My Speakout

As much as I don't like the term "Resident Speakout" that's what it is. What follows are the remarks I delivered at last night's meeting of the new Board of Directors for the Columbia Association. 

Good evening, Members of the Columbia Association Board of Directors,

 

Congratulations on the beginning of your term as the elected leaders of the Columbia Association, the most important civic institution serving the city of Columbia, Maryland, and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

 

It has been a profoundly challenging year for all of us, and the repercussions of the past year will be felt for many more to come. 

 

I am coming before you, however, not with grievances or to second guess decisions made by the previous Board, but rather with the same hopeful and optimistic spirit that is a hallmark of the city we all call home. 

 

Of all the challenges and opportunities facing the Columbia Association, perhaps the most important is the matter of governance. While the leadership and governance structure of CA has often been a topic of considerable discussion and debate over the last fifty years, attempts at reforming it beyond the transfer to community control in the early 1980s have languished. And now the conversation about reforming governance and elections—once one that gripped many Columbians—is largely non-existent. 

 

Which is unfortunate because the byzantine, balkanized nature of Columbia’s elections, the paper distinction between the Columbia Council and the CA board, CA’s continued struggle to define itself, and other inherent challenges within this structure combine to create a system that is not as inclusive or representative of Columbia’s residents and stakeholders as it should be.

 

The structure we have was created largely out of expedience; it is now time to create one with intention.

 

As described in CA’s FY22 budget, the organization is in the midst of a profound transformation, the results of which will become evident in three to four years with a “repositioned CA”. 

 

To go through such a transformation—one that will affect many aspects of life in Columbia—without the input of a broad, diverse spectrum of people, perspectives , experiences is to do a disservice to us all, to Columbia’s founding vision, and its future. 

 

Columbia, indeed, was founded on the idea that our diversity could be our greatest strength if we had an environment that nurtured and celebrated it. 

 

We need that strength now more than ever, and as the body tasked with managing such an important institution in uncertain times, I hope you’ll consider as a top priority establishing a formal, inclusive process to study Columbia’s governance structure and make recommendations for reforming it. 

 

If CA is truly to be transformed, to have its many layers peeled back, examined, and potentially discarded, it is imperative that all of Columbia’s residents and stakeholders have meaningful opportunities to engage with and shape that process and its outcomes.  

 

I am cognizant of my time limit but would be remiss if I didn’t say that I am happy to be of service in whatever capacity I can. I don’t have the answers, but I want CA and Columbia to be the best they can be and am willing to do whatever I can to make that happen.

 

There is much more I can say about this as I have given it considerable thought and attention, but I will withhold further comment in order to spend my remaining time sharing another, separate idea. 

 

I think you should partner with local breweries to sell beer at the pools.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

Columbia's duck test

The volume of conversations about the Columbia Association elections is higher than I have seen before. Whatever your opinion of who and what is driving this conversation, more discussions involving more people in a process that has heretofore been defined by a lack of participation is objectively good. 

Unfortunately, the quality of the conversations could still use some work. 

Columbia politics are as hostile as any I’ve engaged with. It would be fine if these contentious conversations were over important (or even actual) matters facing Columbia and CA. Claiming, for instance, that Symphony Woods is under threat of development is a good indication that the claimant is ignorant of both the nature of CA’s open space holdings and development in Downtown Columbia (and in general). Or they’re intentionally misrepresenting facts.  

Either way, the net result is confusion and fear. And when we’re confused or afraid, we seek comfort. 

Many people have grown comfortable with a Columbia Association status quo in which a small but vocal contingent of influential residents and their supports maintain control of CA and the process by which it is governed. 

Power is maintained by the creation and maintenance of institutional processes that are designed to make things confusing and complicated. 

Look at CA elections! Perhaps the only thing that is standard across all villages is the date—the last Saturday in April. Beyond that, some villages have two-year election cycles, some have one-year cycles. Some villages allow all residents to vote, some only allow one vote per household. Some give all property owners votes, some don’t. Some have online voting, some have mail-in voting only.  

