Government: For the People or For the Person?

Musical Chairs

There is a huge debate going on in our country that’s described in many ways; red v. blue, left v. right, liberal v. conservative, tax v. spend, big v. small government.  

Thankfully, a city like ours avoids most of the  insane partisan silliness.  However, every community needs rules so that people can live together better. How do we choose the rules?

The City Council makes Laurel's rules by writing ordinances.  How should this property be zoned?  Who should get a tax break?  Which pothole gets fixed?  Which business gets approved?  Do we buy a new snowplow or another police cruiser?  

Councilmembers make hundreds of votes every year.  Most council members have a basic philosophy that they use to decide.   For me, the toughest votes often came down to a choice between what seems to be best for a person or a small group and what was best for the city at large.   

Robert Fulghum, author of “Everything I know I learned In Kindergarten”, tells a story that perfectly illustrates how decisions about rules can shape our world.  Fulghum once taught a high school philosophy class in Seattle and on the first day of classes he had his class play musical chairs. 

You know the game.  You arrange the chairs and then play Souza music.  Everyone marches until the music stops.  Then everyone finds a chair and sits down.  Then you bring some reality into the game.  Resources are never infinite you know.  Chairs are removed.  

The music plays again.  Marching commences.  When the music stops, everyone struggles to find a chair.  The clever kids hover near a chair or kick a chair and scramble after it when the music stops.   The stronger kids just muscle others out of their way.  Anything for an advantage.  Those without chairs when the music stops are sent to the wall to watch the rest of the game.  They are called the losers. 

More chairs are removed and we keep playing, round after round.  A growing line of losers are on the wall.  Finally, one kid wins and conquers the last chair.  He throws up his arms in victory.  Don’t think for a minute that the losers on the wall feel any happiness for him.

For the next game, Fulghum passes an ordinance - players may now sit on each other's laps. Pretty soon, the kids figure out that even when resources are the scarce, they can always find a lap or a knee to sit on.

The players quickly adjust their tactics.  The rules focus them on a cooperative strategy. When only one last chair remains a kid sits down.  Then two kids sit on his knees.  Then four kids sit on those two pairs of knees, and so on.  Everyone gets a seat.  There are no kids on the wall.  Each kid provides a seat for two more.  The music stops and everyone has a seat.

They all win.  No one loses.  They all throw their arms in the air!  It’s a perfect lesson in how rules and laws shape the game. 

Cities can make laws like that.  Even a small city with lots of people and only a few resources to spare.  Even if all we have are a few loaves and fishes and our only miracle is human cooperation. 

It doesn't need to be left or right, small or big, tax or spend, blue or red.  We get to decide.  Do we want our laws - our government - to be for the person or for the people?

Reader Suggests Oldtown Neglected

An anonymous commenter responded to my previous article about the TIF Tiff and suggested that our Oldtown Laurel neighborhood is being neglected by the city.

Anonymous wrote: "A million bucks for a pool, 20 million for the mall, and not a cent for old town! The police station moves, the Leader moves, it's like the city doesn't care about us."

This comment got some attention at Laurel City Hall and Mayor Moe asked his staff to compile a list of the recent investment projects in Oldtown. I hesitate to post the list because it's an embarrassment of riches and I really don't want to start a squabble with other neighborhoods.

But since you asked here is the Mayor's list of appox. $8.9 million dollars worth of Oldtown projects:

Parks and Recreation Projects

Pool Renovations, 2003-2006, $613,000.
Armory Renovations, 2004-2006, $200,000.
McCullough Field Renovations and enhancements, 2005-2008, $592,000.
Riverfront Park Playground, 2006, $40,000.
Riverfront Park Pavilions, 2005, $20,000.
Riverfront Park Bathroom, 2008, $12,000.
Emancipation Park Playground, 2007, $50,000.

Scheduled Parks and Rec Projects

Riverfront Park Extension, 2009, $100,000.
McCullough Field Pavilion, 2009, $20,000.
Mill Dam Ruins Renovation, 2009-2010, $325,000.
Riverfront Park Interpretive Signs , 2009, $22,000.
Armory Renovations, 2009-2010, $375,000.

Public Works Projects (Total approx. $5.5M from 2003-2008)

Repaved all of Main Street from the MARC Station to 7th Street

New brick pavers for the sidewalks from the MARC Station to 7th Street.
Route 1 SB & NB completely reconstructed and new sidewalks from the County line to Rt 198.

Various additional street improvements and repaving on Montgomery and 8th Streets

Installed 229 traditional lampposts on Main Street and Rt 1. ($750K!)

