County Council member Courtney Watson has demonstrated sound instincts in one piece of legislation she's proposed and in her stated intent to withdraw another.

The former is a bill that would permit the transfer of development rights from properties in some established neighborhoods -- where accommodating "infill" would change the character of a community.

It typically also leads to strain on roads, sewers, schools and other infrastructure, so it makes sense to funnel growth to places where higher density is planned.

Watson has thought better of a second idea that would have put a bull's eye on Columbia as a target of this redirected development.

Watson proposed a resolution -- which she says came at the suggestion of the Planning Board -- that would have recommended Columbia be on the receiving end of development rights sold by owners of property in older neighborhoods.

In some ways, this idea makes perfect sense. As public and corporate officials and the public weigh in on the coming redevelopment of Columbia's Town Center, words such as "urban," "vibrant" and "pedestrian-friendly" dominate much of the conversation. By most accounts, achieving these goals will mean putting a lot more people into the neighborhood.

A significant segment of Columbia residents, of course, resist that idea, arguing that that kind of city isn't what they bargained for when they came here. Watson might well have had that resistance in mind when she reversed herself, even though Columbia isn't part of her district.

But the better reason to deep-six this resolution is that conversation about what is to happen to downtown Columbia is still taking place. Until the county approves a master plan -- one that could include the radical overhaul or outright scrapping of New Town zoning -- any talk of sending other people's development downtown or anywhere else in Columbia is premature.

In any case, we salute Watson's overarching intent here: putting development to which property owners have the right into neighborhoods where the infrastructure can handle it.

user comments (1)

user flierhh says...

The Howard County Times
Columbia Maryland 21044

July 1, 2008

Editor:


Regarding your below editorial, "Transferred right a sensible approach,"� the Planning Board is probably correct in suggesting to County Council Member Courtney Watson that development, especially affordable housing, be transferred to downtown Columbia. After all, what else is there to do with there being powerful opposition to "infill"� development outside Columbia. NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) would find significant comfort in The Times view because, under any scenario or circumstance, NIMBYs would considers such developments as undesirable--with a preference that they go "elsewhere".

It's discomforting to think that The Howard County Times would take a position similar to that of NIMBYs on these two important development approaches.

Sherman Howell, VP
African American Coalition of Howard County



Transferred rights a sensible approach
Howard County imes/Columbia Flier
6/19/08
OUR VIEW

County Council member Courtney Watson has demonstrated sound instincts in one piece of legislation she's proposed and in her stated intent to withdraw another.

The former is a bill that would permit the transfer of development rights from properties in some established neighborhoods -- where accommodating "infill" would change the character of a community.

It typically also leads to strain on roads, sewers, schools and other infrastructure, so it makes sense to funnel growth to places where higher density is planned.

Watson has thought better of a second idea that would have put a bull's eye on Columbia as a target of this redirected development.

Watson proposed a resolution -- which she says came at the suggestion of the Planning Board -- that would have recommended Columbia be on the receiving end of development rights sold by owners of property in older neighborhoods.

In some ways, this idea makes perfect sense. As public and corporate officials and the public weigh in on the coming redevelopment of Columbia's Town Center, words such as "urban," "vibrant" and "pedestrian-friendly" dominate much of the conversation. By most accounts, achieving these goals will mean putting a lot more people into the neighborhood.

A significant segment of Columbia residents, of course, resist that idea, arguing that that kind of city isn't what they bargained for when they came here. Watson might well have had that resistance in mind when she reversed herself, even though Columbia isn't part of her district.

But the better reason to deep-six this resolution is that conversation about what is to happen to downtown Columbia is still taking place. Until the county approves a master plan -- one that could include the radical overhaul or outright scrapping of New Town zoning -- any talk of sending other people's development downtown or anywhere else in Columbia is premature.

In any case, we salute Watson's overarching intent here: putting development to which property owners have the right into neighborhoods where the infrastructure can handle it.

Posted 8:46 AM, 07.01.08

• Permalink