Misplaced Pages

Opposition to Maryland Route 200: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:21, 7 March 2011 editAnomieBOT (talk | contribs)Bots6,590,726 editsm Dating maintenance tags: {{Quotefarm}}← Previous edit Revision as of 03:37, 7 March 2011 edit undoSchuminWeb (talk | contribs)95,920 edits Taking Dough4872's merge as a rewrite on the text, and putting it back here.Next edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
{{rescue}} {{rescue}}
{{Quotefarm|date=March 2011}} {{Quotefarm|date=March 2011}}
Maryland Route 200 has gained numerous opposition from several groups, including the ] and the Prince George's County Council.
The construction of ''']''', also known as the Intercounty Connector (ICC) has been '''opposed''' by a number of groups. Community and environmental groups<ref> {{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = ICC Action Alert
| work =
| publisher = Sierra Club
| date = 2007-05-23
| url = http://maryland.sierraclub.org/action/p0049.asp
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2007-06-14 }} </ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Proposed Highway Would Hurt Air, Congestion
| work =
| publisher = Environmental Defense
| date = 2005-03-16
| url = http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4220
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2007-06-14 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = STOP THE INTERCOUNTY CONNECTOR (ICC)
| work =
| publisher = Anacostia Watershed Society
| date = 2008-03-13
| url = http://www.anacostiaws.org/Programs/ICC/StopTheICC.htm
| doi =
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Save Our Communities, a campaign of the Audubon Naturalist Society
| work =
| publisher = Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Inc.
| date = 2007-06-28
| url = http://savecommunities.org/
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }}</ref> have vehemently opposed the selected alternative, and in some cases any configuration of the ICC. Financial contributions from the Prince Charitable Trusts supported at least some of the ICC opposition activities.<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = IRS Form 990-PF, Return of Private Foundation, Frederick Henry Prince Testamentary Trust (for 2006)
| publisher =
| pages =
| url = http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990pf_pdf_archive/366/366009208/366009208_200612_990PF.pdf
| format = PDF
| date = 2007-08-14
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Prince Charitable Trusts - Washington, D.C. Community & Environment – Preserve and Protect the Piedmont Sample Grants
| publisher = Prince Charitable Trusts
| pages =
| url = http://foundationcenter.org/grantmaker/prince/dc_all_sample_grants.08.pdf
| date = 2008-09-10
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = The Intercounty Connector: Performance and Alternatives
| publisher = Environmental Defense, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Sierra Club Maryland Chapter, Coalition for Smarter Growth, Solutions Not Sprawl
| pages =
| url = http://www.edf.org/documents/4272_ICC-1a.pdf
| date = 2005-01-21
| accessdate = 2009-03-29 }}</ref> Their reasons for the opposition were detailed in the conclusions of research and analysis conducted by one of the opposition groups.<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = The Intercounty Connector: Performance and Alternatives Report
| work =
| publisher = Coalition for Smarter Growth
| date = 2005-01-18
| url = http://www.smartergrowth.net/issues/transportation/roads/outerbeltway/icc/study/index.html
| doi =
| accessdate = 2007-09-27 }} </ref> In general, they believe that the ICC will not improve travel times or congestion and will result in significant social and environmental damage (e.g., increase air pollution and oil consumption due to the longer travel times with more congestion, negatively impact wetlands, stream-valley forests, and parks). Additionally, the ICC's route will take a disruptive path through some existing neighborhoods, including Cashell Estates and Longmead Crossing. Some developments, however, were planned with the ICC in mind. Longmead Crossing, for instance, was laid out with land along the proposed (and master-planned) route of the ICC reserved for a major highway,<ref> {{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Learning to Listen with Nancy Floreen
| work =
| publisher = Just Up the Pike
| date = 2007-02-05
| url = http://www.justupthepike.com/2007/02/montgomery-county-people-cannot-come-to.html
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-06-13 }}</ref> and the question of setting aside land for the ICC was raised when the Mill Creek South development in Derwood was considered by the Montgomery County Planning Board in 1978.<ref>{{Cite news
| last=Johnson
| first=Janis
| author-link=
| author=Janis Johnson
| title=Subdivision Backed on Major Road
| newspaper=]
| page=C1
| date=1978-07-24
| accessdate=2009-04-15
| url= }}
''not available from the free ] site, but is available (for a fee) from the Post . ''</ref>


