maryland; growing going gone: growth on maryland’s eastern shore - eastern shore land conservancy
Post on 06-Apr-2018
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
1/16
GrowinggoingGONE?
Growth on Marylands
Eastern Shore and Meeting Its Challenges
Through Eastern Shore 2010
A report from the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
2/16
It took 300 years after Captain John Smith mapped the Chesapeakefrom 1 607 to
1907for 60,000 acres of the Shore to be developed. In just the next 23 years, more
than three and a half times as much land will be developed!
Portion of the EasternShore to be Developedby 2030
According to the Maryland
Department of Planning, about 160,000
new residents will make the Eastern
Shore their home in the next 25
yearsadding more than 70,000 new
houses and consuming an additional
215,000 acres of farms and forests.This
equals approximately 450,000 totalacres of forest and farm land that will
be forever lost to roads, subdivisions,
malls and parking lots.Thats a loss of
open space bigger than Queen Annes
countyequal to all the tillable farm-
land in Kent,Caroline and Cecil counties.
It all comes out of finite open
space.
Recent archaeological evidence
suggests humans have flourished on the
Shores soils and rivers since earliest
North American inhabitation, thousands
of years before the Chesapeake Bay
formed. For almost all that time, the
human imprint was light. Between 1900
and the construction of the first BayBridge in 1952, the Eastern Shore grew
by an average of about 300 people a
year.
Introductionor centuries,Marylands Eastern
Shore has been an idyllic land-
scape of farms and quaint small towns.
With a traditional way of life built from
generations of living in accordance with
the land,residents continue to depend
on farming to maintain a thriving
economy.While agriculture remains the
Eastern Shores top industry, the Shore
is rapidly losing its rural character and
small town charm. Counties face devel-
opment proposals on their rural lands,
while towns face proposals along their
edges that would double, triple and
even quadruple their current popula-
tions.Left unchecked, this unprece-
dented growth pressure will forever
destroy the rural legacy that makes the
region an exceptional place.
The demand for land these days is
rising more than three times as fast as
population. Each Shore newcomer,on
average, requires nearly an acre
roughly the size of a football field.
If that number seems large,
remember that in addition to new
homes, more people mean more shop-
ping malls,more roads, more parking
lots, more schools, more power lines,
more second homes,more sand and
gravel extraction.
Today, the Shore adds that many
new residents every two and a half
weeks, a pace that will br ing the
Eastern Shore population approxi-
mately 160,000 new residents during
the next few decades of this centur y.
This unparalleled population
increase understates the likely impacton our rural economies, scenic water-
ways and quality of life.Across the
board, peoples demands on the envi-
ronment continue growing faster than
population. It took 300 years after
Captain John Smith mapped the
Chesapeakefrom 1607 to 1907to
develop 60,000 acres of the Eastern
Shore. In a third of that t imefrom
1907-2007, the Eastern Shore more
than doubled that developed acreagewith 175,000 developed areas.
The Eastern Shore adds
about 6,000 new
residents every year.
F
If present trends
continue, total land
developed from the
years 1607 to 2030
will total 450,0 00
acres. Therefore,
nearly one out of
every 5 acres on the
Eastern Shore will be
developed.
Note:This map is to scale,showing the size ofdeveloped land area in proportion to the land areaof Maryland's Eastern Shore.
Rate of Land Developmenton the Eastern Shore from 1607 to 2030
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
3/16
The Eastern
Shore, like
Everglades or
Adirondacks, h
always convey
sense of where
are, a quality o
existence that
needs no
elaboration.
3
Growing more compactly is the onlyway to save the rural Shore so long as population
keeps expanding. Lots of proven models for at tractive, desirable shapes and patterns of
land use exist.These lie in our existing towns, which have charm ed visitors and served residentswell for centuries now.
Older, native residents likely recall so fondly a Shore that was more rural than now,yetmore
urban, or town-based. Kids walked or biked to schools, choir practice, Boy Scouts, fishing, even to
squirrel, rabbit and quail hunting in woods or fields on their towns edge.
