We Make It News
Audio & video reports in Charles County, Maryland
And now, a holiday message for Charles County government
December 20, 2011
To: Director of Planning and Growth Management Peter Aluotto
& Director of Planning Steve Ball
From: Port Tobacco Resident Debra Zimmerman Murphey
Dear Gentlemen: Happy Holidays!
I am writing with some observations and questions regarding various issues concerning Charles County’s ongoing planning initiatives. For the record, I have a Bachelor of Arts degree in Speech Communication from George Mason University, a Master’s degree in Public Affairs and Journalism from American University, and have spent more than 25 years in the journalism, public relations and communications fields. Thus, when I share my perspectives, you can be sure they are based on credible research and well-vetted facts.
1. It appears that long before the 2012 comprehensive plan merged scenario was unveiled to the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Commission, certain members’ political will and stakeholder interests were already evident. We realize that certain constituents’ opinions hold significant sway.
I underscore this because I think it is imperative to note that the perception that smart growth is “anti-business” persists, and I believe it is incumbent on those of you leading this updated comprehensive-plan process to educate and inform the public and decision-makers (including myself) when false notions and misconceptions persist.
I think it is critical to understand certain realities (broached below) before we, as a county, use any decision-maker’s myopic analysis to embark on a flawed course for the future.
2. If the county does not initiate downzoning in the rural areas, will it still be able to meet its commitments concerning the Water Resources Element (WRE), the Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP Phase II) and the TMDL (total maximum daily load) required thresholds for delineated waterways?
3. Since much of the dialogue and debate concerning sprawl development in our rural area centers on “perceived” land rights and “perceived” diminished land values, has the county researched what transpired with land values in counties such as Baltimore (zoned 1 in 50), Montgomery (zoned 1 in 25) and Calvert (zoned 1 in 20) after the aforementioned zoning laws went into effect in the rural areas of these municipalities?
4. Gov. O’Malley just signed an executive order for Plan Maryland and it is clear that this policy directive — if not adhered to through more sophisticated planning-and-growth-management thinking and local policies — will unquestionably impact local governments. If we continue to encourage sprawl and development in rural areas, won’t this negatively affect available state funding for county projects? Is this being taken into consideration during the comprehensive-plan process as it moves forward?
5. Interestingly, there was a “Farmers First” meeting held, but I don’t remember an “Environmentalists First” or a “Homeowners First” meeting being held, so I think the criticism and complaints levied by certain camps are unwarranted and are solely motivated by their financial concerns. Those of us who are pro-environment and pro-smart growth — because of the economic advantages the latter ensures — continue to be lambasted in the midst of a political climate of skewed arguments maintaining that sprawl is good and downzoning is bad. While we cannot control what certain citizens believe, we expect policymakers, PGM staff and ERM to be up to speed on these issues. We will not forgo our civic responsibility to be ethical advocates and to counter antiquated reasoning to support our positions, and we expect that staff and leaders strongly consider our viewpoints as well. Also, Planning Commission members formulating opinions before the PC public process even begins is problematic. This posturing is not the same as an elected official adhering to his or her campaign positions and promises.
6. Environmental degradation can affect economies. I believe there is a fiscal tie-in to protecting wildlife, forests, rivers and streams, air quality (more sprawl equals more congestion, which equals more emissions), and valuable ecological and historical resources. I also have shoreline property and maintain that the continued degradation, from more development near and around the Port Tobacco River, will adversely impact my land value. I hope this concern is also seen as valid.
County government has given weight to issues raised by developers and farmland owners. So, it seems it would be fair and prudent to include the perspective that continued environmental and rural destruction also impacts taxpayers and residents (such as myself) who have a vested interest in ensuring a healthy environment, maintaining the county’s rural characteristics, and recognizing the importance of quality-of-life values and issues. Research shows that these variables are also crucial for government planners to consider.
I continue to access studies that show that environmental protection is part of good governance, and I maintain I have a right to live in a community that respects, and upholds, local, state and federal laws and mandates that discourage: more impervious surfaces; continued pollution and runoff; deforestation; fisheries and ecosystem destruction; poor air and water quality; and failures to protect our historic areas, natural habitats and open space.
7. If we continue to allow for sprawl development and we eat up rural areas and turn them into an extension of suburbia, won’t the rural characteristics that we all appreciate and love (and drew us to live in Charles County in the first place) be diminished? And who will bear the burden of this?
8. What are the cost metrics/modeling and/or financial data used to determine the financial taxpayer realities of extending infrastructure into rural pockets?
9. We have lobbyists and developers who have courted elected and appointed officials for many years and received red-carpet treatment; a prior history of advisory and subcommittee groups, stacked with those with development, real estate and construction interests, providing input on policy; children going to school in trailers; dead fish and streams; ravaged forestland; empty, decaying, and rundown buildings/commercial corridors in Waldorf that should be revitalized; limited mass transit; and influencers who refer to those of us who are pro-environment and pro-smart growth as “communists.” Meanwhile, in other parts of the country, vibrant communities are embracing low-impact development, protecting swaths of open space, attracting tourists, and working hard to protect the environment and their heritage (wanting to ensure that you can densely develop rural parcels/farmland is not the same as supporting farmers, farming or sustainable agriculture). This is all very puzzling.
10. Last, I would also like to note that the buzz about outside interests influencing the process is absurd and unfair. For the record, ERM, Dr. Stephen Fuller — and, in the case of the Port Tobacco Environmental Recovery Zone, Michael Wiles — are not Charles County residents or taxpayers.
But Mr. Ken Hastings, of the Mason Springs Conservancy, owns land in Charles County. Ms. Bonnie Bick (as a member of the Mattawoman Watershed Society and the Sierra Club’s Southern Maryland Chapter) and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) both have a clear fiduciary and nonprofit responsibility to their members to uphold the tenets of their respective organizations’ missions to protect the Bay and its tributaries, including those located in Charles County.
Thanks for allowing me to share this information and for your time and attention. I look forward to hearing back from you.
Best,
Debra Zimmerman Murphey
e-mail: murpheywrite@aol.com
