Kent County’s elected officials are betting on growth to solve the monumental financial obligations they face. However, upon examining the circumstances that have led to the convergence of numerous neglected infrastructure projects – schools, roads, detention center, and courthouse – it becomes evident that the development of warehousing and other projects along the 301 corridor is a continuation of a Ponzi Scheme.
The county is banking on new revenues from the Everton Distribution Project as well as other 301 corridor developments to offset current obligations and Kirwin. However, the Cost of Community Services Study (COCS) conducted by the American Farmland Trust shows that for every dollar received from industrial/commercial developments, $0.64 is needed to maintain county services. This amounts to only about one-third of expected property tax revenues being free of encumbrance. However, the county will allocate all revenue from these new development to existing obligations without considering the long-term costs of the deferred maintenance and COCS they have just obligated themselves to.
Ironically, any future development, such as restaurants, convenience stores, or gas stations, would be delayed due to the lack of necessary sewer allocations, Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU), from Millington’s wastewater treatment plant. The proposed warehouse project is likely to utilize any remaining capacity. Consequently, new development would have to be postponed until a new proposed wastewater treatment facility is constructed, along with the necessary water and sewer delivery infrastructure. This new plant will create debt and future maintenance liabilities.
Unfortunately, we do not know the actual financial impacts of mega-sized projects or how they compare to the benefits of other types of development because our officials have not undertaken any thorough economic analysis.
Lest we forget, there have been no thoughtful discussions at the governance level of the cost associated with environmental harms, specifically addressed in our Comprehensive Plan, associated with the proliferation of steel, concrete, and asphalt, as well as the pollution from exhaust fumes emitted by trucks and cars. These have costs that are being ignored despite their negative impacts on the quality of life in Kent County.
It is easy for those residents and their governing bodies in Rock Hall, Galena, and Chestertown to voice support since they will not be impacted by the activity, traffic, and pollution that would degrade their quality of life. It is Millington’s Town Council that understands that the text amendment being enacted to increase the height of industrial buildings by Kent County, on property that has already been agreed upon to be annexed, usurps their ability to guide development with building standards they believe best complement Millington’s residents. This is why they oppose the height text amendment. Furthermore, it is those who live in this sacrifice zone, masquerading as economic development for the county, who will lose.
It is important to recognize that Ponzi Schemes are inherently precarious, challenging to sustain, and ultimately will impact everyone in some way or another.
Janet Christensen-Lewis
Kent County
Sian Salsbury says
I am a resident of Galena and I don’t approve of this project. I am frustrated by the lack of services on 301 corridor between Queenstown and Middletown. I drive between Galena and Sudlersville for work and there is not one easily accessible gas station. Let’s put a few of those in as opposed to ugly warehouses. Why waste water and sewer resources on a project that doesn’t directly benefit residents?
Stephen Z. Meehan says
Your premise is flawed. Beyond the property tax revenue, jobs for workers who turn into residents result in income tax. Then there is just the residual benefit of another commercial enterprise requiring services and goods.
Kent County is in a real pickle. More like self-imposed slow death. Since the mid-1980s, the County has been committed to the dream of being a no growth county – meaning no appreciable residential growth – in favor of protecting farm land. At the same time, farm land has remained taxed at favorably low rates for large landowners, and certainly not subject to a preservation tax. Its logical that if you plan for no new appreciable population growth (including driving the young Kent Countians out) that fuels income tax and you do not tax landowners for the no growth protection, the result is tax and spending quagmire.
It’s probably too late to grow out of it and I have not heard of Ms. Christensen-Lewis or other large landowners promoting a tax catch up on their end.
In the meantime, the Planning Office should carry out its mandate to apply the Comprehensive Plan to encourage industrial growth where identified.
Liz Smith says
Janet Christensen-Lewis, your points are relevant and well made. One need only drive to Elkton and hang a left onto route 40 and travel along that corridor to be impressed by the proliferation of huge distribution centers that are springing up. Not only are they out of scale with everything around them, they have the appearance of being largely uninhabited. They are soulless.