Shopping and jobs were predominantly local. Most people managed well with a single auto-
mobile, often driven substantially less than 10,000 miles per year.Life was not perfect, but no
one ever complained about being packed too densely. For centuries much of the Shores char-
acter and identity has resided in its river towns, crossroads towns and bayside communities.
Isolated subdivisions offer no place to belong to, no connectivity;emotional, physical or
cultural, says Margo Bailey, Mayor of Chestertown.
W e need the towns if we are going to keep development out of farmlandthey are where
the infrastructure for growth is, says Shane Johnston, a Caroline county planner.
n 2002,the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy created an inter-county agreement called Eastern
Shore 2010:A Regional Vision, which set high expectations for growth management.Tailored for the
specific regional needs of the Shore, this agreement is made up of four land use goals which were all
proposed to and adopted by the six Upper Shore governments of Cecil, Kent, Queen Annes, Caroline,
Talbot and Dorchester counties.
This repor t summarizes how the Shores leaders have done and where they must take action.
Many of the facts and figures presented in this repor t represent the six Upper Shore counties, while
some are inclusive of the entire nine-county Eastern Shore, with the distinction made when appro-
priate.This report summarizes how the Shore has done and lessons learnedand where county and
municipal leaders need to go nextas ESLC proposes an upgraded set of 2010 goals for adoption
by county governments in 2007.This document presents the original goals of Eastern Shore 2010and reports on the progress to achieve them. It also presents updated goals and related standings of
the counties.
Background onEastern Shore2010: A Regional Vision
Meeting the Challenges of Growth
I
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
4/16
Original Agreement from 2002
East ern Shore 2010: A Regional Vision
Whereas the Maryland Eastern Shore is one of the last great Chesapeake Bay land-
scapes, with a distinct natural, historical, cultural, and economic character and quality oflife; and
Whereas the Maryland Eastern Shore landscape, quality of life, and resource-basedeconomy are threatened by growing development pressure; and
Whereas the future of the Maryland Eastern Shore, including the management ofgrowth and development, enhancement of our resource-based economies, protection of
our land, vitality of our towns, and definition of our growth centers, substantially involve
the interests of the undersigned counties.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the undersigned counties agree to
work cooperatively to maintain and enhance the Maryland Eastern Shore through this
regional partnership, recognizing the need for innovative solutions and shared goals toprotect our unique region, and to achieve the commitments set forth.
WE WILL WORK COOPERATIVELY TOWARDS THE FOLLOWING GOALS:
Strive to protect from development through the use of voluntary preservation
programs 50% of Eastern Shore land outside of locally-designated growth areas by
2010.
Recognize our resource-based economy as a key part of the Eastern Shore heritage and
future by integrating agriculture, fisheries, and forestry into each countys economic
development plan by 2005.
Work with existing communities to guide at least 50% of new annual development
into locally-designated growth areas by 2005. Develop a regional transportation plan that integrates the use of public transportation
and alternative modes of transport within and among communities by 2010.
Signed Autumn 2002 by:
John W. Cole, President Ronald H. Fithian, President
County Commissioners Kent County
of Caroline County Board of County Commissioners
Nelson K. Bolender, President George M. ODonnell, President
Cecil County Queen Annes County
Boardof County Commissioners Boardof County Commissioners
Thomas A. Flowers, Ph.D., President Levin F. Harrison, President
Dorchester County Talbot County Council
Board of County Commissioners
THEREFORE,
IT IS HEREBY
RESOLVED that
the undersigned
counties agree
to work
cooperatively
to maintain
and enhance
the Maryland
Eastern Shore
through this
regionalpartnership,
recognizing
the need for
innovative
solutions and
shared goals
to protect our
unique region,
and to achieve
the commitments
set forth.
This is the intent
statement from the
original 2010 declara-
tion of 2002.The
revised version of this
agreement, designed
to take into account
the new growth chal-enges facing the
Shore, may be found
on page 8.
