Prince Georgian: Crain Corner

current info

An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.

"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil—he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego." He continued, "The other is good—he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you—and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

First People - The Legends. Cherokee Legend of Two Wolves. November 16, 2004. [accessed April 7, 2012].

Showing posts with label Crain Corner. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Stratford Estates, Old Crain Highway, Upper Marlborough Development Tries to Erase History

Our County Councilman has his eye on our community, but cannot tell us why. Mr. Davis has called up for review the Historic conditions for new homes that are being plopped into the middle of a Notional Register eligible district. For some reason Mr. Davis cannot tell neighbors of the new development what exactly his concerns are, so of course they cannot adequately prepare for the hearing.

It occurs to me that there is some question as to the history of my community and the reasons for the conditions recommended by the Historical Preservation Commission. As a neighbor to this development project, I felt obliged to recuse myself as Chairman of the Prince George's County Historic Preservation Commission deliberations that resulted in the current recommendations.

Let me be clear. Our community is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1990 a survey was conducted of our community which listed 88 contributing resources in Woodland. The designation would have come with limited protections against adverse state and federal actions for the owners of historic structures. Historic property owners also would be eligibility for state income tax credit. For the record, my house was built in 1987 and is not eligible. This project will all but certainly destroy that eligibility so that a few may gain at the expense of the many which is typical in this county. The conditions set forth are an attempt to preserve some of the integrity of the community and only applies to the first (front) four lots.

Woodland was eligible as a historic district in the National Register of Historic Places. Our community met the following criteria:

Criterion A – Woodland is a fine example of an intact, rural agricultural community that reflects the continuity of change over time. Woodland is also representative of the importance of tobacco as a cash crop and the use of plantation slavery in Maryland’s agricultural history. It is also associated with the theme of transportation as it is the site of several important roads and bridges in Prince George’s County. Woodland contains two houses associated with freed African-Americans, which illustrates the transition from slavery to freedom after the Civil War.

Criterion C – Woodland contains a variety of architecture that reflects distinct periods of time from the late-eighteenth century to the first-quarter of the twentieth century. Styles represented include excellent examples of Georgian/Federal Greek Revival, Italianate, Victorian Gothic, Queen Anne, and Craftsman styles, which includes both vernacular and high-style designs. Woodland is also the site of a rare example of a private Roman Catholic chapel erected by the Hill family at Compton Bassett. This is believed to be one of the last remaining private chapels in Prince George’s County.

Criterion D – The community has the potential to yield significant information about NativeAmerican inhabitants and the enslaved African-American community in Prince George’s County.

In addition to its historic significance, Woodland has retained, up until this development, its integrity of location, design, setting,workmanship, materials, feeling, and association.

Our Woodland is a rural agricultural community located in central Prince George’s County, east of Upper Marlboro, Maryland. The land associated with the area known as Woodland was owned by Clement Hill, Jr., who patented 748 acres called Compton Bassett in 1699. The first frame building erected on the site was demolished when the family built a large Federal-style brick house circa 1780. Compton Bassett (PG: 79-063-10) is also the site of a rare example of a private Roman Catholic chapel erected by the Hill family. This is believed to be one of the last remaining private chapels in Prince George’s County. The Hill family continued to add acreage to their landholdings, and by 1818, a direct decendant, Dr. William Hill (arrested by the British along with his friends and neighbors: Beanes [buried across the street from the Upper Marlbough Post Office], Bowie, and Weems in events that led to the writing of the Star-Spangled Banner) amassed 2,184 acres which he resurveyed and renamed “Woodland.”1 His holdings stretched from the Patuxent River on the east to the limits of Upper Marlboro on the west. When Dr. Hill died in 1823, his land was divided among his four children.2 After Hill’s death, his descendents constructed several houses located nearby including Bleak Hill (PG: 79-063-06) and Ashland. John C. Wyvill, a prominent local carpenter, was responsible for the construction of several historic buildings in the community including the Eckenrode-Wyvill House (PG: 79-063-08) and Linden Hill (PG: 79-063-50).