You gotta love living in a town where a blog comment is made on Tuesday night and the Mayor provides a detailed response on Thursday.

A Laurel Commons TIF Tiff?

Our Laurel City Council will soon be deciding if the city should invest in the Laurel Commons Mall project in the form of a TIF. It's a complicated issue and citizens have strong opinions. The TIF is creating quite a tiff. I'm sure council members are not taking their decision lightly.

A lot of us are talking about the TIF. Some folks are opposed to any form of public financing. There is a lot of public financing going around these days. From bailouts to buyouts and people are getting fed up. "Bulldoze the mall and build a park." "Why should my taxes be used to bailout a developer?" "We don't need anymore retail in Laurel."

Other people want to understand all the details, "Will the city be left holding the bag, if the mall redevelopment fails?" How can we be sure that the developer accomplishes what they promise, they still haven't even started to tear down the parking deck like they said 2 years ago?" "Why aren't we getting any high end stores like Columbia Mall?"

The Mayor sees the Laurel Commons project as necessary for the long-term economic success of our city. He believes that we need to redevelop the mall and use it as the engine that drives redevelopment along Laurel's Route 1 commercial core.

This is both a complex and often emotional issue. It's hard to explain and even harder for the experts, let alone laypeople to understand. This is not an envious position for any city council member. But don't fear, I think that our TIF tiff took a positive turn over the last few weeks. And it's because of the dedication of a couple of real Laurel heroes.

We often think that public heroes are like the brave firefighter who rushes into the burning house. But there is another kind of hero who rushes headlong into thorny, public policy debates. I'll get to our heroes later, but first let me recap our story.

A TIF is a form of public financing. A developer asks the local government to provide some of the funding for public infrastructure improvements associated with a project, for example, parking facilities, roads, or street lights.

The government borrows money (sells a bond) that is used to finance the infrastructure improvements. But there is a twist. Instead of the government directly paying off the bond over thirty years, like my mortgage, the government uses the development's property taxes to pay off the debt. The TIF concept is based on the assumption that the improved property's value will increase over time because of the new development. With TIF, the bond is paid off by using a part of the future "tax increment."

The Laurel Commons developers asked the county and the city to finance over $30 million of public infrastructure improvements. The Prince Georges County government bailed out of the deal early. That left the city to decide if and how much to invest.

Now our two heroes enter the story.

Jim McCeney went to the TIF public hearing a couple of weeks ago. Jim spent many years as a financial officer of a large corporation. He had a lot of questions about the TIF. He was trying to understand the deal in all of its details. He really wanted to know if the TIF was viable and if the developer failed at some point in the life of the deal, would the city need to pay more than we bargained for? Was this TIF the right deal for this city at this time?

At the public hearing, Jim pressed his TIF questions. City staff and consultants provided answers to the best of their ability at this point in the process. But Jim was not fully comfortable that he understood the details.

A lesser policy hero would've stopped at this point. It would have been easy for Jim to just drop it and move on. He is just a citizen. He has other things to spend time on. But Jim didn't drop it. He called around. He asked more questions. He asked for a meeting with the administration and their consultants. He spent a lot of his time. And at the end of the day, Jim got answers to his questions.

This is when Kristie Mills, another dedicated policy hero enters our story. Kristie is the city's administrator. She is the big boss, after our elected officials. Kristie is the day-to-day manager of the city.

I don't know if Jim inspired her to do it, but Kristie ran into all the confusion and fog of the complex TIF issue and she made magic. She wrote a briefing, in plain English, that we can all understand. You can read her briefing on the City's website. Here is a little bit of it.

• A TIF can only be used for public improvements.

• It cannot be used for any private purpose.
• The property owner is responsible for the remainder of the financing package.
• The numbers will be defined in the ordinance as "not to exceed".
• There is no financial risk to the City with the TIF Special Obligation Bonds.
• Payment of the TIF Special Obligation Bonds is derived from the real property tax revenues.
• The Administration believes this is the best package they can offer while still protecting the City now and in the future!

I recommend that you take a few minutes and read Kristie's whole briefing. It's very easy to follow.

The city council still has difficult TIF decisions to make. Council chambers are often frightening places. However, I think we all owe a debt of thanks to our public policy heroes Jim McCeney and Kristie Mills. They went above and beyond the call of duty and we will all make more informed decisions because they did.

Please add your comments and questions here.

Councilmember Sarich to Retire

Three term Laurel Councilman Mike Sarich told me tonight that he plans to retire at the end of his term this September.  He wrote in an email a few minutes ago that he is working on a brief statement to be released soon.  

