They concluded that they need to talk more. Mayor Randy McClement made a list of topics to discuss at future meetings: the city’s adequate public facilities ordinance; the income tax projections from the prospective new residents of 10,000 houses; the phasing of development and road needs.

The two governing bodies agreed to collaborate on how to provide housing, schools and jobs for the people who are predicted to move to the city over the next 20 years.

The meeting was the state-mandated conference between the two bodies to discuss the municipal growth element section of the city’s updated comprehensive plan. The plan was approved in November as a guide to development over the next 20 years.

The municipal growth element section divides the development potential into two tiers: Tier 1 is for infill and redevelopment; tier 2 is for planned growth in the northeast and covered by the Potomac River Water Supply Agreement.

A swath of land in the county that borders on the city’s north and east boundary, designated as Tier 3, is shown on the land use map in the plan. Tier 3 land is not projected for city annexation or development for more than 30 years and is not part of the official growth element, said Joe Adkins, the city’s deputy director for planning.

County Commissioners President Jan Gardner disputed whether Tier 3 land could be included on the map if the city did not officially account for the cost of its potential development. A long-discussed but not officially planned north-south road lies in that swath.

Gardner said that if Tier 3 is included on the map the city must provide economic analyses of potential development of the land, as it had for Tiers 1 and 2.

Tiers 1 and 2 are predicted to be built out in 20 years. Over that time they are estimated to generate an average of 500 houses per year; 300,000 square feet of commercial development per year; 18,000 employees; two elementary schools, one middle school, and three-quarters of a high school; school impact fees worth $150 million, or 60 percent of the cost of those schools; a need for 54 police officers; an additional $4.5 million in revenue for the fire tax.

County commissioners David Gray, Kai Hagen, John L. Thompson Jr. and Gardner told city officials all taxpayers bear the burden of the cost to provide the schools, roads and fire-rescue services of development. City aldermen Michael O’Connor, Karen Young and Shelley Aloi said job growth would provide revenue that had not been included in the analysis.

“There’s no single-bullet answer to this,” O’Connor said.

“There’s a lot of minutiae to discuss,” Hagen said.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=106259

Originally published June 17, 2010

By Patti S. Borda

News-Post Staff

In his letter to your newspaper on May 23, Thomas Lynch, a principal in the law firm of Miles and Stockbridge, issued a call for “serious, honest and consensus-seeking discussion” about development in our county. We support this call — an informed and respectful exchange is long overdue.

Topic number one in our mind is the cost of development. By cost, we mean the financial costs of public services and facilities required to support development.

We believe that much of the development inFrederick County — particularly subdivision and commercial sprawl — costs far more than the tax revenues it generates. This gap between costs and revenues largely explains, in our judgment, why our roads and schools are overcrowded, why our taxes keep going up, and why we face the most severe budgetary crisis in decades. After all, if sprawl development actually paid its own way, then none of these problems would ever arise.

One reason this gap persists is that the full costs of development are often overlooked during planning and approval of large-scale development. A case in point is the 2010 Comprehensive Plan proposed by the City of Frederick . The city’s “financial analysis” of this plan projects a surplus in revenues for the city if the plan is implemented.

This projection was made, however, only after most of the cost of building and maintaining county and state roads, and the cost of building and operating county public schools, had been excluded. These costs, which have been reliably estimated to exceed $1 billion over the 20-year life of the plan, were apparently ignored because they would be paid by some other agency or jurisdiction, and not by the city itself.

As we know, however, the cost of development all comes out of the same pocket — that of the county taxpayer — regardless of which government agency or jurisdiction pays the bill. Any projected surplus in revenues under the city’s plan is misleading because it would depend entirely on a subsidy by county taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars. In other words, the city’s plan would simply rob Peter to pay Paul.

We ought to be able to accurately calculate the cost of development. It can’t be that hard. Roads and schools are the big-ticket items. Fire and emergency services, libraries, parks, and water and waste management facilities are also costly. As Lynch points out, our community is home to many informed, talented and resourceful citizens. Working together, as he proposes, we can begin to distinguish between those developments that we can afford and those that we cannot.

Fortunately, Maryland law now requires precisely this kind of analysis. The goal of this new requirement is to ensure that all costs of development — and not just those paid by one jurisdiction or agency — are fully disclosed and considered in the municipal land-use planning process. Under these new requirements, for example, the county and the city are currently evaluating the development costs associated with the city’s proposed 2010 Comprehensive Plan and will present their findings at a public workshop at 7 p.m. Monday, June 7, in the boardroom of Frederick City Hall, 101 N. Court St.