Dr. Hill's son, William Beanes Hill, who inherited Compton Bassett from his father, received a charter in 1854 to construct a toll bridge across the Patuxent River, connecting Anne Arundel and Prince George’s counties. The bridge became known as Hill’s Bridge and connected to the Marlboro-Queen Anne Road, further establishing the road as an important transportation route.4 William Beanes Hill continued the family tradition of farming and landholding and acquired more than 3,500 acres south and east of Upper Marlboro. He earned income from his various tobacco plantations, as well as from a commercial venture in which he developed a riverfront complex complete with stores, warehouses, wharf, mill, and residential dwellings to take advantage of burgeoning commerce on the river. In 1850, Hill reported owning 62 slaves, ranging in age from one to 100 years old.5 In 1860, Hill had reduced the number of slaves he owned to 32 slaves, who were housed in four “slave houses.”6 That same year, his plantations produced 500,000 pounds of tobacco, considerably higher than other plantations in the area. In addition to being a successful planter, Hill was also involved in the political aspects of life in Prince George’s County, serving for 25 years as the Chief Judge of the Orphans Court and serving one term in the Maryland State Senate.

Other significant buildings in the area include houses of two freedman, constructed on land that belonged to Henry Waring Clagett. A one-and-one-half-story wood-frame dwelling at 3708 Old Crain Highway was built sometime before 1875 by freedman John Henry Quander. A former slave of Mordecai Plummer, Quander purchased one-and-a-half-acres of land from Henry Clagett (Plummer’s nephew). Freedman Nat Beall constructed his one-story dwelling at 3702 Old Crain Highway on land he bought from Clagett in 1874.9 The 1860 Federal Census lists Clagett as owning 26 slaves, thus, it may be possible that Beall was a former Clagett slave.

Transportation is a significant theme in the Woodland community. Old Crain Highway, which bisects the community, is an important early road that roughly follows the circa 1700 Marlborough-Queen Anne Road, connecting the two port towns. When Upper Marlboro was designated as the new county seat in 1721, the Marlborough-Queen Anne Road began to see more traffic.11 Hill’s Bridge was constructed in 1854 over the Patuxent River, providing a connection between Anne Arundel and Prince George’s County. The construction of Robert Crain Highway in 1927 brought additional traffic through the agricultural community. This highway resulted in the closure of a portion of the original right-of-way, located near Bleak Hill. The construction of the Marlboro Bypass in the 1950s, which was later expanded and became U.S. Route 301, moved traffic to the east, effectively removing the majority of traffic through the community. This highway has allowed Woodland to remain a rural agricultural landscape.[1]

The 1861 Martenet map shows a rural landscape in the Woodland area. The only identifiable houses include that of Clement Hill and his son William Beanes Hill. Also shown is Hill’s Bridge across the Patuxent. By 1878, the Hopkins map documents more growth in the area. The Hill family has expanded and constructed additional buildings, and their waterfront complex on the river is also shown. Many other families are represented, including the Clagetts, Quander, and Beall families. The map also shows significant growth along what is now Marlboro Pike, leading into Upper Marlboro, the county seat.

There were seven sites designated Historic in Woodland in the 1990 survey, one of which has since been lost to fire:

• PG: 79-063-05, Bowling Heights (NR), 3610 Old Crain Highway

• PG: 79-063-06, Bleak Hill, 4103 Old Crain Highway

• PG: 79-063-08, Eckenrode-Wyvill House, 4501 Wyvill Road

• PG: 79-063-10, Compton Bassett (NR), 16508 Marlboro Pike

• PG: 79-063-11, Ashland (NR), 16107 Marlboro Pike, 1867

• PG: 79-063-50, Wyvill House (Linden Hill), 4102 Old Crain Highway

There is one Historic Resource and one new historic site :

• 79-063-12, Gregor Hall. 4004 Old Crain Highway

• PG: 79-063-07, Site of Bowling-Buck House, 4106 Old Crain Highway

[1] COUNTY COUNCIL OF PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND

1999 Legislative Session

Resolution No.

