Dozens of people still wanting to sound off on a plan to redevelop downtown Columbia filled a public hearing Tuesday night -- some praising the plan as crucial to Columbia’s future, others criticizing its residential density and affordable housing elements.
 
The plan, a pair of bills introduced in November on behalf of Chicago-based developer General Growth Properties Inc., could bring 5,500 new residential units, 5 million square feet of office space and 1.25 million square feet of retail space to downtown in the next three decades.

Jeremiah O’Donovan, who chairs the Howard County Young Professionals Network, said the plan is essential to attracting a talented workforce.
 
“It’s my generation and subsequent generations that will benefit from this plan ... and pay the cost of inaction,” he said.

But Bridget Mugane, president of the Howard County Citizens Association, said her group fears the development will be too dense and would overcrowd roads.
 
“There is so much in here that ... would greatly improve downtown; it’s the density that we feel would overwhelm it,” Mugane said.

Toby Orenstein, owner and artistic director for Toby’s Dinner Theatre, garnered the most crowd response during the nearly four-hour hearing when she urged the council to approve the plan.
 
“We are no longer a community of sitting, we are a community of doing,” she said to a round of applause.

Orenstein’s theater is located near Merriweather Post Pavilion and Symphony Woods — a proposed arts district according to the plan.
 
The hearing, held by the council to collect public comment on 14 amendments to the developer’s proposal introduced late last week, comes less than two weeks before the council is expected to vote on the redevelopment plan Feb. 1.
 
The council adjourned at 11 p.m. and planned to continue public testimony Wednesday night at 7:30.
 
The amendments include measures:

• To bring General Growth’s vision for Symphony Woods in line with that of the Columbia Association, which owns the 38-acre parcel;

• To require General Growth to provide land for a school if the county school board deems it necessary;
 
• And another to denote that the plan will apply not only to General Growth but any developer who might purchase GGP properties in the future.

Grace Kubofcik, who represents the Howard County League of Women Voters, said her group objects to an amendment that calls for 15 percent of the new housing units to be sold or rented to families who fall under county’s moderate income standards.

Families who earn 80 percent or less of the county’s median income are eligible to purchase moderate income units. Those who earn 60 percent of the median income are able to rent them.

Median income in Howard County hovers around $100,000 annually.
 
Kubofcik said those units exclude a group of lower-income earners who make between 30 and 40 percent of the county median. Her group is working with the county administration and other housing organizations to draft an amendment she hopes will expand the program for those earners.
 
“We do think it needs to be flexible, and one size is not going to fit all,” Kubofcik said.
 
She hopes to have the amendment before the council by the end of the week, she said.
 
The hearing comes after the council heard 12 1/2 hours of public testimony on the bills in December.

This story has been updated.

---

user comments (38)

user commonsenseplease says...

Was there anyone there who supports the plan? Two people quoted both of whom are against the plan, yet I hear that 2/3 of the testimony last time around was in favor. Is this reporter working overtime just to pick out the people who oppose the bills while ignoring that vast majority that supports the plan? Mugane is an ardent anti-development activist who has opposed this plan from the start and has demonized GGP at every turn. Why is she constantly given the limelight by this reporter? Columbia has over 60% of the county's affordable housing already despite containing only 30% of he county's population. Do people who make below $50K get to live in Capitol Hill or Inner Harbor East? Of course not. Should people who make $50K be able to afford a house in every single subdivision in Ellicott City and western HoCO? Who says that every person at every income gets to live in every community? This issue is getting out of hand and this reporter's constant catering to the extreme opposition is becoming obvious. Was there no one there who could offer an alternative point of view?

Posted 12:52 AM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user independent says...

Affordable housing must be offered to every citizen if it's to be soundly legal, moral, just. Giving to some and not others cannot continue to occur even though everyone deserves shelter. Either no one should enjoy affordable housing, or everyone enjoys it. We've not done a good job as a culture selecting beneficiaries of government programs. It has been a disaster evidenced by stripping recipients of energy and strength that comes with the struggle to provide for ones self. We've neutralized self determination, the most basic right. Moynihan's predicted underclass is burgeoning. And yet, we all deserve shelter.

Posted 7:36 AM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user columbianactivist says...

Watching this on television, you could see the overwhelming majority of the speakers FAVORED both bills and were enthusiastic about the plan for revitalization. Housing advocates did what they do: ask for more affordable housing. What we want is a balance in our community -- 15% moderate income housing downtown seems adequate when you consider nearby Oakland Mills and Wilde Lake, both of which show the strains of an imbalance.

Posted 7:53 AM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user wildelakemike says...

