Comments have been heard, changes have been incorporated, and now PlanMaryland is an official state policy.
Gov. Martin O’Malley received the final draft of the planning document from Planning Secretary Richard Hall at a State House ceremony Monday morning. O’Malley issued an executive order declaring that the plan will now be recognized as the official state development plan.
Flanked by former governors Harry Hughes and Parris Glendening – his predecessors in smart growth and environmentally sensitive policies – O’Malley explained that the plan will help Maryland move forward by maintaining the natural environment, clean water, and the state’s farmland.
“At the end of the day, PlanMaryland is really about building a stronger and more sustainable future for our kids and grandkids so they can have the same quality of life we have,” O’Malley said.
PlanMaryland, Hall said, follows a General Assembly directive from 1974 to tie together the many different smart growth programs the state has in all of its departments. Under PlanMaryland, everything is united under a single document and set of goals.
“Much of what the plan is about is getting the best use out of the existing programs,” he said. “It’s a policy plan to drive us in the right direction.”
Changes in the new draft
PlanMaryland has been controversial since it came out earlier this year. Many Marylanders – especially those involved with rural and agricultural communities – believe that PlanMaryland takes zoning and planning rights away from local communities, and instead gives ultimate decision-making authority to the state.
Hall has said that PlanMaryland seeks to build on existing processes and keep planning power in the hands of people in local communities.
The biggest change in the last draft of the document, he said, rewrites that portion of the plan to better show that his department needs to work in collaboration with local communities for everyone to decide how planning maps will be drawn and which areas will be targeted for development.
“We are very clear that Maryland is not taking land use authority,” Hall said.
The final draft of the document has also been edited for clarity and conciseness. The September draft of the document had some numbers left out and replaced by “XX.” Hall said on Monday that the Xs have either been replaced with real numbers or deleted.
What next
Hall said the next big step for his department is to start speaking with local governments and planning boards about how to draw the maps in their communities and determine where to focus development and preservation. This is the beginning of a collaborative effort, in which the state will work to fine-tune future plans based on local preferences. The plans will be based on the state’s already existing GreenPrint, AgPrint and GrowthPrints.
In the next year, Hall expects locality maps to be drawn and for the plan to be completely filled out.
On the state government side of things, the executive order directs all state agencies to look at their plans, programs and policies and see how they can be aligned to support the goals and objectives of PlanMaryland. In six months, each agency needs to submit a work plan to better implement PlanMaryland – as well as a timeline to get that work done – to the Smart Growth Subcabinet. This subcabinet is a group of state government officials tasked with implementing PlanMaryland.
Hall said that despite the high profile pushback against the plan, most people involved in local planning have been fairly easy to work with. He has already discussed the plan with one county, and both county and state agreed on everything within a few hours.
However, Hall and O’Malley also have to fight the negative press that the plan has received. Hall said that the bottom line is that there are people who oppose smart growth, period.
O’Malley said that underneath all of the rhetoric, most people do support smart growth and they want the state’s natural treasures – like the Eastern Shore, the mountains of Western Maryland, and the abundant farmland – to be preserved for future generations. However, he said, planning is a hard thing. The American ethic values ownership of wide-open spaces and property rights. But on the other hand, there’s the somewhat conflicting belief that everyone is a part of the situation of controlling growth in Maryland, and that by working together, the situation will improve.
“This is something we did because of the shared reality we have,” O’Malley said. “This is not a substitute for local decisions.”
Still controversy
Because the final draft was not released before O’Malley accepted it, very few people who had been opposed to it had read it by Monday afternoon.
Les Knapp of the Maryland Association of Counties had read through the plan. His verdict was that while the Department of Planning had incorporated many of the changes MACo had suggested, there were still big issues that concern him.
“This is a plan with many critical blanks,” Knapp said.
For starters, he said, despite what Hall may say about the plan being an opportunity for local planning boards and the state to collaborate on planning, it still appears that the Smart Growth Subcabinet will have final say on how the maps are drawn. Also, he said, the revised plan does not indicate how disagreements over planning between local planners and the state will be resolved.
There are also few details in how planning area and state implementation guidelines will be set. And MACo’s other major concern is that projects will be denied – regardless of funding availability or local approval – if they do not fit with what is outlined in PlanMaryland.
State Senate Minority Leader E.J. Pipkin, who has been at the forefront of protesting the plan, said that he has started to look deep into what the new draft plan says.
His biggest problem so far is that O’Malley instituted the plan as an executive order instead of having the General Assembly review it first. Pipkin offered legislation during the special legislative session in October that would require legislative approval of any statewide planning document, and he vowed to bring it to the General Assembly again in January. Pipkin questioned O’Malley’s motivation.
“Why is he being so arrogant, and what is he afraid of?” Pipkin asked.
Maryland Farm Bureau Assistant Director of Government Relations Kurt Fuchs said that the executive order was also a problem with his members. They approved a policy statement this month saying PlanMaryland should be submitted to the legislature for its approval.