CA itself even votes in some villages! 

Yes, it is complicated, but it is complicated by choice and by design. And that complexity is a great way for those who know and maintain the system to stay in power. 

Of course, once you challenge a system’s power structure, the system will push back. As we are seeing now. 

The Columbia Association recently posted a 1700-word response to a flier from The Rouse Project. As someone who has a habit of wordiness and who embraces complexity and nuance, I appreciate where CA is coming from. 

But add CA’s response to the even more verbose conspiracy theories being pushed by certain folks and another influential local blogger’s call to “do your own research” and what you get is a large, coordinated misdirection away from the forest and into the trees, or more fittingly, the weeds. This is where defenders of the status quo and their allies hope you’ll get lost. 

Yes, the challenges facing CA are complicated. The decisions the Board had to make over the last year were hard and required balancing competing interests. 

But don’t mistake complexity with correctness, or difficulty with diligence. Complexity is often a way to keep people out of a system or process, or to keep them from asking the right questions, to make them think that there is too much “noise” and not enough signal to truly get it. 

And just because you had to make a difficult decision that doesn't make you immune to criticism for it. 

It seems to me that the Rouse Project is asking a set of straightforward questions and critiquing the response--implicitly or explicitly--of CA's leaders to these questions over the last year:

1. Do you think that CA’s board should better reflect the demographics of Columbia’s residents?
2. Should CA prioritize its community services or its membership-based programming? 
3. Should CA embrace a less antagonistic approach to its community relationships?

Instead of conversations about the substance of these matters, we’re being subjected to more of the same personal fights and antagonism that has been a hallmark of CA politics for decades. 

Tell me, again, whose interests are being served?

Put your money where your mouth is

I want to talk more about the bigger items in the Columbia Association’s proposed budget (pdf)—the closing of Haven and the plan for outdoor pools, namely. But I need some more time on those. 

However, on the pools issues, not only is this a matter of which pools they decide to open, but also how they schedule them. Open swim hours at CA’s pools have been declining in recent years, and I suspect it may be even more constrained this year.

But a closer look at both of those issues will likely have to wait until next week, so I wanted to share some budget bits and pieces for you first. 

Revenue

CA has chosen, I think wisely, to not change the Annual Charge assessment rate or growth cap, and likewise, most of the membership package prices are similar to currently established rates. Whatever the long-term strategy is for CA moving forward, I don’t think it is in position to be able to sell revenue increases to a wary community coping with the pandemic-induced economic upheaval. CA’s revenue is what it is—best to work within it. 

President's Letter

There’s a statement in the President’s “Transmittal Letter” that is carefully worded and, if you can capture the subtext, pretty powerful: “We believe it is safe to say that there will not be a return to “normal”, if “normal” means a pre-COVID CA. Likely, in three to four years, the maturation of a “repositioned CA” will become evident, endowed with an organization-wide commitment—Board and staff—not to wait for a global crisis to peel back and scrutinize the functionality and efficacy of the many layers of CA that have accumulated over 53 years.”

In my notes, I wrote “wow” because I believe this is as strong a statement as I have seen from CA about the reality that is ahead for the organization as well as a critique of how it got here. For much of its history, CA was happy to take on roles and responsibilities that had tenuous or unclear connections to its mission, and over the years, this all started to add up as the baggage that it had to carry (or, in the parlance of the letter, accumulated layers). It cannot rely on the steady revenue growth it had once enjoyed due to the growth of its assessment base, and in the next few years it will be making many difficult decisions.

This profound transformation is partly behind why I decided to write this blog: If we don’t pay attention throughout this process, we may lose parts of Columbia and CA that we all thought were fundamental. 

