submitted Gerrit Knaap, director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education and a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park.

• 
• 
submitted Casey Dawkins, co-author of the report, research associate at the center and an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park.

submitted Gerrit Knaap, director of the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education and a professor at the University of Maryland, College Park.

 

<< Prev

Next >>

More News

School board:?Students need more options for technology credit

Capital budget includes money for Bethesda Metro station, Wheaton redevelopment

Parents plan to testify against proposed Oxon Hill development

Mixed-use development proposed for Laurel’s arts district

Takoma Park police aim to catch fleeing thieves

UM research center takes aim at areas designed for development

by barbara pash

Special to the gazette

As the state enters a crucial phase in a decades-long mission to control where development takes place, a key element in the governor’s smart-growth initiative is largely ineffective, according to a new report by a research center at the University of Maryland.

The study by the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education criticizes Priority Funding Areas, one of the foundations of Gov. Martin O’Malley’s PlanMaryland effort.

PFAs, which the General Assembly established in 1997 as areas designated by local governments for residential development and which are targeted by the state for infrastructure spending, have had limited impact, the report says.

One problem contributing to the ineffectiveness of PFAs is inconsistencies between state and local planning objectives, according to the report, entitled “Barriers to Development Inside Maryland’s Priority Funding Areas.”

Maryland’s 23 counties, Baltimore city and incorporated municipalities designate the PFAs based on statutory criteria for density, sewer service capacity, intended land use and zoning. The state reviews and can comment on PFAs, but local governments set their boundaries.

Another problem surrounding Priority Funding Areas is that the development within them is higher density, leading to more intense citizen opposition at times.

Also, the report notes that it is difficult to assemble multiple parcels of land for development within the priority areas. That difficulty is compounded by requirements for the environment, parking and utility easements.

The report by the nonpartisan center, which is located on the University of Maryland’s College Park campus, comes a month after O’Malley (D) issued an executive order to implement PlanMaryland, which takes smart-growth development to 2035. The release of the report, on Jan. 18, is not entirely coincidental.

“PlanMaryland builds on a framework of PFAs; it is important that they be drawn well and work well,” Gerrit Knaap, director of the center, co-author of the report and a Maryland professor, said of the timing. “We are hopeful that our report influences the conversation.”

Also, the authors wanted to issue the report in time for the 2012 General Assembly session, said Casey Dawkins, research associate at the center and a Maryland professor who co-wrote the document.

The center has criticized PFAs in previous reports. The latest report, commissioned by the Maryland State Builders Association and NAIOP, Commercial Real Estate Development Association, Maryland Chapter, asked developers and county and municipal officials their opinions of the Priority Funding Areas.

While PFAs are intended to encourage development within their boundaries and to discourage development beyond, by a margin of almost 4-1 the report’s respondents found just the opposite: It was easier to develop outside the PFA than within it.

The factors contributing to the finding included rigorous stormwater management regulations and adequate public facility ordinances, along with citizen opposition and a lack of zoned land.

For example, the demand is strong within PFAs for high-rise apartments and mixed-use complexes, but these high-density developments are the most difficult to capitalize and build because of land availability and uncertainty about community impact.

Complicating matters, state funding that could serve as an incentive for local governments is inadequate.

“The truth is, the state doesn’t have that much money for infrastructure investment. It’s not strong enough [to influence] development patterns,” said Knaap, who estimated in an earlier report covering fiscal 1999 to 2007 that state spending for projects within PFAs amounted to roughly $1.1 billion per year, or about 5 percent of the state’s total budget over the same period.

The report does not seek to eliminate PFAs, a cornerstone of smart-growth legislation in Maryland. Instead, it recommends ways to improve them — from better integration into a county’s planning process to reduction of regulatory restrictions.

Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold has a long-standing interest in PFAs. As a delegate in the Maryland House, he unsuccessfully introduced a bill to establish PFAs in 1996, a year before legislation from former governor Parris Glendening passed.

Leopold calls PFAs a “useful economic development tool,” and particularly so for Anne Arundel. He points to Annapolis Towne Centre, a mixed-used development in Annapolis within a PFA.

Because of flexibility in changing PFA boundaries, the county’s PFAs include not only Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport but Arundel Mills as well, where a casino is being built.

Andrew Ratner, director of communications for the Maryland Department of Planning, called the report an “affirmation” of PlanMaryland.

It “dovetails” with the governor’s program and confirms what officials have been saying about impediments to smart growth, he said.

“We are using land at three times the population growth,” said Ratner, who said he was not surprised by the criticism of PFAs.

The governor’s executive order does not specifically mention them, but PlanMaryland has itself identified problems with PFAs, some of them echoing the report.

Ratner expects the planning office to spend this year hammering out PlanMaryland’s details with other state agencies and local governments. In PlanMaryland, “there is a sense of trying to put another layer on PFAs to create more focus,” said Ratner, adding that the report’s recommendations will be considered.

Advocates of smart growth gave the report mixed reviews. Dru Schmidt-Perkins, executive director of 1000 Friends of Maryland, a coalition focused on smart growth and transportation, said it didn’t shed new light on PFAs or come up with new solutions.

To Schmidt-Perkins, the problem lies not with the PFA concept but with the way local governments use it. “We need local government to step up with the zoning process and make it easier for development to occur where we want it and to restrict it in rural land that they purport they want to protect,” she said.

Lee Epstein, director of land programs for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said some of the recommendations in the report have been discussed previously. “It’s not new, but it’s useful to say it,” he said.

The use of financial incentives for smart-growth management is common around the country. Maryland’s PFA is unique in allowing local jurisdictions the authority to designate the areas. It also is less stringent than similar tools elsewhere.

But targeted spending alone will not achieve smart-growth results, said Knaap, who points to local government and regulatory institutions as having to buy into the process.

Epstein agrees.

“PFAs are an important element in the state’s smart-growth program, and they can be improved,” he said. “Other incentives for development can be provided. These are changes that have to be made.

“But,” he said of PFAs, “you don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water.”