County Planning Denies Approval for Takoma Junction Plan

Sunset at Takoma Junction, January 2022

UPDATE: On January 27th 2022, the Montgomery County Planning Board voted unanimously to deny approval of the Takoma Junction plans.


The Montgomery County Planning Board has scheduled a vote on the proposed Takoma Junction development for January 27th 2022. It was originally scheduled for January 20th 2022 but has been postponed by a week.

To send a written statement with your opinion about the proposed development to the Board before their vote, email Board Chair Casey Anderson at, by noon on Wednesday January 26th.

The proposal has now been rejected by the City Council, the State Highway Administration (multiple times), and the community (96% of 385 comments on the City feedback page were negative).

The Board staff continues to recommend denial of the project, and this week reposted their report with that recommendation from last September. (This staff report was not presented or discussed in September, because instead NDC got an extension).

New information released on January 7th by the Planning Board, and linked to the original January 20th Board agenda, includes new documents and correspondence dated between September 2021 and January 2022, including:

  1. An update on what has happened since the Board gave NDC a 90 day extension, with new research, written by the Planning Board staff in preparation for the Board vote. Among other things, the staff refutes the assertions that there are comparable lay-bys in use locally.
  2. A letter from the Planning Board Chair to the SHA pressing them to explain what design for the deliveries and the exit/entrance would be safe, or to state clearly that there is no safe solution.
  3. A reply from SHA to the Planning Board, reiterating that it is the developer’s job to submit a design for them to assess (not SHA’s job to figure out a design that would work).
  4. Description of a meeting of the Planning Board staff, SHA, NDC and City of Takoma Park staff. The NDC lawyer described it as an attempt “to help facilitate communications and bring the matter to some type of resolution.”
  5. A letter from NDC to the City Manager asking the City to cut down trees on private property adjacent to the proposed site.
  6. A letter from NDC’s lawyer requesting that the Planning Board vote to give them approval “conditioned on future SHA approvals” for the layby and the exit/entrance drive.
  7. A letter from the City to the Planning Board, reminding the Board that City Council “voted unanimously to recommend that the Planning Board not approve the current plan.” And they explain why the City Council “was deliberate in not recommending approval of the site plan conditioned upon State Highway Administration (“SHA”) approval of the lay-by.”

For a dated chronology of these new letters and documents, see our updated Junction Timeline.

Junction Misinformation and Politics

Yesterday, County Councilmember Hans Riemer, who is running against County Executive Marc Elrich, arrived very late to the Takoma Junction process, weighing in a letter (see below) with filled with errors, misinformation, and inappropriate lobbying. This use of Council privilege to interfere with the County’s public review process, and apparently to try to score points in a political race, endangers residents by putting our community at risk of being saddled with an unsafe development.

The letter was addressed to the County’s Planning Board Chair, Casey Anderson, and urged the Board to “move forward” with the Junction project even though the State Highway Administration (SHA) has found the plan unsafe (four times). Councilmember Riemer used language including “I urge you to press SHA…” This, in spite of Planning Board rules stating clearly (Section 3.2) that Board members “must not communicate with any Person, other than Planning Staff or another Board member, about the merits or facts of any pending Application…except during the Board meeting when the Application…is being considered.” And yet Councilmember Riemer appears to be urging the Planning Board to pressure the SHA, and to flout Board rules on improper contacts.

Correcting the Errors, Point by Point

Here, we seek to straighten out any confusion caused by the errors and misinformation in Councilmember Riemer’s letter to the Planning Board Chair:

MISINFORMATION: Councilmember Riemer expresses “concerns about delays,” implying they are the fault of reviewers (such as SHA).

FACT: The current delay was caused by NDC asking for a fifth extension with the Planning Board, since they have not been able to manage to come up with a safe enough plan for approval by the SHA. The Board granted the extension, despite their own staff recommending against it.

MISINFORMATION: Councilmember Riemer states that his “conversations with Takoma Park residents” tell him the project is “very popular.”

FACT: The City’s own request for feedback last spring yielded 96% of comments against the proposed Junction project. (380 out of 395 comments).

MISINFORMATION: Councilmember Riemer states that “residents are bewildered” (implying they are bewildered as to why the project has not been approved).

FACT: Residents are indeed bewildered, but based on the written feedback, they are bewildered about why the City has not yet pulled the plug on this project, since the SHA has repeatedly found it to be unsafe, and the City Council voted unanimously to recommend against approval of the project, for five separate reasons, only one of which is the lay-by.

MISINFORMATION: The development “will provide additional parking” for the Co-op.

FACT: The project’s design requires a waiver to build a garage providing less than the amount of parking required by zoning for the new tenants alone. With loss of the City’s parking lot, there will be a net loss of parking for the Co-op and the existing small local businesses.

MISINFORMATION: NDC “needs the Co-op to succeed” as the Junction anchor.

FACT: This spring, NDC tried to evict the Co-op from the City’s lot, backing off only after the Co-op filed for legal protection. And NDC has already tried to buy the building out from under the Co-op. So it appears they do not feel they need the Co-op.

MISINFORMATION: “The Co-op officially does not oppose the project.”

FACT: The Co-op has repeatedly stated its objections to parts of NDC’s plans that threaten the Co-op’s deliveries and customer access to the store. Following extensive negotiations, the Co-op signed the mediation agreement with the City and NDC to not oppose the project unless NDC changes the project in material way(s) that would adversely affect the Co-op’s operations.

MISINFORMATION: “The lay-by…will primarily serve the Co-op.”

FACT: Any development with retail and restaurants this size is legally (and logically) required to have a loading zone for their own deliveries, and waste pick-up. Since no tenants have been made public, we have no idea what deliveries the new tenants will require.

MISINFORMATION: Implying the developer would consider any option other than a lay-by, Councilmember Riemer writes “…if there is an alternative approach that is better than a lay-by, great…”

FACT: NDC has steadfastly refused to cede any rentable square feet to make a safe loading zone at the rear of the development, where it belongs according to zoning. They have insisted on a lay-by, despite being told by SHA, and County reviewers, after four separate submissions, that each lay-by iteration was unsafe.

MISINFORMATION: Implying that the City wants this project. Referring to “a fair and equitable treatment for the property owner (the City)” and calling this project “the City’s exciting vision.”

FACT: The City Council voted unanimously to recommend the Planning Board reject this development proposal, for five separate reasons (not just the lay-by). Councilmember Riemer neglects to make any mention of this fact.

MISINFORMATION: Councilmember Riemer calls the City lot “a moribund parking lot.”

FACT: The parking lot is in full use, and often full, supporting the small local independent Junction businesses relying on it, including some that have just opened, or will open shortly. The developer has no plans to provide any particular number of parking spaces to these businesses.

MISINFORMATION: This project is “infill development.”

FACT: Infill development is defined as the reuse of “unused or blighted land.” The City lot is in full use, providing an essential function. The “walkshed” for development near a Metro stop is recognized as a half-mile. The Junction is too far from the Takoma Metro to qualify as walking distance. A Metro planner came to City hall during public comments, expressly to explain that the Junction is too far to qualify as Metro-accessible.