ICC opponents scored a major (albeit temporary) victory when Governor ] announced that he had "reversed his longtime support of a proposed intercounty connector" in March 1998.<ref>{{cite news
| last = LeDuc
| first = Daniel
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Governor Abandons Road Plan
| author=Daniel LeDuc
| publisher = ]
| page=D01
| date = 1998-03-07
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/library/growth/transport/icc0307.htm
| doi =
| accessdate = 2009-04-19 }}</ref>
==Opposition to the ICC in the Maryland General Assembly==
Members of the Maryland General Assembly stated opposition in the Spring 2008<ref>{{cite news Members of the Maryland General Assembly stated opposition in the Spring 2008<ref>{{cite news
| title = Opponents Want Legislature to Halt Construction | title = Opponents Want Legislature to Halt Construction
Line 153: Line 28:
| url= }} | url= }}
''not available from the free ] site, but is available (for a fee) from the Post . ''</ref> ''not available from the free ] site, but is available (for a fee) from the Post . ''</ref>
In 1980, a bill proposed by Delegate to forbid the Maryland Department of Transportation from even studying the matter of new highways running east and west between Montgomery and Prince George's Counties was tabled by the Montgomery County Delegation.<ref>{{Cite news In 1980, a bill proposed by Delegate Idamae Garrott to forbid the Maryland Department of Transportation from even studying the matter of new highways running east and west between Montgomery and Prince George's Counties was tabled by the Montgomery County Delegation.<ref>{{Cite news
| title=Bill to Halt Study of Highway Rejected | title=Bill to Halt Study of Highway Rejected
| newspaper=] | newspaper=]
Line 162: Line 37:
''not available from the free ] site, but is available (for a fee) from the Post . ''</ref> ''not available from the free ] site, but is available (for a fee) from the Post . ''</ref>


In the 1998 session, House Bill 817 was introduced to prohibit MDOT from spending funds or granting approvals to the ICC project, and House Bill 905 was intended to stop the operation of a toll highway altogether.<ref name=hb817>{{citation|title=House Bill 817|url=http://mlis.state.md.us/1998rs/billfile/hb0817.htm|year=1998|publisher=]|accessdate=March 7, 2011}}</ref><ref name=hb905>{{citation|title=House Bill 905|url=http://mlis.state.md.us/1998rs/billfile/hb0905.htm|year=1998|publisher=]|accessdate=March 7, 2011}}</ref> Both bills failed to pass. In 2004, House Bill 732 proposed a similar statement to House Bill 817, extended to include the MdTA.<ref name=hb732>{{citation|title=House Bill 732|url=http://mlis.state.md.us/2004rs/billfile/hb0732.htm|year=2004|publisher=]|accessdate=March 7, 2011}}</ref> The 2007 Special Session saw the offering of House Bill 37 to prevent construction of the road. Both of these bills also failed to pass.<ref name=hb37>{{citation|title=House Bill 37|url=http://mlis.state.md.us/2007s1/billfile/hb0037.htm|year=2007|publisher=]|accessdate=March 7, 2011}}</ref> In the 2008 session, two bills proposing to cancel or delay the project were introduced – House Bill 1416 and House Bill 1471.<ref name=hb1416>{{citation|title=House Bill 1416|url=http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/billfile/hb1416.htm|year=2008|publisher=]|accessdate=March 7, 2011}}</ref><ref name=hb1471>{{citation|title=House Bill 1471|url=http://mlis.state.md.us/2008rs/billfile/hb1471.htm|year=2008|publisher=]|accessdate=March 7, 2011}}</ref> House Bill 1471 proposed to elimiate funding for the road, and, if it had passed, would trigger "liquidated damage clauses that would require it to pay the contractors an estimated $80.0 million upon cancellation of the contracts," according to the Fiscal Note prepared by the state's Department of Legislative Services.<ref>{{cite web
In the 1998 session, was introduced to prohibit the Maryland Department of Transportation from spending funds or granting approvals to the ICC project, and was intended to stop the operation of a toll highway altogether. Both bills failed to pass.

Legislative actions against the Intercounty Connector continued in the 2004 session, where proposed a similar statement to House Bill 817, extended to include the Maryland Transportation Authority. The 2007 Special Session saw the offering of : <blockquote>Requiring the Governor to include a specified appropriation to the Transportation Trust Fund under specified circumstances; prohibiting the Maryland Department of Transportation and the Maryland Transportation Authority from financing the Intercounty Connector; requiring the Authority to retire specified bonds secured by a pledge of future federal aid in a specified manner; making the Act an emergency measure; etc. </blockquote>
Both of these bills also failed to pass.

In the 2008 session, two bills proposing to cancel or delay the project were introduced – and . House Bill 1471 proposed to terminate all funding for the ICC (which was already under construction at the time that the bill was offered), and, if it had passed, would trigger "liquidated damage clauses that would require it to pay the contractors an estimated $80.0 million upon cancellation of the contracts," according to the Fiscal Note prepared by the state's Department of Legislative Services.<ref>{{cite web
| title = FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE - House Bill 1471 | title = FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE - House Bill 1471
| publisher = Maryland | publisher = Maryland
Line 175: Line 45:
| author=Michael C. Rubenstein | author=Michael C. Rubenstein
| date = 2008-03-17 | date = 2008-03-17
| accessdate = 2008-12-05 }}</ref> Both bills failed.
| accessdate = 2008-12-05 }}</ref> House Bill 1416 proposed: <blockquote>Requiring the Maryland Department of Transportation and the Department of the Environment to conduct a study on the impact the Intercounty Connector project could have on greenhouse gas emissions; requiring the study to quantify specified costs attributable to the project; requiring a specified public comment period; making financing of the project contingent on the publication and submission of the study to the Governor and the General Assembly; etc.</blockquote>


In the 2009 session, a bill proposing to cancel funding for the ICC was pre-filed by Delegate Barbara A. Frush – House Bill 27.<ref name=hb27>{{citation|title=House Bill 27|url=http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/billfile/hb0027.htm|year=2009|publisher=]|accessdate=March 7, 2011}}</ref> This bill had not attracted any co-sponsors nor had it been scheduled for a hearing.<ref>{{cite web
Both bills failed.