I would suggest that our County leadership, along with a committee that truly understands development, have some serious discussions with our county to the north to glean the impact of these kinds of facilities on the local economy and environment. I suspect it may be an eye opener. The temptation to grab the dangling carrot as a solution to our multi-faceted challenges, is indeed alluring to some, but I think we may regret being so easily impressed.
It is true that many take no issue because it won’t be in their back yard, but is this the landscape that has long term viability? I think there are too many unanswered questions and a deficit of foresight if we are simply tempted to grab the lowest hanging fruit.
Deirdre LaMotte says
I agree totally. Why should we let a part of Kent County be a hideous landscape of, please, warehouses?
Where is the creativity? Why should good farmland, albeit next to a highway/parkway, be paved over
for jobs that robots will be doing, or minimum wage no future positions? And you are correct. LOL, try putting this near Chestertown instead of the purposed solar farm and people would be up in arms!
If Kent is such serious trouble then can we come to a solution other than paving good farmland for
warehouses. Truly unremarkable and unimpressive. God, can we just not be another ugly Eastern Shore
county? We are the last one. Probably the last one in Maryland.
Stephen Z. Meehan says
Good comment Liz. Kent County has done that with its Comprehensive Plan, which is the official county road map for development in Kent County. https://www.kentcounty.com/planning/compplan
The 301/291 Corridor is designated for commercial development supported by infrastructure expanded off of Millington, and is designated as a Priority Funding Area.
Simply put, this type of development in this area is the charted course, which by law the County cannot deviate from in favor of a different land use with a revision to the Comprehensive Plan.
Michael Bitting says
The whole premise utilized by the Kent Preservation Alliance is flawed. In their own website they highlight the 301 corridor as a place where development should occur. This is keeping with the pattern they have established over the years of deceptive and purposely misleading arguments. The tout their concerns for the environment and care for our watersheds while leaving out the impact of their own land use practices on our watershed. They have no skin in the game when it comes to the need for purposeful economic development. Most are wealthy landowners with no children in the local schools. They own 89% of the land and pay 13% of the taxes. It’s no wonder they care about their precious views more than the future of our children. Also merely from a practical standpoint a taller structure will accommodate the same amount of use with a significantly smaller footprint than a shorter one. I also want to point out that this alliance doesn’t cite their sources when they make claims. If they want to have a discussion then let’s come at it from a verified cost benefit analysis with facts and data rather than cherry picked, uncited inferences. Based on the kent preservation alliances past battles, I would be remiss to take their word as fact.
Deirdre LaMotte says
You are misrepresenting what the Alliance stands for. The development of the 301 corridor should
be in keeping with Kent County, a rural agricultural county. Development needs to reflect this, not be
the exception. Why should our county permit huge warehouses that do nothing for the local landscape
nor the local employment? And why should the 301 corridor be trashed because no one lives on the
highway? It is still our county and we should be discerning citizens with development interest.
Personally, I would love the corridor along 301 to be home to solar farms. Now that is something that will
help Kent County in the 21st century. And how impressive for those driving from other states to see this.
Can we please make our land useful, not paved over? Have we not learned anything?
Michael Bitting says
Well if that’s your argument your website is not aligned with this.
From your website: “ KCPA is not in opposition to data processing centers in Kent County, but there is land zoned for this purpose in the Industrial, Employment and Commercial Zoning Districts that is readily available with the needed fiber and high-power electrical service (data centers use large quantities of both water and power).”
My issue is less with the 301 corridor and more with the inconsistencies and false equivalencies used by the organization. The rhetoric is misleading at best and at worst flat out manipulation. If you want to have an argument, don’t employ deliberate falsehoods to justify your desires. Stick to facts and numbers.
Joy Schauber Kim says
This letter should be read and studied by or county planning department and the County Commissioners.
All county residents who like the county the way it is should be aware of this beginning of Middletown-type development planned for the Millington area.