4
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
5/16
We have mo
to lose thanreputation.
Consider the
Calloway fam
who farm more than
thousand acres of gr
also grow melons an
vegetables for the N
York markets;and in
their spare time tak
tons of rockfish, whit
perch and catfish witmany as 28 commer
fyke and pound nets
along 15 miles of the
Nanticoke River
bordering Dorcheste
county.
At one time or
another, the family s
they have tr ied abou
everything the regio
to offer: oyster ing, ee
pott ing, raising hogs
catt le, making sausag
and scrapple, catchin
snapping tur tles, fur
ping and selling wrea
of crows foot picked
their woods.
This is just a
sampling of what is a
stake across more th
million acres of ferti
soils, invested richly
the waters of North
Americas most prodtive estuarythe larg
intact block of farml
remaining between
Maine and North
Carolinaall within
overnight drive to
markets serving abo
half the U.S. populat
ORIGINAL GOAL 1: Protecting Landoal 1 of the original Eastern Shore 2010called on county governments by 2010 to protect half of
all open space outside areas specifically designated for growth.Meeting that goal would perma-
nently preserve from development 578,277 acres from Cecil t o Dorchester.Thats 900 square miles,
nearly equal to all of Kent, Queen Annes and Talbot counties.
The six counties
are vir tually halfway tothe goal, with more
than 283,000 rural
acres protected.But
none is on track to hit
their 2010 target, and
shor tfalls in each will
likely range from
15,000 to 25,000
acres.
Collectively, the
shortfall will amountto 113,740 acres,or
178 square miles.Thats like a mile-wide swath of potentially developable farm and forestland, running
vir tually the full length of the Delmarva Peninsula.
ORIGINAL GOAL 2:
Maintaining a Working Landscapeoal 2 called for promoting the Shores tradit ional occupations agriculture, forestry and fishing
by incorporating them into county economic development plans by 2005.
The counties have done this, at least in policy. Other effor ts are underway to add economic value
to these traditional ways of making a living. However,only two of the upper Shore counties, Cecil and
Queen Annes, have gone beyond a paper commitment, with staff devoted to marketing and promoting
agriculture and other natural resource-based industries.
County economic development goals and implementing
actions for resource-based industries may be contained in one or
more plans the comprehensive plan, the county economic
development plan,or a regional economic development plan.Goal
statements and implementing actions vary considerably from
county to county,making it difficult to summarize the plans of
each county in this publication.The following is a representative
example of a goal statement and implementing action, from
Queen Annes County:
Goal Recognize the impor tance of resource-based indus-
tries to the countys economy and take steps to suppor t and
expand them.
Strategy The County should, in general,participate in
regional effor ts to expand resource-based economic oppor tuni-
ties,such as the Heartland Fields project in Queen Annes County
and Kent CountysChesapeake Fields init iative.
5
Bob and Jean Payne
protected their Kent County
dairy farm.
G
Projected Progress Toward the Preservation ofHalf the Land Outs ide Growth Areas by 2010
G
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
6/16
ORIGINAL GOAL 3:
Curbing Sprawloal 3 committed county governments by 2005 to guide at least half of new growth into areas
already planned to accommodate it where communities already exist and where state and
local money is directed for public water, sewer,roads and schools.
All six counties have met this goal since 2004.
Across the upper Shore,however, it is a qualified success,achieved largely by more development
insidegrowth centers, but without any building slowdown on the natural land outsideof them.
The problem is that large building lots are the norm outside growth centers more than five
times the size of lots inside, on average across the Shore. In upper Shore counties, slightly more than
half of new homes those
outside growth centers are
consuming close to 90 percent of
all open space.
Last year, Cecil County
rezoned about two-thirds of its
228,000 total acres from which
the county estimates will elimi-
nate 24,000 houses being built on
farmland.
An integral part of this
zoning change is a program to let
rural landowners sell develop-
ment rights for use in growth
areas.