In the 2009 session, a bill proposing to cancel funding for the ICC was pre-filed by (D, District 21 (Anne Arundel and Prince George's Counties)) – ''Transportation - Intercounty Connector - Elimination of Funding''. In January 2009, the ''Gazette'' reported that had not attracted any co-sponsors nor had it been scheduled for a hearing.<ref>{{cite web
| title = Delegate: Maryland shouldn't fund ICC | title = Delegate: Maryland shouldn't fund ICC
| author=Kevin James Shay | author=Kevin James Shay
Line 185: Line 53:
| date = 2009-01-21 | date = 2009-01-21
| url =http://www.gazette.net/stories/01212009/burtnew213928_32480.shtml | url =http://www.gazette.net/stories/01212009/burtnew213928_32480.shtml
| accessdate = 2009-01-25 }}</ref> A fiscal note for HB 27 was prepared by the General Assembly's .<ref>{{cite web | accessdate = 2009-01-25 }}</ref> A similar bill, Senate Bill 753, was filed in the Maryland Senate by Sen. E. J. Pipkin and others.<ref>{{cite web
| title = Fiscal and Policy Note - House Bill 27 (Delegate Frush) - Transportation - Intercounty Connector - Elimination of Funding
| author = Amanda Mock
| url = http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/fnotes/bil_0007/hb0027.pdf
| format = PDF
| date = 2009-03-16
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }}</ref>. A similar bill, , was filed in the Maryland Senate by (R, District 36 (Caroline, Cecil, Kent & Queen Anne's Counties)) and others. A fiscal note for SB 753 was also prepared.<ref>{{cite web
| title = Fiscal and Policy Note - Senate Bill 753 (Senator Pipkin, ''et al.'') - Transportation - Intercounty Connector - Elimination of Funding | title = Fiscal and Policy Note - Senate Bill 753 (Senator Pipkin, ''et al.'') - Transportation - Intercounty Connector - Elimination of Funding
| author = Amanda Mock | author = Amanda Mock
Line 203: Line 65:
| date = 2009-03-12 | date = 2009-03-12
| url =http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2009/03/pipkins-icc-gambit.html | url =http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2009/03/pipkins-icc-gambit.html
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }}</ref> Both bills failed in the 2009 session. House Bill 27 received an unfavorable report from the House of Delegates Appropriations Committee on March 28, 2009; and no action was taken on Senate Bill 753 prior to adjournment on April 13, 2009, though a hearing was scheduled on March 18, 2009 before the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee.
| accessdate = 2009-03-28 }}</ref>


The position of the County Council of ] in opposition to the ICC has been repeatedly cited by opposition groups, and its 2003 resolution on the subject, CR-32-2003, was adopted on June 10, 2003, where it called for alternatives to the road.<ref>Not directly available on the Web, but the resolution (in ] format), can be found through a search of the for Resoution CR-32-2003</ref>
Both bills failed in the 2009 session. received an unfavorable report from the House of Delegates Appropriations Committee on March 28, 2009; and no action was taken on prior to adjournment on April 13, 2009, though a hearing was scheduled on March 18, 2009 before the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee.
In 2007, the Prince George's County Council passed resolution CR-59-2007,<ref>Also not directly available on the Web, but the resolution (in ] format), can be found through a search of the for Resoution CR-59-2007</ref> which repeats much of what was stated in CR-32-2003, including the language endorsing the ICC in Prince George's County.


==Opposition by the Prince George's County Council to the ICC - but the ICC in Montgomery County ''only''==
The position of the County Council of ] in opposition to the ICC has been repeatedly cited by opposition groups, and its 2003 resolution on the subject, CR-32-2003, was adopted on June 10, 2003.<ref>Not directly available on the Web, but the resolution (in ] format), can be found through a search of the for Resoution CR-32-2003</ref>

On the second page of the resolution, in the fifth paragraph, are the following words, which include an ''endorsement'' of the ICC in ] and as far west as ] in ]:
<blockquote>... supporting project planning for alternatives to the construction of the ICC between I-95 and I-270, ''including an East-West Link between US 29 and US 1'' and transit service improvements ...</blockquote>(emphasis added)
Stated differently, Resolution CR-32-2003 opposes the ICC, but ''only'' that part of the ICC ''in ]'' and west of ], where the Prince George's County Council does not have legal planning powers.