MISINFORMATION: Takoma residents want more shops, and offices.

FACT: Because the rents will be significantly higher than current rents at the Junction, any shops will drive gentrification if they succeed. However, retail is a sector that has been circling the drain since the pandemic. And, there are empty offices all over the region, due to the ongoing pandemic. This project is obsolete.

MISINFORMATION: The project will bring “a lot of new wage-earner jobs.”

FACT: By trying to pressure the SHA into approving a dysfunctional and dangerous lay-by as the loading zone, we risk driving out the Co-op, possibly the largest retail employer in the City. The Co-op is beloved for employing a diverse unionized staff with excellent benefits, working to feed the community. Workers in retail stores typically make minimum wage, with no benefits. So this would be a terrible trade-off, in terms of local jobs.

ASSERTION: There has been political interference in the planning process.

FACT: Yes, Councilmember Riemer’s letter is an attempt to use his Council position for political interference in the planning process now that the project is pending at the Planning Board. And he appears to be attempting to distort the decision on the safety of the Junction development to gain political ground in the race for County Executive. The County Council, and Planning Board, should not let this behavior stand.

Planning Board Grants 5th Extension for Junction Project to Gain Approval

Planning Board Grants 5th Extension for Takoma Junction Project to Gain Approval

On September 15 2021, the Montgomery County Planning Board agreed to give Neighborhood Development Company (NDC) a fifth extension to obtain approval for their proposed Takoma Junction project. NDC now has until January 20 2022, (approximately 90 additional days), to attempt to get approval from the State Highway Administration (SHA) before returning to the Planning Board. To date, the SHA has found both the layby and the exit drive unsafe (in four separate rulings), despite multiple design attempts by NDC. 

In approving this fifth extension request, individual Planning Board members appeared to be unfamiliar with the details of the project. Notwithstanding the Planning staff’s recommendations that both the extension and project be denied, and the City’s recommendation that its own project be disapproved, Board Chair Casey Anderson nevertheless opined (watch starting at 3:15:00 on the video) that this would be a great project for the City if only SHA would approve the layby.  

Community Vision for Takoma (CVT) is taking this opportunity to straighten out some of the confusion, evident at the Board hearing, surrounding the current proposal. 

These are the facts:

  1. The layby is not the only problem cited by the City. 

The City Council voted on June 23 2021 for a resolution to recommend the Planning Board vote to disapprove the project. In doing so, the City Council cited not only the lack of approval from the SHA, but four other longtime issues NDC has been unwilling or unable to solve: lack of meaningful public space, a problematic rear facade, lack of parking for surrounding businesses, and inadequate stormwater treatment. 

The Planning Board may not concern itself with these issues, but the City does, according to their own resolutions and development agreement, and their vote in June. But the City needs to stand firm on these issues, explain them to the Planning Board, and pull out of the project if the Planning Board approves it. 

  1. The layby is not the only problem cited by the SHA. They have repeatedly cited the inadequate sight lines for drivers coming from the garage exit ramp driveway (the egress) as a continuing safety problem. 

NDC has pushed back by comparing their proposed exit to the current exit from the City lot. In a June 16 2021 letter from NDC to the SHA, NDC asserts, “We note that the same sight line issue exists today from the Intersection…and the entry point to the City’s parking lot on Carroll Avenue.”

However, this is a false comparison.

The proposed development would reduce the sight line by moving the driveway from the current location 40 to 50 feet to the west, closer to the fire station and blind corner. Additionally, the current lot is completely above ground, allowing exiting drivers to have a longer period to observe traffic coming from the west. The proposal, with vehicles exiting from an underground parking garage, limits that observation time. The proposal would also have drivers exiting from a darkened garage at the end of the workday and looking west into the setting sun. This visual adjustment time increases danger to bicycles and pedestrians as well as motorized vehicles in this heavily used area.

There are additional issues regarding the sight line. The September 7 2021 letter from SHA to NDC notes that there are other obstacles to the sight line (fencing, tree, parked cars), so the issue is not just one of absolute distance.

  1. No one should have been surprised by SHA’s repeated rejection of layby designs in 2021. Since the beginning, many concerns have been expressed about the layby. 
  • In 2015 when NDC was chosen by the City Council, Councilmember Seth Grimes wrote that the absence  of a layby in NDC’s initial design was one of the reasons he voted to choose NDC for the project. He said a layby would be a “step in the wrong direction,” and that the “Co-op has said this approach would be unworkable.” (NDC switched to a layby design only after winning the project).
  • In the spring of 2019, County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) reviewers noted that the layby “should be removed” because of safety concerns.
  • In the spring of 2019, the Chair of the County’s Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) agreed with a resident who called the layby “an abomination.”
  • In the fall of 2019, the HPC staff noted that Commissioners were “unanimous in their concerns’ about the layby,” but were told to back off, which they did.
  • In the spring of 2020, MCDOT again noted multiple reasons why the layby location could not be approved.
  • So in 2021, the SHA’s four consecutive rejections of layby designs should not have been surprising.
  1. Just because other developments have pickup or loading in front of the building doesn’t mean the Junction layby would be safe. 

In public comments at the Board hearing, and as the Board considered the extension, there was discussion of how some other county locations handle loading or pickups, and a suggestion that these should be considered precedents for the approval of the Junction layby. However, none of these other developments have the same specific constraints and conditions of the proposed Junction layby:

  • Marriott Headquarters (Bethesda) has a circle loop, not a layby.
  • Avocet Tower (Bethesda) has a smaller pickup and drop-off layby for cars, but would not accommodate large trucks. 
  • Ace Hardware (Takoma Park) has loading by trucks on the street, but was never analyzed by State or County reviewers because it is an informal arrangement.

Comparison Table 

Key Differences in the Four Projects

Project Variables
Marriott HeadquartersAvocet TowerAce HardwareTakoma Junction
Pull-in, pull-out without right-angle turns?NoYesYesYes
Used for deliveries?NoNoYesYes
Trucks only (no drop-off/pick-up)?NoNoYesYes
Used for trash hauling?NoNoNoYes
Large trucks involved?NoNoYesYes
Deliveries/trash emphasize food-service?NoNoNoYes
Use shared by multiple properties?NoNoNoYes
Unconsolidated deliveries and hauling?N/AN/ANoYes
Delivery path conflicts with ADA route?N/AN/AYesYes
2-way adjacent traffic?NoNoYesYes
Adjacent stop line, crosswalk, and signal?NoNoNoYes
Adjacent bus stop?NoNoNoYes
Adjacent driveway?NoNoNoYes
Adjacent garage entrance/exit?NoNoNoYes
Requires crossing dedicated bike lanes? NoNoNoYes
Located down-block from a fire station?NoNoNoYes
Area needed for emergency access?UnclearUnclearNoYes
Routes traffic onto residential streets?NoNoNoYes
Routes traffic through unsignalized intersections?NoNoNoYes
Along block-long merge and crossing of two State Highway routes?NoNoNoYes
Visibility issues for approaching traffic?NoNoYesYes
Adjacent to walking route to school?NoNoNoYes
Approved by SHA & Planning Board?YESYESNot reviewedNO
  1. The community does not want to work with a company that tried to kick the Co-op off the lot. 

