In his May 23 commentary, Thomas Lynch attempts to cast illusions, build straw men and further polarize growth and development issues — the very things he suggests we rise above.

Lynch unfairly characterized the recently adopted comprehensive plan, and Frederick County government in general, as being unfriendly toward the business community. As a business owner who moved to Frederick County specifically to start a business, I can tell you that nothing could be further from the truth.

The hundreds of properties that Lynch refers to as being “downgraded” constitute less than 1 percent of the properties covered under the comprehensive plan. In addition, within that 1 percent, a large number of the properties were reevaluated as a result of new, updated flood-zone maps issued by FEMA. Most reasonable people would agree that properties in a flood zone are not good candidates for development.

Furthermore, the county commissioners specifically acknowledged that some of the rezoned properties could still be developed if annexed by the adjacent municipalities as part of their growth plans. This ensures that new development can be serviced by adjacent municipal infrastructure.

In the end, there were only a handful of property owners out of the approximately 230,000 residents in Frederick County who were adversely affected. Little consolation for those individuals for sure, but not a bad track record for elected officials trying to balance the desire of individuals with the best interests of the community at large.

The business community in Frederick County is diverse and made up of more than just developers. For example, Frederick County has more farms than any other county in Maryland. The number of farms in Frederick County is also up 13 percent from 2002, unlike many other counties.

Those counties that focused on development as the main engine of growth have suffered the most as a result of the bust in the construction industry.

The industry was premised on people continually upgrading to the next most fashionable neighborhood or floor plan. Studies have shown that land zoned agricultural puts money in the bank for local governments. They pay more in taxes than they consume in services. The opposite is true for new development, which costs existing taxpayers more than it brings in.

The county commissioners spent two years and countless public meetings updating the comprehensive plan. The process was fair and open. All voices were heard. The final comprehensive plan does exactly what it is supposed to do. It accommodates the population growth that is projected to occur in Frederick County over the next 20 years. It aligns growth with existing infrastructure, minimizing the cost to existing residents and taxpayers.

If developers are looking for something to do, look no further than the Golden Mile or any other half dozen communities in Frederick County that are in desperate need of redevelopment.

William Morrow

writes from Whitmore Farm, Emmitsburg

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=106102

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

During last year’s petition drive challenging the annexations, I collected 1,000 signatures during the 45 days we had to do so. In the process I spoke with about 3,000 people. Most were from outside the city and disappointed that they could not sign the petition. Walkersville residents were particularly disheartened.

Of the many Frederick residents I solicited, about 75 percent were opposed to annexations. But in three groups of residents, almost 100 percent signed. These three groups were: young people, African-American people and homeless people.

Young people readily grasp that seniors have been using up open space with no consideration for the generations to come. African-Americans invited me to their porches, homes and parties, and gave me names and addresses I should visit next. The homeless residents largely consisted of highly patriotic veterans and were well-organized. They told me what soup kitchen to visit when. Upon my arrival they would make a speech introducing me and explaining why everybody should sign.

Frederick residents do stand together for sustaining quality of life. If you are a Frederick voter and wish to bring the annexations to referendum, please send an e-mail to deannexation@friendsoffrederickcounty.org or call 240-529-1655 for information and forms.

MALGO SCHMIDT

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=105834

I’ve lived in this county most of my life. I’ve seen a lot of change around here since the ’70s, but some things don’t change. Many of those speaking out against the comprehensive plan appear to have a financial interest to protect. My guess is that there will also be a lot of money flowing into the upcoming County Commissioner election to support a pro development slate of candidates. The rest of us also have a financial interest. Our taxes go to support infrastructure and growth.

Growth needs to be more that just a business opportunity for a select few. Our community needs to grow, but how we grow will impact the quality of life in Frederick County for generations. The new comprehensive plan is a good road map. Developers and their lawyers seem not to like the new comprehensive plan. I recall a campaign slogan from Commissioner John L. Thompson Jr., “When developers win, you lose.” That slogan is a little over the top for my liking, but maybe it deserves consideration in the current “conversation.”

RICHARD MARANTO

Middletown

Originally published June 01, 2010

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?StoryID=105616

Thomas Lynch lays out rather incomprehensible and circular arguments regarding the new comprehensive plan and growth, somehow hinting that a healthy debate on growth is bad for business. Moreover, he singles out for criticism Janice Wiles, executive director of Friends of Frederick County.

Wiles’ recent letter to The Frederick News-Post made a factual and convincing case about the cost of sprawl on Frederick County taxpayers, who have spent many decades subsidizing developers to the detriment of schools, local roads and our overburdened infrastructure.

Lynch also bizarrely suggested that that Wiles’ letter contained “inaccurate information” without any explanation or clarification. What was inaccurate? Lynch never explains. Instead, he uses a vast amount of ink to wax on about polarizations, property values and profit.