G
6
Percentage of New Residential Building Permitswithin Growth Areas in 2004
Number of New Residential PermitsOutside of Growth Areas in 2004As exemplified by Kent
County, the best
ndication of success in
directing growth is
when the percentage
of share of growth
occuring in growth
areas is high, and the
number of homes
actually built ouside
the growth areas
is low.
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
7/16
Take A Ride, County Ride, and the
Dorchester Developmental Unit
Specialized Transportation.
Other efforts include a Delmarva
oal 4 proposed development of
a regional transportation plan,
including alternatives to the automo-
bile.This is critical because automobile
use continues rising three times faster
than population throughout the
Chesapeake region.
The impacts of this go beyond
congestion and strains on county
budgets.Transpor tation and land use
are inseparable issues.A constantly
expanding road network, especially one
responding to piecemeal, county by
county pressures, inevitably sets the
stage for more sprawl development,
which in turn raises demand for more
roads.
The upper Shore counties have
made little progress toward the kind of
regional planning needed to break this
cycle.A few laudable transportation
alternatives exist, such as Upper Shore
bike map of quiet back roads
connecting Shore communities;also the
town of Viennas plan to insure walk-
able, bikeable connections between
new development and the existing
community.
As with land use, the Shore can
choose a different transportation
future,but it cannot wait.
ORIGINAL GOAL 4:
Planning for Transportation as a Region
G
The Shore can avoid the congestion above by creat ing communities designed to be walkable, bikeable, and
served by transit.
Bikeable connections
between newdevelopments and
existing communities
are an important
part of regional
transportation
planning efforts.
Transportation
and land use are
inseparable issues.
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
8/16
Revised Agreement from 2002East ern Shore 2010: A Regional Vision
Whereas Marylands Eastern Shore is one of the last great Chesapeake Bay landscapes, witha distinct natural, historical, cultural, and economic character and quality of life; and
Whereas the Eastern Shores lands, quality of life, and farming, forestry and fisheries indus-
tries are threatened by growing development pressure; andWhereas the future of the Eastern Shore, including the management of growth and devel-opment, definition of our growth centers, protection of our land, vitality of our towns, and the
viability of our farming, forestry and fisheries industries substantially involve the interests of
the undersigned counties; and
Whereas the population of the Eastern Shore is projected to grow by 38 percent or 160,000people in the next 25 years, which will cause the development of 250,000 acres of land. Eastern
Shore citizens and their elected county leaders must take charge of growth to shape a desirable
future for ourselves and for future generations.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the undersigned counties agree to work
cooperatively and exercise leadership to maintain and enhance the Eastern Shore through this
regional partnership, recognizing the need for innovative solutions and shared goals to protectour unique region, and to achieve the commitments set forth.
WE WILL WORK COOPERATIVELY TOWARDS THE FOLLOWING GOALS:
Strive to protect from development through the use of voluntary preservation programs 50
percent of Eastern Shore land outside of designated growth areas by 2010, including an
annual dedication of combined county and municipal funding for land preservation in an
amount equaling at least 1.5 percent of the county operating budget for a given year.
Implement the county economic development plan for the Eastern Shores traditional indus-
tries of farming, forestry and fisheries.
By 2010, manage county growth, including working with municipalities, to: 1) annually
guide at least 80 percent of growth into designated growth areas, 2) establish a maximum
annual residential growth rate, and 3) include a workforce housing element in the countycomprehensive plan pursuant to House Bill 1160, which established a state workforce
housing grant program.
Develop a regional transportation plan by 2010 that provides alternatives to a new Bay
crossing and emphasizes the use of alternative and public transportation within and among
communities.
President President
County Commissioners of Caroline County Kent County Boardof County Commissioners
President President
Cecil County Board of County Queen Annes County Board of County
Commissioners Commissioners
President President
Dorchester County Board of County Talbot County Council
Commissioners
Managing
rowth and
prawl to protect
e environmentas over-
helmingly the
rimary concern
entified by
tizens, by a
argin of nearly
-1 over the
econd place
sue, jobs ande economy.
he latest
evisions to
astern Shore
010 reflect
hese remarkably
olid public calls
or action.
