Sustainable Communities (SB 285/HB 475) Continues the highly successful Historic Tax Credit program and extends the program to key non-historic properties for revitalization. This bill also improves coordination between a number of important revitalization programs including Community Legacy, Maryland Main Streets and Maple Street. This important Smart Growth program was funded at $10 million.

Agricultural Estate Tax Bill (SB 396/HB 1571) The primary purpose is to:  (1) provide farm families with adequate time to make good decisions about the future of their property; (2) provide farm families with an estate tax payment option that better reflects the challenges of the farming community and the current economic climate; and (3) allows the state of Maryland to gauge the need of farm families for estate tax relief and to monitor the fiscal impact of providing that relief.

Transportation Funding Criteria Bill HB 1155/SB 760 ensures that state transportation funding will now be aligned with state goals including climate change and smart growth.

In addition, three bills were passed to improve bicycle – pedestrian issues in Maryland

• SB624 – Shoulder Rule bill:  cyclists no longer have to ride on road shoulders even when unsafe
• SB51 – 3-Foot bill:  a safe distance must be left when passing a cyclist
• HB 282 – Funding for Bike/Ped Access bill:  Funding must be equitable

State Budget:

A big part of our effort this year was to protect key programs from budget cuts. We were successful in demonstrating that these programs were critical to the state economically and environmentally.

• Program Open Space funding was not diverted,
• Maryland Agriculture Land Preservation Funds were preserved,
• Funds for Maryland Department of Planning staff were not cut

Stormwater:

1000 Friends is a strong supporter of improving stormwater controls for new and existing development.  There was a serious attempt by some in the development community to roll back the regulations passed in 2007. 1000 Friends successfully negotiated to keep changes to the regulations modest and reflecting real concerns.  These changes included:

• Clearly defining which projects must comply with the new regulation and which few can follow the 2000 regulations
• Setting strict time frames for these developments to keep, or they must meet the new standards
• Setting a date by which all grandfathering ends
• Clarifying redevelopment project standards and ensuring improved water quality.

This material was copied from the  1000 Friends of Maryland newsletter sent 4/16/2010.

Municipal sprawl imposes a huge tax burden on county residents to pay for public services and facilities far from the city center. It also saps the strength of our community-based economy and the local work force that it employs.

Fortunately, the county’s new 20-year comprehensive plan will put an end to far-flung development and channel future growth downtown — where it will stimulate the local economy, create new jobs for the people who already live here, and bring amenities closer to our neighborhoods and homes.

This comprehensive plan embraces smart growth and tackles our current fiscal crisis — avoiding massive investments in infrastructure that county taxpayers must underwrite. The county’s passage of tax credits for renovating and reusing vacant space along the Golden Mile is one initiative that supports revitalization.

There are still some who are trying to discredit the county’s 20-year plan as an unwarranted constraint on their vision of more sprawl, everywhere and all the time. We understand that mega-subdivisions on prime farmland are where the big bucks and fat margins are found. But the Board of Frederick County Commissioners has something else in mind: a stronger local economy, jobs for those who live here, and vibrant urban centers in which to live, work and play. We can be grateful for strong leadership and good government in Frederick County.

JANICE WILES, Friends of Frederick County

Originally published March 15, 2010

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=102408

After established deadlines, HB 1141 (amending Article 66B) prohibits the annexation of  any property that is not included in a Municipal Growth Element.  This Growth Element must contain a detailed analysis of the growth impacts of annexing and developing properties in the municipality’s planned growth area. Prior to adopting this Growth Element, a municipality must “meet and confer” with the county in which it is located. 

 The City of Frederick established a Tier 3/Outer Growth Boundary in its Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Growth Element.  The City proposes the construction of a North South Parallel Road on the east side of Frederick through one portion of Tier 3.  In addition, the Tier 3/Outer Growth Boundary that surrounds the City includes thousands of acres of agricultural land which the City now deems eligible for annexation and development.  The construction of the Parallel Road would accelerate annexations and developments in Tier 3.  These and other developments in Tier 3 would involve the construction of thousands of residential units and hundreds of thousands of square feet of commercial space.  They would have massive impacts on public services and facilities and require huge taxpayer funded infrastructure investments to accommodate this growth.  The City did not offer the requisite analysis of these impacts and costs in its Comprehensive Plan.  

