Message from the Chairman: O'Malley's "PlanMaryland" Zoning Proposal: Marylanders Not Ready to Return to Row Houses   

Earlier this month Maryland's Department of Planning released the latest version of its "PlanMaryland." The proposal would allow the state to limit local growth by dramatically increasing Annapolis' land use authority in order to impose so-called "smart growth." A draft can be found online at Plan.Maryland.gov.

PlanMaryland has been under attack, especially from local officials. The Maryland Association of Counties warns that it cannot "support a plan that would impose a centralized state-controlled land use model" on member counties. Rural counties are particularly concerned that a one-size-fits-all approach will retard their economic development and shift tax dollars to more densely populated areas of the state.

The initial introduction of land use laws in Maryland is an extraordinarily ugly chapter in our state's history. In 1910 Baltimore's Mayor Barry Mahool, who historians describe as "a nationally recognized member of the 'social justice' wing of the Progressive movement," initiated the nation's first zoning ordinance directly aimed at segregating black and white homeowners. The measure actually divided every street in Baltimore into "white blocks" and "colored blocks." Explicit segregationist zoning laws were struck down by the U.S Supreme Court in 1917.[i] 

Planning ideologues have since changed their focus. Now suburban living generates their intense scorn. Usually they try to mask their goals behind the buzz words of 'sustainability,' 'sprawl,' 'reducing automobile dependency' and 'smart growth.' Hidden behind their jargon, their current objective is simple: Concentrate more people living on less space.

For much of the first half of the last century, as much a half of Maryland's entire population was concentrated on less than 1% of its land area, the 80 square miles of Baltimore. In 1920 there were more people in some single square miles of Baltimore as in all of Montgomery County. However since 1950, Baltimore City's population has declined by 35%, and the balance of the state has grown from 1.3 million people to 5 million.

Marylanders voted with their feet (or perhaps more accurately with their cars) to get more space. More space means more than yard space or more distance from neighbors. Today's new homes have several times the floor space of a Baltimore row house. Yet despite these changes, Maryland still has, on average, fewer than one person per acre.  

Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to city living. For 14 years my wife and I owned an apartment in a house built in the 1840s in a neighborhood with a density that remains over 50 people per acre, or 35,000 per square mile. However after our children arrived, we chose to move to housing with more space. Ours is an experience shared by millions of American families who also gave up shorter commutes for the suburbs.

Families make individual calculations in choosing where they live. They trade off a variety of considerations, including living space, cost, commute and educational opportunity.  

Automobiles have expanded the breadth of those choices with unprecedented individual mobility. Yet that the overwhelming majority of Maryland commuters drive alone irritates planning ideologues no end.    

Planning advocates treat transportation tax revenues as an opportunity for income redistribution. Although transportation money is primarily raised from automobile users, it is disproportionately used to subsidize the relatively smaller number of mass transit users.   (And that is when transportation funds are actually used for transportation and not diverted, as Governor O'Malley has done, to pay for other programs such as expanded Medicaid eligibility.)

Housing zoning restrictions drive up costs. One recent study estimates that smart growth initiatives have added an extra $75,000 in additional costs for a typical new home in the Baltimore-Washington region. (See NCPA)  Housing prices are driven up when regulation reduces the land available for new construction.  

For several decades an area nearly twice the land mass of Baltimore City in size within Montgomery County has been set aside as an "Agriculture Reserve." The majority of this land is now being used either as woods or for homes on acreage significantly larger than would occur without the reserve's zoning requirements. Fewer than 200 of the county's farms have as much as even $10,000 in annual sales. One consequence of these policies has been to make Montgomery County's homes less affordable. While this is certainly a benefit for those selling a house, it adds to a home purchaser's cost.

No doubt if Annapolis bureaucrats had had the same goals in 1950 as now and the land use powers that they now seek, instead of today's Maryland suburbs, they would have tried to mandate the construction of more Baltimore-style row houses. After all, there is no probably no better reflection of the most desirable development plan of smart growth ideologues than row-house, street car-era Baltimore.

The Maryland Public Policy Institute

Tax More to Support the Fillmore?

by Marc Kilmer    -  SEPTEMBER 14, 2011

Head on down to the Fillmore in Silver Spring this Thursday. It's the opening night for the venue and Mary J. Blige is performing. If you want to see the Queen of Hip-Hop Soul but don't want to pay $81 for a ticket, just tell them at the door you are a Maryland taxpayer and that you've already contributed to the construction of the venue.        

Perhaps I have confused you. The Fillmore isn't a nonprofit. It's not a government-owned venue. It's part of the Live Nation music empire. Why should a profit making venture like Live Nation be getting $11.2 million in taxpayer money to build a concert hall?

Looking at the prices of the acts playing at the Fillmore, it seems that this taxpayer money isn't going to help local music fans hear affordable music. Ticket prices seem a bit steep to me:

• Mary J. Blige -- $80.50
• John Legend -- $65.50
• Blondie -- $35.00
• Levon Helm -- $45.00
• Moby -- $30.00

There are, of course, additional fees on top of these prices.