Frederick County residents have heard those talking points before — and rejected them in favor of preserving their quality of life.

AMY FARBER

Middletown 

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=105445

Friends of Frederick County Position on Crum and COPT/Thatcher Annexations into Frederick City

We believe that our county and city should protect the Monocacy River corridor, productive farmland, scenic vistas, and a buffer between Frederick and Walkersville. At this time there is adequate development planned in the existing “pipeline” of future development in the city and we should develop that first, see that it is done in the most economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner, and evaluate its impact before bulldozing greenfields.  FoFC believes that existing roads to the north are inadequate, congested and dangerous, and there’s no financial plan to solve that anytime soon.

Background

In September 2009 the City of Frederick’s Mayor and Aldermen[1] voted to annex two farms (total 436 acres) along Route 15 north of Frederick City for 1200 new homes and approximately 2.3 million ft² of non-residential (office, retail, manufacturing, hotel) space. During the Fall 2009 citizens made a good faith effort to gather 20% of city voter signatures to put these annexations to referendum but fell short of our target due to the 45 day time allowed. Judging from overwhelming citizen involvement in that effort and interest in signing the petition for referendum it was clear that citizens of Frederick City do not agree that the development plans for the Crum and COPT/Thatcher properties promote the health, safety and welfare of our city nor county.

Petition to DeAnnex the Crum and COPT/Thatcher Properties

For these reasons, on May 20^th 6:30pm Frederick City Hall Friends of Frederick County launches a petition drive for a charter amendment to change the boundaries of the City of Frederick, MD to exclude the Crum and Thatcher properties.This petition effort, to “de annex” these properties, when put on the ballot will give citizens the opportunity to vote their preference.   The petition can be downloaded off the Friends of Frederick County website (http://www.friendsoffrederickcounty.org/by-campaign/petition-deannexation-referendum/ ) and delivered or mailed to our office.  Petitions will be available at events;  petition drop off points will be announced during the petition drive.  Hear what citizens have to say.

Why deannex the Crum and COPT/Thatcher properties from the City limits?

• Route 15 is one of the most dangerous roads in Maryland – and there is little funding for improvements.  The northern annexations will add 12-15,000 car trips/day to Route 15 and arterial roads.[2] The Maryland State Highway Administration strongly recommended that the cost of planning, design and construction of the Biggs Ford Road interchange be included in the annexation agreements, that cost is estimated at $75-80 million. It was not. The Monocacy Boulevard completion (to cost $75-$80 m) is not even funded yet.[3]
• There are 3500 homes and millions of square feet of commercial space within Frederick City that should be built first before expanding outward.  These approvals include Brick Works, Northgate, Clemson Corner, Market Square, the Ballenger Creek Center and the SAIC-Frederick/NCI facility.  For a complete list of commercial projects see:  http://www.businessinfrederick.com/site_selection/development.htm
• The annexation agreements for Crumland Farm and COPT/Thatcher do not adequately address sewer, schools and fire and rescue services. There is no planned sewer service for the Crum and Thatcher properties at this point [4] and no detailed plans for school and emergency services.
• This farmland has excellent soil for growing food.  If the properties are under Frederick County jurisdiction they will be in an Agricultural Priority Preservation Area (PPA), according to the recently signed Frederick County Comprehensive Plan.

Positions from Voices of Authority

Maryland Department of Planning[5] (7/22/2009) Asks the city to look into potential sewer constraints, the expansive floodplain and the road network impacts in light of the I270/Rte 15 Multi Modal Study.

State Highway Administration[6] SHA strongly recommends that the cost of planning, design and construction of the Biggs Ford Road interchange and park and ride lot be included in the requirements for annexation, as well as dedication of Rte 15 right of way and plans for arterial roads that will need to be constructed once Sunday’s Lane is closed.

Frederick County Board of Commissioners[7] letter dated 9/2/2009 2, 2009:  Without concurrent construction plans for an interchange and the elimination of the at-grade crossings “will only exacerbate an already dangerous situation and jeopardize the safety of City and County residents.” “The Crumland Farm Agreement (pg 5) does not obligate Petitioners (meaning the developer) to fund any portion of the US 15/Biggs Ford Road interchange. The County Commissioners and the State Highway Administration believe the developers, rather than the taxpayers, should pay for this interchange.”  There is no planned sewer to either property.  Absent private funding for a new school this development will worsen school overcrowding.

Frederick County Fire and Rescue Services Division[8] (5/5/2009)on Crumland Farm annexation:  “With the potential increase in traffic traveling to the site, thus requiring vehicles to cross Route 15, the potential for accidents will increase. An increase in accidents on Route 15 may have an effect on the fire and rescue services, therefore, the Biggs Ford Road interchange should be constructed and operational before the first Use and Occupancy permit is issued for the proposed site.”