CR-39-1999

Proposed by Council Member Estepp

Introduced by Council Member Estepp

Co-Sponsors

Date of Introduction

July 27, 1999

RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION concerning

Old Crain Highway

For the purpose of designating Old Crain Highway in Upper Marlboro, within the limits described herein, as a Scenic Road pursuant to Subtitle 23 (Roads and Sidewalks) of the County Code.

WHEREAS, Subtitle 23 (Roads and Sidewalks) in the County Code authorizes the County Council to designate Scenic Roads; and

WHEREAS, a Scenic Road, as defined in Section 23-102, is a public or private road which provides scenic views along a substantial part of its length through natural or manmade features such as forest or extensive woodland, cropland, pasturage, or meadows; distinctive topography, including outcroppings, streambeds, or wetlands; traditional building types; historic sites; or roadway features such as curving, rolling roadway alignment and “leaf tunnels;” and

WHEREAS, the Master Plan for Subregion VI, approved in 1993, recommends preservation of historic and scenic roads in the Subregion and refers to the Rural Historic Landscapes and Scenic Roads Study, Subregion VI, December 1988, which also recommends preservation of historic landscapes and scenic roads; and

WHEREAS, the Master Plan for Subregion VI specifically names Old Crain Highway southwest of Upper Marlboro as a “significant historic landscape;” notes that the highway "still offers vistas of rolling farmland, continuing the historic usage of this area;” and states that the highway is the location of Weston, “the early 19th-century plantation of the locally prominent Clagett family, with its tree-lined entry drive, its wooded house site and burial ground, and its clearly defined agricultural spaces, as well as a line of Bald Cypress trees planted along Old Crain Highway;” and

WHEREAS, the Master Plan for Subregion VI makes the following specific recommendation:

Old Crain Highway traverses a landscape that is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The area should be preserved through land use policies, complemented with the preservation of the historic road alignment. Special landscape features, such as the Bald Cypress trees near Weston, should be protected.

WHEREAS, to implement these Master Plan recommendations, the County Council deems it appropriate to designate Old Crain Highway south of Upper Marlboro, between the town boundary and U.S. Rt. 301, as a Scenic Road.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Council of Prince George's County, Maryland, that Old Crain Highway southwest of Upper Marlboro, between the boundary of the Town of Upper Marlboro and U.S. Rt. 301, is hereby designated as a Scenic Road pursuant to Subtitle 23 of the County Code.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the Council’s intention in designating Old Crain Highway as a Scenic Road that the scenic and historic character of this road be preserved to the greatest possible extent consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare, and therefore roadway improvements should be limited to those necessary to meet safety requirements and otherwise satisfy prudent design and construction standards.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Department of Public Works and Transportation shall apply its Design Guidelines and Standards for Scenic Historic Roads, as most recently approved, to all roadway improvements on Old Crain Highway.

Adopted this 27th day of July, 1999.

COUNTY COUNCIL OF PRINCE

GEORGE'S COUNTY, MARYLAND

BY: _________________________________

Dorothy F. Bailey

Vice Chair

ATTEST:

___________________________

Joyce T. Sweeney

Clerk of the Council

Saturday, April 11, 2009

Prince George's County Strip Mall in the Rural Tier; links to posting so far

When the strip mall comes to Crain Corner, what will we lose?

What does the area of Upper Marlboro and Marlboro Meadows in Prince George’s County, Maryland have today, that when the strip mall comes will be lost forever. It has land that has been surveyed and is eligible for the National Historic Register, open space that keeps the Patuxent River and the residents healthy, a community of upscale executive housing with opportunity to build more large 3 acre home sites, and a reasonably low levels of crime providing neighborhoods with a quality of life suitable for all ages.

What will the strip mall give us? No more historic district; pollution, trash and stress on the environment; an influx of transient visitors; lower property values for the residential sites and thus lower tax income for all of Prince George's County; more traffic; more crime potential; a substantive end to a potential executive housing community with its attendant tax base; and a general overall reduction in the quality of life for those who live in Marlboro Meadows or the Woodland historic area along Old Crain Highway, an historic state highway that will also be lost.