The headline for this article is more than a bit misleading. First, the real story at last night's public hearing was that an overwhelming majority of people came out to support CB58 and CB59. The people who testified represented a cross-section of Columbia and Howard County. This support reflects the success of a five-year effort to build consensus around a great plan for revitalizing downtown Columbia. We could have only wished that this positive story could have been told. Instead, we get to focus on the negative. Even there, this headline misses the point. Density and affordable housing have been two of the KEY issues for the past couple of years. They certainly did not just emerge last night. However, what has not emerged is the rationale behind having even more affordable housing built downtown than the proposed 15% standard now applied to all developers in Howard County. Look around downtown Columbia. Look in Wilde Lake and Oakland Mills. The current inventory of affordable housing is already significant is this area. I have asked this question of many - why more than 15%? But no answers that provide an objective standard have been forthcoming. All I hear is that it is "the right thing to do." Well, maybe it's finally time to stop the platitudes and provide some answers. Otherwise, let's just apply the current County standard to downtown Columbia and get on with the passage of CB58 and CB59. As for density, well, this is a 30-year plan, and the proposed density doesn't even match the proposed densities for other areas of the County, such as Route 1. The numbers may sound large, but, in reality, they just reflect a planned way of addressing the demands of the future.

Posted 8:06 AM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user independent says...

An impartial party is required to report the actual number of pro and con voices at the meeting. Can someone supply this impartial statistic?

Posted 8:47 AM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user says...

I attended the hearing last night and an am also surprised at the one-sidedness of this article. In terms of numbers it was a landslide in favor of the bills. The affordable housing issue was addressed by at least a half dozen supporters who all presented thoughtful views supporting the 15%. And --- why isn't anyonne talking about the costs? This developer is already contributing more in the way of CEPPAs, amenities, affordable housing and planning than any developer in Howard Co history. Is there no end to the community's thinking GGP is Santa Claus?

Posted 8:56 AM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user citizentaxpayerjane says...

Excuse me? It's the taxpayers who are Santa Claus to the developer! WE have to pay for roads, schools, water, sewer expansion, police, teachers to the tune of hundreds of MILLIONS! My GOODNESS, man. Get a grip somewhere other than my wallet and paycheck.

Posted 9:20 AM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user independent says...

Last night was not about the bills, it was about the amendments. I believe the bills were a 50/50 split with the pro 50 being primarily from the developer community, ie., those who are paid to testify as part of their job. We do not need an impartial count, as the bill popularity has already been polled to be evenly split.

Posted 9:26 AM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user david14750 says...

I was also at the hearing last night and Independent's "count" is wrong, but I think everyone knows by now that the support for this plan is widespread. We're talking about the affordbale housing issue here so I'll stick to that. I agree that we need to start looking at costs associated with affordable housing - not just in this plan but County-wide. It appears that the County's affordbale housing program is failing to create housing for folks in the categories that are higher than subsidized, but below the 60% levels. I agree that's an issue that the County needs to solve and hope that the County gets serious about it county-wide. However, to over-burden any one development in the County in order to solve a much larger county-wide issue is not fair and not feasible. Do any of the proponents of loads more affordable housing even know or care how much it will cost? Everyone who testified has been working on this for years and nobody is getting paid to testify. Speak to the plan on its merits instead of trying to convince readers that everyone who supports it is on the take.

Posted 10:52 AM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user independent says...

David, the count last night was not 50-50 and that is not what was claimed. 50-50 refers to the bill popularity. As stated, last night was about the amendments. There are two issues, the popularity of the bills (50-50) and the popularity of the amendments (seems to be in favor). Thanks for allowing clarification.

Posted 12:02 PM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user wildelakemike says...

For those who like numbers, the actual count was 25 to 11 in favor of the bills, as amended. As for a popularity vote, I can't say since there has been no poll done by the media or other impartial participant; however, I doubt very seriously that any polling would reflect a 50-50 split. In any case, Independent, if you have such a poll, please share it with the rest of us. Independent, it is rather cynical to believe that one must be paid to support our plan for downtown Columbia. Indeed, my family and my partners will be very happy with these bills are finally passed!

Posted 2:05 PM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user says...

Much improved article.

Posted 3:38 PM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

Here we go again with CTJ's phantom costs. Like the COunty's fiscal impact report forgot to account for police and roads. Or maybe its the $445 million imaginary sewer cost or the cost of the school that won't be needed because the county already has 3 existing underenrolled schools there already.

Posted 4:10 PM, 01.20.10 | Permalink

user independent says...

I believe the 50/50 count came from this newspaper's reporter.

Posted 7:21 AM, 01.21.10 | Permalink

user onewhocares says...