We are fortunate that the Board of County Commissioners foresaw four years ago that, when it came to development, we were living far beyond our means. By acting immediately to correct the mistakes of the past, the board avoided further risks to the fiscal integrity of our county and gave us a plan for a balanced and, above all, an affordable future.

We welcome Thomas Lynch’s call for a new dialogue. Let’s start with the math.

Janice Wiles is executive director

of Friends of Frederick County.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=105837

Often I hear the statement, “Frederick County will grow by 50,000 people in the next ….years…we have to be ready for that…”  Then, the discussion ensues about land annexations, road expansions, services, schools, etc., without any real discussion about the very first statement…that Frederick Co. will grow.

My concern is that first statement.  We have a say in that growth…it is NOT a fait accompli. Those 50,000, 100,000, 150,000 people are NOT just going to arrive at our doorstep.  They will NOT come if there are not the jobs, housing, roads, etc. to accommodate them.  At first, I realize that that sounds harsh and backward, but in reality, SMART growth concerns the PLANNED increase in population…not just the reaction to it!

I will leave the statistics about jobs, taxes and the hidden costs of growth to others.  I DO think they are important; however, my passion is about something a little less tangible and nonetheless important. It concerns our legacy.  No one reading this will be here 100 years from now, and in 100 years, no one currently on this planet will remember us.  Whether we’re here 10, 50, or 100 years, it’s over quickly.  We will be known only by our legacy.  Beyond our own children, are our childrens’ children, and their children, and theirs. What do we want to leave them to remember our having been here?

I grew up in the countryside of Baltimore County.  I ran and played for hours in the woods, beside the streams, in the fields.  My family ate the lambs we raised, corn from the local farmer, drank milk from the local dairy and bought eggs from the lady nearby who raised chickens.

We were lean and healthy.  Our water was pure, and the air was fresh and clean.  Television had just been invented, so the outdoors was our world.

What will tomorrow’s children know of these things?  As I watch the farmland disappear; the woods, too; and learn of the pollutants in our lakes and streams; the high rate of cancer in our state and this county, especially; when I see the obesity of our children (and adults), and the lack of outdoor areas for children to play, other than the little playgrounds in the developments (small concessions to the need for exercise); when I see the paucity of food available that is not filled with chemicals, genetically modified, filled with antibiotics and whose actual freshness is unknown; when I see the deer lying on the road because of our destruction of their habitats; I cry deep inside.

In our striving for “growth”, which seems to mean more and more – more cookie cutter housing, more Wal-Marts, more shopping malls, more money in developers’ pockets and votes at the ballot box for those who supported them – I see gross examples of man’s mismanagement of the planet. It’s a runaway train.  We must stop it now, and it starts with US.  While we are satisfying our desires for more and more, we are leaving our children and our children’s children with less and less of lasting value.  We can have growth, and have it responsibly and thoughtfully.  Let’s preserve our resources and leave a legacy of thoughtful growth that generations to come will enjoy.

Kate Carter, New Market

Mandatory Adoption

Every municipality in Maryland is required to adopt a “municipal growth element” as part of its comprehensive plan.  The initial deadline for meeting this requirement was October 1, 2009.  For good cause shown, the Maryland Department of Planning may grant up to two six month extensions of this deadline — to either April 1, 2010 or October 1, 2010.

The Maryland Legislature has provided for the suspension of zoning authority in any municipality that fails to adopt a municipal growth element within the prescribed time limits.  By establishing this extraordinary penalty, the Legislature has underscored its commitment to sound planning at the municipal level.

Download the Municipal Growth Element Fact Sheet here.

Purpose

In developing its growth element, a municipality must, among other things, evaluate and disclose the potential impacts of its planned growth on county-wide services and facilities (e.g. roads; schools; water and sewer; parks; fire and emergency services etc.).  This information, in turn, will enable the county to project the likely costs of accommodating proposed municipal growth plans.

Mandatory Consultation

A municipal corporation is required to consult with the county in developing a municipal growth element.  In the course of this consultation, the county may provide the municipality with information related to the cost to the county of accommodating proposed municipal growth.