One other item about the President: Most budgets are pretty dry, but this includes the following bullet in it's "Budget at a Glance" section and I want to highlight as a reminder that this budget--and institutions like CA, more broadly--are made up of people, working together and (usually) trying their best to achieve a common goal. This item pulled back the curtain on the dry formality of the budget to let in a little humanity and I love it. 

Pictures 

 

Communications and Marketing

I’m a little biased about this but I find this re-org of the Communications and Marketing division somewhat confusing. If anything, CA’s marketing of its memberships has been fine—surely you see as many digital ads for the gyms and golf courses as I do—but its communications have been not so good. Indeed, I think the lack of strategic communications expertise (or the undervaluing of it) has led to a bunch of CA “own” goals over the last year.

All that said, I hope that with all these new positions in “Branding and Marketing” CA will finally start to think about the “Columbia” brand in addition to its own (they are more related than CA would like to believe). 

Sports and Fitness

CA’s proposed budget assumes sports and fitness facility usage at the end of this budget (April, 2022) to return to about 85% of pre-COVID levels across its portfolio. This seems like a fair assumption, but there is still so much uncertainty about our “new” normal and the time it will take to get there.

Sports and Fitness is poised to lose money pretty much across the board. The Columbia Gym is budgeted to “earn” about $141,000, but this is largely because of how membership revenue is allocated across the different facilities. None of this is news. 

Community Services

Did you know the Horse Center is housed in the “Community Services” budget? Why not sports and fitness? CA has a new operator but the lease revenue is considerably less than it was last year and the year before ($9,000 vs $16,000 in FY19 and $15,000 in FY20).

CA’s community grants budget is zeroed out. Compare that to almost $1 million in FY19. In less than two years, CA’s grants to community non-profits have dropped by $1 million. This is huge and an under-appreciated aspect of CA pulling back on its community focus.

While this budget line is less than 2% of CA’s spending, the impact on the nonprofits losing these grants is much bigger. For some organizations, these grants represented significant (20%+ of their annual revenue) and funded important community programs. As we look ahead to a year when “programming” will return, there are going to be many non-profits struggling to do what they were once able to without this support.

At the same time, however, CA has budgeted its own return to programming in the form of it’s Lakefront Festival (not to be confused with the Columbia Festival of the Arts' "LakeFest"). This is a more complicated matter than I can get into on a “bits” blog post, but briefly: Downtown Columbia is crowded with organizations and programs and the overlap between them has caused unnecessary strife and expense. There have been conversations about a more “collaborative” lakefront programming paradigm—one in which existing non-profits, CA, and the community can all benefit—but there is no indication of any action on that front in this budget.

But, as with everything in the budget, it is all subject to change! CA’s Board will host its first worksession on the budget tonight at 7 pm.

From CA’s Facebook page, here are the details:

Read agenda and packet: https://bit.ly/31Qi3iZ

Participate in Resident Speakout: https://bit.ly/3mtqN6s

Watch/Join meeting live on YouTube: https://youtu.be/W_a5veyf6_8

If you stand for nothing, what'll you fall for?

I spent a few hours yesterday reviewing the Columbia Association's proposed FY22 budget and (surprise) I have some thoughts. I had planned to share some of these thoughts this week, but a Facebook post from 2018 showed up in my “memories” and, well, here we are.

The post from 2018 was prompted by the anniversary of this piece about Columbia's "values" that ran in the Baltimore Sun in 2017. The Facebook post, however, went a slightly different direction: 

And though it certainly has and continues to advocate for Columbia's interests, (CA’s) silence on matters of segregation--school based and otherwise--is noticeable. Segregation is, after all, part of what spurred Columbia's founding. 

There are lots of things to unpack here--representation, mission, inclusion, funding, etc. And I don't mean for this to come off as negative toward CA--it does many tremendous things for Columbia that help improve our quality of life and further the original values. 

But there are some radical changes taking place here and across the world, and maybe the time is right for radical re-assessment of what and how CA can best serve Columbia--now and 50 years from now.

