The cynical view says that the principals in The Great Downtown Debate are simply concerned about the impact General Growth Properties' plans for Town Center would have on their respective property values.

County approval of the GGP redevelopment scheme would instantly provide the bankrupt company, which is in Chapter 11, with a badly needed boost to its assets. Opponents of the plan fear that the greater density it would bring will cause the prices of their own little pieces of suburbia to plummet.

There's little doubt that this kind of short-term self-interest is indeed at play here. But if that's all there was to it, the developer would've come up with something a lot less ambitious that would've sailed through, and its antagonists would never have widely acknowledged, as they do, the necessity of some form of downtown redevelopment.

For all the suspicion and resentment surrounding the proposed zoning amendments that would green-light the plan, the passions at play actually speak well of the citizenry on both sides of the issue, most of whom will be long gone, or at least very old, by the time most of what's in the plan actually appears on the landscape.

This isn't your average Howard County land-use debate. We're not talking about a gas station or a shopping center or even a townhouse development. Residents and developers feel the economic and quality-of-life effects of those sorts of things fairly quickly.

We're talking here about the remaking of an entire Columbia village over the span of 30 years. Whether the downtown face-lift results in a crime-ridden hellhole of gridlock or an idyllic city on the hill (they'll need quite a few earth-movers to pull that off) or -- most likely -- something in between, most of the people who are having this argument now won't be around to see whether their predictions about the thing came true or not.

Knowing that actually makes me a little more optimistic about the future of Columbia and Howard County in general.

I've long observed that many of our problems -- pollution, economic ruin, political corruption -- are the result of a myopic focus on short-term gain at the expense of long-term viability. The captains of industry roll the dice for the sake of the next quarter. Politicians mortgage the future for the sake of the next election. People buy things they can't afford.

Here's a case where private citizens and corporate officials and even politicians are investing deeply in a matter that is pretty abstract at the moment and will likely remain so for years to come. They are arguing over something that will affect mostly residents of their children's and grandchildren's generations.

True, the downtown redevelopment will begin to take shape during our lifetimes, but the full effect is decades down the road.

And along that road will be turns that we can see from this vantage point. The health of General Growth and the other property owners directly affected, the ups and downs of the economy in general, construction delays, political machinations and even the whims of fashion will surely alter the artist's conception of the Town Center of 2040.

But the energy that hundreds are devoting now to getting it right will pay dividends in that final product, no matter what form it ultimately takes.

So question the other side's motives if you must, but realize that it will be the balancing of these competing interests that will serve the greater good.

---

user comments (4)

user independent says...

Top of the most read list. Very impressive ranking inside this, the most read publication in the county. Excellent points, excellent delivery.

Posted 1:15 PM, 12.11.09 | Permalink

user commonsenseplease says...

By the third line of this OpEd, Miller uses the terms "scheme" and "bankrupt company." More one-sided editorial from this paper's editor. Too bad, because the article itself was actually pretty good.

Posted 8:55 PM, 12.11.09 | Permalink

user columbianactivist says...

If people don't want change, actually oppose 'vibrancy' (see recent Flier letter to the editor) and question the need for redevelopment at all (see recent exchange on HCCA listserve), there is no common ground with other residents who want to reverse the decline of the city for the benefit of future generations, their children and grandchildren included.

Posted 4:40 PM, 12.12.09 | Permalink

user wildelakemike says...

This editorial provided the missing ingredient to the debate surrounding the redevelopment of downtown Columbia - perspective. Thanks!

Posted 8:20 AM, 12.14.09 | Permalink