Mandatory Period of Review and Comment

A municipal corporation is also required to provide a copy of its proposed municipal growth element to the county and, for a period of 30 days thereafter, to accept comments from the county.  In its comments on the municipal growth element, the county may request additional information on the impacts of planned growth on county-wide services and facilities.  The county may also request that the municipality decrease the size of its planned growth area where (i) county-wide services and facilities are not sufficient to accommodate municipal growth plans; and (ii) the county will not in the foreseeable future have the resources to expand its infrastructure to accommodate this planned municipal growth.

Mandatory Meeting of County and Municipal Officials

Within 30 days following the close of the comment period, the county and the municipal corporation “shall meet and confer regarding the municipal growth element.”

This meeting provides the county and municipality an opportunity to resolve differences of opinion regarding (i) the likely costs to the county of municipal growth, as proposed; and (ii) the appropriate size of the planned growth area.  According to the Maryland Department of Planning, “HB 1141 mandates that jurisdictions meet and confer on this subject before the municipal growth element can be adopted.”

Mediation by the Maryland Department of Planning

Following this meeting, “on the request of either party”, the county and the municipality shall employ the mediation and conflict resolution office of the Maryland Department of Planning to resolve any remaining differences of opinion.  The Maryland Department of Planning has stated that:

Good planning dictates that the municipality and county agree on those land areas that will someday become part of the municipality.

City of Frederick

101 North Court Street

Frederick, Maryland 21701

Re:         The City’s Municipal Growth Element

Dear Mr. Mayor:

Based on information that only recently came to our attention, we believe that the City of Frederick failed to comply with Maryland law in its adoption on November 19, 2009 of a “municipal growth element” to its comprehensive plan. In particular, we understand that the City, under the prior Administration, did not fulfill its obligation to “meet and confer” with the county, as required by Section 3.05(e)(6) of Article 66B.  We therefore write to request that the City’s municipal growth element be rescinded and made subject to further proceedings, as required by state law.  We ask that you respond to this request within 10 days so that we may consider further appropriate steps at that time.

We would also note that under Article 66B, a municipality’s zoning authority is suspended by operation of law after October 1, 2009, unless a valid municipal growth element has been adopted by that date, or an extension of the October 1, 2009 deadline has been granted by the Maryland Department of Planning. Section 3.05(f)(3).  If, as we believe, the City’s process for adopting its municipal growth element was deficient, any zoning actions taken by the City thereafter would appear to be subject to successful legal challenge, absent an extension of the initial statutory deadline.  Our views in this matter are more fully explained below.

Section 3.05(a)(x)(1) of Article 66B requires that every municipality in Maryland adopt a municipal growth element which, among other things, depicts planned growth, including annexations.  A primary purpose of this growth element is to fully disclose the potential impacts of proposed annexations on county-funded public services and facilities, such as schools, water and sewer, parks, law enforcement, and fire and emergency medical services.

In the past, these impacts have largely been ignored and resulted in both a severe decline in the adequacy of county services and facilities and dramatic increases in the tax burden on county residents.  To ensure that these “hidden costs” of annexations and sprawl are no

longer overlooked, state law now requires “a far more detailed and quantitative analysis of future growth” and an “examination of the effects of growth on infrastructure [both] within and adjacent to the present municipality and on future growth areas that may be annexed.” (Maryland Department of Planning, “Managing Maryland’s Growth: Writing the Municipal Growth Element to the Comprehensive Plan”, May 2007, p.1.)

Prior to adopting a municipal growth element, a municipality is required to “meet and confer” with the county in regard to proposed annexations.  As noted by the Maryland Department of Planning,

HB 1141 [amending Article 66B] mandates that jurisdictions meet and confer on this subject before the municipal growth element can be adopted. (Id. at p.3)

As part of this meeting, a county may request additional, detailed information on the impacts of proposed annexations on county-funded public services and facilities.  Based on this information, the county may also request that a municipality decrease the size of, or even eliminate, proposed annexations from planned growth areas.  Such a request would be particularly appropriate where (i) existing county-wide services and facilities were not sufficient to accommodate these proposed annexations and development; and (ii) the county was not prepared to accept a decline in the adequacy of its public services and facilities or to require that county taxpayers further subsidize the infrastructure costs of municipal growth.  As the Maryland Department of Planning has put it,

Good planning dictates that the municipality and county agree on those land areas that will someday become part of the municipality. (Id.at p.3)

Where agreement on proposed annexations is not reached at this meeting, a municipality and county are required, “on the request of either party”, to employ the Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office of the Maryland Department of Planning.  A municipality may not adopt a municipal growth element prior to the conclusion of this process.  Article 66B, Section 3.05 (e)(6)(ii).