In 2007, the Prince George's County Council passed resolution CR-59-2007,<ref>Also not directly available on the Web, but the resolution (in ] format), can be found through a search of the for Resoution CR-59-2007</ref> which repeats much of what was stated in CR-32-2003, including the language endorsing the ICC in Prince George's County, starting with the following words:
<blockquote>A RESOLUTION concerning the Inter County Connector

For the purpose of expressing and restating the Prince George’s County Council’s long-standing opposition to construction of the Inter County Connector (ICC) on the basis that the ICC will further sprawl development, and thus cause or exacerbate an increase in vehicle miles traveled, shift jobs away from Prince George's County, and cause substantial local and regional environmental impact and contribute negatively to climate change, and that there is a lack of need for the ICC, that the cost of it is too great and that there are reasonable and better transportation alternatives that will reduce sprawl development and its impacts.</blockquote>
On the sixth page of this resolution, in the fifth paragraph, the language endorsing the ICC in Prince George's County from CR-32-2003 is repeated almost verbatim. In spite of the resolutions passed by the Prince George's County Council, County Executive ] has long supported the ICC. In 2006, the county executive was quoted by '']'' (the independent student newspaper of the University of Maryland, College Park) as saying "I always supported the Intercounty Connector road."<ref> {{cite web
| author = Kevin Litten
| title = ICC road gets the green light
| publisher = ]
| date = 2006-06-08
| url = http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2006/06/08/NewsoffCampus/Icc-Road.Gets.The.Green.Light-2325629.shtml
| accessdate = 2009-04-23 }}</ref>

==Anti-ICC lawsuits in the federal courts, consolidation, a hearing and their dismissal==
In November 2006, environmental groups announced that they were preparing to file suit in order to delay or stop the project,<ref> {{cite news In November 2006, environmental groups announced that they were preparing to file suit in order to delay or stop the project,<ref> {{cite news
| author = Eric M. Weiss | author = Eric M. Weiss
Line 234: Line 77:
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110103155.html | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/01/AR2006110103155.html
| accessdate = 2009-07-23 }}</ref> and | accessdate = 2009-07-23 }}</ref> and
lawsuits aimed at halting construction<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-md.icc21dec21,0,6869717.story |title=Two lawsuits filed against ICC}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122000931.html |title=Federal Agency Sued Over Environmental Study | work=The Washington Post | first=Katherine | last=Shaver | date=2006-12-21 | accessdate=2010-05-20}}</ref> were filed by environmental groups and affected residents, assisted in part by ] legal counsel from the .<ref> {{cite web lawsuits aimed at halting construction<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/traffic/bal-md.icc21dec21,0,6869717.story |title=Two lawsuits filed against ICC}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/20/AR2006122000931.html |title=Federal Agency Sued Over Environmental Study | work=The Washington Post | first=Katherine | last=Shaver | date=2006-12-21 | accessdate=2010-05-20}}</ref> were filed by environmental groups and affected residents, assisted in part by ] legal counsel from the Institute for Public Representation of the Georgetown University Law Center.<ref> {{cite web
| author = Sean R. Sedam | author = Sean R. Sedam
| title = Intercounty Connector foes file intent to sue | title = Intercounty Connector foes file intent to sue
Line 259: Line 102:
| court=United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit | court=United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
| date=1999 | date=1999
| url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/99-5220a.txt }}, see also for a discussion of the Wilson Bridge case here: http://www.achp.gov/book/case153.html</ref> but ] of the D.C. federal court ordered the matter transferred to federal court in Maryland on May 17, 2007<ref>{{cite web | url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199912/99-5220a.txt }}, see also for a discussion of the Wilson Bridge case here: http://www.achp.gov/book/case153.html</ref> but ] of the D.C. federal court ordered the matter transferred to federal court in Maryland on May 17, 2007 and the suits were consolidated. After hearings in October 2007,<ref>{{cite news
| title = One judge will hear both suits against new toll road project
| publisher = Examiner.com Washington DC
| date = 2007-07-18
| url = http://www.examiner.com/a-833779~One_judge_will_hear_both_suits_against_new_toll_road_project.html
| accessdate = 2007-11-20 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}} </ref><ref> {{cite court
| litigants= Environmental Defense and Sierra Club, Inc., v. United States Department of Transportation, et al.
| opinion=Civil Action No. 06-2176 (GK)
| court=U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
| date=2007-05-07
| url=https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2006cv2176-39 }}</ref> and the suits were consolidated. After hearings in October 2007,<ref>{{cite news
| title = Agencies Accused of Wrongly Approving Md. Highway Study | title = Agencies Accused of Wrongly Approving Md. Highway Study
| author=Katherine Shaver | author=Katherine Shaver
Line 321: Line 154:
| last=Killian}} </ref> | last=Killian}} </ref>


Judge Williams wrote the following:
<blockquote>
On the contrary, the Court believes that the Defendants have complied with the statutory and regulatory requirements and cannot conclude that Defendants’ approval of the ICC was outside the bounds of “reasoned decision-making,” especially considering the extensive record and the agencies’ level of technical expertise and experience. Although Defendants’ actions, in some instances, may not have been a paragon of perfection, the Court, nonetheless, cannot find anything that rises to the level of a meaningful violation. For all of these reasons, the Court concludes that there is no legal or equitable basis to prevent the Inter-County Connector from moving forward.</blockquote>