The most recent and relevant gauge of community support for this project is not the City election almost a year ago (when all incumbents were re-elected, whether or not they supported the development).

In April, NDC sent a cease and desist order to try to kick the Co-op off the lot, threatening its ability to function as a business. This aggressive action towards the Co-op caused some residents who had supported the development (or were neutral) to oppose it. We know this because of comments on the feedback page set up by the City last spring. Approximately 380 out of 395 comments opposed going forward with NDC and the project, or 96% of responses. Clearly, the City heard this feedback—which is the most recent and direct gauge of community opposition to the plan—before voting to recommend that the Planning Board disapprove the project. The relationship between the City and NDC is unclear at this point, and their weekly meetings on the Junction have stopped.

Council Moves to Reject Junction Plan

Takoma Park City Council moves to reject the NDC plan for a development at Takoma Junction.

UPDATE: September 15 2021 The County’s Planning Board votes to give the developer a 90-day extension (their fifth extension), to try to get approval from the SHA for the layby and the egress.

UPDATE: September 3 2021  The County’s Planning Board has scheduled a vote on the Takoma Junction plan for Wednesday September 15th (tune in online starting at 11:15am). The County staff has posted a report recommending that the Board vote to deny approval for the project.

UPDATE: August 19 2021  SHA “Returns for Revision” the latest NDC proposal. And, apparently, the tentative date for the Planning Board public hearing and vote has been delayed until later in September.

UPDATE: July 14 2021 NDC submits yet another revision of their plan for the loading zone, in response to SHA’s rejections. SHA is due to respond by August 19th.

UPDATE: July 2021 The County’s Planning Board has tentatively scheduled their Public Hearing and vote on the NDC plan for September 9th. This is one day after the City Council returns from their six-week summer break. Ten days prior to the hearing, the Planning Board staff will release their report and recommendation to the Board on the vote. NDC’s fourth extension to get approval from the Planning Board will expire on September 16th.

UPDATE: On June 23 2021 The Takoma Park City Council voted unanimously (7-0) for a resolution to disapprove the proposed Neighborhood Development Company (NDC) plan for a development at Takoma Junction. View NDC’s final statement before the vote at minute 18:00, and the City Council discussion before the vote starting at minute 53:45 HERE. See links to new statements from the City and NDC in our Junction timeline.

At the City Council work session on Wednesday June 16th 2021, the Council agreed unanimously (7-0) to craft a resolution to disapprove the Neighborhood Development Company (NDC) plan for a development at Takoma Junction. The move to reject the plan was based primarily on the fact that no approved loading zone was submitted by NDC.

You can watch the City Council’s decision on the video at time 3:28:30.

The formal vote will follow a week later, on June 23rd. The draft resolution should be posted on the agenda by this Friday, ahead of the vote.

What Changed?

Just minutes before the Council meeting started, the City posted a letter  from the State Highway Administration (SHA) to NDC. In that letter, the SHA rejected the longer layby for a third time, and rejected the shorter layby as even less safe.

(That shorter layby also broke all agreements to accommodate the Co-op, as described in this June 11th letter from the Co-op to the City).

With no approved way to create a loading zone for the development, the City Manager announced in the City Council work session on the Junction resolution that City staff were recommending crafting the resolution for disapproval of the plan. Each Councilmember then agreed to choose the disapproval option for the resolution. All of them cited the fact that there was no approved loading zone. Some also mentioned flaws in the plan related to inadequate public space, and other issues.

Many questions remain about what will happen next. For all the latest news, see our facebook and twitter feed.

NDC Threatens Co-op, Again. Layby Rejected, Again.

A lot has happened since our last post on April 21st.

The State Highway Administration (SHA) has now rejected the layby (a delivery zone for trucks on Carroll Avenue), three times. And yet, the Neighborhood Development Company (NDC), continues to try to push their Takoma Junction development through. In essence, the footprint of the NDC plan is too big, creating multiple problems, including pushing the delivery zone into the intersection.

In their latest maneuver, NDC has submitted a plan (never seen by the public) for a shorter lay-by, which would exclude the largest trucks and the pallet jacks needed to unload them. This appears to be a violation of all the agreements requiring accommodations to keep the Co-op open. It is unclear whether City staff or Council were aware of, or okayed, the new plan. At the bottom, we post a new letter from Takoma residents who closely follow the Junction process.

But first, a recap of the flurry of events since our last post:

  • May 13 2021. The judge rules for the Co-op, granting a temporary Preliminary Injunction, allowing the Co-op to continue to use the lot for deliveries until the actual trial, which may be a year away.
  • May 18/19 2021. NDC immediately writes back to the SHA, with various accusations and complaints, rebutting the SHA’s findings yet again, and submitting the plan yet again. They include a new plan, reducing the layby length from 140 feet to 85 feet, which would exclude the largest trucks, and the pallet jacks needed to unload them. This new layby plan, never seen by the public, would apparently violate NDC’s Development Agreement with the City, the City’s 2018 Resolution, and NDC’s mediated Cooperation Agreement with the Co-op.  All three of these agreements state that any plan must accommodate the Co-op’s deliveries
  • May 24 2021. A letter from the SHA to NDC rejects the layby for a third time. But SHA also agrees to review NDC’s new plan for a shorter layby.
  • May 28 2021. Takoma Park residents write a letter to the SHA, questioning the assertions in NDC’s May 18/19 letter, and questioning NDC’s authority to submit a new layby plan that violates agreements with the City and Co-op.

For a complete history of the Junction starting in 1992, see our timeline HERE.

Protest at the Junction

A lot has happened at the Junction this week. And now, the City must decide between the developer, and the Co-op.

On Thursday night April 15th, a lawyer for the Takoma Junction developer (NDC) sent a “cease and desist” letter to the Co-op, telling them to halt all Co-op deliveries on the City lot immediately. They gave the Co-op 30 days to vacate the lot completely. This would potentially shut down the Co-op. And it would put the parking for all the Junction businesses in peril.

The next day, Friday, residents began arriving at the Junction to make sure the Co-op could receive deliveries. On Saturday and Sunday, those who love the C0-op, support local businesses, and are through with this developer, held protests at the Junction. Some 150 protesters occupied all three Junction sidewalks (both sides of Carroll and BY Morrison Park in the middle). Cars honked support as they drove through.

Even some who had previously supported the development expressed shock at this bullying of the Co-op, a community-owned institution that fed many of us through the pandemic. A flood of comments supporting the Co-op and calling for the end to the deal with NDC came in through the City’s Junction feedback comment form (Please post your comment!). It has become clear that you can no longer say you support the Co-op, and also support this development. Small local businesses and non-profits that had remained quiet, began speaking out. The photos here are a record of some of the signs. The overall message was #DropNDCNow and #SupportLocalBusinesses

The protest was covered by NBC Channel 4 News at six o’clock on Saturday night. Eric Bond was there recording interviews for his WOWD Takoma Radio news show, Talk of Takoma. His audio montage of “person on the street” voices, with the sounds of the protest in the background, was broadcast on Sunday.

