By Ann Telma

Dear Sir or Madam:

In response to the recently-published article “When Abundance Meets Resistance: A Call for More Building Runs Into Trouble in NIMBY-land,” The Economist sadly did not delve deeply enough and got it all wrong. The issue is not NIMBYism, but rather dishonest political representation. 

Democratically-elected council members should represent the interests of their constituents. Why should the needs of people who are not currently living in a particular neighborhood trump the rights of the current residents who have very clearly objected to increasing the density of their neighborhoods? Who stands to gain most with this zoning change? Developers! The Montgomery County Council tried to stretch a fig leaf over this incredible bonanza by saying that what they were doing would create “affordable housing.”

After giving the developers a 20-year tax break for converting vacant commercial space to residential space, the Montgomery County Council now wants to give the developers something much more valuable—the opportunity to redevelop sites throughout the county at higher density. In return, the developers are contributing to the political campaigns of some of the council members.

In reality, changing zoning to increase density without going through the Master Plan process and proper due diligence on its myriad effects, is a failure of local government to maintain the compact they have with current homeowners—reliable zoning that provides stability and predictability.

NIMBY-ism has nothing to do with it.

___________

Ann Telma is a member of the Montgomery County Republican Central Committee.