More News

It is unfortunate that Lauren Nelson resorted to name calling in her rebuke of so-called NIMBY opposition to the development proposed in the draft Gaithersburg West Master Plan ("A community for tomorrow's workforce," Sept. 9). Ms. Nelson should realize that those of us who live and work near the proposed development are not trying to stem scientific progress. Many of us, in fact, make our livings in the life sciences sector. What troubles us is the scale of development, which would essentially choke our communities with traffic and cut us off from the new centers of development.

We hear a lot of boosterism from the plan's supporters about how jobs will be lost or not created if we don't adopt the plan in all its traffic-laden detail. Yet, I have heard none of the business people who support the plan offer a justification for the proposed density.

Supporters also argue that they want to build a "live, work, play" community. However, the plan provides for only 2,000 residences, while envisioning 40,000 additional jobs. So while Ms. Nelson and her colleagues might happily work and play in Belward/LSC, they might have a problem finding a place to live nearby. And, while new residents in the PSTA area might be able to walk to Belward/LSC, residents of Washingtonian Woods, where I live, will not be able to cross Muddy Branch Road easily or safely by foot or bike.

The group Residents for Reasonable Development, of which I am a member, has proposed an alternative to the draft master plan. Our plan would reduce the density of development and locate the densest development in the current LSC districts. We also recommend that JHU create a center of scientific excellence at Belward, akin to the Scripps Research Institute. We believe that building and sustaining a vibrant life sciences sector in our county need not come at the expense of the quality of life of current and future residents. Readers can learn more about this plan at www.ReasonableDevelopment.info.

Gary Robinson, Gaithersburg

Seeking sustainable growth

in Gaithersburg West

Gaithersburg West is providing a platform for lively community debate. As a neighbor whose backyard abuts one of the hot points in this debate — Belward Farm — I wonder if I am one of the "few NIMBYs who oppose development … oppose a future that promises good (and plentiful) jobs" to whom Lauren Nelson ("A Community for Tomorrow's Workforce," Sept. 9) was referring. Am I a NIMBY? No, I am not.

When I bought my house in Mission Hills in 1991, I knew that Mrs. [Elizabeth] Banks had arranged for Johns Hopkins University to build a research campus on Belward Farm after her death. I had viewed the county master plan and was aware that changes in my backyard were on the horizon. In 1991, Elizabeth Banks was still riding her tractor across the fields and the future seemed distant. In 1996, Mission Hills neighbors were contacted by Johns Hopkins and briefed about the site plan that had been approved by the county. The 1996 JHU "vision" for Belward was still Mrs. Banks' vision.

Lauren Nelson suggested (in her letter to the editor) this question be asked: "What can we do to ensure this vision succeeds, thus helping secure our county's economic future for generations to come?" As a member of Residents for Reasonable Development, I can say that we are endeavoring to answer that question with a reasonable "alternative" plan. We have worked closely with David McDonough and Elaine Amir from JHU and with Nancy Sturgeon of the county planning staff and made it clear that we do not oppose development. Rather, we seek to tailor it to better fit within the community. RRD seeks to foster growth in a responsible, reasonable manner.

The question that needs to be asked is why the 20- and 30-year-olds who are up and coming in this area have chosen to ignore the numbers? The jobs/housing ratio is way out of balance, transit ridership predictions are being misinterpreted, and roads [will need] pedestrian-unfriendly, grade-separated interchanges in a plan that is purported to be pedestrian friendly. The planning board's recommendations are predictive of a road-clogging nightmare. I suggest that Miss Nelson play devil's advocate among her own community and do the research, run the numbers, walk in our shoes, and join our efforts to make this plan a reasonable one.

Jan R. Fine, Gaithersburg