==Aftermath of the dismissal of the consolidated lawsuit==
'']'' described the decision handed down by the court as a "victory for both Governor ], who backs construction of the road, and a measure of vindication for former Governor ], who made it the top transportation priority of his administration."<ref>{{cite web '']'' described the decision handed down by the court as a "victory for both Governor ], who backs construction of the road, and a measure of vindication for former Governor ], who made it the top transportation priority of his administration."<ref>{{cite web
| last = | last =
Line 364: Line 192:
| format = | format =
| doi = | doi =
| accessdate = 2007-11-15 }}</ref> On January 7, 2008, it was announced that Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club would appeal Judge Williams' decision to the ] in ], Virginia.<ref>{{cite news
| accessdate = 2007-11-15 }}</ref>

On January 7, 2008, it was announced that Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club would appeal Judge Williams' decision to the ] in ], Virginia.<ref>{{cite news
| last = | last =
| first = | first =
Line 427: Line 253:
| format = | format =
| doi = | doi =
| accessdate = 2008-01-11 }}</ref> | accessdate = 2008-01-11 }}</ref> In April 2008, persons and groups opposed to the ICC held an "Irish wake" to draw attention to the impact of the ICC,<ref>{{cite web

In April 2008, persons and groups opposed to the ICC held an "Irish wake" to draw attention to the impact of the ICC,<ref>{{cite web
| last = | last =
| first = | first =
Line 465: Line 289:
| format = | format =
| doi = | doi =
| accessdate = 2009-04-20 }} </ref> | accessdate = 2009-04-20 }} </ref>


In June 2008, protests against the ICC were held at Dr. Charles R. Drew Elementary School in Silver Spring. The participants claimed that ICC construction should be halted because of air pollution impacts on pupils at the school, though it was reported that Governor O'Malley has no plans to do so.<ref>{{cite news In June 2008, protests against the ICC were held at Dr. Charles R. Drew Elementary School in Silver Spring. The participants claimed that ICC construction should be halted because of air pollution impacts on pupils at the school, though it was reported that Governor O'Malley has no plans to do so.<ref>{{cite news
Line 479: Line 303:
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401150.html | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401150.html
| doi = | doi =
| accessdate = 2008-06-30 }}</ref> In August 2008, '']'' published a letter to the editor from the executive director of the ] calling on the ] to "cancel the ICC."<ref>{{cite web
| accessdate = 2008-06-30 }}</ref>

In August 2008, '']'' published a letter to the editor from the executive director of the ] calling on the ] to "cancel the ICC."<ref>{{cite web
| last = | last =
| first = | first =
Line 494: Line 316:
| format = | format =
| doi = | doi =
| accessdate = 2008-08-07 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> | accessdate = 2008-08-07 }} {{Dead link|date=November 2010|bot=H3llBot}}</ref> In September 2008, '']'' columnist Dan Rodricks wrote an anti-ICC opinion piece<ref>{{cite web

In September 2008, '']'' columnist Dan Rodricks wrote an anti-ICC opinion piece<ref>{{cite web
| last = | last =
| first = | first =
Line 535: Line 355:
| format = | format =
| doi = | doi =
| accessdate = 2008-10-10 }}</ref> Also in September 2008, '']'' published an op-ed by state delegate (D-District 20) suggesting that the ICC be canceled.<ref>{{cite web
| accessdate = 2008-10-10 }}</ref>
Also in September 2008, '']'' published an op-ed by state delegate (D-District 20) suggesting that the ICC be canceled.<ref>{{cite web
| last = | last =
| first = | first =
Line 577: Line 396:
| format = | format =
| doi = | doi =
| accessdate = 2008-11-17 }} </ref> | accessdate = 2008-11-17 }} </ref><ref>{{cite news
'']'' quoted SHA Administrator Neil Pedersen as saying:<ref>{{cite news
| last = | last =
| first = | first =
Line 590: Line 408:
| url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111701312.html | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/17/AR2008111701312.html
| doi = | doi =
| accessdate = 2008-11-18 }} </ref> | accessdate = 2008-11-18 }} </ref> Press releases were issued by the ]<ref>{{cite web
<blockquote>Rather than spending money on legal expenses, we are able to spend money in ways that will help the environment in addition to the extensive environmental stewardship package we already had with the Intercounty Connector.</blockquote>
opined that the agreement to end this litigation was a "A very cheap settlement!" and "Neil Pedersen who worked for Gov Glendenning as head of planning at MSHA and under later governors was elevated to state highway administrator has been an intelligent, courageous and tenacious advocate of the ICC throughout."<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Enviros give up law suits on Inter County Connector tollroad in Maryland
| author=Peter Samuel
| work =
| publisher = TOLLROADSnews
| date = 2008-11-18
| url = http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/3843
| format =
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-11-18 }} </ref>

'']'' reported:<ref>{{cite web
| last =
| first =
| authorlink =
| coauthors =
| title = Group ends legal challenge to ICC road, with conditions
| author=Kytja Weir
| work =
| publisher = Washington Examiner
| date = 2008-11-18
| url = http://www.dcexaminer.com/local/Group_ends_legal_challenge_to_ICC_road_with_conditions11-18.html
| doi =
| accessdate = 2008-11-20 }} </ref>
<blockquote>"This settlement will help offset some of the adverse effects of the ICC on public health," the nonprofit environmental group’s chief health scientist, Dr. John Balbus said in a written statement on Monday. "It also will provide important data on levels of fine particulate air pollution near high traffic volume roads like I-95."</blockquote>