Interesting how this article changed after so many people commented about the impartial reporting.

Posted 11:07 AM, 01.21.10 | Permalink

user mdcommish says...

What everyone forgot to mention was the impact on current housing prices in the worst recession after adding the proposed 5,000+ units, or who will build this once GGP goes belly up from chapter 7 bankruptcy it currently finds itself in. Its time to vote all these clowns out of office come Nov.

Posted 12:37 PM, 01.21.10 | Permalink

user citizentaxpayerjane says...

Agreed, Commish. Let's start over.

Posted 12:53 PM, 01.21.10 | Permalink

user david14750 says...

Commish, GGP and about 2/3 of its subsidiaries filed Chapter 11 reorganization not Chapter 7. About half of the subsidiaries have already restructured and are essentially our of Ch.11. The Company's operations are very strong and their cash flow is more than adequate to cover debt service. Their only issue was debt marurities, not being able to make monthly debt payments. I encourage you to read some analyst reports on the Company if you actually want to understand it. If you hate the plan, just say it maybe add why. But you just sound silly throwing around such wrong information about GGP. The 5,500 units will be built over 30 years, which is 183 new homes ech year. That's about 10% of what has historically been built County-wide. That's also less than 1% of the existing housing inventory in Columbia. Such a small number of new homes each year will not have an adverse effect on values of existing homes. Economists believe that home values will actually grow faster in the areas that are connected to a viable downtown.

Posted 2:38 PM, 01.21.10 | Permalink

user david14750 says...

Onewhocares. With the advent of these newspaper websites, it's very common for brief articles to go up late at night only to be significantly re-written and completed the following day. If you watch closely, you'll see that happens a great deal on this site asn well as on the the Sun and Washington Post sites. I doubt the changes were amde only to appease the folks that complained here. But, I do agree that the article was very one-sided at first, but now quotes 2 supporters and 2 opponents which seems pretty balanced.

Posted 2:41 PM, 01.21.10 | Permalink

user artshound says...

Whether in Columbia or elsewhere in Howard County -- Until there is legislation MANDATING that developers SHALL pay ALL INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS AND SHALL contribute 10% of development costs to a fund for the LIFECYCLE COSTS of planned development, I recommend that the County Council not pass pending or future legislation. Taxpayers should NOT be subsidizing development costs. Tax dollars are not a stream of funding that is sustainable.

Posted 3:18 PM, 01.21.10 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

Seriously, no more development in Howard Co? Priceless.

Posted 3:46 PM, 01.21.10 | Permalink

user mdcommish says...

David, you probally work for GGP and as such should know the company is in the process of being liquidated! It's remaining assetsmay be bought by Simon Properties, who now owns the defunct Mills corporation assets (AKA Arundel Mills). The company, being highly leveraged, was unable to pay its bills...and many properties have already been sold off. This isn't about what I want...it's about what the PEOPLE want. Lying and feeding the proverbial BS people like yourself conjer up has become ludacris and out of control. The raison d'etre of people like you is to make money at the expense of lowering the quality of living for everyone. If I or anyone else want a densely populated area, there's two cities that can be visited within a short drive. I like open space, not have to feed a parking meter, low crime, village atmospheres, a city centered around a mall in the county I live; just the way Rouse intended it to be, similar traits of Easton, his home town. It is time the people of Columbia form a municipal govt. so we have a say in what goes on. Finally, as referenced above, growth sould pay for growth.

Posted 6:16 PM, 01.21.10 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

MDcommish, you are either a liar or just so misinformed that you should be embarrased. Name one source for your assertion that GGP is being liquidated. Do you even know what that means? Yes, they bought Mills, and they have already increased the cash flow and occupancy rates of those malls. That's what we in the real world call a good business deal. What of GGP's assets have been sold off? So what if Simon buys GGP? That's not a liquidation, that's a sale of a company which happens every day. And if that happens I'll feel a whole lot better with a general plan in place than trusting Simon to do the right thing with the zoning and development rights the company already has in Town Center. It's obvious that you like Columbia the way it is and you have the right to that opinion. If you have problems with the plan, state them. But making slanderous statements about GGP that can so easily rbe efuted just makes you sound like a dumbass. As for what Rouse intended Columbia to be, go to any of the histories of Columbia on the web and you'll see that it was supposed to be a city. No way you could know what he wanted first hand because he never would have given such an idiot the time of day much less a conversation.

Posted 1:03 AM, 01.22.10 | Permalink

user citizentaxpayerjane says...

Looks like I have company. Much appreciate your comments, arts and commish. We are actually more representative of the at large voting public than those who work in the field who stand to benefit financially from ongoing taxpayer subsidized business activity.