On Monday morning, the struggle at the Junction was featured on Joni Eisenberg’s WPFW show, To Heal DC. Eisenberg, an activist who has lived in Takoma Park since 1979, called it a “Shocking situation in Takoma Park.” She connected this struggle to the activism of Sammie Abbott. “This is not just about Takoma Park. It’s not just about a health-food store. It’s about gentrification, and how it’s impacting the entire country,” Eisenberg stated. “We’re going to need to mobilize, together, to fight this developer, and to make sure the City of Takoma Park stands up for what is right for all of us.”

Listen here, starting at 2:30:

Developer Versus Co-op, To Heal DC, WPFW, April 19 2021

At this point, lawyers (presumably for the developer, City, and Co-op) are negotiating, and we have no idea what is happening. The Mayor and Councilmembers stopped giving substantive answers to resident questions, citing the legal proceedings. A series of three closed City Council meetings, with no public comments, began Monday night. All we know is that “fixing” the situation has to mean more than just letting the Co-op back on the lot. We must part ways with this developer.

Background on What Just Happened (for dates and links, keep scrolling down):

  • County reviewers find the layby unsafe.
  • City staff post some suspiciously unsubstantiated claims about the current Co-op delivery system on the lot being unsafe (and other new and bizarre claims about the development plans).
  • Co-op and residents challenge the City Manager to provide evidence.
  • No evidence forthcoming of danger on the lot, used for deliveries for decades.
  • State Highway Administration (SHA) says NDC’s proposed layby delivery system on Carroll Ave is not safe, cannot be approved.
  • This is not surprising. Residents and Councilmembers had concerns about the layby going back to 2015, and County and State reviewers expressed concern about it at several previous points in the review.
  • Without the layby, the developer cannot build something this big, or make as much money.
  • Then, NDC breaks their agreement with the City and Co-op by sending the Co-op the cease-and-desist letter.

For all the recent correspondence and relevant documents in one place, here is a timeline with links:

County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) letter cites safety concerns with the layby

3/10/21  City posts “Fact Sheet” (later removed) on City web site alleging current unsafe delivery conditions on the lot

3/17/21  Co-op response to City Manager about City “Fact Sheet”

3/17/21  City Manager response to Co-op 

3/31/21  Co-op response to City Manager asking City to correct the “Fact Sheet” and post Co-op’s responses

4/13/21  State Highway Administration determines layby is unsafe

Plan Analysis for Takoma Junction

Video presentation of Community Vision for Takoma’s analysis of the April 2021 proposed plans for Takoma Junction development.

CVT’s Takoma Junction Town Hall, April 9 2021

NEW: State Highway Rejects Layby

The State Highway Administration (SHA) released their finding this week that the proposed layby is not safe, and cannot be approved. This confirms concerns about a Junction layby going back to the beginning of the development process. The City review process is now on hold, while the City and developers figure out how and whether to continue pursuing this plan.

Traffic, Public Space, Stormwater, Trees, High Rents

But the layby is not the only outstanding issue with the current plans. Just before the SHA put out their finding, Community Vision for Takoma (CVT) shared this video of our plan analysis. It was recorded at our Takoma Junction Town Hall on April 9th. Our team of resident experts compared the current plans to the City commitments in the Development Agreement of 2016, and 2018 Resolution.

We found these plans meet almost none of the City Council’s own requirements for the project, nor did they respond to the County staff concerns.

This video presentation documents:

  1. The unsafe layby
  2. Traffic and parking pushed into back streets
  3. Inadequate public space
  4. Inadequate parking and effect of construction on local businesses
  5. A rear facade that looms over Columbia
  6. Inadequate stormwater treatment
  7. Reduction and destabilization of the forest in the back
  8. New stairs making it difficult and unsafe for wheelchairs and strollers
  9. High rents that will drive commercial gentrification
  10. Refusal to recognize the value of open space in the pandemic

A Better Junction Design

A Lot Has Changed

A lot has changed in the pandemic. The office, retail and restaurant sectors are struggling. Some changes may be permanent, as people who can have shifted to working from home, buying from home, cooking at home. So why are we building offices, retail, and restaurants at the Junction, to compete with the struggling local businesses we all want to support?

Meanwhile, the pandemic has given us a new appreciation for the heroic role of a grocery store with union jobs and good health benefits as the central engine of the Takoma Junction economy, providing a safe sales outlet for over 100 local farmers, bakers, brewers, and more. The Co-op has led the nation in keeping both workers and shoppers safe. And, they have generously loaned use of both their own small lots and the large City lot they now rent from the developer, to non-profits sorting and packing and distributing food to the community in the pandemic. The value of this open space has never been more evident.

Reminder: A Lighter Design

Almost four years ago, we proposed a lighter, less dense design with more open public space, for the City’s Junction lot. And now, it seems more relevant and attractive than ever before.

This design creates space for events, outdoor markets, or community use, and preserves Co-op functioning, while adding a coffee shop, pub, food hub, and/or business incubator/worker training components. Imagine permeable pavers, solar lights, a stage, food trucks, pop-ups. This plan provides for off-street deliveries and waste collection at the back of the lot where they belong (removing the safety issues of the lay-by and making space for a bike lane). And it eliminates the problematic “not quite underground” parking while preserving surface parking to support local businesses. It utilizes “flex space” with thoughtful design and timed usage programming to accomplish more with less:

takoma junction_comm vision_img2 (2)
Takoma Junction - Site Plan - A4b (3) (1)

This plan was based on a Community Vision for Takoma group concept to transform the lot while preserving public space. The plan was fleshed out and drawn up by local design and construction professionals Joseph Klockner and Rick Vitullo. It is adaptable for multiple uses, is less expensive, and more sustainable, than the current design proposed by developers.

If you are wondering how our community could pay for this kind of community-oriented design, see some ideas here and here.

We invite your comments and suggestions on Facebook or at

Community Vision for Takoma Endorses Schlegel, Kovar, Swyers, and Smith

For the 2020 City elections, Community Vision for Takoma has endorsed:

Roger Schlegel for Mayor (he/him)
CVT is enthusiastically supporting Roger for Mayor, as he will deliver greater transparency, accountability, and public responsiveness for Takoma Park. Roger will bring the City together by addressing the divisions exacerbated by the current administration. He also brings new expertise, education, and broad experience in comparative public administration to:

  • rein in the steady increases in the budget and City staff,
  • reassign resources to support the residents who need them most,
  • embed actions to dismantle systemic racism in all City programs,
  • keep big projects like the Library and NH Rec Center on budget,
  • identify ways to protect and increase affordable housing,
  • hire a new City Manager and restore proper Council/staff power balance,
  • apply a racial and social justice lens to the rethinking of policing and public safety,
  • put meaningful goals and actions into our climate plan and its application to development projects.