It's been a few years since I attended a concert in DC, but as someone who used to go to the 9:30 Club and the Black Cat, I remember ticket prices as being a little more reasonable. In fact, checking out the 9:30 Club website, my memory seems to be correct. The highest ticket price at that venue was $55.00, for a Loretta Lynn concert.

Clearly, Live Nation is out to make money off the Fillmore. That's fine; I have no problem with a business doing that. I do have a problem when that business is using taxpayer dollars to subsidize its profits, though.

Politicians are ultimately to blame for this situation. They are the ones who handed over our money to this business. Why do they do that? They claim it's because venues like concert halls produce economic activity that creates jobs and increases the tax base.

Lawrence Reed, President of the Foundation for Economic Education, discusses this fallacy in a recent Freeman article:

Those "studies" that purport to show X return on Y amount of government investment in the arts are generally a laughingstock among economists. The numbers are often cooked and are almost never put alongside competing uses of public money for comparison. Moreover, a purely dollars-and-cents return-even if accurate-is a small part of the total picture.

The fact is, virtually every interest group with a claim on the treasury argues that spending for its projects produces some magical "multiplier" effect. Routing other people's money through the government alchemy machine is supposed to somehow magnify national wealth and income, while leaving it in the pockets of those who earned it is somehow a drag. Assuming for a moment that such preposterous claims are correct, wouldn't it make sense from a purely material perspective to calculate the "average" multiplier and then route all income through the government? Don't they do something like that in Cuba and North Korea? What happened to the multiplier in those places? It looks to me that somewhere along the way it became a divisor.

The owners of the 9:30 Club sued to stop this taxpayer handout, something I wrote about in the past. Obviously, this suit failed. Those of us opposed to government-subsidized businesses could root for the Fillmore to fail, but the taxpayer money has already been spent. If the Fillmore goes bankrupt, the taxpayers won't get a refund. There's not much we can do now about this wasteful project, unfortunately, except go to the venue and enjoy the overpriced concerts that you helped subsidize.

You can find this online at: Available online 

Are YOU Safe and Secure in Montgomery County? Think Again!

By Alexandra Brown

In May 2011, CASA de Maryland scored a victory when the Montgomery County Council voted for political correctness instead of public safety by voting to try to reject the county's participation in the Secure Communities Program. The Program is a partnership between local law enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security, (ICE), which checks for fingerprints of those who have been arrested against an expansive, nation-wide database. All states will need to comply by 2013.

While not dominating local newspaper headlines, this past week in Milford, Massachusetts, a new college graduate, Matthew Denice, was dragged to his death by an illegal immigrant, Nicolas Guaman who was "allegedly" drunk.   You see, Milford is not part of the Secure Communities Program. Had Milford been a participant, Guaman would have been sent back to Ecuador due to prior offenses, which had included assaulting both a police officer and firefighter.   Despite this horrendous incident, the program is not supported Governor Deval Patrick, who seems to think political correctness trumps public safety. Law enforcement throughout Massachusetts is taking Patrick to task.

This program is necessary, insists, David Tuttle, Chief Deputy Sherriff for Worcester County in Milford, Massachusetts.   Tuttle correctly points out that anyone "..can give any name, address, and fake license, but, fingerprints do not lie." Had Milford been a part of the program, fingerprints would have been sent to the FBI and automatically shared with ICE. This would have given law enforcement information to determine Guaman 's immigration status and whether he had any previous arrest record.    

Currently in Milford, as with other nonparticipating counties, it can take up to several days for ICE to receive fingerprints from the FBI, and often those with criminal histories may be released before it can be determined.  

The Secure Communities Program faces challenges from political leaders and groups, such as Casa de Maryland, which are in favor of lax immigration law enforcement and or seek to water down or end the program altogether.   Approximately 30% of the reported cases to ICE are for non-violent offenders.   ICE released a memo in June, making modifications to the program to address some of the concerns with regard to the non-violent offenders who are here illegally.   Some states , such as Texas , have considered legislation (SB9), which would keep people arrested for Class C misdemeanors (i.e. theft for less than $50) from being entered into the Secure Communities database.    

Still, these developments are worrisome and do not bode well for the safety of our citizens. The bottom line is that it is the job of the Montgomery County Council to ensure that the police department has all the necessary tools to do their job effectively.     Positive leadership could be and should be shown by this Council to put public safety ahead of political correctness. It is this writer's hope that it will not take an incident like the one that occurred in Milford, Massachusetts to convince the County Council of the error of its ways.

SAUERBREY: Uncle Sam shakes down banks to pay for fiasco he triggered - Suing financial institutions for doing what Congress mandated won't help anyone

By Ellen Sauerbrey - from the Washington Times - Monday, September 19, 2011

When the government is directly responsible for irresponsible behavior, should it then sue over the consequences?