It was just another item on the agenda Tuesday evening at the County Council meeting, and since I don’t have the record of what happened yet I have to presume it passed without a peep of opposition. (I’d be happy to stand corrected, but I know the resolution passed. Whether it was 4-2 or 6-0, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference in the end.)
With that passage the county was authorized to spend nearly $2 million in state money to purchase easements on 710 acres of land along Nanticoke and Royal Oak Roads known as the Tracey Property – that’s a little over one square mile of territory.
In a statement, county PIO Jim Fineran quoted County Executive Rick Pollitt as saying, “This is another important step in the preservation of our rural way of life here. The fact that this unspoiled property will remain as that is of crucial importance to us and future generations. We are deeply appreciative of Governor O’Malley’s support through the Department of Natural Resources.” Well, they should be appreciative – but I’d rather see that funding come to us as highway money so the roads can be fixed and upgraded.
There was one statement in the briefing book that intrigued me, though:
Since the inception of Wicomico County’s Rural Legacy Program in 2000, the State’s Green Infrastructure Program (Established in 2004) has developed additional goals and strategies for protecting environmentally sensitive areas. A predominate (sic) attribute among the program’s goals and strategies is to improve connectivity between environmentally sensitive and naturally occurring areas through the use of greenways or corridors. Over 97% (461.1 acres) of this particular easement acquisition lies within a State designated Green Infrastructure Hub and will assist the State’s goals of preserving large consecutive tracts of land and promote connectivity between the County’s various land preservation programs. (Emphasis mine.)
So PlanMaryland’s goals are already in place; as greenways get larger less land is available for development. In the case of this parcel, the euphemistic estimate is that up to 110 lots were “extinguished” by the purchase of this easement – betcha that would have netted the Tracey trust far more than $2 million.
And it’s not just this property. It seems like whoever wrote this is proud about the fact:
To date, $4,382,729.34 of Rural Legacy funds, as well as $144,698.14 of Wicomico County Forest Conservation Funds, Wicomico County Agricultural Preservation Funds and private donations, have already been used to protect 2,188.152 acres of land in the Quantico Creek Rural Legacy Area by way of easement acquisition. These easements were placed on lands near the headwaters of Quantico Creek surrounding the historic rural village of Quantico, as well as prime agricultural and forest land along Royal Oak Road. This area is recognized for its rural character. open lands, cultural significance, wildlife habitat and water quality impact on the Nanticoke River Watershed. By placing easements on these lands a minimum of 374 and potential maximum 622 dwelling units have been extinguished in the Agricultural Zoning (A — 1) district, further indicating our commitment to protect our natural and agricultural resources in Wicomico County. Currently, Wicomico County has $1,279,729.34 allocated to it from the State to purchase Rural Legacy easements.
That’s growth that we can’t have now; well, it’s the freedom to develop in that area. Instead, the state has placed their bootstamp of control on this private property so that future generations are saddled with land which can’t reach its highest and best use. It’s not to say that all of the land could or should be developed, but now there’s no choice. That’s why I’ve advocated these types of programs run on a 20 to 25 year schedule so the next generation is free to change its mind should economic circumstances demand this.
And if the central planners in Annapolis have their way, the state will also have the power to not just purchase easement rights through the various counties, but withhold funding in places where they don’t want growth. I doubt there’s a whole lot of Rural Legacy money spent along the I-95 corridor because that’s where all the Democrats live.
It’s just another part of the War on Rural Maryland, and our County Council was duped into going along.
Politicians of all stripes never seem to be able to answer the question: when all the private property is gone, who pays the taxes to fund their excesses? The entire County Council should be held accountable for these wastes of money.
Its one thing if a private taxpayer chooses to take their land out of “circulation” and gift it for preservation– or even get a tax break for such gifting. It is an entirely different matter for government to continue it its inexorable march to be the largest landholder in the world.
Michael,
There is no comparison to this program and PlanMD. While I have no real use for tax dollars buying conservation easements, this is a far cry from O’Malley’s plan to strip rural landowners of their property rights without compensation.
Gunpowder,
This was a case of a private taxpayer choosing to take their land our of “circulation”. Yes, tax dollars are used to purchase these easements. However, that is not the same as the government seizing the land or even buying it.
If you are going to attack something, make sure you understand what you are attacking.
I disagree, because the outcomes are the same: the government exerts too much control over what one does with private property. Even if PlanMaryland is somehow thwarted, the government can still use this tactic.
I understand the need for zoning laws, which also restrict what can be done with private property but are done at a local level. However, go back and reread the goal of the state’s program: to establish wildlife corridors and greenways. And again, I state my case that these sorts of decisions should be made on a temporary, not permanent, basis. If the next generation of the Tracey family feels the need to improve its land to its highest and best use they should have that option – instead, they are now saddled with a plot of land relegated to agricultural use and of limited tax benefit to the county. It seems to me this is a great way to keep rural counties dependent on the state for assistance when they would otherwise stand a chance of developing enough to tell Annapolis to pound sand.
I don’t disagree that the state interferes too much in land use. However, that isn’t the point here.
First of all, the property owners willingly sold the easement. That is their right as much as I believe it is the right of a landowner to develop his or her property (within reasonable zoning restrictions).
Second, this was done at the county level. It was done with state monies, but it was still done by the county.
They didn’t have to sell the easement to not develop the land, and if you believe the state interferes too much in land use you would see my point that the state should not only not be in the business of dictating what local governments tell their residents should and shouldn’t do with their property, but shouldn’t be landowners in the first place aside from that which is necessary for them to function. (Admittedly, that is in the eye of the beholder because someone in government will tell me every square inch they own has a function. I disagree.)
But your contention regarding state (and not county) money brings up a point I made in the original post – why are we getting state money that is for something counterproductive to our long-term interests? Imagine what we could do with a million dollars of highway funding, for example. A million dollars would also be about 1.3 cents off our property tax rate – coincidentally, that’s about what they raised it over the replacement rate. Instead, we got a million dollars with enough strings attached to make a serious ball of twine.