PlanMaryland aka State Controls Locals

For your reading pleasure, please feel free to visit: http://plan.maryland.gov/ and then the following may make more sense:

Review of PlanMaryland Revised Draft Plan, September 2011

If you have not yet read the nearly 100 pages of the updated PlanMaryland Revised Draft Plan, September 2011, the following may be considered a set of Crib Notes (opinionated of course):

Overall, PlanMaryland is devoid of creating a Maryland that is business friendly. Indeed, the document provides much fodder to those who claim Maryland is anti-business. Worse, an overriding concept exists that takes away individual freedom for choosing where to live and work; and replaces that with a view that the state will decide (see Page 1 – 4), “conducive for people to be nearer to jobs.”

The introduction chapter makes about 10 claims that the state does not intend to take over local planning. William Shakespeare said it well, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.” The remaining 5 chapters then proceeds to lay out exactly how the state will dictate its takeover of local planning.

Chapter 2 is extremely long and dual purposed (Trends and Land Uses). Editorially, it should be two separate chapters.

The trends cited are the typical ones expected: Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Demographics, and Economic. The Land Use portion of the chapter addresses: Agriculture, Natural Resources, Water Quality, Greenhouse Gases and so-called Climate Change, Government and Private Fiscal Issues, and Lands Affected by Local & State Policies.

Land Use Trends Laying the background for this document is the Trends section of Chapter 2. Land use identifies the number of acreage developed (650 k Pre-1973), (1 M since 1973), (806 k projected for next 24 years). The projected rate for developed acres/year appears dubious considering the current prolonged state of the depressed U.S. economy.

Transportation Trends appears to present a bunch of facts which serve no real perspective other than “travel is bad as envisioned by the most extreme environmentalists”. The Central Planners of PlanMaryland should stop fighting this losing battle and simply accept that we are a “commuting society” in Maryland; and plan accordingly.

Housing Trends discusses the 3 waves of population migration within Maryland away from the urban (read very liberal policies & high crimes) to the rural areas. Also identified is the flight to Pennsylvania (but not mentioning the primary reason is caused by the tax burden Maryland places on retired seniors).

Clearly, these Central Planners view that they should decide where one lives and works; citizens should not have cars, but ride a bus or train (or walk to work). “A clear priority is more affordable, desirable housing near existing job centers & public transit.” (see Page 2 – 7) From the references to large homes, it is clear these planners do not like them as well. In my view, jealously (of those who can afford large homes) and centralized planning are poor foundations for a state-wide plan.

Demographic Trends essentially says that population is increasing, but the numbers per household are decreasing.

Economic Trends is very much where one could say, “Pardon, your slip is showing.” Under the title of Economic Trends, the Centralized Planners write about employment and workers. While having employment is an important component of the economy, it is not the economy.

Economy is the exchange of goods and services for something of comparable value. The more friendly a government is to foster that exchange (such as lower tax burdens and reduced regulations), the more freedom and wealth is generated.

The PlanMaryland as written is very much focused upon controlling employment businesses and opportunities and thereby harmful to free enterprise growth. The lack of an EconPrint (comparable to the included GreenPrint, AgPrint, and GrowthPrint give credence to those who rightfully claim Maryland is anti-business.

Following the trends portion of Chapter 2, the remainder, Land Uses begins laying the foundation as to how the state assumes and controls local zoning. Subsequent chapters build on that foundation.

Chapter 3 is essentially the listing of Vision, Goals and Objectives. However, critical to this chapter is the description of how the various measurements will be made to evaluate achieving those goals. These benchmarks (currently left unmeasured and identified as xx%) is where the state could use the hammer on the locals. Note the goals of achieving the goals of:

90% new dwelling units in Priority Funding Areas between last year and 2030
Retain xx% of the Green Infrastructure acres identified in the GreenPrint
Increase Tree Cover Statewide by xx% by 2030
Double transit ridership by 2020
Reduce Maryland’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 25% by 2020

Chapter 4 provides the Designated Places. Note some interesting phrasing such as “local governments may choose to nominate Place and Special Area Designations”. Clearly, this is a subordinate to supervisor relationship established between the State and Locals.

There are 5 designated categories:

Growth & Revitalization
Established Community Areas in Priority Funding Areas
Future Growth Areas
Low Density Development
Rural Resource Areas

Apparently, there are also five Special Area designations where the locals either apply to the Maryland Department of Planning, or nominate for approval:

Priority Preservation for Agriculture (apply )
Ecological (nominate)
Water Resources (nominate)
Historic and Cultural (nominate)
Areas subject to “Climate Change” (nominate)

Question for the Central Planners. Do you envision that we locals must place our various geographical areas under one of these mandated categories?

Lastly for this chapter (see Page 4-13), “A State-nominated Special Area that does not have local government support through its capital and non-capital plans, programs and procedures, may still warrant State Designation.”

Chapter 5 State Coordination and Implementation is where the state builds the institutions they need to force this effort upon the local governments. One organization is “Smart Growth SubCabinet”. Perhaps foretelling true intentions, later in Chapter 6 is the likely typo that refers to this organization as Smart Growth Cabinet (see Page 6 – 4).

This chapter identifies that Implementation Strategies will be developed (sort of that contract between what the state wants and what the locals must do). It identifies what is or is not covered. Note the phrase used, “active participation of local governments helping to follow through these strategies that come out of this process.” (see Page 5 – 9).

Chapter 6 is the Management and Tracking Progress section where simply stated, “Big Brother is Watching.” Identified within this chapter is the Maryland Sustainable Growth Commission that may or may not currently exist.