Mike Sarich has served on the city council since 2002.  He prided himself on being the council's maverick, often voting alone.  In tonight's email he  wrote that his council service has often been a joy, occasionally been painful, but it was always an honor.

A Convenient Debate

It's Memorial day weekend and we have the beginnings of an authentic, Laurel brouhaha. Here's what's cooking on the local grill.

Laurel City Councilmember Mike Sarich wants to show Al Gore's Oscar winning movie, " An Inconvenient Truth," at a Laurel Lakes flick and float night. Laurel City Parks Department screens free movies all summer at the Burton Memorial Stage at Gude Lake Park. Mike Sarich's idea is to tie the movie to a brief program elaborating on the condition of the Laurel Lakes and on-going efforts to improve the water quality.

Mayor Craig Moe and the Laurel City Council agreed and set the date for the screening for Friday, June 15, 2007. A brief program will begin at 7:45 p.m., followed by the film.

Sounds like a good, even educational idea, right? Not in Laurel. Maybe not anywhere.

I dutifully sent out the City's press release announcing the screening to a all the local email lists. That's when the global warming debate overheated and melted into Laurel Lakes.

Right after I sent the press release, Ken Winiecki quickly wrote back with this caution, "Sounds good, as long as it is accompanied by the BBC documentary, "The Great Global Warming swindle" I think people should always hear all sides of non definitive arguments. Unfortunately in this situation, neither side's arguments seem to lack for holes."

Mike Turner then wrote back to Ken and suggested that facts are often defined by the profit makers, "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change appears to me to be very scientifically analytical and critical in it's approach to a planet shifting climates. When we hear the large amount of science work that's gone into understanding what's happening be dismissed by naysayers, just remember to keep asking questions, like 'Who has an incentive to discredit our current rate of consumption of energy and the carbon it releases?'"

Frank Monaldo then jumped into the warming waters and returned fire as follows: "I find it a little discouraging that debates surrounding the issue of climate change reduces to questioning the motivations of those involved -- on either side. I have written on this more extensively a few months ago. See 'Open Inquiry: A Casualty of the Climate Change Debate' "

All this controversy is going to make for a very interesting movie night at the Lake on the 15th. What do you think? Should the City Council sponsor such a controversial movie? Should all sides be heard? Please share your comments here.

Personally, I fall on the side of showing the movie. Sure it's controversial, but if it generates community discussion that is good. I also think the idea of linking the movie to the local plight of Laurel Lakes is inspired. Bravo Mike Sarich. Bravo Mayor Moe and the City Council for having the courage to take on a controversial subject.

There will be a Memorial Day service to honor Laurel's fallen heroes at Ivy Hill Cemetery on Sunday at 11 am. Your afternoon cookout will taste so much better if you take a little time in the morning to remember what Memorial Day is all about.

City-Wide Tell-All Published

We came home from picking up my number 1 daughter from college tonight and I was thrilled to find my Department of Public Works Resident Information Packet for 2007 hanging on our door. If you live in the City of Laurel, please be sure to find yours, read it carefully and save it away.

Maryland Science Center graduate students have found that the info packet will help you lose weight, increases your IQ by 25 points, improves your gas mileage and answers most of your deepest municipal questions. Think…Dr. Phil meets Bill Nye the Science Guy at City Hall.

It’s an extremely well done package. In it you will find answers to many of your municipal questions, including:

- Where is the big red button? Or what to do when the Mayor declares a city emergency?

- Do you live on an emergency route? (How to avoid the magic tow fairy.)

- When is your recycling, trash and bulk pick-up day? (Learn about our year-end special pick-up for unruly children, unemployed teens, and nagging spouses.)

- What to do with your used Christmas tree? (Please see the story of how the angel got on top of the tree.)

- Lawns, how high is too high? Or when you should cut your grass? (Code enforcement officer Pat Walsh gives you his thoughts on the challenges of meadow gardening in Laurel.)

- How to get rid of hazardous waste? (No, hauling it out to West Laurel is not encouraged.)

- Where to get rid of unused paint? (See above.)

- What to do about yard debris? (Hint – your neighbor’s yard is big and the night is dark and long.)

- Where to get a building permit? (Or how to re-build your deck to comply with city rules.)

- What to do to be prepared? (No joke here, being prepared for natural disasters is too important.)

All kidding aside, Mayor Moe, the City Council, City Administrator Kristie Mills, Emergency Manager Marty Flemion and the entire city team have created a wonderful info packet for us. It might not help you lose weight, but it could answer some of your questions.