Our Position

FoFC has actively followed this issue with citizen letters to the city and county asking that the City and County “meet and confer” to clarify how the infrastructure on these large annexation agreements will be paid.

If you are interested in the correspondence please contact us:  240 529 1655, or jwiles@friendsoffrederickcounty.org.

The annexation controversy highlights the need for direct democracy. The purpose of a referendum is to enable direct democracy when the representative democracy fails to vindicate important public interests.

To fulfill this purpose, referendum provisions should be designed to serve legitimate grass roots initiatives. The existing provisions we have just encountered, however, seem to be designed to block any grass roots initiatives. The requirement of obtaining the signatures of 20 percent of all registered city voters in 45 days is onerous. The state law that establishes this particular requirement for municipal annexations needs to be amended. For comparison, a referendum petition against an act passed by Maryland General Assembly requires 3 percent of the votes that were cast at the last election.

The Frederick City Code also needs to be amended so that an annexation cannot be approved within the six months of the next City election. This would eliminate the expense associated with a special election for a referendum.

Having spent much time with my fellow residents–in the process of collecting signatures, I wish to express my appreciation for their well-informed, helpful and polite participation and for newly formed friendships.

–

MALGO SCHMIDT 

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/archives/display_detail.htm?StoryID=103148

Letter to the Editor
October 17, 2009

We were appalled to read the editorial by The Frederick News-Post titled “A buck a signature,” asserting, without a shred of evidence, that the “validity” of a handful of signatures gathered by canvassers earning $1 per signature was somehow in question. The News-Post has no basis for questioning the honesty of any individual who may be paid to gather a signature, and simply to assert that these individuals might engage in invalid signature gathering is outrageous and a serious breach of journalistic ethics.

Friends of Frederick County is a not-for-profit organization started by citizens of Frederick city and county. We provide a unique service to the citizens through education and advocacy to foster environmental conservation, natural resource stewardship and to protect our quality of life.

We rely almost exclusively on volunteers who typically go up against high-paid, well-heeled developers, their lobbyists and lawyers, often from outside the county. Volunteers have collected 98 percent of all signatures collected to date — on their own time, missing dinners, birthday parties, soccer games and precious time with their families.

Friends of Frederick County has set very high standards for public accountability. We are answerable to the public we strive to inform. We are independent, and, most important, we are not funded by special interest groups nor are our activities. Supporters of the annexations certainly cannot make this claim.

Our members have a vested interest in the quality of life in Frederick city and the surrounding county. Unlike the developers, we do not profit financially from the decisions of any elected official or governing body.

Let’s be clear — we are petitioning for a referendum and a vote, the single most important freedom democracy has to offer. But on this issue, a cabal of mayors past and present and aldermen are afraid of granting Frederick residents the same power that propelled them into office — the right to vote. Why? Because they know they will lose. More than 90 percent of people who were met by a volunteer signed the petition eagerly.

Petitoning is an incredibly time-consuming process. It is very difficult to catch people at home, or on the street. Even with our 90 percent success rate we can collect about seven signatures/hour — if we find people home. Every encounter requires a conversation — because so few residents were aware of these annexations and we want to thoroughly explain their impacts and costs. Do the math … 45 days is not much time.

Instead of criticizing a citizen’s petition drive without presenting any facts, The News-Post should ask how many tens of thousands of dollars developers and their political friends have spent on their mailings and ad campaign, and then compare that to the amount spent to collect signatures, which to date has been zero.

And perhaps more important, The News-Post should investigate the real ethical issue here, the propriety of using city letterhead and the imprimatur of the mayor himself for developer-funded issue advocacy.

JANICE WILES

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=96585

Registered city voters are eligible to sign. A volunteer may have knocked on your door but you weren’t home. Our goal is to get 8,000(!) signatures by Oct. 18. Please seek out a place to sign the petition for referendum.