Town of Walkersville[9] (8/31/2009)  The Walkersville Burgess and Commissioners voted 3-2 in opposition to both the Crum and COPT/Thatcher annexation proposals and urged the Frederick City Board of Alderman to vote to deny them.

Monocacy Scenic River Citizens Advisory Board River Board (5/11/2009) expresses concern about the proposed alteration of the natural landscape in the 100-year floodplain on the COPT/Thatcher property and the disruption of environmental processes and functions that follow from grading, filling, and building in a floodplain—mainly the natural storage and conveyance of flood waters.

Does your organization have a position?  If so, please send it to deannexation@friendsoffrederickcounty.org.

[2] Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7^th Edition, pp 268-269.

[3] Thomas, John B. (Pers Comm May 2010).  Cost for Biggs Ford Road interchange at Route 15, and the Monocacy Boulevard interchange, Frederick County Division of Planning.

[4] Tax map 57 and 48 at: http://www.frederickcountymd.gov/index.aspx?NID=1326.

[5] Conrad, Peter G., Director, Local Government Assistance, Maryland Department of Planning.

[6] Slater, Gregory I, Director, Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, State Highway Administration

[7] Board of County Commissioners, September 2009 (Jan Gardner, David Gray, John L Thompson, Kai J Hagen and Charles Jenkins), Frederick County MD.

[8] Dmuchowski, Michael P, Battalion Chief/Fire Marshall, Frederick County MD

[9] Hauver, Susan J, Planning and Zoning Administrator, Walkersville MD

 While it is tempting to answer Rand Weinberg’s fervent May 5 letter in kind, I do understand his concern that any zoning change presents the potential to affect the financial interests of the property owners. And I believe that the Frederick County Commissioners should continue to work to address any apprehensions still held by residents.

But I was disappointed that Weinberg’s compassion appears reserved for a select few and does not extend to the hundreds of thousands of county taxpayers negatively affected to this day by the “super-sized” up-zoning granted to petitioners in the past.

Changes in zoning designations, growth boundaries and planned service areas have the potential to affect not only property owners and developers, but also nearby neighbors, businesses and taxpayers. By failing to recognize the other variables in this complex equation, Weinberg does a disservice to his argument and the community at large.

Weinberg rightly states that “there is a far difference between saying that the government has a right to take a certain action, and that the government should take such action,” but then falsely implies the only actions a government should take are those that financially benefit his clients.

I would instead suggest that it is the difficult duty of a government to represent all citizens, balancing the varied and sometimes competing needs of the electorate. By thoughtfully crafting a moderate, balanced and responsible comprehensive plan, I believe that is exactly what our county commissioners have sought to achieve.

JIM RACHEFF

Frederick

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=104805

We have just a few days to stop the United States government from preventing the world from properly labeling genetically modified foods (GMOs).

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have adopted a pro-corporate position that laughably claims labeling GM/GE foods creates the “false” impression that “that the labeled food is in some way different from other foods.”

And next week, at the United Nations meeting in Canada, they will tell the world to adopt the same position, preventing other countries from rightly labeling GMOs as different from fresh, natural food. The implications of this position could further undermine organic food standards all over the world, especially organic labeling.

We know that GMO food created by the likes of Monsanto is not only “different” but unhealthy and unsustainable. Can you help us tell the USDA and FDA to wake up and drop this ridiculous position?

Click here to tell the USDA and FDA: the world should be free to label GMO foods as such.

While the rest of the world wants to be able to label unnatural GMOs, Barack Obama’s USDA and FDA have adopted pro-corporate food positions GMOs. Unless we act now, the United States will go to this meeting telling the world that GMO foods are not different and should not be labeled.

GMO foods, by definition, are genetically different. By altering nature’s design in order to withstand a barrage of chemicals and other poisons, humans are without question creating a new, different kind of food.

We need to tell the USDA and FDA to abandon its wrongheaded, corporate food position that GMOs are the same as non-GMO foods. Sign our petition now before the deadline on Monday.

Thank you for your support on this urgent petition – please share this with anyone you know who cares about their food.

Best,

Lisa Madison
Distribution & Outreach Coordinator
FRESH

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.

After all, many of  Frederick ’s fiscal challenges are a direct result of poorly planned and irresponsible development over the past 20 years. In city after city, there is much evidence that growth does not provide a tax surplus, but exactly the opposite. In Frederick alone, for every dollar a new resident pays in taxes, the county pays out $1.14 to cover the additional services required. One can see that, over the years, our deficit grows larger and larger, and as a result, current residents receive less in return for our tax dollar.

All one has to do is ask those affected by the erosion of our schools, the stress on our emergency services, and the inability of our current road system to safely manage the ever-increasing volume of traffic to see that this is not the case.

But there are alternatives for Mr. Mochi — seems to me that there is still a bit of space in both nearby Montgomery and Loudoun counties where it hasn’t been paved over just yet.

ED HINDE

Originally published April 15, 2010