Title: The Village Residents Spoke, But Were They Heard?

The MVF Golf Course Committee has dropped the ball on its report. The MVF Board followed suit and fumbled the ball in approving the resolution accepting the report.

On March 25, 2014 the Montgomery Village Board of Directors appeared to listen dutifully as two dozen Residents’ Time speakers rose one by one in reasoned and heartfelt opposition to the Board Decision Item resolution to “approve the concept plan for the re-development of the Montgomery Village Golf Course property”.

Twenty-four capable Villagers made articulate and effective cases for voting against approving the concept plan. Most notable, five realtors delivered the sobering message that collectively the golf course development would not increase the value of Village homes. Instead, it would only make bad things worse (for example, traffic). Others pointed out that there was no mention of the Town Sector Zoning amendment dependency or property credits, there was conflict with the 2030 Vision, there was no mention of the Kettler commitment to retain the golf course recorded in resident property deeds, there appeared to be a quid pro quo between MVF and the developer, there was no mention of the 550-600 houses as excessive, and there was insufficient consideration for those with disabilities. Only nine people rose in support of the resolution with simple messages of support for the developer and the project without presenting convincing arguments.

After all that, the short-handed board under its short-timer president voted 7-1 in favor of the MVGC concept plan and authorized MVF EVP Dave Humpton to send a letter to the Montgomery County Council from the MVF Board of Directors indicating the Board’s support of the concept plan.

What was the Board thinking? What was the rush? Clues to Board member thinking can be found in their comments prior to the vote:

1. One Board member asked the developer if the dozens of residents who spoke said anything that it disagreed with. The developer confirmed no area of disagreement.
2. A nostalgic Board member, longing for the good ole days of 2030 Vision, asked about the plan for potential senior apartments. MV Golf Course Committee Chairman John Driscoll said it was still on the table.  Perhaps Driscoll mistook the table for the cutting room floor.
3. The lone wolf Board member observed that there is still work to be done, we are bouncing from one alternative to another, what’s the rush, and voting on it at this time is too soon.
4. An apologist Board member countered these objections by stating that we will never arrive at a community consensus, this is simply a concept plan, and its is not a rush to vote.
5. A fretful Board member appeared concerned with what preemptive action the developer might take if there is not a vote now and asked, “Will Monument fold up its tent?” Monument responded that it is working in good faith and needs a better sense of certainty and stated that it cannot keep running the golf course forever.
6. Summing up the Board member sentiment, a resigned Board member stated, “We need to move forward with this partner we can work with”. 

It must be noted that Village residents also feel the “need to move forward with a partner we can work with”, meaning a Board we can trust, not one that would record a 7-1 vote in favor of a resolution opposed 24-9 by Residents’ Time speakers. It was as though Village residents did not exist.

So much for democracy in Montgomery Village.