"Smart Growth is the antithesis of sprawl, which is development outside areas planned and built for growth. It gobbles open space, increases air and water pollution, and costs more in new services than it ever offsets with taxes from new residents," Tom Horton recounts in this Bay Journal article.
"Sprawl, or Dumb Growth, [he continues] can work politically, though, at least for a while — you just call it Economic Growth, or GROWTH, which sounds all right to many people, especially bankers and developers and pavers and home builders, who are good at electing candidates who’ll butter their bread." But just for a while. Frederick County is now "toting up the cost of progress" and it's not pretty.
/Tom Horton<>Bay Journal/ If you’re not yet worried about Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan’s abandonment of Smart Growth, you might want to read a new study on how Dumb Growth could cost Frederick County taxpayers some half a billion bucks.
First, a brief primer on Smart Growth, which you used to be able to get on the Maryland Department of Planning’s website — until the website and department became a joke under Hogan.
Smart Growth is the antithesis of sprawl, which is development outside areas planned and built for growth. It gobbles open space, increases air and water pollution, and costs more in new services than it ever offsets with taxes from new residents.
Sprawl, or Dumb Growth, can work politically, though, at least for a while — you just call it Economic Growth, or GROWTH, which sounds all right to many people, especially bankers and developers and pavers and home builders, who are good at electing candidates who’ll butter their bread.
That’s the way it worked in Frederick County for several years, until a more progressive slate of county officials took over in 2015 and began toting up the cost of “progress” under the former regime.
An August 2017 report done for Jan Gardner, the county executive, examined developments in the pipeline that will create 21,000 new housing units, adding 50,000 new residents of which about 10,000 will be school age.
The fiscal bottom line: Taxpayers will fork out $340 million for roads and another $167 million for schools beyond anything that was planned or budgeted for, the county spokesman said.
A number of these developments also lock the county into agreements for up to 25 years, so that even if zoning gets stricter or developer fees are raised, the presently approved growth remains exempt.
The Frederick experience illustrates the perils of poorly planned residential growth, as well as the fallacy of believing it generates enough new revenue in property taxes to outweigh the demands it makes on government services.
This was one of the reasons that Maryland, under Gov. Parris Glendening in the 1990s, became a pioneer in pushing Smart Growth. Martin O’Malley, who preceded Hogan as governor, added teeth to Smart Growth in 2012 with a landmark law sharply limiting new development in areas that are predominantly farm and forest.
That law did not literally usurp traditional county power over land use; rather it dramatically curtailed, across rural landscapes, the use of septic tanks, on which sprawl development depends.
The law in recent years has begun to make a difference, and a major reason was the vigilance and “jawboning” of the Department of Planning, combined with the assistance it provided to counties in complying.
That threatens to unravel under Hogan, who announced in August to the Maryland Association of Counties that “Plan Maryland,” as O’Malley’s version of Smart Growth was called, “is off the books.” He was putting land use “back into the hands of local authorities,” Hogan said to applause.
The governor has also made it easier to develop using septic tanks again and given Cecil County a pass on complying with the 2012 anti-sprawl law.
He has not overtly tried to repeal the law itself, but in addition to Cecil, at least three more of Maryland’s 23 counties — Wicomico, Allegany and Queen Anne’s — have adopted plans or are pushing developments counter to the law.
But nothing is stopping any county whose citizens want to grow smartly. Charles County in Southern Maryland is a shining example after a six-year campaign to overturn a ruinous development plan.
As of 2016, Charles finalized a plan that stopped an estimated 339 major subdivisions on septic across 88,000 acres of open space. It also stopped about 123 new subdivisions in watersheds designated high water quality.
The new plan finally protects Mattawoman Creek, one of the Chesapeake’s best fish habitats; saves an estimated $2 billion on new roads; and cuts projected population growth in the next 30 years from 75,000 to 37,000.
Several Maryland counties have excellent compliance with the anti-sprawl law, while several others remain a mixed bag. For information on your county, contact 1000 Friends of Maryland, a statewide environmental land use group.
Rating Gov. Hogan environmentally is complicated by the reality that he is a tree hugger compared with national Republicans and the Trump administration, which set the lowest of bars.
He’s been good by any measure in important areas like Program Open Space, the state’s premier land preservation effort, and in aspects of air quality, such as greenhouse gas reductions. His transportation programs, though, remain far too road-oriented vs. mass transit and mobility.
His environmental secretary, Ben Grumbles, gets high marks from environmentalists. His natural resources secretary, Mark Belton, might be good if nastier Hogan appointees would butt out of managing Bay fisheries.
The governor got a “needs improvement” grade on his 2017 report card from the Maryland League of Conservation voters; that’s the next to lowest of five ratings the group gives.
Hogan remains popular and has a good shot at re-election in 2018. But if the housing economy picks up, I fear a return to major sprawl development. He needs to answer tougher questions about Smart Growth in his re-election bid than he’s gotten so far.
From the Bay Journal Nov. 6 2017; appeared in DelMarVa Now (Daily Times) Dec. 2. Tom Horton is a professor of environmental studies at Salisbury University.
Do you like this page?