Roger has deep knowledge of why the current Takoma Junction plan will not work, and a vision for a consensus plan that will:

  • support local businesses including the Co-op,
  • face the traffic, transit, and safety issues,
  • further our climate goals, and
  • hold the developer to the City’s own vision to bring the community together on public land, rather than exacerbate racial and economic segregation.

It is essential to elect Roger to restore balance between Council and staff, reclaim the budget process, stop the current Junction plan and ensure the Co-op’s future at the Junction, create more effective responses on the urgent issues of racial justice and the climate crisis, and work to unify our community. 

Peter Kovar for Ward 1 Councilmember (he/him) 

Peter (running unopposed) keeps Ward 1 fully informed about City matters, with hard-working outreach and constituent consultation and an obvious commitment to listening and taking into account all perspectives on issues. He seeks progressive solutions for pressing problems in every ward, and clearly explains his positions and votes. Peter has been a consistent voice on the Council for reining in objectionable aspects of the Junction project, like its excessive size and lack of public space; when that effort failed he cast an appropriate ‘no’ vote. Peter will be able to join forces with new Council allies for needed staffing, budget, and management reforms.

Olly Swyers for Ward 3 Councilmember (they/them) 

As a documentarian and activist, Olly is immersed in the key issues of our times including housing insecurity, Black Lives Matter, policing, LGBTQ+ equality, and the climate crisis. Having grown up in Takoma and worked at several local businesses, they have experienced the value of the Co-op and assessed the danger of the proposed Junction plan to accelerate “late stage gentrification.” Olly has clearly stated they are opposed to the current Junction development plan. In contrast, the current Ward 3 representative refused to survey her own constituents or take constructive corrective action on the Junction project until very recently — when residents (and a challenger) rose up. Olly has a keen analytical mind and refreshing combination of energy, Takoma-grown understanding of the City, clarity and fortitude, professional communications skills and political experience, and dedication to justice. It will be exciting to have Olly bring new perspectives and action ideas to the Council.

Jarrett Smith for Ward 5 Councilmember (he/him) 

Among his significant contributions to both Ward 5 and the City at large, Jarrett proposed the City’s original framework for racial equity, later weakened by the Mayor and staff. He has deep experience in housing and tenant/landlord issues and the importance of rent stabilization, and previously served on the City’s Commission on Landlord-Tenant Affairs. He started and obtained funding for the Lunch and Learn program – a successful initiative to provide children with meals, academic support, and enrichment in the summer. He has been a leader in championing the Flower Avenue Green Street Project, and is well-known for the resources he has brought to Ward 5 residents. Jarrett voted no on the last Junction development plan vote, and has stated clearly that the current Junction plan is “not the way to go for this community.” In contrast, Jarrett’s opponent is a newcomer to Takoma Park who lacks experience in City issues or governance, and supports moving forward on the Junction development plan.

Moreover, as the only Black man on the Council, Jarrett’s perspective and opinions, including on the need to dismantle systemic racism, have been prophetic and moving.  His is an essential voice, versed in City history and municipal governance. Jarrett serves on the board of the Maryland Municipal League, and is an adjunct professor, and a graduate student in public administration. With support from a new Mayor, City Manager, and Council, he will be even more effective in enacting his vision for the City, and in representing and bringing resources to Ward 5. 

For more information on these candidates, or to lend them your support, click on the embedded links to their websites above. 

Community Vision for Takoma asked all candidates for City office in the November 3rd 2020 Takoma Park election to provide 200-word responses to three questions–on racial equity, Takoma Junction, and the budget. All of the questions and responses we received are posted here.  The responses informed our decisions on endorsements for this City election. We were not able to consider candidates who did not respond to the questionnaire (or responded after we had posted the initial responses).

If you’re a resident of Takoma Park, please remember to vote–by drop-box, by mail, or in person if you do not receive a ballot in the mail.  If you are registered to vote with the City or State, you should receive your Takoma Park ballot in the mail by mid-October. Any resident age 16 or over is eligible to register to vote in city elections. US citizenship is not required.

Candidates for City Office Respond to CVT Questions

Community Vision for Takoma (CVT) asked each of the candidates for City Council and Mayor in the November 3rd 2020 election to send us a 200-word response to each of three questions, with a deadline of September 16th. Three seats in this election are contested (Ward 3, Ward 5, and Mayor). Our intention here is to provide information for voters to directly compare responses from the candidates. We will also consider these responses in determining CVT endorsements.

We include one response that came in too late for endorsement consideration. We are no longer accepting responses at this time.

1. Is the City Council addressing racial justice effectively? What specific actions would you seek to take on the Council to achieve more racial justice in Takoma Park?

Peter Kovar (Ward 1):

The Council has taken steps to address inequities in our community connected to systemic racism through actions such as making advances on affordable housing; focusing more on community policing; exploring renovation of the New Hampshire Avenue Recreation Center; seeking to address the Purple Line’s economic impacts; expanding translation of City documents; making the resident survey more inclusive; targeting grants and programs to marginalized communities; and adopting our Racial Equity policy.

We need to do much more in order to fully live up to our ethos of inclusiveness, and to treat our Black and Brown neighbors with respect and dignity. The Reimagining Public Safety task force we’re establishing sets the stage for further improvements by helping ensure we’ll hear from residents most affected by policing and budgetary decisions. I’ll be pushing to further demilitarize the police, develop alternative first responder ideas that emphasize mental health and economic support, and widen participation in municipal affairs. But as a white male living in a wealthier neighborhood, it’s also important for me to listen to residents who live elsewhere. So I’m approaching these issues as someone with plenty to learn, and who needs to pay more attention to voices from other parts of town.

Cindy Dyballa (Ward 2), submitted Sept 20th:

The long-overdue need for racial justice to address systemic inequities requires long-term action at many levels.  At the local level, City council can continue to build on the clear intention of the city’s 2017 equity initiative and recent city efforts, to focus more consciously on building equity into our policies, programs, and budget decisions.  That would look like, to share some recent examples, funding youth recreation programs that serve youth of color and lower income; centering people of color in the effort to reimagine our public safety policies; expanding tree planting efforts in underserved areas; and targeting outreach for New Hampshire Ave. Recreation Center redevelopment to nearby neighborhoods most affected. Identifying and removing barriers to greater civic engagement by residents of color is another critical step. As a city council member, I actively seek out and listen to black and brown voices about what they see and what they need to address inequities.

Kacy Kostiuk (Ward 3):

The City of Takoma Park took the groundbreaking step in 2017 of adopting a Racial Equity Initiative, and racial equity considerations have become part of decision-making and planning-processes.

But this is only the beginning. There is much more to do. Racial equity needs to be a part of every decision and discussion, and we need to make systemic changes to build a truly racially equitable community.