In The Street: 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday, Friends of Frederick County table between Church and Second streets.

Worman’s Mill gazebo: noon to 2 p.m. Sunday.

Referendum Office, 4 E. Church St: 9 to 11 a.m. Monday through Friday, 3 to 5 p.m. Monday, 3:15 to 4:15 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday, 10 a.m. to noon Sunday.

Baker Park gazebo: 3 to 6 p.m. every Sunday until Oct. 18.

Monocacy MARC train station: Every Tuesday evening until Oct. 18.
Frederick City MARC train station: Every Friday evening until Oct. 18

Spread the word!

JANICE WILES

Friends of Frederick County

Frederick News Post
Letter to the Editor
September 30, 2009

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=95866

Dear Annexation Referendum Volunteers, Supporters and Friends,

On behalf of Friends and Frederick County, I would like thank everyone who brought their energy, spirit and dedication to this burst of grassroots movement for a petition drive to bring the issue of annexation to a citizen vote.  As I write this letter, unpaid volunteers are still out in their neighborhoods trying to collect the  7,289 signatures needed by Monday (10/19) to bring to citizen vote the issue of annexation.   Yet, it is with a heavy heart that, despite the best efforts of all the dedicated foot soldiers, we will fall short of our main goal.

Petitions by origin were created in the spirit of democracy.  The process offers the opportunity for every Frederick resident to put one voice, one vote, to an issue that can impact their daily lives.   A referendum in this case, regardless of the outcome, would assure participation by Frederick voters who are the most impacted by the actions of their elected officials.   Yet, sadly, this petition  drive has been subverted by a host of factors, not the least of which is a  near impossible time frame of 45 days.   To be successful volunteers would have to collect over 160 signatures a day.  Despite our dedicated army of unpaid volunteers working to gather signatures and educate voters, time was against us.  Given that 9 out of 10 people signed the petition once they learned about the annexation, I have little doubt that additional time would have brought about the successful outcome of a referendum —  a simple vote.   But the time allotment of 45 days to gather signatures for referendum is an outmoded form of democracy in large cities like Frederick, which spans over 20 square miles.  Residents interested in signing the petition not only had to find out about us, but learn where our volunteers were located.

As this effort gathered steam, nearly one hundred (100!) of you – unpaid volunteers –  took the time out of your very busy lives to hit the streets, talk to your neighbors, and gather signatures.   I must thank you for your commitment, energy, and hard work.  I also want to thank the Frederick County Board of Commissioners (BOCC), the Maryland State Highway Administration, Frederick County Fire and Rescue Services Division and the Maryland Department of Planning for their thoughtful concerns raised about the annexation development agreements.  As we’ve noted  previously, these annexations will add millions of square feet of office and commercial space, and over 1500 homes on farm land located near U.S.  15  and Route 40.   The BOCC  and other state and county officials offered their distinguished voices to educate citizens about the impact of the annexation development on traffic and other public services. Most Frederick residents with whom we met and spoke during our grassroots efforts not only did not understand how annexation would impact them, but also opposed the  action and signed the petition so that they could vote.  This is the way democracy is supposed to work –through public participation, education, and outreach.

FOFC became involved in this effort to ensure the voices of Frederick voters were heard by their elected officials, the Mayor and the Board of Aldermen.   We are independent, nor funded by outside special interest groups.   Our members are citizens who have a strong interest in the quality of life in Frederick and the surrounding counties because they either live in the city or in the county.   Most importantly, none of us profit financially from the decisions of any elected governing body in Frederick or Frederick County. We are proud of our role in advocating that land use decisions, including annexations, benefit all residents of Frederick – not just a few.

Thank you so very much for your support and enthusiasm.  And a special thanks to Malgo who – by far-  collected the most signatures, and to Elaine who took a lead role in organizing volunteers.  Also special mention of gratitude goes to the Catoctin Sierra Club for lending us their office space that we converted to the Referendum Office, and to E End USA for lending us a copy machine!

We’ll be back in touch soon with final numbers and more updates.