Posted 6:33 AM, 01.22.10 | Permalink

user citizentaxpayerjane says...

Calling names, yeah. That really underscores your bent, common nonsense, not your point. In fact, I didn't read past that 'liar' sentence. Bo-ring.

Posted 6:36 AM, 01.22.10 | Permalink

user belovedcartoonmouse says...

Slots for downtown Columbia!

Posted 7:11 AM, 01.22.10 | Permalink

user david14750 says...

Wow, it's getting rough out here. Commish, I don't work for GGP. I am a Realtor working mostly the suburbs of Howard Co. But I have taken the time to learn about GGP and stay up to date on what's happening with them since they own such a large part of our community. One doesn't need to work for GGP to get this information, as there are news articles and analyst reports available online. I'm not sure where you're getting your facts, but they are far from accurate based on the things I've read. I think I'd echo the statement that, if you don't like the plan, argue it on its merits. Is a dislike/distrust of GGP your only issue here? Would you favor the plan if it was a local developer in what you perceived was a stronger financial condition?

Posted 7:58 AM, 01.22.10 | Permalink

user says...

Let me start by saying the majority of people in Howard County don't support this plan. As to David, stop sipping that Kool Aid GGP's providing you at their meetings. As stated above, you may see 5,000+ units a boon to the Real Estate industry, but you're wrong. Housing prices will decline, as the quality of life noticeably diminishes. The next time you need CE credit, take a drive to the Eastern Shore and observe supply side economics in for force, and poverty everywhere. Now to the state of GGP, the company is bankrupt. Its failing assets have already been foreclosed, which is roughly 20 malls and counting. Non-sense, apparently you haven't been to a shopping mall lately, and for good reason, or you'd know mall vacancy rates are at an 18 year high at 11%, wiping out years of profits. When GGP purchased Rouse, they assumed best case scenarios in their modeling, and now they paying for it. At this point, the only route left for GGP is to be acquired by Simon group. Spin it how you want, the company is being liquidated. They haven't drawn a profit in 2 yrs, and their share holders were virtually wiped out last yr. Non-sense, I am against the current plan for growth because I hate a downtown like Reston. Sitting in traffic all day just to go get groceries is something I'd rather not see, and fortunately I'm in the majority. The only people who show up to meetings are special interests, and its about time the taxpayers have their voice heard. Just say no to subsidized growth!

Posted 10:50 AM, 01.22.10 | Permalink

user smokey says...

Commonsenseplease, The county has several schools that are overcapacity currently, some over the 110% and they are predicting more growth even without the changes to town center. Essentially there is almost equal number of over and underutilized schools.

Posted 11:46 AM, 01.22.10 | Permalink

user david14750 says...

I enjoy debating the issues but it's a waste of time to debate with folks who just make up facts. You have no polling or anything else to suggest that the majority of Howard Co is against this. You just write it and assume enough readers are dumb enough to believe it. And your statements about GGP are incorrect as well. I don't think this will be a boom for residential real estate because it's not going to change the total number of homes that will get built in Howard Co each year - only where they get built. Doesn't anyone get that Howard Co is going to build the same number of homes every year regardless and this plan just allows for some of them to be built in a more smart growth economical way?

Posted 3:03 PM, 01.22.10 | Permalink

user mdcommish says...

A "more smart growth economical way" as opposed to what? Not clogging the downtown streets around the mall, having to double the county police force. The only people comming out of the woodwork in support of this are developers and other with a "preceived" vested interest. At the end of the day, taxpayers will be holding the bag. Overcrowded schools, higher vacancy rates in commercial space, increased crime, strain on county resources, all for what the city you've waited to see, but can drive 30 mins. up or down 95 to get to? Stop sugar coating this issue, people think it's bad public policy, as to why the bills and ammendments continually get tabled. Mark my words, GGP is a thing of the past by Jan. 2012.

Posted 3:39 PM, 01.22.10 | Permalink

user howardguy says...

user, actually that's an ironic moniker. The residents in Howard County pay less in taxes than they consume in services, (schools, police, fire, social services, and so on). That would make us "users." The difference is made up by the commercial tax which pays more than it gets back...directly. Let's call them the "givers." While much focus has been given to the addition 5,000 or so housing units (2,000 of which were already permitted) over the next 30 years, less attention has been given to the 4.3 million square feet of new office space, 640 hotel rooms and 1.25 million square feet of retail space. That'll keep a few teachers at the best public schools in the country working. Who do you think pays for this quality? And don't get me started with GGP. Let's just say that if you purchased their stock back in April you could have gotten it for $0.45 a share. Today it trades for $10.31 a share. That doesn't some like a failing company to me. Things are fine in GGP land. They even declared a dividend of $0.19 a share last month. And no, unfortunately, I was not one of those smart enough to snatch up the shares at the bargain price.