We need to:

•Improve the Racial Equity Initiative through active consultation that gives power to Black and Brown residents

•Develop a comprehensive system for analyzing racial equity impacts in budget decision processes, since many inequities are tied to funds distribution

•Remove barriers and ensure Black and Brown residents are part of decision-making processes by changing the committee structure and providing new supports to run for office

•Systematize and provide more tools to City staff to create racial equity statements on agenda items

•Make difficult decisions and have open and honest conversations about needed changes

As we move forward, a key focus area must be making policing reforms. This process needs to be driven by collaborative, change-making, action-oriented discussions with Black and Brown residents that lead to adoption of concrete policy, procedure, and funding changes.

Olly Swyers (Ward 3):

The city has not done enough to address racial equity. It was exciting in 2017 when the city made a move to adopt a racial equity impact statement for major city actions. That is an incredibly bold and absolutely necessary step to beginning to unpack injustices and correct our path forward. The city was unable to establish a rubric and subsequently shifted the impact statement to “equity considerations”. If we are committed to seeing an equitable Takoma Park we need to do the work to build that rubric and then apply it to all major actions. We also need to address our budget, especially that for policing and salaries, and decide if it reflects our equity commitments. One thing that seems obvious, when you look at salary allocation for municipal staff, is an astounding wage gap between people who are doing physical labor at 40 hours a week, like our mostly Black and brown sanitation workers, and people who are working as managers and administrators a majority of whom are white . We need to take a hard look at who is being paid for what, and how and why we value some labor at such higher margins than others.

Sawa Kamara (Ward 5):

The city has to examine racial biases embedded in city department services such as the police department, affordable housing/ homeownership and businesses. Survey how well we’ve tackled these issues annually by creating an equity goal and a five year plan. To measure progress we should have a community report card or organizational assessment holding Takoma Park City Staff accountable. Hold culturally competent classes( racism training)  and also have a committee that implements racial and diversity decision making. Build our community’s capacity to judiciously address racism by providing opportunities to build relationships and work together on issues. When making decisions that directly affect residents, engage the censorious mass of diverse residents to not only participate but to lead the initiatives. Rather than focusing on racial equities, focus on racial inequities especially institutionalized incongruity in power, policies and practices.  Most people will point out rent control as addressing the issue but that is merely scratching the surface. 

Jarrett Smith (Ward 5):

Our City Council is a not fully immersed in what it means to truly address racial equity. When looking at the racial equity landscape, data is the true indicator of progress and we haven’t progressed when:

•Evictions are taking place that are affecting mostly Black and brown residents; this is unacceptable to me;

•COVID-19 cases are affecting more Black and brown people than anyone else; this is unacceptable to me;

•In a city that is predominantly Black and brown people, the average household income for black and brown people is dramatically less than everyone else; this is unacceptable to me;

•College entrance for Black and brown people in this city is dramatically less than it is for everyone else; this is unacceptable to me;

•Voting/Civic Participation is very limited among Black and brown people because, there is a feeling of hopelessness; what has the government done for me lately… This is Unacceptable to Me;

Takoma Park is a majority ethnic city, and these indicators show us that there is no racial equity.

I was the sponsor of our city’s Racial Equity policy that was unanimously adopted by this City Council. Measurable implementation hasn’t happened.

An economic plan that should accompany Racial Equity needs to be put in place immediately and measured constantly until we see marked improvements in these indicators.

There are members of the community and senior City leadership that have no interest in truly addressing racial equity beyond simply having an intellectual conversation about racial justice or reciting a poem by a nationally acclaimed black poet. These actions do not feed someone who is hungry, educate the unknowing, offer hope to the impoverished, put a roof over someone’s head, provide transportation to that struggling mother who is pregnant with no way to get to her sonogram appointment across town.

Racial equity is supposed to mean something and currently Takoma Park is missing the mark.

Roger Schlegel (Mayor):

The Council’s racial justice initiative is moving slowly and superficially. I would seek to:

  1. Catalogue our history of systemic racism.
  2. Incorporate anti-racist training in City meetings.
  3. Address racialized income disparities among staff.
  4. Use metrics to ensure equitable service allocation, including wifi.
  5. Activate groups to address transit, childcare, social services, building safety, and police relations.
  6. Overcome linguistic, temporal, geographic, and technological barriers to participation.
  7. Ensure pandemic assistance information is delivered to every resident in need.
  8. In near-term climate strategies, Do NOT burden residents of color; DO generate economic opportunities for residents of color; DO prioritize better transportation.
  9. Insist that new development do no harm to businesses that are crucial in building wealth or quality of life for people of color.
  10. Implement an affordable retail stabilization program.
  11. Leverage the establishment of an “Equitable Takoma” credit union to spur racially equitable economic opportunities.
  12. Develop a northern Ward 6 playground, and improve the Eastridge Avenue playground.
  13. Activate more public space to welcome residents of color.
  14. Ensure residents of color play major roles in Library and Rec Center projects.
  15. Ensure Junction redevelopment advances racial equity in use of that site.

Kate Stewart (Mayor):

The work to dismantle over 400 years of institutionalized racism is and must be an ongoing process. In 2017, the City intentionally took on this work which has been highlighted by National League of Cities.

In the last three years, we have trained city staff, Council, committees, and residents; put in place pilot engagement programs; and started to collect data – e.g. resident survey included questions on racial equity and focus groups with African immigrants and Spanish speaking residents.

This work is changing how we do business; guiding where new bus shelters go, how we conduct meetings, determining which local organizations receive City grants, informing the cultural plan, funding oral histories of Black residents, and guiding how we reimagine public safety. And, many other efforts.

These are meaningful, concrete steps forward, but not enough. We need expertise to analyze data, keep our Road Map updated, and all of us accountable. That’s why I am calling for the hire of a Chief Equity Officer. As co-chair of National League of Cities’ Racial Equity And Leadership Council, I have learned a great deal about how to sustain this ongoing work and look forward to doing so.

2. Do you support the current Takoma Junction plan? Why or why not? What is your vision of a successful Junction development — and what process would help the City attain a shared vision?  

Peter Kovar (Ward 1):

I support developing the Junction, primarily because a well-designed project can contribute to creating a more vibrant, walkable community. I don’t support the current site plan, and I voted against it in 2018, mainly because it had inadequate public space and excessive height. While some changes have been made, those concerns remain.

My biggest worry isn’t that I’ll dislike the development that may ultimately be approved, but rather that divisiveness around the project could have a long-term harmful impact. With passion on all sides, I think it’s healthier to seek a compromise. As review of the plan continues, I’d like to pursue a version of the project with a somewhat smaller footprint, meaning most of us — me included — wouldn’t get all we want. But a smaller structure could make it easier to address some concerns about public space, transportation, pedestrian safety, stormwater, and the project’s overall neighborhood impact.

I don’t want more lengthy delays — we should make a decision and move forward, one way or the other. So after the election, in coordination with the County review process, I’d like to work toward a smaller structure, ideally with a timetable for when we’d have a final vote.

