Across Maryland, residents and community groups continue to watch in amazement as local jurisdictions permit development that no one could have possibly imagined. Except, that is, for state and local planners.
In recent years, they have focused on moving development to suburban sites where they thought it should be directed. Of course, all this took place to the delight of developers.
This “Smart Growth” land use policy is supposed to direct development toward suburban communities ready for revitalization as opposed to rural areas where preservation is the goal.
But in reality, that development often hurts the residents of those neighborhoods because suburbia often lacks adequate facilities to manage the growth.
Fifty years ago, city residents fled to suburban enclaves to escape from traffic, overcrowded schools and crime. They flocked to newly developed subdivisions with yards and parks that offered easy access to the city via the Baltimore and Washington beltways.
Many second and third generations of those families still occupy these neighborhoods. Residents grew up in suburbia and want it to retain that feel. However, in keeping with the Smart Growth strategy, government officials and developers have begun referring to these neighborhoods as “Designated Growth Areas.”
Based on the rigorous residents opposition that arises each time another proposal doubling and tripling existing density appears, more urbanization is not always welcome by suburban residents, however.
Developers consistently argue that density must be doubled and tripled to make projects economically feasible, but where does this leave existing residents when parking disappears, traffic congestion worsens and schools overcrowd? This is not something residents asked for ? it?s something assigned to them by politicians, planners and developers.
An April 2006 report, “Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances in Maryland: Inappropriate Use ? Inconsistent Standards ? Unintended Consequences,” released by the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland highlights the problems.
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances (APFOs) throughout Maryland are having the unintended consequences of discouraging growth in areas Smart Growth advocates designated. APFOs are designed to ensure that schools can support the influx of students, emergency personnel can respond quickly to calls, and roads and sewer and water lines can support additional use.
They varyfrom county to county, but all include maximum school capacities and road requirements.
The report, funded by the Home Builders Association of Maryland and the Maryland National Capital Building Industry Association, both pro-development organizations, criticizes APFOs for their statewide inconsistencies, and the fact that their requirements often halt building. Harford, Howard, and Montgomery counties are criticized for their strict adherence to APFOs. The authors say the APFOs deflect growth from designated development areas to rural areas.
Overcrowding of schools is a chief APFO factor. Only Baltimore County, with a maximum capacity of 115 percent, and Charles County with a maximum capacity of between 100 percent to 120 percent, based on state-rated capacity, allow for the use of classroom trailers, thus averting building moratoriums when capacity is reached.
The development community views this as a good thing, but many parents don?t want their children to go to school in trailers.
Growth and change are inevitable, but the ends do not justify the means when the quality of life in suburbia is sacrificed. Regardless of Smart Growth land use policies or whether APFOs are upheld, we must not assume, as many politicians have done, that development should occur at all costs. Responsible land use restrictions serve a purpose and should be strictly followed.
Corinne Becker writes about quality of life issues in the community. She is president of Riderwood Hills Community Association in Towson, Baltimore County. She can be reached at [email protected].