8
Appr ove d
Appro ve d
Appro ve dAppr
o ve d
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
9/16
A STRONGER APPROACH:
Eastern Shore 2010 Upgradeshe following section of this repor t refers to the updated Eastern Shore 2010agree-
ment, which was strengthened as a response to the growth pressures that have
emerged since the original iteration was developed and signed by county leaders in
2002.The updated Eastern Shore 2010 revises the four goals to call for local counties toprovide a minimum amount of funds for land protection, implement their economic
development plans supporting the farming,fishing and forestry industries,direct 80
percent of new growth to villages and towns, set a maximum growth rate, create a plan
for workforce housing and suggest alternatives to another Bay Bridge, including a public
transportation plan.
T
UPDATED GOAL 1:
More Money forLand Protectiono help meet Goal 1,protecting
578,277 acres by 2010, ESLC
proposes that the upper Shorescounties
dedicate an amount equivalent to at least
one and a half percent of their annual
budgets to preserving land.
Its a reasonable demonstration of a
real county commitment toward land
preservation. Caroline County proves it
can be done by a rural Eastern Shore
county.As of Fiscal Year 2007,Caroline
budgeted $1,140,000 for land preserva-
tion,which represents an amount equivalent to 2.5 percent of
the county budget.A variety of revenue sources are available
to the counties, including impact fees, excise taxes, transfer
taxes bond funds and funds from the county budget.
Kathleen W hite (center),
owner of Sedgewick Farm in
Queen Annes County,permanently protected her
land in 2006 by working with
ESLC and John Hutson (left)
of the Maryland
Environmental Trust.
A whopping 78 percent of voters say they would suppor t
reasonable investments of public funds to attain such a goal
and this suppor t ranged from 69 to 82 percent across the
six counties. (ESLC)
County Land Preservation Budget vs. County Operating BudgetCounty Total Co. Budget FY 07 Land Preservation 1.5%of
Budget* Total Budget
Caroline FY 07-$44,835,924 $1,140,000 $672,500
Cecil FY 06-$128,757,979 $1,000,000 $1,900,000
Dorchester FY 06-$61,649,417 $77,000 $924,000
Kent FY 04-$26,950,944 $100,000 $404,000
Queen Annes FY 06-$81,431,864 **0 $1,221,000
Talbot FY 06-$66,500,000 ***$550,000 $997,500
Note:Total county budget f igures are the most recent available on-line as of 9/08/06. Dollar figures per percentage are rounded
*Figures are for county generated funding only and as provided by county land preservation staff **PDR program in process of being established
***$500,000 has been proposed as a county budget expenditure
T
Shortfall in County Land Preservation Fundingvs. Amount Equivalent to 1.5% of the Fiscal Year
2007 Operating Budget(in order of most to least shortfall)
photobySandraEdwards
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
10/16
ven as the Shore takes on a more suburban look, harvesting the land and waters still
contributes more than a fifth of total economic output from the six upper Shore counties,
some $2 billion annually. It employs about one of every eight citizens here, more than 15,000 in all.
Like the land and waters they depend on, these natural resource-based industr ies have values
beyond easy economic measurement.They are what makes the Shore the Shore.Their economic
health is a front line defense against sprawl development.
Indeed, 95 percent of those polled agreed that promoting natural resource based industries was
impor tant to preserve the Shores way of life.
Goal 2 calls for implementing incentives for such industries in every countys economic develop-
ment plan.Queen Annes recently created an office of agriculture and economic development.
Implementing actions for the economic development of resource-based industries vary considerably
from county to county, making it very difficult to summarize the plans of every county in this publica-
tion. Here are two examples. Caroline, Dorchester and Talbot are working jointly through the Mid-Shore Regional Council to:
Create a full-time posit ion to focus solely on the economic development of resource-based indus-
tries in the three counties.