Press releases were issued by the ]<ref>{{cite web
| last = | last =
| first = | first =

Revision as of 03:37, 7 March 2011

It has been suggested that this article be merged into Maryland Route 200. (Discuss) Proposed since March 2011.
An editor has nominated this article for deletion.
You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion, which will decide whether or not to retain it.Feel free to improve the article, but do not remove this notice before the discussion is closed. For more information, see the guide to deletion.
Find sources: "Opposition to Maryland Route 200" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR%5B%5BWikipedia%3AArticles+for+deletion%2FOpposition+to+Maryland+Route+200%5D%5DAFD

Template:Rescue

This article contains too many or overly lengthy quotations. Please help summarize the quotations. Consider transferring direct quotations to Wikiquote or excerpts to Wikisource. (March 2011)

Maryland Route 200 has gained numerous opposition from several groups, including the Maryland General Assembly and the Prince George's County Council.

Members of the Maryland General Assembly stated opposition in the Spring 2008 and Spring 2009 sessions, the 1998 session, and back to 1979, when a bill introduced in the General Assembly by Delegate Robin Ficker proposed to eliminate funding for a study of the ICC and the never-built Rockville Facility highway project. In 1980, a bill proposed by Delegate Idamae Garrott to forbid the Maryland Department of Transportation from even studying the matter of new highways running east and west between Montgomery and Prince George's Counties was tabled by the Montgomery County Delegation.

In the 1998 session, House Bill 817 was introduced to prohibit MDOT from spending funds or granting approvals to the ICC project, and House Bill 905 was intended to stop the operation of a toll highway altogether. Both bills failed to pass. In 2004, House Bill 732 proposed a similar statement to House Bill 817, extended to include the MdTA. The 2007 Special Session saw the offering of House Bill 37 to prevent construction of the road. Both of these bills also failed to pass. In the 2008 session, two bills proposing to cancel or delay the project were introduced – House Bill 1416 and House Bill 1471. House Bill 1471 proposed to elimiate funding for the road, and, if it had passed, would trigger "liquidated damage clauses that would require it to pay the contractors an estimated $80.0 million upon cancellation of the contracts," according to the Fiscal Note prepared by the state's Department of Legislative Services. Both bills failed.

In the 2009 session, a bill proposing to cancel funding for the ICC was pre-filed by Delegate Barbara A. Frush – House Bill 27. This bill had not attracted any co-sponsors nor had it been scheduled for a hearing. A similar bill, Senate Bill 753, was filed in the Maryland Senate by Sen. E. J. Pipkin and others. The Maryland Politics Watch blog opined that Pipkin's co-sponsorship of SB 753 may be related to his possible desire to run again for the U.S. House of Representatives Maryland District 1 seat. Both bills failed in the 2009 session. House Bill 27 received an unfavorable report from the House of Delegates Appropriations Committee on March 28, 2009; and no action was taken on Senate Bill 753 prior to adjournment on April 13, 2009, though a hearing was scheduled on March 18, 2009 before the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee.

The position of the County Council of Prince George's County in opposition to the ICC has been repeatedly cited by opposition groups, and its 2003 resolution on the subject, CR-32-2003, was adopted on June 10, 2003, where it called for alternatives to the road. In 2007, the Prince George's County Council passed resolution CR-59-2007, which repeats much of what was stated in CR-32-2003, including the language endorsing the ICC in Prince George's County.

In November 2006, environmental groups announced that they were preparing to file suit in order to delay or stop the project, and lawsuits aimed at halting construction were filed by environmental groups and affected residents, assisted in part by pro bono legal counsel from the Institute for Public Representation of the Georgetown University Law Center. One of those lawsuits was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (possibly as part of a forum shopping effort to avoid having the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals hear the case on appeal - though the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which would have heard any appeals from the D.C. federal court, had ruled against the Sierra Club and allied groups on similar legal issues in reversing a lower court on a case involving the proposal to reconstruct and widen the Woodrow Wilson Bridge in 1999) but Judge Gladys Kessler of the D.C. federal court ordered the matter transferred to federal court in Maryland on May 17, 2007 and the suits were consolidated. After hearings in October 2007, both lawsuits were dismissed in their entirety on November 8, 2007 by Judge Alexander Williams, Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in a 105-page memorandum opinion.

The Baltimore Sun described the decision handed down by the court as a "victory for both Governor Martin O'Malley, who backs construction of the road, and a measure of vindication for former Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, who made it the top transportation priority of his administration." After the opinion was released, environmental groups opposed to the ICC stated that they would "consider their legal options before deciding whether to continue their battle" and some homeowners near the selected route expressed disagreement with the ruling of the court. On January 7, 2008, it was announced that Environmental Defense and the Sierra Club would appeal Judge Williams' decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. In April 2008, persons and groups opposed to the ICC held an "Irish wake" to draw attention to the impact of the ICC, and an op-ed in The Diamondback was printed which raised objections to the ICC.