As you know, the Board of County Commissioners strongly opposes municipal annexations which pose risks to the public health and safety or may impose additional tax burdens on the residents of Frederick County.  In her letter to the City dated September 2, 2009, for example, Jan H. Gardner, President of the Board of County Commissioners, expressed Frederick County‘s opposition to the  COPT/Thatcher and Crumland Farm annexations on grounds that they would (i) “only exacerbate an already dangerous situation” on U.S. 15; (ii) “worsen school overcrowding”; and (iii) jeopardize the adequacy of county fire and emergency medical services.  Ms. Gardner also noted that “it is premature to assume that sewer capacity for these properties will exist.”

Finally, in closing, Ms. Gardner requested that the Mayor and Board of Alderman “set aside time to discuss these issues” with the Board of County Commissioners. That request was never honored.

Under HB 1141, a municipality may no longer simply refuse to “meet and confer” on its plans for future growth.  In this case, the county was already on record in opposition to two of the City’s proposed annexations.  The county had also expressed on many occasions its concerns generally about plans for municipal annexations and the financial hardship that annexations may impose on county taxpayers.

Despite the express requirements of Maryland law, however, and the clear disagreement over issues of municipal growth, the City’s prior Administration ignored its responsibility to “meet and confer” with the county and thereby circumvented its obligation to submit any unresolved conflicts to Maryland’s Office of Mediation and Conflict Resolution.  We believe these failures to comply with state law will have a direct bearing on the amount of taxes assessed by the City and county in future years.

In these circumstances, we believe that the municipal growth element adopted on November 19, 2009 is legally invalid and that the City’s zoning authority has  been suspended by operation of law. To remove this legal cloud over its zoning authority, and forestall judicial challenges to its zoning decisions, the City must rescind its municipal growth element and proceed to comply fully with the requirements of  Maryland law.  We respectfully request that it does so.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Richard Wiles, 22 Clarke Place, Frederick MD  21701

Ed Hinde, 601 Magnolia Av, Frederick MD  21701

Felix Flanagan, 1033 N Market St, Frederick MD  21701

Ken Eidel, 425 N Market St, Frederick MD  21701

Aaron Valentino, 412 N. Market St. Apt. 12, Frederick MD  21701

Amy Farber, 1600 Marker Rd, Middletown, MD  21769

Kate Carter, 10696 Oakridge Ct., New Market, MD 21774

Marcel Aillery, 3710 Tuck Avenue, Point of Rocks MD   21777

As individual property owners and taxpayers of the City and County of Frederick  and as representatives of Friends of Frederick County.

cc:         The Board of Alderman: Shelley Aloi, Carol Krimm, Michael O’Connor, Kelly Russell, Karen Young

Read the facts about the process.

Mandatory Adoption

Every municipality in Maryland is required to adopt a “municipal growth element” as part of its comprehensive plan. The initial deadline for meeting this requirement was October 1, 2009. For good cause shown, the Maryland Department of Planning may grant up to two six month extensions of this deadline — to either April 1, 2010 or October 1, 2010.

The Maryland Legislature has provided for the suspension of zoning authority in any municipality that fails to adopt a municipal growth element within the prescribed time limits. By establishing this extraordinary penalty, the Legislature has underscored its commitment to sound planning at the municipal level.

Purpose

In developing its growth element, a municipality must, among other things, evaluate and disclose the potential impacts of its planned growth on county-wide services and facilities (e.g. roads; schools; water and sewer; parks; fire and emergency services etc.). This information, in turn, will enable the county to project the likely costs of accommodating proposed municipal growth plans.

Mandatory Consultation

A municipal corporation is required to consult with the county in developing a municipal growth element. In the course of this consultation, the county may provide the municipality with information related to the cost to the county of accommodating proposed municipal growth.

Mandatory Period of Review and Comment

A municipal corporation is also required to provide a copy of its proposed municipal growth element to the county and, for a period of 30 days thereafter, to accept comments from the county. In its comments on the municipal growth element, the county may request additional information on the impacts of planned growth on county-wide services and facilities. The county may also request that the municipality decrease the size of its planned growth area where (i) county-wide services and facilities are not sufficient to accommodate municipal growth plans; and (ii) the county will not in the foreseeable future have the resources to expand its infrastructure to accommodate this planned municipal growth.