CA’s silence over the last year, as our community and nation have wrestled with matters that are very much rooted in the values of Columbia’s founding, is hard to miss. I have seen it raised in several conversations, some very recently. As I said three years ago, there are lots of reasons for this silence, and on one of the more contentious local issues related to segregation—schools—there are no clear-cut right answers.

That said, CA's persistent struggle to articulate its position on issues related to Columbia’s core value set is only becoming more apparent and glaring. One look at the "Goals" section of its proposed budget puts things starkly. These goals align with priorities approved by CA's board as part of its Strategic Plan and address five specific areas:

1. Identity
2. Resource Stewardship
3. Environmental Sustainability
4. Leadership Development
5. Advocacy

Each priority area has a clearly defined goal and a set of action items to achieve those goals. Most have between three and six specific tasks with clear outcomes and timelines. Except Leadership Development.

As you can see in the screenshot below, the goal included in the strategic priority area of Leadership Development is: "Increase participation among a demographically diverse community to serve in leadership roles on CA advisory committees, community groups, and the CA board."

That sounds pretty good, if vague, but the action item for this priority is where things really fall apart: "a. Outreach to cultural and diverse community."

If it ended there, we could chalk this up to an organization that is clumsily trying to catch up, but the next (and last) strategic priority does little to support such a charitable read: 

Strategic Priority: Advocacy

Goal: "Advocate on issues that are key to Columbia's values and are key to our future as a unique, diverse, master planned community."

It offers three tasks, the first two are mostly benign, but then there’s this:

Monitor issues in the following area for advocacy:

• New Town Zoning
• Environment
• Land Use
• Alternative Housing
• Smart Development

That's it, a list issues that are largely centered around the local policy matters that typically excite people who are predisposed to not wanting additional development in their "back yards". (Yes, I went out of my way to avoid using the acronym that is now its own word.) 

There is nothing about social justice, racial equity, economic opportunity, education, transportation, or the myriad other issues that demand our attention if we are to realize the Columbia vision of a racially and economically diverse community living in a "complete" city where opportunities for self-advancement abound.

One wonders what would happen if CA approached its "outreach to cultural and diverse community” as energetically as it did its other advocacy areas, and if so, how would a more diverse leadership structure change the priorities of its advocacy efforts?

Kind of a chicken and an egg.

More about the budget—and even about this particular topic—soon.

Screen shot of the budget page referenced above: 

If you want a garden, you're going to have to sow the seeds

As I explained in starting this blog, my hope was to create a space for a thoughtful examination of the structure, culture, and governance of the Columbia Association. It is, as I have said before, Columbia’s most important civic institution, and despite the popularity of some of its programs and assets, its governance, operations, and finances are given little consideration by residents and businesses of Columbia.

While I still firmly believe we need to more closely and thoroughly examine CA, its history, and its structure to understand how to unleash the full potential of the institution, I also recognize that this does not necessarily make for the most compelling or engaging blog content.

The key insight here, however, is not about the interests and preferences of others, but it’s about my own biases toward institutionalism and credentialism. I’ll work on untangling those, but in the meantime, I want to write about things that are more immediate, tangible, and relevant to the lives of people who live in, work in, or simply care about the future of Columbia.

So, let’s talk about berries. Specifically, this patch of berry bushes in Stevens Forest.

At some point in the last ten years or so, the Columbia Association stopped mowing this field, allowing the natural process of reforestation to begin.

We’re in the meadow phase, and as part of this, berry bushes have proliferated (I think it’s a mix of black raspberries and invasive wineberries but I’m better at identifying trees and hawks than I am bushes and berries). 

Every June, the ripening red and black berries here attract hungry, foraging residents—both human and animal alike. It’s a wonderful scene and something I look forward to every year—these berries have become a fundamental and happy part of my experience of living in Stevens Forest.