In June 2008, protests against the ICC were held at Dr. Charles R. Drew Elementary School in Silver Spring. The participants claimed that ICC construction should be halted because of air pollution impacts on pupils at the school, though it was reported that Governor O'Malley has no plans to do so. In August 2008, The Baltimore Sun published a letter to the editor from the executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth calling on the Maryland Department of Transportation to "cancel the ICC." In September 2008, The Sun's columnist Dan Rodricks wrote an anti-ICC opinion piece asserting that the ICC was the "Intercounty Anachronism". Rodricks' column was first rebutted by a letter to the editor by Montgomery County Councilmember Nancy Floreen (D-At Large) and then in a longer op-ed by SHA Administrator Neil Pedersen. Also in September 2008, The Gazette published an op-ed by state delegate Heather R. Mizeur (D-District 20) suggesting that the ICC be canceled. The Mizeur op-ed was rebutted in a response (also published by The Gazette) by Neil Pedersen in October 2008.

In November 2008, it was announced that Environmental Defense had dropped its appeal with the Fourth Circuit of the decision handed down by Judge Williams of the U.S. District Court for Maryland about a year earlier. In exchange for dropping the suit, the State Highway Administration agreed to fund new emissions-reduction technology used by public school buses in Montgomery County; and the SHA will also "sponsor a three-year study that involves installing air quality monitors along a major highway selected for its similar characteristics to the ICC and I-95." Press releases were issued by the State Highway Administration and Environmental Defense discussing the details of the legal settlement.