Carroll County Commissioner Richard Rothschild, an outspoken critic of the plan, had not seen the newest version on Monday. He also agreed that it should have gone through the General Assembly for approval.
“If we are going to keep our constitutional republic, I do not believe issuing the plan by executive fiat is appropriate,” Rothschild said.[
By Megan Poinski
Gren Whitman says
Senator Pipkin can bluster, bloviate, and bleat — his shopworn M.O. — but Governor O’Malley has wisely ignored him and, adhering to the General Assembly’s instructions, has put into effect a plan for sensible long-term growth in our state.
PlanMaryland is assuredly not “an attack on rural Maryland,” as our esteemed senator would have us believe. Pipkin’s tirades notwithstanding, it’s just the opposite. Because PlanMaryland encourages development in areas already developed and discourages development in places where development should be discouraged, it actually protects rural areas.
Thank you, Mr. O’Malley, for sticking to your guns and implementing this rational plan — decades in the making — for state-wide growth. And a tip o’ the hat to ye, Martin, for recognizing hot air for what it is.
Win Trice says
If this action does not violate the MD constitution, it should.
Regardless of what you may think of this bill, the Governor should not have the power to usurp county powers by Executive Order.
Steve Payne says
It’s not a bill or legislation.
I wish it would say more specifically which state “incentives” are at risk (if any) if a locality does not enter into the cooperative plan .
Keith Thompson says
Gren writes “Because PlanMaryland encourages development in areas already developed and discourages development in places where development should be discouraged, it actually protects rural areas.”
I see three potential problems with this scenario…one from the point of view of the power (or lack thereof) of local governments; one from the point of view of property owner rights, and one from the point of view of potential tax revenue.
The first problem is making the assumption that the state knows best on where a locality should welcome development and where it should limit development. If the state has gotten it wrong and the current development plan isn’t working for a locality or if circumstances change in this locality, the locality is effectively stuck and unable to adjust without state permission.
The second problem is that such a state policy puts a greater strain on the rights of a property owner. For example; if development is strictly limited, the value a family farm that either fails economically or ceases to be profitable due to the retirement of the owner, is limited if the seller is limited to what he or she can do with the property. A property owner stands a much better chance of making their case to a board of commissioners than to the governor.
The final problem is that if a property’s value is limited due to the lack of ability to develop it, it likely creates a drop in the property’s value meaning a drop in property tax revenue. Also as it sits vacant, it creates absolutely no commercial revenue.
I certainly think the state’s plan is well meaning in intent but given the favoritism given to the more urban counties in the state (see Bay Bridge toll hikes to help pay for the Inter County Connector), I don’t think rural counties can trust the best intentions of the state and should have more autonomy to make their own calls.
Steve Payne says
Keith Thompson says:
Gren writes “Because PlanMaryland encourages development in areas already developed and discourages development in places where development should be discouraged, it actually protects rural areas.”
“””The first problem is making the assumption that the state knows best on where a locality should welcome development and where it should limit development. If the state has gotten it wrong and the current development plan isn’t working for a locality or if circumstances change in this locality, the locality is effectively stuck and unable to adjust without state permission.”””
———————————————————–
The Plan doesn’t change the existing law and take away anything from the localities. See Pages 13,16,100 and others in the plan.
Existing law: https://planning.maryland.gov/PDF/OurWork/CompPlans/Article_66B.pdf
“”The second problem is that such a state policy puts a greater strain on the rights of a property owner. For example; if development is strictly limited, the value a family farm that either fails economically or ceases to be profitable due to the retirement of the owner, is limited if the seller is limited to what he or she can do with the property. A property owner stands a much better chance of making their case to a board of commissioners than to the governor.””
—————————–
Same as above.
Also some areas have enacted transfer development rights areas where the zoning code allows owners to sell their development rights to other property owners who want to develop a property that is located in or near existing public infrastructure or is designated by the Comp plan to be in an area where development is preferred. The TDR sellers then have to place conservation easements on the land.
This seems like a win win.
“”I don’t think rural counties can trust the best intentions of the state and should have more autonomy to make their own calls.””
————————-
They still have that right.
Keith Thompson says
@Steve,
My response to Gren is more geared around his general statement favoring state planning over local planning than it is with the specifics of Plan Maryland.
What puzzles me about your statements that PlanMaryland doesn’t really change existing law begs the question why the governor is spending so much time and money on it in the first place.
John Seidel says
Keith, the answer to why so much time has been spent on this plan is pretty simple. In 1974, the General Assembly and then Gov. Marvin Mandel recognized that the pace of development was increasing rapidly and determined that the state needed a comprehensive land-use plan. It was a good idea. If you want to know where you want to go – or don’t want to go – it helps to have plan.