Cindy Dyballa (Ward 2), submitted Sept 20th:

In line with the vision of the Takoma Junction Task Force, existing agreements, and the resolutions of other Councils, I support development that contributes to a vibrant and commercially viable Junction.  In 2018 I voted to move the proposed plan for the city lot to county agencies development review. I worked to address concerns about the proposal (such as the Coop’s operational concerns), and I pushed for specific requirements such as green construction, less height, and stormwater management.  When the county agencies process concludes and before any county planning board vote, the City Council must review the revised proposal in an open manner, to check that it conforms with our previous requirements and agreements, particularly sustainability, traffic, public space and the Coop/NDC agreement. As I did in 2018, I will hold several neighborhood meetings to hear thoughts of a variety of ward 2 residents on the revised plan.  I am troubled that some residents feel great mistrust as a result of their experience of the process to date.

Kacy Kostiuk (Ward 3):

Takoma Junction is an important cultural and social hub. In 2018, I voted to advance the project concept plan to the County Review Process because I believe in-fill development at this location has the potential to benefit residents and local businesses, reduce car use, and bring additional revenue for the City’s social and environmental initiatives.

A revised and more detailed plan will come to the City Council before it can move to a County Planning Board vote. The Council must thoroughly review that plan with the community. This must involve careful analysis, questioning, and advocating for change where needed.

I will not support a plan that makes stormwater worse, creates unsafe traffic conditions, negatively impacts racial equity, or creates environmental hazards for the neighborhood.

I will support a plan that benefits residents and local businesses; provides walkable, transit-oriented opportunities; enables the Co-op to serve the community, and offers small businesses and/or nonprofits and social-service providers space to serve our community’s needs.

Recently, I wrote to the developer twice, reminding them of the requirements in the 2018 Resolution, requesting rear illustrations, and asking a long list of community-generated questions. I look forward to receiving answers and having community discussions.

Olly Swyers (Ward 3):

I do not support the current junction plans. NDC’s current plans don’t even address the bare minimum standards set forth by the city council two years ago. It also doesn’t meet any of our climate goals and they have only proposed a bare minimum amount of useful, accessible public space without a paywall, one of many equity concerns. An ideal junction development and development process would welcome, seek, and incorporate community input from the beginning of the process to the final stages through town halls, forums and active feedback sessions. That is what a community partner looks like to me and that has not been the process I have witnessed thus far.  

This project should have been, and could still be, an opportunity for creative and collective decision making. As it is publicly owned land, this is one of the few times where we can actually have a huge impact on the final project. Our city is filled with passion and love for community, and working together on this development could be a chance to foster and grow connections, and find a solution that isn’t just merely a compromise.

Sawa Kamara (Ward 5):

I support the continued but careful progress towards the revitalization of the Takoma Junction area. I support every effort to ensure that the continued input of residents and business owners are taken into consideration. The City’s goals to minimize detrimental impact to neighboring properties, optimize the provision of retail services, and provide for both public and community spaces must be carefully executed to ensure the sustainability and viability of our diverse community for generations to come.

As a resident seeking to represent our community as a City Council member, I will ensure that residents, particularly those in Ward 5, are regularly informed of the status of this important project. I will continue to ensure that a good-faith effort is made to address our concerns appropriately and expeditiously. I will continue to work in direct collaboration and consultation with residents from all walks of life to ensure that the final design respects and meets our goals of ensuring accessibility, inclusivity, diversity, safety, environmental sustainability, and smart economic growth that supports local businesses.

Jarrett Smith (Ward 5):

I do not support the current Takoma Junction plan. Here is the email I wrote to residents prior to my re-election in 2018:


 It has taken five years for us to get to this point on the Takoma Junction development project. Over the years, the city’s development partner has shared with the community various iterations of the project. They have shown us ideas for urban farming on the new structures roof, a CoOp in a newly built store, and an improved failing intersection.

 Council is tentatively scheduled on May 23rd, 2018 to vote on the current NDC site plan, and it is my intention to vote against it. I feel the current proposal doesn’t build on Takoma Park’s tradition of green space, the assurance that the CoOp’s long-term home is in Takoma Park, and there is still uncertainty surrounding improving traffic conditions around the Junction location.  This is unacceptable.  I’ve worked for and supported small business for years; therefore, I think this is the time to once again support the backbone of American business, which is neighborhood businesses.”

The project has torn the community apart. The decision making and discussion on the future of Takoma Junction needs to hit the “reset” button. We as a city and city leadership need to push up our sleeves get to work and starting this entire process over again. Council should ensure this redevelopment is what the residents of Takoma Park want.

Roger Schlegel (Mayor):

I do not support the current plan. In many substantive and egregious ways, it fails to meet community interests, the design constraints of the site, the challenges of the complex chain of intersections, and the needs or nearby businesses. This is clear evidence that NDC has not been serious about tailoring the project in response to the values and requirements expressed in the development agreement.

The silver lining of the controversies that have accompanied the process over the past several years is that we are now quite clear as a community on the types of amenities and design features that could be combined in a consensus vision for the site’s development. My vision of a successful Junction development activates that stretch of Carroll Avenue in a delightful way that provides flexible community space as well as some new dining and commerce while protecting the operations of the community owned-grocery store, maintaining adequate parking for the district, protecting pedestrians and cyclists, and preserving the forest. I think that with good leadership, the community can come together around a shared vision and find the partners and the resources to make it happen expeditiously, and in a way that advances the City’s values.

Kate Stewart (Mayor):

Over six years we have had many discussions and I have written extensively about, spoken, and voted on this project. On the last vote in July, 2018, I supported submitting the draft site plan to County Planning for technical review. The Resolution, along with Development Agreement, requires among other things:

  1. Storm-water treatment significantly exceeding City requirements;
  2. Parking for area businesses; 
  3. Dedicated public space; 
  4. No formula stores; 
  5. LEED Gold certification or higher;
  6. Minimization of impacts to neighboring properties;
  7. Accommodation of Co-op needs;
  8. Creation of an energy neutral building.

I have been and continue to be a strong supporter of the Co-op and believe we can have a project where it continues to thrive.

We have an opportunity to enhance walkability and vitality of the area, improve stormwater treatment (at no City cost), eliminate an unsightly parking lot, and provide the City hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue.

I support continuing County review process and having the project come back to the city for discussion and vote before going before Planning Board. We do not yet know if the next iteration will meet our requirements, but I believe we should continue the process and see.

3. How would you improve the budget process, and what changes would you seek to make in City spending and revenue generation?

Peter Kovar (Ward 1):

The budget is a large, dense document. And while we’ve moved toward more transparency, our budget process is still too opaque, for residents and Councilmembers. Decisions on funding often occur in isolation, rather than through comprehensive review of spending and tax options. We frequently make modest spending changes around the edges without stepping back to consider broader priorities and alternatives.

Major changes may be difficult given the uncertainty around COVID-19. But for future budgets I’d like us to debate several alternatives, for example Constant Yield (same overall property tax receipts as the previous year), flat tax rate (same as the previous year), staff recommendations (a possible tax increase), and a spending freeze or a two percent cut. The Council and residents could then better understand tradeoffs and how community priorities are aligned with taxes and other funding sources within a clearer overall fiscal context. We wouldn’t just be making spending changes around the edges.