One of CA’s biggest opportunities for improvement is to focus on experience of living and working in Columbia. If there were a big bucket wherein I put most or maybe even all of my issues and concerns with CA, you could probably name it “experience”. Columbia’s founding was full of energy, enthusiasm, and optimism because the Rouse Company put the experience of living and working in Columbia front and center in its planning, development, and marketing of Columbia. It celebrated Columbia not for the things it had but for the way those things created a complete and compelling experience.

Open space is a fundamental to the experience of Columbia. It is regularly mentioned as one of the things people love most about Columbia, and it is used by more people than any other of CA’s programs or facilities. I have written about open space before and the potential for its enhancement, which could in turn help enhance the experience of living in Columbia:

But with concerns mounting about social isolation and kids not spending enough time outside, we should consider whether Columbia’s open space can be enhanced in ways previously not considered; if it can provide a better foundation for residents to engage with nature and each other; and if its use can be expanded in ways that are compatible with our larger goals for our environment and community.

And I’d propose that naming some of the most important spaces is a first step toward this new “open space ethic.”

But a new open space ethic should be more than this; it should be about strengthening the ecosystem that encompasses both our natural and our human communities. Maybe this means replacing tot lots with something different — rock-scapes for climbing and free play, treehouses to highlight views, art installations that encourage exploration and discovery, or stormwater management projects that help reduce or clean runoff but while also enhancing the neighborhood aesthetic.

Treating Columbia’s open space network as the managed landscape it is offers a chance to think about how we improve both its ecological integrity and opportunities for people to enjoy.

So, in the realm of concrete, tangible ideas to make Columbia a better place, perhaps we should consider planting more native berry bushes, fruit trees like Maryland’s native Paw Paw, and wildflowers. 

Are there any areas in your neighborhood that are ripe for enhancement? Do you have any ideas for open space that you think could bear fruit in the years to come?

Navigating without a North Star

It’s Throwback Thursday here at the Columbia Flyer and we’re throwing it back to…. February.

I wrote the following piece in February, before the pandemic up-ended everything, and had planned to submit it as an op-ed. However, as the reality of COVID-19 start setting in, my attention and priorities shifted.

I’m sharing it now to highlight the fact that CA’s struggles pre-date the pandemic and maybe also to show that this is something I’ve been thinking about for a while.

The bottom line for me is that CA has lost its way, and its response to the pandemic and associated challenges has caused it to drift even further off course. Or: “CA needs leadership that is looking out for Columbia’s interests, not just CA’s…”

But you can read the whole thing and let me know what you think!

Columbia founder James Rouse still looms large over the “Next American City.” His name is invoked often, usually in a nostalgic callback to the halcyon days of the city’s birth when the visionary developer conducted a grand symphony of big ideas and bulldozers.

What is often missed is that Rouse’s greatest strength was not as a planner, businessman, or salesman—it was his perspective. Notably, it was his ability to be clear-eyed about problems of the day, pragmatic about potential solutions, and optimistic about our ability to collectively shape our futures. Rouse anticipated change and sought to steer it, building a city that could help its residents manage the uncertainty of change.

Unfortunately, Columbia hasn’t had this kind of leadership for many years. Indeed, over the last two decades, Columbia’s leaders—in particular, the elected members of the Columbia Association’s Board of Directors—have struggled both to acknowledge the world for what it is and to present a compelling vision for how Columbia could evolve to respond to our challenges.

Columbia was founded in the context of and in response to great social upheaval, but its leaders often seem unaware of the upheavals of the 2020s and the need for Columbia to respond.

Instead, we’re re-arranging tot-lots while society’s tectonic plates collide underneath.

The Columbia Association is not Columbia, to be sure. It is not a municipal government, and its elected directors are, like directors of all corporations, responsible primarily for ensuring the organization’s financial solvency. But CA enjoys the benefits of steady, dependable government-like revenue by way of its annual charge on all property owners, and it has none of government’s daunting responsibilities like emergency services, public utilities, or school funding.