If we were to actually follow the already established general plan or the sector plan, we would retain these positive attributes; if we override the community, we shall have none of it and everyone will lose.

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Prince George's County defines smart growth by shrinking the size of its open spaces

While other communities find a common vision making use of historic districts and clean up past environmental y damaged areas to reinvigorate their established , Prince George’s County at times takes the build and move on approach to development. Given the high cost to reinvest in already developed sections of the county, and given the “cheap” cost of open space, the county action plan is to build more and more by encroaching on the county’s general plan for a rural tier and preserved open space. The rubric for this action is, I want mine while the getting is good; the future is someone else’s problem.

The county should be strengthening municipal and established community finances in both the developed and developing tier per the county’s own plan by encouraging tax-generating commercial development in already environmentally ravaged areas. Prince George’s County should be encouraging the redevelopment and construction of “green” projects in these areas to meet the needs of over-looked residents, bringing jobs and retail infrastructure support. Development without a plan can “…drive disinvestment, reduce competitiveness, and degrade the environment.” A visionary county knows that new growth in the right place “… improves the economy and environment of existing communities.” Development in the 21st century mist reply on forward thinking ideas such as building “… places people want to live in for what they are, rather than for what they are not.” [1]

Building and developing in the right place is not using up every square acre of open space because it is cheaper today than redeveloping our established areas. “Smart growth uses the term “open space” broadly to mean natural areas both in and surrounding localities that provide important community space, habitat for plants and animals, recreational opportunities, farm and ranch land (working lands), places of natural beauty and critical environmental areas (e.g. wetlands). Open space preservation supports smart growth goals by bolstering local economies, preserving critical environmental areas, improving our communities quality of life, and guiding new growth into existing communities.” While there is a trend to preserve open space for the benefits this brings to everyone, Prince George’s County will be considering adding as an attractive feature yet another strip mall heading 180 degrees against prevailing upscale development efforts. According to the Sustainable Communities Network (SCN) “[t]here is growing political will (except evidently in Prince George's County) to save the "open spaces" that Americans treasure. Voters in 2000 overwhelmingly approved ballot measures to fund open space protection efforts. The reasons for such support are varied and attributable to the benefits associated with open space protection. Protection of open space provides many fiscal benefits, including increasing local property value (thereby increasing property tax bases), providing tourism dollars, and decreases local tax increases (due to the savings of reducing the construction of new infrastructure). Management of the quality and supply of open space also ensures that prime farm and ranch lands are available, prevents flood damage, and provides a less expensive and natural alternative for providing clean drinking water. The availability of open space also provides significant environmental quality and health benefits. Open space protects animal and plant habitat, places of natural beauty, and working lands by removing the development pressure and redirecting new growth to existing communities. Additionally, preservation of open space benefits the environment by combating air pollution, attenuating noise, controlling wind, providing erosion control, and moderating temperatures. Open space also protects surface and ground water resources by filtering trash, debris, and chemical pollutants before they enter a water system.”[2]

Why are we in Prince George’s County even thinking about reducing the size of the rural tier to build a strip mall in the Woodland Historic area of Upper Marlboro? Is it not bad enough that we bravely and cleverly decided to bring all of the county trash to a site 1.2 mile from a major tributary of the Patuxent River, and right next to nationally recognized critical habitats? Why are we still enamored with the failing development models of the last century? Where is the forward thinking county which would be a leader, not a follower? When will we begin taking care of our established communities, and reinvesting where the people are?

[1] Sustainable Communities Network (SCN); http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/byissue.asp?iss=2

[2] Sustainable Communities Network (SCN); http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/byprinciple.asp?prin=6

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Prince George's County struggles with environmental stewardship

Prince George’s County Maryland is struggling with the concept of environmental stewardship. Some in the county think that other jurisdictions should pay for environmental costs incurred by the county’s flexible definition of open space and limited development - better know as the rural tier. Because open space is less costly than developed space the county deciders are seemingly bent upon reducing the amount of rural open space. The logic seems to be that while the rest of the world is concerned about climate change and water resources, Prince George’s County will continue along without concern for these matters until it has exhausted is precious supply of undeveloped open space. At that point in time, those who made a quick profit can let those who remain pay the price for mitigating the environmental damage.