I’d also like to see us further emphasize our lobbying for State legislation enabling municipalities to enact revenue measures, and appoint a resident task force to review County functions the City has absorbed so we can explore whether it would make sense to reconsider those decisions.

Cindy Dyballa (Ward 2), submitted Sept 20th:

There are no easy answers on budget, and the uncertain program and revenue impacts of the pandemic make future city budgeting an even greater challenge.  I’d like to continue and expand strategies adopted for this budget year–greater caution in spending, especially on personnel; shifting resources to an unexpected budget priority, COVID response; and significant funds on hold, pending quarterly reviews of spending and revenues.  Building a more diverse set of revenue sources is in order, such as attracting and strengthening local businesses, continued focus on increasing county “tax duplication” payments, close attention to projections for current sources of revenue, and actively pursuing sustainability and other grants.  And I am actively working for a targeted new city property tax credit and deferral program to help some low-moderate income homeowners.

The city budget process provides a great deal of information in a very short time. Actions such as more readable materials, summary graphics, and budget open houses for residents will help make the process even more accessible to a range of residents. I’d like council to consider budget options at the concept level—what it takes to maintain current programs, to target high priority areas, to keep within the current budget level—and focus more on budget strategy and less on smaller line items.

Kacy Kostiuk (Ward 3):

As residents face worsened economic hardships and the City faces possible revenue reductions due to COVID, we will need to make increasingly difficult budget decisions.

We need to improve budget materials and processes to ensure robust, representative resident input:

•Create more accessible budget materials, incorporating infographics and analytical tools such as percentage changes to expenditures

•Conduct targeted outreach to underrepresented groups — especially Black and Brown residents, renters, and residents with limited English

•Develop a comprehensive process for analyzing racial equity in budget decisions

We also must be innovative and look for opportunities to save and meet our goals:

•Set a manageable tax rate for all residents, while developing targeted tax assistance programs that create a more progressive property taxing system — so those who can afford it pay more, and those with greater need pay less

•Reassess and revise the Payment-In-Lieu-Of-Taxes program to meet and create incentives to achieve affordable housing goals

•Create a separate tax category for vacant developed properties

•Collaborate with institutions of higher learning, nonprofits, and volunteers

•Seek opportunities to pilot new programs or technologies, especially in sustainability and community outreach

•Make difficult cuts and changes when needed, prioritizing racial equity and the most critical needs of residents.

Olly Swyers (Ward 3):

Just some first steps to addressing our budget. We need to assess community needs first, as they pertain to our racial and economic equity goals, climate goals and also basic municipal functions. Our budget needs to reflect those priorities first and work within constraints that don’t deplete our emergency reserves. Fiscal responsibility at the city level is an equity issue, as we increase spending year after year and raise taxes at double the rate of inflation, we are already losing longtime community members who have low or fixed incomes. City salaries are incredibly inequitable for some, and growing at unsustainable rates for others. Our city manager and police chief both make well over 200k with benefits. We also have to address tax duplication, in some cases like stormwater management, deferring some services to the county and addressing accurate reimbursement amounts for ones that the city continues to provide. I’m only scraping the  surface here but the first and main thing we need to do is shift our budgeting process to one that is transparent, and asks for active input from the community.

Sawa Kamara (Ward 5):

Budget decisions have a profound impact on our daily lives from the police department (safety) to garbage collection ( sanitation). Our neighborhoods budget is integral for community development. We need transparency in the budget process by analyzing several aspects: connect budget spending with key performance targets, If the budget calls for cut or increase, share when and how it happen, explain reasons for budget cut or increase, share the entire information with the organization through meetings, department program managers, mayor,council, and individuals. Approve the budget in stages not in one action to accurately aim at our goal. Practice revenue forecasting which is an ongoing process six months prior that revises the budget execution phase of the cycle. When proposing a budget or developing that initial assumption the city should solicit inputs not only from the city manager but city council, key stakeholders, policy leaders and residents. Our highest priority should be economic development and affordable housing. We need a better budget for a better city. Our annual budget should identify and address health & social inequalities. 

Jarrett Smith (Ward 5):

Here is how I would re-imagine our city’s budget process. Our budget process could be improved using Zero Based Budgeting. It is efficient and the major advantages are flexible budgets, focused operations, lower costs, and more disciplined execution. Department heads should have to explain in detail their budget request before the budget is presented to Council by the city manager. This gives council the opportunity to ask questions and weigh-in on decisions before the budget is almost final. In our current process, there is a very small window of time for changes once City Council receives the annual proposed budget and has the ability to analyze line items, and suggest any additions or deletions, or request even further explanation.

I’d like to see our budget process adopt some of the rigor of the U.S. Government’s Accountability Office (also known as GAO). GAO is tasked to review programs and initiatives proposed by Congress or that are already on the books. According to their mission statement, they are tasked to, “examine(s) how taxpayer dollars are spent and advise(s) lawmakers and agency heads on ways to make government work better.” For me that is Takoma Park’s budgeting process “re-imagined.”

Roger Schlegel (Mayor):

In collaboration with the Council, I would direct the Manager to develop an outcomes-based budget that is closely linked to a fully fleshed-out and annually updated strategic plan. With this approach, I would insist that the Manager institute protocols and metrics whereby employees track their time on various programs and the outcomes achieved. I would lead the City Council to explore options for returning some services, such as stormwater and criminal investigations, to the County, and for merging and consolidating staff work teams within ecosystem services, human services, and planning/direction/evaluation.

I would press the Manager to propose achievable cost reductions and to identify the most efficient ways to accomplish the objectives of major projects such as the Library as well as ongoing expenses such as equipment replacement and the hiring of consultants. I would advocate strongly for allowing real property tax increases no higher than the rate of increase in the Employee Cost Index (ECI), and I would use budget and management improvements to lead a strong and forceful effort to advocate for an end to double taxation from the County. In select priority areas, I would support new spending, particularly for key racial equity and affordability initiatives.

Kate Stewart (Mayor):

  1. Budget Process: I have made improvements in the budget process the last five years by applying my experience as a small businessowner and executive of a non-profit which received private and government funding. I strengthened Council priority setting process to provide greater transparency and direction to staff on where to focus budgets. And, there is more to do. One change is “Participatory Budgeting,” which empowers residents to help decide how to expend City funds.
  2. Revenue Generation: Given the limitations under state law, I have focused on (1) sustaining and increasing our commercial tax base, especially during COVID-19; (2) getting County Executive’s budget to start addressing tax duplication (although the pandemic delayed Council action) and securing the County Council’s commitment to set aside COVID relief funds for municipalities; and (3) Grants (e.g. $100,000 state grant for New Hampshire Ave façade improvements and $457,000 grant for bikeways on New Hampshire Ave).
  3. Spending: I have advocated for City staff to present Council a “maintenance of effort” budget tied to the cost of providing services.  Through this lens, we can decide how to shift, cut, or increases services (e.g., shifting funds to address COVID-19 relief efforts).