The regular Greenbelt City Council meeting on December 14 had some ups and downs. For starters, the first 35 minutes appeared only for those logged into the Zoom meeting, while would-be watchers on the cable channels or streaming from the city website were instead mesmerized by excessive pondering of the city flag.
One item not shown on cable or streaming included the introduction by Planning Director Terri Hruby of Jill Grant, of Jill Grant and Associates, the firm recently engaged by the city to advise on the maglev project. Among other interests, the firm specializes in providing legal counsel on environmental issues.
America Recycles
The first item that was in part available to the full audience was the presentation of a proclamation to Luisa Robles, the city’s sustainability specialist, in recognition of America Recycles Day. Robles provided several status reports and encouraged everyone to keep on recycling, although some of the outlets were still not available during the pandemic.
Councilmember Judith Davis suggested that everyone’s burning question was where plastic bags could be recycled now that most stores are not accepting them. Robles said the two closest options are Giant and Home Depot, both of which are working with Trex, the company that uses plastics as a wood substitute. Councilmember Edward Putens volunteered that Safeway at Greenway Center is also still accepting plastic bags, in the space near one of the store exits.
Petitions & Requests
Under Petitions and Requests, Lore Rosenthal read a statement from Lucy Silver and herself questioning the city council on what steps it would take to protect people who may be evicted given that the city has not passed legislation barring evictions. Bill Orleans then spoke to say he thought the council should give renewed consideration to the legislation they had not adopted.
SCMaglev
SCMaglev Public/Agency Coordination Plan, Updated October 2020: Davis had asked Hruby to look into several questions related to Greenbelt’s status with regard to this project as it compares with that of other municipalities. Hruby reported on progress on that front, and Grant provided elaboration on the confusing nature of some of the terms involved. Davis made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Emmett Jordan, to send a letter Hruby had suggested be sent to the environmental section of the Maryland Transit Administration. The motion carried unanimously.
SCMaglev Action Request, Writing Campaign to Request Extended DEIS Commenting Period: Davis had asked that this item be added to the agenda to send letters to appropriate agencies and elected officials to request an extension to the commenting period. She said the complexity and scale of the project require that much more time be allowed, at least 180 days. She moved that council develop a letter with the assistance of planning staff to be sent out. Jordan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Jordan also mentioned having talked to State Senator Paul Pinsky, who is willing to send letters and requested more information about doing so.
PG 406-21, Prince George’s County-Land Use-Magnetic Levitation Transportation System Siting (Prince George’s County Stop the Maglev Act of 2021): This bill would prohibit taking certain actions or undertaking certain types of construction within certain areas of the county, effectively stopping the project. A draft letter was attached for support of the bill and to send to the city’s delegation. Davis moved support of the bill. Jordan seconded, and the motion was supported by everyone but Byrd, who abstained.
Security Cameras?
One item of proposed city legislation appeared on the agenda for first reading: City of Greenbelt Apartment Electronic Security Ordinance. At its September 14 regular meeting, council discussed a request from the mayor for the city solicitor to draft legislation to require apartment complexes to install security cameras in police control areas where 30 or more violent crimes occur annually. The draft ordinance was presented for first reading. Comments from city staff had also been shared with council regarding concerns about resources and ability to monitor and enforce the legislation, as well as potential city liability.
Councilmember Leta Mach objected strongly to the proposed ordinance, saying it could place the city in a position of great liability. Moreover, she said, the city cannot afford it. She suggested that it might be more appropriate for the city to post information about features of rental apartments citywide and let people make their own decisions.
Councilmember Rodney Roberts asked if the city solicitor was aware of any precedents for a city to have such a requirement for rental property. He noted that Greenbelt has not even required commercial areas to do that. He said ordinarily council does not discuss proposed legislation at first reading, but in this case there has been no real discussion. City Solicitor Todd Pounds said he was not aware of any such precedents.
Byrd said he was willing to consider a worksession, as well as other approaches to the problem, but he thinks it is time for the city to do more than talk about crime, especially in Greenbelt West.
Davis made a motion to table the topic until council could receive more legal opinion and until a worksession is held. Councilmember Silke Pope seconded the motion. She said she would want to see in writing the pros and cons from staff and the city solicitor, as well as opinion on just what the role of the city should be.
Improved Medicare for All
The mayor had asked that this item be added to the agenda for purposes of his making a motion “to send a letter to the County Council asking it to pass a resolution in support of Improved Medicare for All to show local support for single-payer health care, seeking to gain support of this by the city’s Federal Delegation including the Senators.” Jordan seconded the motion.
In some amazement, Davis pointed out that this is a complicated national issue with many opinions. It’s very controversial, she said, and many unions oppose it. She said she herself is most concerned about people who have no insurance, and expanded Obamacare might be a good solution. Council has not heard from its residents about their preferences on this. They haven’t had a full discussion of it. She said she would not support a letter representing one viewpoint that had not been fully discussed.
Expressing his agreement with Davis, Putens said “Ditto J,” adding that there are many versions of “single payer,” and he has no idea which one this draft is promoting.
Roberts said he would support the motion, since he favors “single payer” and does not think it would have to eliminate private insurance.
Jordan agreed the statement is not specific or clear enough. He suggested that if something is coming to council for support, it should be presented with the necessary written background that is needed by council and staff.
Byrd agreed to withdraw his motion and to have a worksession on the topic. Nonetheless, he added, “If you have to have a worksession for every agenda item you’re in trouble in terms of productivity and efficiency.”
Davis replied that when other information has been provided that is adequate, there is not necessarily a need for a worksession. She added that he should not put items on an agenda and assume that council is supposed to rubber-stamp them “automatically, like little bobble heads.” She said, “You are asking councilmembers not to do their jobs, not to do the duties that we were elected to do.”
Other items covered at this meeting will be reported in other articles.