Investigate the feasibility of a barley-based ethanol plant.
Examine the feasibility of aquaculture technologies,with a goal of identifying a pilot project that has
the potential for significant economic impact.
UPDATED GOAL 2:
Making Traditional Economiesthe Future
10
E
Some prom-
ising efforts
are underway to addeconomic value to
the traditional ways
of making a living.
"Food, not feed" is
the motto of
Chesapeake Fields, an
Upper Shore enter-
prise contracting with
farmers to grow high-
value specialty
soybeans for the
Japanese snack food
market rather t hanselling crops literally
for chicken feed.
Another project
is exploring construc-
tion of a $30 million
ethanol production
plant using barley,
which can be double-
cropped along with
soybeans.
And in the
Choptank River,
watermen are
working with scien-
tists to restore the
once-rich oyster beds,
stocking disease-
resistant oysters, and
melding shellfish
sanctuaries with
satellite areas where
harvesting is allowed.
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
11/16
oal 3 has been significantly upgraded and expanded.
This portion of the agreement calls for counties to:
annually guide at least 80 percent of growth into designated
growth areas;establish a maximum annual residential growth
rate,and include a workforce housing element in the countycomprehensive plan. Polling shows 87 percent of voters are
concerned about the current rate of sprawl, and that 85
percent agree with promoting and investing in existing
communities.
The updated Eastern Shore 2010 agreement raises the
goial for directing growth to growth areas from 50 to 80
percent. This would save tens of thousands of acres,because
development outside growth areas consumes four to nine
times the land per household
(depending on the county) as
development in higher-growth
zones. Zoning is crit ical: both to
accommodate growth where itis planned and to restrict it
where rural landscapes are
desired.Rapid population
growth can undermine the best
county programs for preserving
their rural nature.The Eastern
Shore, which took from 1607 to the 1980s to reach 300,000
people, is on a pace to nearly double that by 2030.
UPDATED GOAL 3:
Growing Smarter, and Slower
G
Historical and Projected Annual County Population Growth Rates*
2000-2005 2005-2010 2025-2030
Caroline 1.01% 1.58% 1.49%
Cecil 2.51% 2.33% 1.65%
Dorchester 0.40% 1.17% 0.73%
Kent 0.47% 0.80% 0.44%
Queen Annes 2.53% 1.66% 0.91%
Talbot 0.84% 0.84% 0.41%
*Prepared by the Mar yland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services, September 2005
Note:Figures do not account for population increases associated with the relocation of mil itar y personnel to the region due to the federal Base Realignment And
Closure process.
What's at stake
are the
Centrevilles andthe Eastons, the
Galenas and
Viennas, the
Federalsburgs
and Cambridges
that are
struggling to
revitalize their
cores, even as
growth sprawls
out across the
countryside.
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
12/16
Marylanders
now endure the
econd longestommute times in the
ation--30 minutes on
verage--and one cause
workers driving
art her from their jobs
o afford the home they
ant. Just growing
ster, building more
omes, has a poor track
ecord in creating
fordable homes near
o workplaces.
easures that willork, from a recent
overnor's Taskforce on
Workforce H ousing,
clude a range of finan-
al incentives for both
uilders and buyers;
oning to encourage
edevelopment of land
nd older buildings near
b centers;also making
orkforce housing a
ommitment in county
ans.
UPDATED GOAL 3:
Growing Smarter, and Sloweroal 3 includes an objective for setting an upper limit to annual growth.The precise growth rate
is left up to the counties;Making growth pay its full costs,planning for the population current
residents want versus what is forecast, requiring adequate schools, sewers and roads are in place first
all are ways to slow growth.To ensure that people can afford homes in counties where they work,Goal 3 also commits local governments to make such housing a part of their development plans.
Currently,only Queen Annes County requires new subdivisions to include a certain percentage of
modestly priced homes.