With such a stable financial foundation, CA’s directors can and should focus on ensuring Columbia remains a great place to live, work, and play and that it reflects the essential values embedded in the community’s bedrock. But when faced with opportunities to guide Columbia’s future with visionary leadership, CA’s directors have abdicated these responsibilities.

For instance, starting in 2005 residents of Columbia engaged in a years-long community dialogue that lead to a new master plan for Downtown Columbia. Motivated largely by reflexive opposition to new development, CA’s directors at the time removed the organization from the planning conversation, losing leverage and a critical opportunity to help shape a master plan that would guide development of Columbia’s urban core. That plan was passed ten years ago and the Columbia Association is mentioned less than a handful of times in it, leaving the organization with almost no role or influence in the future of Downtown Columbia.

More recently, the conversation in Howard County turned to economic and racial segregation in our neighborhoods and public schools, particularly those in Columbia. While the school system’s redistricting process was incredibly contentious, an essential component of Columbia’s identity is integrated schools. And for CA, the organization founded to further the Columbia way of life, to remain silent on a matter that is essential to Columbia’s identity is a rejection of its own foundational purpose.

These are large examples, but the small ones are everywhere too. CA’s most recent capital improvement projects include an exclusive and expensive wellness retreat, a new clubhouse and restaurant at one of its golf courses, and an indoor tennis club. Not only are these risky investments in the rapidly changing fitness market, but none of these projects helped to address ongoing disinvestment in Columbia’s older villages and village centers, an opportunity lost.

What makes this especially frustrating is that CA is full of friendly, dedicated team members who take pride in their work and their community. From the operations crews to the lifeguards to the division chiefs and executives, CA staff are exemplary ambassadors for the organization and the community.

And to be sure, there are members of the board of directors who work as diligently as its staff in spite of the myopia of their colleagues. But even best board member will get bogged down in the morass of unnecessary meetings, busywork, and intra-board conflicts that have come to characterize the board’s operations.

CA has such great potential to reposition Columbia as a vanguard for how suburban life can be reimagined in the 21stcentury, a place that recaptures some of the optimistic zeitgeist of its founding, renewed for a time of even more social, political, economic, and environmental upheaval. Instead it is adrift, rudderless in ever-changing seas.

The solution is within reach, however, and it is not especially complicated. CA needs leadership that is looking out for Columbia’s interests, not just CA’s, and who recognize that this is a city that was built to anticipate change and foster positive solutions for society’s challenges.

James Rouse can no longer point to the path ahead for Columbia. And unfortunately for now, neither can CA.

Symphony of Lights

I started writing this blog as a way to get out of the day-to-day. My relationship—personal and professional—with the Columbia Association and its people is complicated, especially now. In the last couple years, it has become increasingly contentious. 

Conflict changes your perspective—it demands a narrower focus and leaves lots of space for emotions (which can be good and bad). 

So this blog is meant to be a place where I leave the conflicts of daily life behind and broaden my focus—to write considered, thoughtful and analytical pieces about something—the Columbia Association—that I am passionate about. I believe as strongly as ever in the purpose and the potential of CA, and I believe that its current predicament is a critical crossroads that demands our attention and energy. 

CA is Columbia’s most important civic institution, and the decisions its leaders make over the next year or two will have profound and lasting impacts on CA and Columbia for many years to come.

The Symphony of Lights op-ed is, contra this blog’s purpose, about the day-to-day (year-to-year?) conflict, a portion of it anyway. I have mixed feelings about calling CA the Grinch, but I have no such hesitation about the need to tell this story in this way. 

Because it is part of the larger story about CA, where it stands in these extraordinary times, and how it plots a course for its future. To be blunt: I think the Columbia Association has lost its way.

I want only the best for Columbia and the Columbia Association. Sometimes that means writing lengthy pieces about committee structures (stay tuned!) and sometimes that means embracing the starkness of the conflict. 

Symphony of Lights will turn on or it won’t. For these lights, there is no dimmer, nothing between on and off.