This article was republished with permission from 海角社区app’s news partners at .聽Sign up for today.
This content was republished with permission from 海角社区app鈥檚 news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for today.
The Prince George鈥檚 County Council鈥檚 new progressive majority flexed its muscle in public on Monday, using its first formal voting session of the term to repeal a series of zoning provisions considered favorable to developers and commercial landowners.
The actions, which critics said bypassed traditional procedures, occurred during a sometimes tense two-hour session. They were repeatedly condemned by a handful of council members who had approved the measures, several of which were adopted just prior to the November elections, when the veteran lawmakers and their allies tended to hold the gavel.
Those critics on the council accused the panel鈥檚 new chair and his five allies of needless haste, and they said the group鈥檚 actions will deter private sector investment in the county. Councilmember Mel Franklin (D) said recently-elected lawmakers, many of whom campaigned on the need for improved housing and retail, were taking steps that could wind up thwarting those goals.
鈥淵ou鈥檙e going to hurt a number a number of developments that are bringing high-quality amenities to our county,鈥� he said. 鈥淵ou are going to create significant uncertainty in the business community. 鈥� It looks like you鈥檙e saying Prince George鈥檚 County is closed for business.鈥�
The council repealed five zoning provisions that had been sought by business interests, in many cases on 6-3 votes, with two members abstaining. The majority in each case consisted of three veteran lawmakers 鈥� Council Chair Tom Dernoga (D), Jolene Ivey (D) and Ed Burroughs (D) 鈥� and three newcomers, Vice-Chair Wala Blegay (D), Eric Olson (D) and Krystal Oriadha (D).
The three 鈥渘o鈥� votes 鈥� Franklin, Sydney Harrison (D) and Calvin Hawkins (D) 鈥� served in leadership positions prior to November鈥檚 elections. All three supported a controversial redistricting measure that was overturned by the state鈥檚 highest court after being challenged by colleagues (those who once sat in the minority) and a broad coalition of citizens.
Two newcomers, Councilmembers Ingrid Watson (D) and Wanika Fisher (D), were attending their first meeting and chose to abstain from several votes.
鈥淚 completely reject the idea that these repeals are saying the county is bad for business,鈥� said Blegay. 鈥淲e have a lot of development throughout this county.鈥�
鈥淔rankly, not every development in this county is quality,鈥� she added. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 why we鈥檙e here. That鈥檚 we got elected. And that鈥檚 why we鈥檙e doing these repeals.鈥�
One development attorney 鈥� speaking on the condition of anonymity 鈥� questioned whether the council has the power to invalidate approved zoning provisions via resolution, the tool the council used on Monday. It would not be a surprise to see the council鈥檚 actions spur litigation, particularly in cases where projects have already broken ground, the person added.
The council鈥檚 attorney offered members assurances that their resolutions had 鈥渢he force and effect鈥� of law.
A spokesperson for County Executive Angela Alsobrooks (D) said Alsobrooks was unavailable for comment on the council鈥檚 actions or on the apparent shift in the council鈥檚 political leaning. Alsobrooks had a generally stress-free working relationship with the prior council majority, a group widely seen as amenable to the business community.
In addition to the zoning changes, the new progressive majority introduced a raft of measures that are likely to be considered in the new year.
Some of those measures would:
- Limit where self-storage facilities can be built
- Place limits on the number of tobacco shops in a given community
- Require the Alsobrooks administration to launch an 鈥渙pen data鈥� portal on the county鈥檚 website
- Require a 鈥渉ealth impact assessment鈥� on land-use matters
- Provide incentives for residents who install security cameras
The skirmish over the zoning measures brought to the open policy differences that are rarely aired in public in Prince George鈥檚. Franklin asked pointedly whether members driving repeal of the zoning bills had read the legislation they were intent on undoing. There was silence in the chamber.
He and others cautioned their colleagues that rushing measures to a vote can have unintended consequences. 鈥淭his is something you have to learn. When I first came into office, I thought I knew a lot, too,鈥� Franklin said. 鈥淎nd it turned out I didn鈥檛.鈥�
But Ivey defended the new council鈥檚 decision to pack its first-day agenda. 鈥淲e have a sense of urgency about the problems we need to address,鈥� she said in an interview. 鈥淏usiness-as-usual has not been helpful to our county.鈥�
She noted that many of the measures the council acted upon on Monday had just become law that day. 鈥淲e had to put this legislation in, in order to stop them from taking effect.鈥�
Janna Parker, an education advocate who resides in Temple Hills, took issue with Franklin鈥檚 claim that the new majority is anti-business.
鈥淔or several years, those in power have not listened,鈥� she said. 鈥淭his new council isn鈥檛 anti-development. They are pro-people and community-centered development, which businesses somehow can do and thrive in doing in counties like Anne Arundel, Howard and Montgomery, but don鈥檛 want to do in counties like Prince George鈥檚.鈥澛�
Parker said she looks forward to 鈥渟mart development鈥� that benefits county residents, is 鈥渆nvironmentally conscious and sound,鈥� and doesn鈥檛 result in stormwater management problems or over-development.
The council begins its three-day annual retreat on Tuesday at National Harbor.