References

  1. Katherine Shaver (2008-03-18). "Opponents Want Legislature to Halt Construction". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-10-15.
  2. "County's legislative delegation takes public's pulse at hearings". The Gazette. 1997-10-29. Retrieved 2008-12-05.
  3. Kathryn Tolbert (1980-10-23). "Delegates to Join Highway Protest". The Washington Post. p. MD3. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) not available from the free Washington Post site, but is available (for a fee) from the Post online archives.
  4. "Bill to Halt Study of Highway Rejected". The Washington Post. 1980-10-30. p. MD4. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) not available from the free Washington Post site, but is available (for a fee) from the Post online archives.
  5. House Bill 817, Maryland House of Delegates, 1998, retrieved March 7, 2011
  6. House Bill 905, Maryland House of Delegates, 1998, retrieved March 7, 2011
  7. House Bill 732, Maryland House of Delegates, 2004, retrieved March 7, 2011
  8. House Bill 37, Maryland House of Delegates, 2007, retrieved March 7, 2011
  9. House Bill 1416, Maryland House of Delegates, 2008, retrieved March 7, 2011
  10. House Bill 1471, Maryland House of Delegates, 2008, retrieved March 7, 2011
  11. Michael C. Rubenstein (2008-03-17). "FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE - House Bill 1471" (PDF). Maryland Department of Legislative Services. pp. p. 7. Retrieved 2008-12-05. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  12. House Bill 27, Maryland House of Delegates, 2009, retrieved March 7, 2011
  13. Kevin James Shay (2009-01-21). "Delegate: Maryland shouldn't fund ICC". The Gazette. Retrieved 2009-01-25.
  14. Amanda Mock (2009-03-17). "Fiscal and Policy Note - Senate Bill 753 (Senator Pipkin, et al.) - Transportation - Intercounty Connector - Elimination of Funding" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-03-28.
  15. Adam Pagnucco (2009-03-12). "Pipkin's ICC Gambit". Maryland Politics Watch. Retrieved 2009-03-28.
  16. Not directly available on the Web, but the resolution (in Microsoft Word format), can be found through a search of the Prince George's County Government Legislative Information System for Resoution CR-32-2003
  17. Also not directly available on the Web, but the resolution (in Microsoft Word format), can be found through a search of the Prince George's County Government Legislative Information System for Resoution CR-59-2007
  18. Eric M. Weiss (2006-11-02). "Clean Air Act Cited In Expected Lawsuit". Washington Post. Retrieved 2009-07-23.
  19. "Two lawsuits filed against ICC".
  20. Shaver, Katherine (2006-12-21). "Federal Agency Sued Over Environmental Study". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-20.
  21. Sean R. Sedam (2006-11-08). "Intercounty Connector foes file intent to sue". The Gazette. Retrieved 2009-04-16.
  22. For an extensive summary of the legal issues raised by the plaintiffs in the lawsuits, see: "State & Federal Agencies Violated Law on Protecting Public Health, Environment and Communities, Charge Residents and Environmental Groups in Legal Challenge". PR Newswire. 2006-12-20. Retrieved 2009-04-22.
  23. "Sierra Club's ICC Lawsuit Moved To U.S. District Court for Maryland" (PDF). The Montgomery County Sierran. June/July 2007. pp. p. 4. Retrieved 2008-07-01. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) The article states, in part, "... some concern about having the matter heard in Maryland, because appeals of decisions reached by the District Court for Maryland are heard by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is one of the most conservative in the country on environmental matters" (emphasis added)
  24. The City of Alexandria, Virginia had been the lead plaintiff in this case, but settled out of court on 1 March 1999, leaving the Sierra Club and several allied groups as the plaintiffs/appellees, see the settlement agreement here: http://www.wilsonbridge.com/pdfs/rodReport/Attachment%204%20-%20Settlement%20Agreement.pdf.
  25. City of Alexandria, Virginia, et al., Appellees v. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, et al., Appellants, 198 F.3d 862 (United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 1999)., see also Federal Historic Preservation Case Law for a discussion of the Wilson Bridge case here: http://www.achp.gov/book/case153.html
  26. Katherine Shaver (2007-10-02). "Agencies Accused of Wrongly Approving Md. Highway Study". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-07-08.
  27. Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Inc., Environmental Defense, et al. v. United States Department of Transportation, et al., AW-06-3386 and AW-07-1480 (Consolidated) (U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland 2007-11-08).
  28. "ICC Construction Can Move Forward". Associated Press (via WTOP Radio website). 2007-11-08. Retrieved 2007-11-09.
  29. "Judge Rules ICC Construction Can Go Ahead". NBC4. 2007-11-08. Retrieved 2007-11-08.
  30. Shaver, Katherine (2007-11-09). "Judge Paves the Way For Long-Delayed ICC". Washington Post. Retrieved 2007-11-09.
  31. "Court throws out enviros' suit to block start on Maryland Inter County Connector tollroad". TOLLROADSnews. 2007-11-08. Retrieved 2007-11-09.
  32. "Court Rules Against Obstructionists Gives ICC Green Light". Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance. 2007-11-08. Retrieved 2007-11-20.
  33. "ICC is a go, judge says". The Gazette. 2007-11-09. Retrieved 2007-11-09.
  34. Killian, Erin (2007-11-08). "Judge rules against environmentalists, for Intercounty Connector". Washington Business Journal. Retrieved 2007-11-11.
  35. "Md. gets OK for intercounty highway". Baltimore Sun. 2007-11-08. Retrieved 2007-11-09. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  36. "Environmental Groups, Local Residents Express Disappointment in Court Ruling on Intercounty Connector, Vow to Consider Legal Options". Environmental Defense. 2007-11-08. Retrieved 2007-11-09. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  37. "ICC neighbors decry ruling that allows road to proceed". The Gazette. 2007-11-14. Retrieved 2007-11-15. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  38. Miranda S. Spivack (2008-01-08). "Environmentalists Plan an Appeal". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-09-18. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  39. Michael Dresser (2008-01-09). "Foes of ICC file appeal in U.S. court". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2008-06-01. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  40. "Environmental Groups Appeal Ruling on ICC". Associated Press (via WTOP Radio website). 2008-01-07. Retrieved 2008-01-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  41. "Environmental Defense Appeals Intercounty Connector Ruling". Reuters. 2008-01-07. Retrieved 2008-01-07. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  42. "Environmental groups appeal ICC ruling". The Gazette. 2008-01-09. Retrieved 2008-01-11. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  43. "Neighborhood 'wake' in Derwood will highlight impact of ICC". The Gazette. 2008-04-23. Retrieved 2008-05-05. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  44. St. George, Donna (2008-04-27). "Derwood Residents Rally Against Highway". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-05-05. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  45. Matt Dernoga (2008-04-03). "Mass Trans***". The Diamondback. Retrieved 2009-04-20. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  46. Katherine Shaver (2008-06-25). "Students, Parents of School Next to Proposed Road Ask Governor to Halt Construction". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-06-30. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  47. Stewart Schwartz (2008-08-07). "Md. can't afford to build the ICC". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2008-08-07. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  48. Dan Rodricks (2008-09-21). "ICC? It's time to see to more urgent needs instead". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2008-10-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  49. Nancy Floreen (2008-09-29). "Better mobility boosts economy". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2008-10-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  50. Neil J. Pedersen (2008-10-10). "A worthwhile investment". Baltimore Sun. Retrieved 2008-10-10. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  51. Heather R. Mizeur (2007-09-25). "Scrap the ICC". The Gazette. Retrieved 2007-10-16. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  52. Neil J. Pedersen (2007-10-16). "SHA administrator responds to ICC criticisms". The Gazette. Retrieved 2007-10-16. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  53. Adam Tuss (2008-11-17). "Controversial ICC clears major legal hurdle". WTOP Radio. Retrieved 2008-11-17. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  54. Eric M. Weiss (2008-11-18). "Maryland, Environmental Groups Settle Last Lawsuit". Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-11-18. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  55. "MARYLAND STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND SETTLE INTERCOUNTY CONNECTOR APPEAL". Maryland State Highway Administration. 2008-11-17. Retrieved 2008-11-20. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  56. "Group Wins Public Health Benefits in ICC Suit Settlement". Environmental Defense Fund. 2008-11-17. Retrieved 2008-11-20. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
Categories:
Opposition to Maryland Route 200: Difference between revisions Add topic