Sincerely,

Janice Wiles, Executive Director  240 529 1655/ 240 626 5209
Looking back:
Friends of Frederick County (FOFC) was a driving force behind the coalition of Frederick County citizens concerned about sprawl.  On September 4th 2009 we   set out to collect 7,289 signatures by October 18th to bring to citizen vote a move by the Board of Alderman to annex more than 500 acres of farm land targeted for residential and commercial development. The annexations of the Thatcher, Crumland and Summers farms will add millions of square feet of office and commercial space, and over 1500 homes on farm land located near U.S.  15 and Route 40.   Annexation is a process used to expand municipal boundaries by adding land.   Planners and environmentalists cite annexations as a source of urban sprawl in rural areas because the growth is directed outward from urban centers.    FOFC launched the petition drive to educate citizens about the impact of the annexations on the quality of life in Maryland.

“Frederick County citizens need to know the tremendous impact these annexations will have on traffic congestion, schools, and on municipal services,” said Janice Wiles, executive director of FOFC.  “There is a world of difference between growing, and growing right.  Spreading Frederick City outward to the rural landscape along a stretch of overtaxed highway produces little or no benefit to tax payers living in the city and in Frederick County.  They are the ones who will ultimately bear the cost of the infrastructure improvements that will need to be made.” Among those also raising concerns about the annexations are the Maryland State Highway Administration, Maryland State Department of Planning and County officials, including the Board of County Commissioners, who are concerned about the developers’ commitment to major infrastructure improvements to roads, sewer capacity and schools.

Opponents of the recent City of Frederick annexations  have 45 days to secure the signatures of at least 7,289 city voters.  The law requires 20 percent of municipal voters sign a petition to force the issue to referendum.  Volunteers gathering signatures are all over the city knocking on doors and talking to people at public events.  ”Over forty concerned citizens have collected about 2000 signatures.  We have a long way to go yet thankfully new volunteers are showing up daily offering to help.  We can meet our goal if more volunteers offer their support”  said Elaine Reinhold who is coordinating volunteers to staff places people can go to and sign the petition (see locations below).

Recent data suggests that sprawl and urbanization are consuming land at an alarming rate.  Between 1982 and 1992, 14 million acres of the U.S. became developed land, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.   In the past, cities were compact and efficient, but over the past 30-50 years, the density of land used per person has declined drastically.  Although the U.S. population grew by 17 percent from 1982 to 1997, urbanized land increased by 47 percent during the same 15 year period.   The developed acreage per person has nearly doubled in the past 20 years, and housing lots larger than 10 acres have accounted for 55 percent of land developed since 1994, according to the American Farmland Trust.

Where to Sign

• Greenleaf Park – Whittier & Walnut Ridge (near pool and soccer field) 9/26 9:30 – noon
• North End Block Party, 9/26 1-4pm
• IN THE STREETS, 10/3 11-5 Friends of Frederick County table between Church & Second St.
• Referendum Office, 4 E Church St, M 3-5pm, T/R 3:15-4:15, M-F 9-11am, SUnday 10-12noon
• Baker Park gazebo Sunday 3-6 pm
• Monocacy MARC train station – Tuesday evening
• Frederick CIty MARC train station – Friday evening

For additional information

• http://annexations.wordpress.com/
• http://apps.facebook.com/causes/285443

To Contact us

email:  frederick.referendum@gmail.com
240 626 5209
240-405-2536

Originally published in the Frederick News Post on September 11, 2009

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/archives/display_detail.htm?StoryID=101497

I am writing to you concerning the proposed annexation of the Landmark/Gladhill Farm located along MD 144 across from the National Guard Armory. The property is bound by MD 144 to the south, I-70 to the north, the Monocacy River on the east and the I-70 ramps (Quinn Orchard Road) on the west. My wife, Jennifer, and I along with our three young children live on Edmont Drive, located south of MD 144 and directly across from the property being proposed for General Commercial (GC) annexation into the City.

I have reviewed the video from the August 10th public hearing and understand a second hearing is scheduled for Monday, September 14, 2009. With only one citizen offering public comment at the August 10th hearing, and after discussing this subject with several neighbors, it appears the developer has not reached out to our community to provide any information. Most are simply unaware of the proposed annexation and the commercial development which could result.

