Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-01-18
'PIonning Compromise
January

IL. Planning Compromise"
makes strange assumptions.
At the Montgomery County
hearing on the proposed re-
organization of the Maryland
National Capital Park and
Planning Commission. only
one group spoke in favor Of
compromise: the Suburban
Builders Association. OF all
the rest. who spoke for local
planning, not one has to date
reversed his position. This ma
jority has been increased by
the Kensing tom Wheaton
Democratic Club. in a later
resolution.
Why is it 'ill-advised" to
have local planning an arm
of local government, directly
responsible and responsive to
the will Of the people, as re-
Gently recommended for the
District of Columbia by Com
missioner Lane? And why is
it ill-advised for regional plan
ming to be acknowledgements
ing the whole Metropolitan
Area surrounding our Capital
City?
What is peculiar about the
Montgomery Prince Georges
boundary? Do we not have
other borders touching the
District? And what problems
of development affect the two
counties that do not impinge
on the development Of all sur
rounding counties?
Over the Nation, real estate
interests have moved in on
government to obtain direc-
ton of planning. Are we ILL
advised in wishing to keep that
function close to the voters
influence? There is, in this
situation, a real conflict be-
tween special and public inter-
est. Why is this phase of the
subject not discussed?
Why are you so certain the
vicounty setup is best? Such
good care has been given our
park streams that floods are
growing cumulatively more
serious-as last summer dem
onstrated. And such devotion
has been given to planning
that only now. 80 years since
the establishment Of the BIZ
county agency. do we have
a preliminary master plan for
the orderly development of the
lower counties. For whom is
the bicounty agency best?
Mrs. Thomas Lee Smith.
4 4
In your recent editorial.
planning Compromise" you
stated: "Ill-advised efforts to
abolish the Maryland-Na-
tional Capital Park and Plan
ming Commission in favor of
two independent county plan
ming systems have gained few
supporters"
December Z, The Star re-
ported County Manager M. L.
Reese favored the abolition Of
the Maryland National Capt.
tai Park and Planning COM
mission and the creation Of a
single planning agency under
the county government.
December 81, The Star re-
ported council members Stella
B. Werner and j. Grahame
Walker favored abolishing the
bicounty planning commits
sion in favor of a Montgom-
cry County commission under
the county government.
December 30. The Star re-
ported the following Mont
gomery County organizations
favored abolishing the BIZ
county commission, County
Civic Federation, Montgomery
County Planning Association,
League of Women Voters and
Committee Of the Allied Civic
Group.
On December II, the Ken
sington-Wheaton Democratic
Club passed a resolution IA
voring the creation of a
county planning commission
as an arm of the county
government.
In view Of this support 1t
is difficult to understand the
meaning Of your editorial.
You could hardly expect civic
groups to take action during
the Christmas holidays.
The only support for the
Planning Compromise" comes
from the Suburban Maryland
Builders Association, five
members Of the County Coun-
Gil, and the bicounty commits
sion which is fighting for its
continued existence.