After a great deal of debate, and modifications designed to prevent the usurpation of local authority, the GA passed a bill requiring a state-wide, comprehensive land-use plan. But the plan was never written. To his credit, O’Malley identified this as a huge gap and told MDP to get with and write the plan. As Steve says above, this doesn’t really change any legislation that currently is in place. What it’s designed to do is to take a lot of piece-meal and scattered policy and regulation and put it in one place, so that everyone can see what the overall picture is. From that standpoint, it makes a lot of sense.
Ken Noble says
Exactly Keith. Dig deeply and you may even find EHRLICH jumping on some part of the smart growth bandwagon at the end of his reign, although you can bet he would deny that now! As I have said before, PlanMaryland: A. Is not a plan. and, B. Is an encyclopedia of solutions looking for specific problems to address.
Perhaps this type of rehashing and linking of disparate policy goals into ONE document is needed. I still feel that any decently trained planner (I mean a real American Planning Association Planner)) will use more than just this document to promulgate land use, transportation, economic development, housing, ecological protection and environmental quality goals as they do. For me, reading that thing was kind of like “duhhh”….it’s all in the MDP library at West Preston Street and it looks like we paid staff to unshelve books and type in MicroSoft Office for a year and pump out static GIS maps (designed for dynamic display). Even this is more than what may have happened on West Preston Street otherwise….
Having made that cogent point as a former employee of the place, I do like the verbiage regarding interagency coordination on these issues. From the Governor’s chair, that alone may be why Martin felt compelled to do this. If you have ever sat in a room full of mid level managers from four or five different agencies, each making over 95K a year, and EACH with what seems to be similar jobs you’d want some thought put towards redundant efforts, if nothing else. I have, and the turf battling and protection is what drives the day. It’s dumb.
Senator Pipken may felt compelled to verbalize some rural angst and jealousy because parts of Maryland have prospered incredibly (Bethesda, Towson, Silver Spring, FREDERICK) while others just languish in relative historic decline….which, frankly, a lot of us are more comfortable with anyway. It is easier just to sell these people stuff at our farmer’s markets.
No big news here really….MACO is right…where is the beef? (money to write plans, select, implement and evaluate them….?)
Gren Whitman says
Steve and Keith view PlanMaryland as more complicated than it really is. At its core, PM is a common-sense approach to planning and regulating growth in all parts of the state. It says we should focus growth and development in the areas that are already urbanized, with infrastructure in place. Protect rural areas by channeling most development to the cities and suburbs.
It’s that simple.
If any part of it violates state law or the state constitution, someone who claims injury can file a complaint in court, always a remedy if appropriate.
As far as the value of farm land is concerned, only X-number of farms can be paved over before we start to run out of food-growing acres!
Win Trice says
It is a deception that few are deceived by, to say Counties retain choice, when the mechanism is put in place to punish a County for exercising choice via the witholding of necessary State funds.
It is a conceit to say residents and leadership of Annapolis are in any way more wise than the residents of the Counties.
“Sustainable Growth” is a defined term. It means perpetual no growth, with the acknowledgement that this DOES mean perpetual economic recession. Which the proponents wave away with the belief we would all be somehow happier in poverty, so long as critters like the endangered dwarf wedge mussel has the mud quality it needs. Look it up, because I am not joking.
This is a sad turn of events for Maryland, and awful for the Shore.
Keith Thompson says
@John Seidel,
Would your opinion of PlanMaryland, or statewide planning in general, be different if Chestertown’s riverfront plan including Washington College’s riverfront campus went against the planning wishes out of Annapolis? Would preserving the town’s riverfront be a better idea if the state was either pushing it or mandating it? Whether or not a town-funded riverfront development plan is a good idea or not (and I support the idea), I think it is vital that Chestertown is making those decisions and not the state.
Steve Payne says
@Gren Whitman
I think the document is more complicated than necessary but Smart growth is simple, as you say.
@Win Trice
I agree that the carrots and sticks need to be better defined at some point.
Gren Whitman says
@ Win Trice
Mr. Trice attempts to define “sustainable growth” as “perpetual no growth, with the acknowledgement that this DOES mean perpetual economic recession.”
It seems pretty obvious that Mr. Trice’s definition is a far off the mark; let me gently suggest that perhaps he just hasn’t given this critical matter sufficient thought.
Fortunately for you, me, and Mr. T., the U.N.’s World Commission on Environment and Development has given this a great deal of thought, and it’s definition of sustainable development is “meeting present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Perhaps Mr. Trice will reconsider his position.
Win Trice says
@ Gren Whitman
I have spent hours going through the academic discussions of this policy, including the economic discussions of the implications all wrtten by the policy advocates. I suggest you do the same, but get past the fluffy cheerleading and into the meat of the topic.
I am smiling when I see your reference to the UN Environmental group. Thank you for partially making my point. This policy is all about maximizing the environment, at the expense of killing prosperity for people.
Advocate that, and vote that way if you wish, but let’s be honest about it.
All policy has implications, good and bad. What would YOU say are the negative implications of this policy?
DLaMotte says
Plan Maryland is a good start for our state. Human “growth” ,evidently, can take longer…