Prince George’s County, Maryland will consider soon yet another strip mall of some 40 acres (perhaps up to 120 acres, but that will come later...one small step for development at a time) in the rural tier. 40 acres of open space grabs 40 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air every year. [1] Assuming about 1 pound of carbon for every mile driven, the development of the Crain Corner project will remove 80,000 miles of carbon savings or sequestration from the atmosphere. And in addition to being on the wrong side of climate change the county gets the opportunity to impact negatively the quality of the near by Patuxent River through run-off and ecosystem damage as well as to destroy a potential historic district. This one two three punch will be called progress for there surely is a need for one more strip mall - even though there is land across the street already zoned commercial. But in which direction goeth our county? For as the world goes one way, Prince George’s is determined to go in the opposite direction; against the environment full speed ahead, warnings be damned.

[1] Pine plantations in the Southeast can accumulate almost 100 metric tons of carbon per acre after 90 years, or roughly one metric ton of carbon per acre per year (Birdsey 1996). http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html

Statistical information for those who would not see: http://www.worldometers.info/

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Another strip mall is coming to the rural tier

The strip mall (Crain Corner) is coming to the rural tier in Woodland, Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Few will mourn the environmental loss because the environment is free and infinite and has no value until it is no more. We seek out unique places for their differences and local specialties and then to accommodate our sense of want we build chain stores which destroy the very reason we came in the first place. How much open space should we preserve? New York had to secure almost 2000 acres (Drinking water for New York City comes from reservoirs in a nearly 2,000-acre watershed located in Delaware, Greene, Schoharie, Ulster, Sullivan, Westchester, Putnam, and Dutchess counties. Together, these reservoirs provide about 1.4 billion gallons of drinking water per day.) in upstate New York to secure drinking water, but here in Prince George’s County being far mores savvy environmentally we know that water comes from the tap and is infinite and always there. We have no good reason to protect a river for a few fols to enjoy, so let’s build parking lots and retail stores.

Prince George’s County drew a line and said no more urban development past this line, but lines are political so the county is thinking about redrawing the rural tier demarcation so that a few property owners can make some money, and the rest of us shall simply pay more taxes for any clean up of the environment that happens to come along later. This is the money now idea that got the country into its current economic morass and is the problem that is getting the world into the environmental sink-hole. The building of the mall is couched in terms of why we can’t get some of what you have, but the result is to destroy the we have and give the new residents a damaged and dysfunctional ecosystem. The issue is sometimes cast in the light of the old ethnic majority versus the new, as if the new majority does not care about environmental issues, but rather is inclined to pave everything over. I think this wrong and slightly insulting.

Most people I know would never pay to live next to a strip mall; some might pay to live in a rural area, others to live in an urban area with green space, but so far I so not see any real estate advertising “house next to trash containers behind strip mall…good quality of life location.” If yet another strip mall for Prince George’s residents is a mandatory necessity, then let us build the mall next to the residents in need in areas planned for development; let us not carve up more open space that is finite and irreplaceable, and say how wonderfully we are developing our county. Let us rather have the visio9n to contain our sprawl and redevelop areas with in the planned development zones, areas where the ecosystems are already destroyed. Let us fix up neighborhoods and bring retail to them if they want it or green spaces if they need them, let us not pave over the rural tier of Prince George’s County