Mandatory Meeting of County and Municipal Officials

Within 30 days following the close of the comment period, the county and the municipal corporation “shall meet and confer regarding the municipal growth element.”

This meeting provides the county and municipality an opportunity to resolve differences of opinion regarding (i) the likely costs to the county of municipal growth, as proposed; and (ii) the appropriate size of the planned growth area. According to the Maryland Department of Planning, “HB 1141 mandates that jurisdictions meet and confer on this subject before the municipal growth element can be adopted.”

Mediation by the Maryland Department of Planning

Following this meeting, “on the request of either party”, the county and the municipality shall employ the mediation and conflict resolution office of the Maryland Department of Planning to resolve any remaining differences of opinion. The Maryland Department of Planning has stated that:  Good planning dictates that the municipality and county agree on those land areas that will someday become part of the municipality.

download fact sheet here:  Municipal Growth Element FACT SHEET

By Adam Behsudi
News-Post Staff

A smart-growth advocacy group is contesting the City of Frederick comprehensive plan, saying it does not comply with state law.

Friends of Frederick County sent a letter to Mayor Randy McClement, stating that the city did not confer with Frederick County officials about a part of the plan that discusses Frederick ’s anticipated growth areas.

“It is about the process, because if it’s not aired and discussed É we know the consequences,” said Janice Wiles, executive director of the nonprofit group, which monitors and advocates local growth issues.

The comprehensive plan, approved in November, guides the city’s growth for a 20-year period.

The plan outlines a municipal growth element, which identifies areas of Frederick County the city could eventually expand into.

State law, amended in 2006, requires the city to consult with the county about its growth.

“The city did send their draft plan to the county for comments, but we did not meet and confer about the municipal growth element,” Frederick County Commissioners President Jan Gardner said.

She acknowledged a learning curve with the new requirements. The last city comprehensive plan was adopted in 2004.

City Hall’s legal staff will review the requirements for presenting the municipal growth element, according to McClement’s office.

Gardner said the commissioners have not discussed the legal requirements with county planning staff.

“The intent of the law is to encourage a dialogue between municipal and county elected officials to coordinate plans, both short-term and long-term,” she said.

Although the growth element of the comprehensive plan applies to properties not yet annexed, Frederick ’s growth came under county scrutiny last year when the city annexed two large farms on its northern border. County commissioners said development of the farms will not be supported by proper infrastructure, including roads and sewer service.

Gardner said some growth areas in the city’s comprehensive plan do not account for the water and sewer service the county would need to provide.

Then-Mayor Jeff Holtzinger vetoed the comprehensive plan for that very reason.

He objected to adding parcels to the north and east of Frederick as potential future growth areas because they extended beyond the boundaries set in a city-county water supply agreement.

The water supply agreement will allow the city to expand its public water resources, but only to a certain area. Beyond that, Holtzinger said the city could face challenges procuring the necessary public water.

The properties he objected to are considered third-tier growth areas where development is not anticipated for 25 years or more.

Holtzinger’s veto was overridden by the Board of Aldermen.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=100618

Letter to the Editor
September 03, 2009

It is unfortunate that city and county elected officials are debating the Crum and Thatcher annexations in the letters to the editor. It would be much more productive if the majority of the city elected officials would have met with the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners as requested to discuss the issues surrounding these annexations.

A recent change to the annexation proposal identifies a new school site within the proposed development as requested by Frederick County Public Schools. This will allow a future school to be considered for state funding. However, the city’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance will permit development to proceed even though Monocacy Elementary School, which serves the area, is currently at 114 percent of capacity. It appears the city officials expect taxpayers to build a new school or expect students to deal with extreme overcrowding. It should not be lost on city residents that this decision will potentially delay the needed renovation of Frederick High School because new school seats not currently in the plan will be needed in the city.

The City of Frederick does not have sewer capacity to serve these proposed developments, and no agreement exists with the county to provide sewer. City officials agree that there is no sewer capacity yet claim to have planned adequately for these projects. The ability to flush is essential!

The mayor and Alderman Paul Smith do not dispute that the city has not required the developers to pay for the needed transportation improvements/interchange on U.S. 15. Thus, this burden shifts to the taxpayers. Worse yet, the city is agreeing to allow the construction of 350 to 450 new houses prior to any improvements on U.S. 15. This will exacerbate existing traffic safety issues at the crossover on U.S. 15 to Hayward Road and Willow Road. The county commissioners agree with the Maryland State Highway Administration that public safety will be at risk if these developments proceed without a new grade-separated interchange. Public safety should come first.