Maryland ranks as the nations fourth least affordable state for housing, according to a League of
Women Voters repor t. Marylanders also now endure the second longest commute times in the nation
30 minutes one way on average and one cause is workers driving farther from their jobs to afford
the home they want.The state last year passed HB 1160,creating up to $10 million a year in grants for
counties and towns. But to qualify, local jurisdictions must commit to creating a workforce housing
element in their comprehensive plan. in state-approved growth areas.
G
12
County Comprehensive Plans Compliance With State WorkforceHousing Grant Program Requirements
Grant Eligibility Requirements Counties
Caroline Cecil Dorchester Kent Queen Annes Talbot
The plan contains a workforce housing element Yes Yes No Yes No* Yes
The plan contains an assessment of needs Yes No No No Yes Yes
The plan contains goals, policies, etc. Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
*Please note:The Queen Annes County 2002 comprehensive plan does not contain a separate section on workforce
housing, but does cover the issue under the plans Land Use Element chapter.
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
13/16
oal 4 repeats the call for Upper Shore governments to develop a regional transportation plan
by 2010 and adds a call for devising alternatives to a third Bay Bridge.
With continuation of current driving trends, which are linked closely with current development
trends, a third Bay Bridge becomes all but inevitable. By 2025,an average days traffic on the existing
twin spans will be nearly as bad as on a weekend day now and 12 hour delays at peak weekend
times would be common, according to a recent state Bay Crossing Task Force report.
Another span would bring irreparable changes to the farms, histor ic communities and rural way of
life on the Shore, with major impacts on presently undeveloped tidal shorelines.
Combined with this would be automotive impacts beyond the obvious traffic congestion and
smog. Paved surfaces in the Bay region are growing five times faster than population, and the roads,
driveways, garages and parking lots for cars account for more than half of it . Small wonder that
stormwater runoff, which is worst where large areas are paved over, is the Shores fastest-increasing
source of water pollut ion, and a major force degrading streams throughout Maryland.For tunately, the grim Bay Crossing task force projections show only what will happen if nothing is
done to reshape growth and transportation.Alternatives exist that would stretch the capacity of the
existing bridges.
The upper Shore counties must immediately engage state government in discussing beach-
or iented rapid transit buses, variable tolls to smooth congestion peaks on the bridges;also ride-
sharing,telecommuting and other alternatives. Better balancing jobs and housing on both sides of the
Bridge could reduce commuter traffic.This could avoid gridlock on the current bridges and major
change to the Shore from another car crossing, and provide time for exploration of mass-transit
options by ferr y or rail.
UPDATED GOAL 4:
Regional Transportation Planning anda New Bay Bridge?
G
13
The upper
Shore coun
must immediatelyengage state gover
ment in discussing
beach-oriented rap
transit like buses, v
able tolls to smoot
congestion peaks o
bridges; also ride-
sharing, telecommu
and other alternati
It is easy to for
that long before th
was a Bay Bridge, it
possible to travel tobeach and back. Ne
a century ago, the o
Ocean City Flyer ra
road train picked u
western shore beac
goers from the boa
docks at Claiborne
highballed the 87 m
of track to Ocean C
in as litt le as two h
and ten minutes.
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
14/16
The sobering
rojections of
unaway
evelopment
verwhelming the
Eastern Shore are
ot destiny
This need not be
ur future.
14
ITS YOUR DECISION
The Fate of the Eastern Shore?or tunately, the sobering projections of runaway development overwhelming the Eastern Shore
are not destiny.They are based on assumptions that trends of the recent past will continue.This
need not be our future!
Our lands and waters are under assault, but far more remains than has been lost. Shore countiespossess the knowledge and the tools to do better.And by broad and solid margins, their citizens
demand it. Of all t he generations in all of human time here, this one uniquely has the power to alter
ir revocably or sustain the Shore as an island amid the sea of East Coast development. On our
watch it will be largely decided whether or not our Eden gets sliced and diced by development,
served up with a steaming side of asphalt .