Monday, April 06, 2009

Prince George's County strip mall versus the Patuxent River Policy Plan

To think we can build a commercial strip mall in the rural tier of Prince George’s County, Maryland close to the Patuxent River in Upper Marlboro and do no harm flies in the face of reason. The point of the rural tier is to protect the ecosystem of the river. Urbanization is not free, and carries a heavy environmental cost that impacts everyone, those who live in the rural tier and those who live in the rest of the county. We all will pay the price down the road.
Urbanization affects the water cycle that every resident of Prince George’s County depend upon. When a parking lot for the strip mall is built, rain water will carry “… nutrients, pesticides, heavy metals, sediment, and other pollutants that it washes from lawns, roads, and other surfaces. In urbanizing areas, the result of the altered hydrology and the greater pollutant loads is physical and biological degradation of the receiving ecosystems, including streams (Paul and Meyer 2001) and wetlands (Ehrenfeld 2000). The degree of degradation is correlated with the amount of impervious cover in the watershed (Schueler 2003). Even cover values of 10 percent or less have been associated with changes in stream fauna in some areas.”[1]

What is the recommendation for land near a major tributary, but to minimize the extent of paved surfaces because impervious cover and altered hydrology are so closely linked? In terstingly enough there is a Patuxent river Policy Plan that states in a report from 1997 that we should “[c]ontinue to restore, improve, and protect the habitat function of aquatic and terrestrial living resources; [c]oncentrate new development in and around existing developed areas and population centers while protecting rural lands and the associated agricultural economy; [e]nhance the environmental quality and community design in new and existing communities; [d]evelop a sense of stewardship for the Patuxent River and its watershed through increased public education and participation programs.”[2]

Where is a strip mall in this plan? Will our deciders follow their own plan or will they look the other way and move to the river’s edge with pavement and concrete and retail stores? Where is the line?

[1]Susan W. Vince and Martha C. Monroe. Forest Management in the Interface: Water Management. This document FOR 181, is one of the Forest Management in the Interface series of the School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Florida Cooperative Extension Services, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. This fact sheet was first published in 2006 as part of Changing Roles: Wildland-Urban Interface Professional Development Program. It was reviewed and revised for EDIS in July 2008. Visit the EDIS Web Site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/. < http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/document_fr246#FOOTNOTE_1 >

[2] Patucent Policy plan < http://www.mdp.state.md.us/info/patuxplan.htm >

Saturday, April 04, 2009

Prince George's County seeks to rezone a Strip Mall into the Rural Tier

Very soon the wise men and women of Prince George’s County will decide whether to “adjust” their general and master plans by dropping a strip mall into the rural tier along the east side of US301. The concept of extending the strip malls of Charles County comes to mind as there is a tendency to ,add more and more malls until they exist side by side, wall to wall mall. A trip through Waldorf is a possible vision of the historic district of Woodland just east of Upper Marlboro, Maryland. And with the plethora of parking lots and shopping centers anchored by “upscale” stores such as Target, residents can expect an increase in traffic which in turn will mean more time in the car.[1]

The development vision which sees little or no value in open space or historic districts will rezone Crain Corner into a power center anchored by one or two big national chain boxes, just as some areas are trying to figure out what to do with these large stores when the retailer moves on. Julia Christensen writes that “[a]merica is becoming a container landscape of big boxes connected by highways. When a big box store upsizes to an even bigger box "supercenter" down the road, it leaves behind more than the vacant shell of a retail operation; it leaves behind a changed landscape that can't be changed back. Acres of land have been paved around it. Highway exits lead to it; local roads end at it. With thousands of empty big box stores spread across America, these sites have become a dominant feature of the American landscape.”[2]

The uniqueness of the Woodland and Upper Marlboro area will be subsumed by “…perhaps a grocery store, bookstores, pet supply shops, electronics retailers, or a variety of other retail establishments and fast food or chain restaurants.”[3] Prince George’s County will lose the identity of place and become homogenized by the sameness of macadam and concrete. “With the rise of the big box store, a strip mall is now more likely to have uniform architecture, where all buildings have a central theme or resemble each other, making them more aesthetically pleasing” , and thereby removinga the eye sore complaint at the expense of losing the uniqueness that was Woodland.[4]

[1] http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-strip-mall.htm
[2] MIT Press Web site: http://mitpress.mit.edu/shared/legal/default.asp
[3] http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-strip-mall.htm
[4] Idem