Fire and emergency medical services have not been discussed with the county commissioners and the city does not consider fire and rescue in evaluating adequate public facilities. There is no fire station anywhere near these proposed properties or even on the west side of U.S. 15. Who will build and staff this fire/EMS station? This cost will shift to the taxpayers.

It is absolutely clear that sewer, schools, roads and fire/EMS are not adequate and have not been fully considered or planned for by city officials. I urge the mayor and aldermen to pause, meet with the commissioners, and develop plans including funding before approving these annexations. Otherwise, the taxpayers will be stuck with overcrowded schools, safety hazards on U.S. 15, and a bill to pick up the tab!

Slow down and avoid another mistake.

Jan H. Gardner is president of the Frederick County Board of County Commissioners.

http://www.fredericknewspost.com…

“At present, the extension of public water and sewer service into annexed land need only be consistent with either the County’s Comprehensive Plan or the annexing municipality’s Comprehensive Plan.

Example 1:
Greenacre is a 200 acre farm adjacent to Townsville. Greenacre is designated as “No Planned Service” on the County’s Water & Sewerage Plan. Greenacre lies outside of any 20-year community water & sewer service area on the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Green Acre is designated as “Agriculture” on the County’s Comprehensive Plan. However, Townsville’s Comprehensive Plan designates Greenacre for development as garden apartments on community water & sewer. Townsville annexes Greenacre. Since the extension of community water & sewer into Greenacre is consistent with Townsville’s Comprehensive Plan, an amendment to the County’s Water & Sewerage Plan indicating that community water & sewer service for Greenacre appropriate would likely be approved.

Under my proposal, the extension of public water & sewer service into annexed land would have to be  consistent with both the County’s Comprehensive Plan and the annexing municipality’s Comprehensive Plan.

Example 2.
The facts are the same as in Example 1 except that the County adopted my proposal. Since the extension of community water & sewer into Greenacre is not consistent with the County’s Comprehensive Plan, an amendment to the County’s Water & Sewerage Plan indicating that community water & sewer service for Greenacre appropriate would likely be denied.”

>>>>The argument that building roads causes more traffic problems is a generalization that should never be used as a standard to determine when and where new roads are built.<<<<

If you can show me an example of a municipality that has “built its
way out of” traffic congestion problems, I’ll eat my hat.

Abundant evidence shows that the solution to traffic congestion
problems isn’t to build new roads; it’s to take cars off the existing
ones. I believe we can best do that by building a robust local job
base, pursuing “main street”-style development, and emphasizing more
efficient rail transportation.

There’s $200 billion in stimulus money available to build
infrastructure. Columbia, MD is aggressively pursuing it; I suggest we
do the same. Frederick is well-positioned to get stimulus money to
build out next-generation infrastructure such as modern rail systems.

>>>>The current transit system that we do have (operated by the County) does not pay for itself; it is highly subsidized by the State; and there is no projection that it could become self-sustaining.<<<<

Exactly the same thing could be said about our road systems.

>>>>Both of these properties constitute the northern most areas for development by the city in plans that were adopted at least twenty years ago.<<<<

I think that’s an excellent reason to rethink development in these
areas. Those old plans were created in an environment much different
than the current day, without the knowledge and experience we now
possess.

>>>>Some people argue that the development of the Crumland and Thatcher properties would be “sprawl,” but that is not an accurate description.<<<<

Actually, it is entirely fitting and accurate to describe what’s
planned for these properties as sprawl:

–Put the school out where nobody wants it.
–Segregate the housing into subdivisions.
–Build the office space somewhere else, separate from the housing,
schools, retail, etc.

That’s a textbook example of sprawl.

>>>>The City government is not going to be micromanaging which businesses establish themselves here and which do not.  The City may have a small say in this, but it will be market forces that primarily dictate this.<<<<

When the City allows office parks to be built, that’s exactly what it
does: it micromanages its business climate, and prevents market forces
from working.

Downtown merchants are starving for foot traffic. By putting big
office parks out on the outskirts of town instead of maximizing
downtown office space, the City cripples their ability to survive and
thrive.

By promoting the sprawl development favored by large, mature
companies, the City tilts the playing field against fast-growing
small- and medium-sized firms that benefit from concentrated
development.

I look forward to meeting you; I’ll be sure to introduce myself next
time I see you. Thanks again for your kind response,

Chris Charuhas, Frederick City resident