Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developers, business groups and residents debate Viva White Oak TIF and transportation fixes
Summary
The county heard testimony Jan. 13 on creating the Viva White Oak Development District and tax‑increment financing (TIF). Supporters said the TIF is essential to unlock $2.8 billion in private investment and critical remediation and spine infrastructure; residents urged detailed traffic, intersection and BRT planning before approval.
County staff and project proponents presented the proposed Viva White Oak Development District and an associated tax‑increment financing plan during a Jan. 13 public hearing.
Ken Hartman Espada, assistant chief administrative officer, described the site as a 280‑acre former industrial area needing remediation and public spine infrastructure and asked the council to approve the creation of the district so bond financing can follow. Developer David Bramble told the council that "$444,000,000 must be invested just in the horizontal development of Viva White Oak" before vertical construction can begin and said the project would unlock roughly $2.8 billion in private investment.
Proponents including the Greater Silver Spring Chamber and LabQuest Community Partnership said the development would bring housing, retail and thousands of construction and permanent jobs, and that a development district with TIF financing is the viable tool to make the project feasible. "This project cannot be achieved without a massive investment of public and private infrastructure," David Bramble said.
Speakers representing residents and community advisory boards said the county must address traffic bottlenecks and commit to bus rapid transit planning alongside any authorization. The East County Citizen Advisory Board and community organizations requested studies and mitigation plans for key intersections (Old Columbia Pike/US‑29/Tech Road and Cherry Hill Road/Broadbirch/Culverton) and urged that BRT alternatives be funded and studied now.
Planning Board and staff materials were presented in support; several witnesses asked the council to approve a resolution quickly to preserve the current bond timetable while also recommending additional review of traffic and late‑TIP intersection plans.
Next procedural step: joint Government Operations & Fiscal Policy and Economic Development committee work sessions were scheduled; written submissions were accepted by the published deadlines.
Status: public hearing closed; council review and committee consideration to follow.
