been determined. Notwithstanding that, any member at any time had the prerogative to nominate one of the other three candidates. At no point was any individual councilmember precluded from making a nomination of his or her choice.”

Dan (and others) should keep trying

Dan’s supporters encouraged him to keep applying for positions like this, and so would we. Councilmember Nancy Navarro said,

I want to say to Mr. Reed that there will be so many opportunities coming up, and I do hope he decides to serve again. It’s important, as we talk about role models and images, to see another young person who is highly qualified, an African-American, a young person, who has made a decision not only to stay in the county and live here, but also to serve in a public capacity. We need to really truly open up those doors for our young people. I think this is a good outcome and I do look forward to supporting someone like Mr. Reed.

There’s no way to know if any councilmembers were swayed when David Lublin dug up old, satirical posts from Just Up the Pike to suggest that Dan dislikes Bethesda. Certainly the council’s choice of a candidate with no planning track record and a background in mediation suggests that at least some members preferred a candidate with no sharp edges.

Unfortunately, the likely message to many activists is they may have to choose, and possibly choose very young, to either quietly work their way up the ladder from the inside, or organize and pressure the system from the outside. We certainly hope that young activists will not be discouraged from taking an active role in their community out of concern that their opinions will later be used to discredit them if they seek public office—not because they’re wrong from a policy standpoint, but because their mere expression of an opposing view was somehow offensive to a group of voters who are unaccustomed to being challenged.

Still, like Navarro, we are hopeful that Dan will have other opportunities to serve the public in the future. In fact, since the council appointed a non-Democrat this time, they can appoint a Democrat when Norman Dreyfuss reaches his term limit in June 2019. This is still a long way off, but we certainly hope Dan will try again.

In the meantime, we’re happy to have Dan advocating for a better Montgomery County in so many other ways. His terrific writing and analytical talents have made him an invaluable contributor to GGWash and other publications, and we look forward to his continued work as a writer and activist.

Dan isn’t going away, and neither are his many supporters. We’re grateful he was willing to step up, and we hope you will mobilize for him again in the future and for others from our community who want to take leadership roles in the region.