Montgomery County sentinel., 1961-12-02


The failure of the five-mem-
ber Montgomery County Plan
ming Board to do its job of pro-
ducing a sound master plan
! for the county is brought
home by the County Councils
rejection of its three area
plans.
Rising taxes, crowde e d
schools, traffic congestion,
vanishing open space, and
wasteful destruction of the
countryside bear witness to
the inadequacy of our plan
ming. Now the controversy be-
tween the Council and its Plan.
ming Board threatens even to
hamper the growth of the
county along its outmoded es-
tablished pattern of planned
sprawl.
The County Council, as the
elected representatives of the
people, is right in principle on
its claim to establish basic
planning policy. The Planning
Board has the duty to prepare
and adopt master plans in ac-
cordance with basic policy d.
receives of the Council. The
! Council is right in requesting
reconsideration of plans when
they do not have community
acceptance, nor do they pre-
sent desired goals or practical
means of achievement" and in
requesting its Planning Board
ito provide a master plan for
those areas that will not break
down from its own inadequa-
cies" and Twill present a means
for breaking up our sprawl"
Because this particular Plan
ming Board has failed, we
should beware of throwing
out the baby with the bath. We
need competent planners re-
sponsive to the needs and de-
sires of the people. ''The peo-
pie through their political lead
ers must make the decisions
which in the long run will in
fluence the pattern of commu-
nifty growth" states the Ma
tional Capital Planning Com
mission in its Year 1000 Plan.
The Montgomery County
Planning Board would be more
responsive to the desires of
the people if it were brought
within the framework of the
county government under the
policy direction of our elected
representatives. But checks
and balances are needed to
prevent properly designed and
adopted master plans, if and
when we get them, from being
capriciously varied under day
to day pressures brought upon
our elected officials, as so oft
en- happens in many "spot zon-
ing" cases.
Serious questions also arise
regarding the competence and
personal conflict of interest of
the present members of the
Planning Board. Few members
appear qualified by education,
experience or vision for the
job. One member told a Cham
Der of Commerce meeting he
had had no idea what his bud
get was. Another member has
extensive acreage on one of
his farms planned for valuable
industrial zoning. Another Is
a large builder actively seek.
ing apartment zoning for his
projects. The chairman's fam
ily owns 800 acres of strategic
Bethesda land, long by-passed
by the planners, and recently |
got so acres spot.zoned for
1000 high density apartments.
These officials are charged |
with a trust to plan in the pub
lie interest. No man can serve |
two masters.
In this controversy, unfor.
tunately, the pot is calling the |
kettle black. The County Coun-
Gil appointed these men to its |
Planning Board. The Council |
consistently has refused to
hold public hearings on their
proposed appointments which |
would throw the light of pub |
lie inquiry upon their qualifi-
cations, their principles and |
Rtential conflicts of inter
Rct, several council
YES have conflicts
fRnd and taxa
to exam !