Posted 3:55 PM, 01.22.10 | Permalink

user david14750 says...

Commish, you missed the point. Either Howard County builds 1,800 units a year (the historcal average that will continue without most people even noticing) in the suburbs or west tearing up farm land, building large homes with 2-3 kids that need schools, running fire, police and trash services out there or building 200 of those units each year in a place where it's easy to deliver services and condos/apartments will attract far fewer kids that need schools. As for vested interest, don't all of us have a vested interest in keeping our home values high, keeping taxes low and maintaining the level of service and lifestyle? What more vested interest do you need to want something economically strong for the County?

Posted 1:46 PM, 01.23.10 | Permalink

user independent says...

David has a good point above, but what taxpayers at large are objecting to is the number of residences proposed. It is simply too large a number. But the above insult to readers who believe most people oppose the plan is a transparent scare tactic. Informal polling outside of people who attend meetings and outside of the developer community supports the notion that it's likely most regular residents are opposed. Pick up a voter list and spend a couple of hours on the phone polling.

Posted 9:08 AM, 01.24.10 | Permalink

user david14750 says...

I live in western Howard Co and my friends/neighbors are not at all involved in the "activist" side of this issue one way or another. The huge majority favor Howard Co finally creating an economic core of its own so we all don;t need to just live here for the schools and drive to other places to work. Sure, the old folks who have hated Columbia for 40 years also think this plan is terrible, but the the middle aged and younger folks recognize the need. As for the issue with residences, we're dealing with 180 residences a year!!! I just can't get over how many people are focused on that tiny figure (less than 10% of what the COunty will build each and every year and 1% of what Columbia has now). I think at one poll actually has been done by an elected official and, of likely voters, the in favor was at least 2/3 if not more, but I don't know that for sure.

Posted 10:52 AM, 01.24.10 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

Commish is making this up as he goes along. The bills keep getting tabled: incorrect, the bills were presented this year for the first time and they'll be approved next week. The only people who support this are developers. Have you been to any of the hearings? Do you have any idea who opposes and who supports this? Overcrowded schools. Do you really think the couple hundred condos and apartments are going to put more kids and schools than if you built those homes in the suburbs? Driving to cities. So, you'd rather people go to spend their money in other places than here? How do you intend to pay for the services we have now? Do you really think people will continue to move to Howard Co forever if other places allow them to live closer to work and have the same quality of schools and services? You just don't get it. Thank god our elected officials do. Of course, they're all on the take right?

Posted 2:36 PM, 01.24.10 | Permalink

user blueprint13 says...

Does anybody here live in Columbia lol. I am listening to people talk about Howard County and live in parts of Howard County talking about Columbia. Columbia is different than any part of Howard County. West Frienship, Clarksville in the West, Jessup and Laural in the East even Ellicott City is not Columbia demographically or culturally. So these do it for Howard County arguments are BS. I’m from Columbia (Born and Raised) and agree with the density. I think the affordable housing advocates should figure out how to organize the 15% maybe 5% out of the 15 for those making less than 50,000 and the issue is done with. I agree with Commish that Columbia can possibly incorporate due to the fact that it is Howard Countiy’s cash cow with Gateway and Downtown and we already pay CA assessments AKA tax for amenities. I will say most I know could care less either way ones that do care are for development in Town Center only and agree with much of GGP’s plan. I think we should have safeguards but am annoyed with all this talk from people on both sides that don’t live in Columbia. Also I hope all who are passionate about Columbia are just as passionate about other Columbia issues such as Village center redevelopment. For all those who are pro development like me stick to saying how this is good for Columbia because it will affect us more than someone who lives in Elkridge or West Friendship.

Posted 1:54 PM, 01.26.10 | Permalink

user mdcommish says...

GGP will be completely liquidated in 2 yrs....I assure you Without explaining accounting practices too much, a company can show a profit numerous ways, esp. when they have DIP (debitor in possesion) financing a company pays a dividend to defer profits, so it is possible the company is not actually profitable, and still paying dividends. To the person wondering how the share price went up to $10 something, that would be because the company has been de-listed by the NYSE, and is now on pink sheets which are highly manipulated. As to using more services than I pay for in taxes, speak for yourself howardguy...The response time of Glock 22 is much faster than any Howard County officer, I can assure you of that Concealed carry reform is on the way, along with castle doctrine and "stand your ground" clauses

Posted 4:51 PM, 01.27.10 | Permalink