My specific community, the Clearview subdivision, and the adjacent communities of River Meadow and Tulip Hill are comprised of single family homes serviced by wells. The proposed GC annexation/Landmark development, bordering directly along the Monocacy Scenic River (1,700 linear feet of river frontage) and situated along the Historic National Road, has the potential to cause a significant adverse impact on the environment and our quality of life. The following points are offered:

1. The Gladhill Farm, currently located in the County, is zoned Agricultural and shown on the Frederick Region Comprehensive Plan as Office/Retail.

2. The Gladhill Farm is not shown in the City’s 2004 Comprehensive Plan and was not anticipated to be annexed into the City (ref. August 10, 2009 Annexation Staff Report).

3. The proposed 52 acre annexation with the potential for 585,000 square feet of commercial space, including one or more hotels, fast food restaurants, convenience store, gas station, etc is an incompatible use, in my opinion, with the adjacent residential communities.

4. The amount of property identified as contiguous with the City (9,600 linear feet or 40% of the total property boundary) seems questionable. This percentage would appear to possibly include frontage along I-70 or MD 144 which from a practical standpoint, seems to lack a rational nexus as these roadways are not owned or maintained by the City. To state this property partially fills one enclave in the City is somewhat misleading.

5. Providing City services (police, roadway maintenance, etc) to this property would require City staff to exit the City and drive easterly on MD 144 to the isolated parcel where there are no other properties proposed for annexation in the future.

6. This property falls short on meeting several of the “Eight Visions” outlined in the State’s growth policies (ref. Annexation Staff Report, page 5). Specifically:

a. Vision #1 – Development is concentrated in suitable areas;

b. Vision #2 – Sensitive areas are protected;

c. Vision #4 – Stewardship of the Chesapeake Bay;

d. Vision #7 – Adequate public facilities and infrastructure under the control of the county or municipal corporation are available or planned in areas where growth is to occur.

I believe Vision #1 speaks for itself; this is not a suitable area for this type of development. Vision #2 and #4 relate to the Monocacy River and the adjacent communities which are serviced by wells. With the enormous amount of impervious surface proposed for this site, the significant amount of runoff from the parking lots and buildings, and potential gas station runoff feeding into the groundwater and the Monocacy River, I am concerned about the impact on the water. Under no circumstance should any type of gas station, fueling station, vehicle storage yard or auto/truck repair facility be a permitted use on this property. And lastly, Vision #7 -adequate facilities. This section of MD 144 is quickly reaching traffic capacity with no funding in place (State, County or City) to mitigate this condition in the near future. The construction of the missing interchange ramps at I-70 and Meadow Road would go a long way to relieve the pressure on this section of MD 144 as it enters the City. However, that improvement is not funded and there are still many unfunded transportation needs in the immediate area such as the widening of Monocacy Boulevard from E. Patrick Street to South Street, the reconstruction of the I-70 interchange at South Street, the widening of I-70 through the City of Frederick and the ultimate dualization of MD 144 from Spring Ridge Parkway to Bailes Lane/Bowman Farm Road. As for water and sewer service, the staff report outlines the issues with each and I would encourage the City and the County not to negotiate a scenario that strains the capacity of the utility systems. The suggestion of a privately owned and operated sewage pumping station on this property, in close proximity to the Monocacy River, seems to be intuitively a bad idea.

In closing, I will summarize by stating that the City should not annex this property. If compelled to annex, I respectfully request a more compatible land use be carefully considered given the surrounding residential communities. The City staff recommendations for 4 sided architecture and a significant buffer against the residential properties (to the south of MD 144) is a must with any development on this site. I would also add that conditions be placed on parking lot and building lighting such that low-level light with full cut-off fixtures are required to reduce light pollution; there be a maximum height for buildings (two or three story); all on-site business signage must be mounted low to the ground such that tall pylon-type structures are prohibited; and a prohibition on all fuel dispensing and vehicle repair facilities as described above.

submitted by John M. Concannon on August 22, 2009

>>>>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