Swift and strong action is needed to manage growth on the Shore that maintains our heritage and
quality of life.We are all responsible for what will or will not happen.
Eastern Shore Land Conservancy is a private, nonprofit organization working to protect land and promote
sound land use planning on six counties of Marylands Eastern Shore. Our volunteer board of directors includes
Eastern Shore landowners representing agriculture, business and local government. Since 1990, ESLC has
protected more than 39,000 acres on over 200 Shore properties.
For more informat ion on protecting your land or taking action on local land use issues, visit www.eslc.org,
and contact our staff at 410.827.9756 or info@eslc.org.
F
W hat YOU can do:
Contact your local elected officials and urge them to sign Eastern Shore 2010andcommit to implementing the changes it calls for.
Show your suppor t for the rural Shore we all love by signing the Eastern Shore2010petition.
Visit www.eslc.org to sign up as a volunteer and work on current issues.
Spread the word by sharing this report with others.
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
15/16
ReferencesEastern Shore Land Conservancy. (June 2006).Eastern Shore 2010: A Regional Vision, Draft. Queenstown, MD.
Eastern Shore Land Conservancy. (2005).Eastern Shore 2010:A Regional Vision. Attaining the Growth Center GoalQueenstown, MD.
Fodor, Eben.(2001).Better Not Bigger How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community. Gabriola Island,BC,
Canada: New Society Publishers.
Hor ton,Tom. (1998, July - August). A Sense of Place.Style, 42.
Horton,Tom. (2005,June ) Why Cant We Save the Bay?Nat ional Geographic, 22.
Horton,Tom & Chesapeake Bay Foundation. (2003).Turning the Tide: Saving the Chesapeake Bay.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Hor ton,Tom & Eichbaum,William M. (1991). Turning the Tide: Saving the Chesapeake Bay.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Jantz,P.,Goetz,S.,& Jantz, C. (2005). Urbanization and the Loss of Resource Lands in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Environmental Management, 36, 6,808-825.
League of Women Voters of Maryland. (2006). Affordable Housing Study.Annapolis,MD.
Maryland Department of Planning. (June,2006).Eastern Shore Analysis,Draft. Baltimore,MD.
Maryland Department of Planning. (2006).Eastern Shore Growth: Past, Present, Future and Issues.Baltimore,MD: MDP.
Maryland Department of Planning.(September 2005). Planning Data Services: Historical and Projected Total Population for M arylands
Jurisdictions. Baltimore,MD.
Maryland Department of Planning.(2005).Task Force on Traffic Capacity Across the Chesapeake Bay. Baltimore,MD.
Members of Johns Hopkins University (1893). Mar yland: Its resources, Industr ies and Institutions. Baltimore,MD: Board of Worlds
Fair Managers of Maryland.
Mencken and the Shore. (1983,Fall). Washington College Reporter. Vol. 21,Issue 1,9.
National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education. (2006).Todays Vision,Tomorrows Reality;Summary Report of the
Reality Check Plus Growth Visioning Exercise. College Park, MD.
New Jersey Pinelands Commission. (2004). White Paper on Timed-Growth Options for the Pinelands. New Lisbon,NJ: Author.
South Central Assembly for Effective Governance. (2005).The Mason-Dixon Dilemma:Assessing the Impacts of Regional Growth
Patterns In the ChesapeakeWatershed Region. Middletown, PA.
Writ ten by Tom Horton; Edited by Amanda Fisher, Fisher Communications, George Maurer and Kristine George,ESLC.Layout by Liz Fisher, Grafix Galore
Copyright 2007 Eastern Shore Land Conservancy.This publication may be reproduced and material contained within may
be used without permission with credit given to ESLC.
Back cover photo of north Centreville by Caroline Gabel
-
8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy
16/16
I think I understand.
Youre trying to keep the
Garden of Eden here.
Jim Mosley, USDA deputy
secretary, after an aerial tour ofthe Eastern Shore.
top related