Friday, April 03, 2009

Prince George's County and the Dynamics of Rural Rier Development

Washington Business Journal reported nearly five years ago that “[a]s developers continue snapping up large swaths of farmland near Upper Marlboro, Prince George's County officials are calling for a comprehensive plan before the piecemeal projects get out of hand. "I want to look at that entire area and say, 'This is how we should build this area out,'" says Samuel Dean, chairman of the Prince George's County Council. "All of these development applications are coming in separately. That doesn't do anything for us, to have it built in a hodgepodge manner. "[1]
When it comes to eastern Upper Marlboro’s historic Woodlands area, one can hope that Mr. Dean will continue to follow his own words. Because the hodge-podge of small pieces is coming before him soon, we can hope that he might put the brakes on the rezoning of Crain Corner for a strip mall in the rural tier. Of course Councilman Dean is clear that his preference is to build on, out and over the open space as if it were a blank canvas of no value except when developed and paved over. But he is consistently opposed to overriding and overlooking local community involvement and desires. There is hope, then, that he is hearing and listening to the residents of Woodland and Marlboro Meadows and will not run rough shod over their concerns.

Developers look at open space because it is cheaper then redevelopment costs in established communities. This dynamic leads to the pattern of suburban development where most of the wealthy people settled in rural parts of the region, leading to mall developers and employers wanting to locate there, leading to more highways there, destroying the reason the people moved there in the first place. The wealth then leaves moving further out to restart the process again. In the mean time, developers and investors are loath to redevelop in our established communities because the return is not so great as plowing under a field and planting it with asphalt.

All of this takes place as everyone agrees to blindly assume that the destruction of ecosystems and their services is someone else’s problem and cost, or in this county’s case, no one’s cost because it all is free, just call in the bulldozers. Ask your self, how many SUV’s can we have on the roads because the green space of the rural tier absorbs the carbon? The answer is in the tens of thousands.

[1] Washington Business Journal, 20-Dec-2004; http://www.pillsburylaw.com/bv/bvisapi.dll/portal/ep/newsReleaseDetail.do/pub/00004EBA/ruleType/PUB_FIRMNEWS_MENTIONS/channelId/-8593/tabId/5/pageTypeId/9208

Thursday, April 02, 2009

The Rural Tier & Development in Prince George's County

John Peter,
This entire subject of the Rural Tier has been an extremely hard topic for me to get my arms around as there are some very different and opposing views on this topic. Cool heads must prevail on this important topic as we do not get a second chance to do it over. '

I constantly hear from those who are living out in the Rural Tier that they do not want anything or anyone encroaching on the beauty of this area and to let them be to enjoy its serenity and beauty. I can agree 100% with what they are saying because I to want to preserve it for generations to come so they can see the beauty of the wildlife and nature found in the Rural Tier. Plus, where else do we have any resemblance of farming so close to the Nation's Capitol.

However, the playing field was not level when the opportunity to purchase and own a piece of "Heaven" in the Rural Tier was occurring many years ago when it was and still is owned by primarily White Prince George's County residents. To say you cannot move into this area now that you have the money to do so is somewhat of a problem and that is exactly what we are saying if we tell a new generation of Minorities that you cannot build your home in this area and secure your piece of "Heaven." Yes, their lifestyle is different from those who have lived on the land for sometime only because they were unfairly kept out of this area and do not hold the same sentimental value.

They want to see infrastructure and necessities within a reasonable proximity to where they can now own their piece of "Heaven." The Rural Tier is not just for those families who own the property now to be able to continue to pass it on from generation to generation enjoying the beauty and serenity and possibly farming while others who want to cannot. We cannot continue to let a small segment of society enjoy the fruits of the land at the expense of another segment who must continually experience overcrowding, no open space and green areas, poor air quality, and high crime rate.

We must compromise and carefully select those areas within the Rural Tier that truly have an environmental impact or historical significance worth preserving so as to not give the impression to our residents of Prince George's County that one's home area is more important than another and the lifestyle of those living in that area must be kept at a better level than those living in another. Yes, we are Prince Georgians and we have a unique and distinctive heritage and a bright future for all. We have some tough decisions in front of us and I know we are up to the challenge.

Henry C. Turner, Jr.
Chairman
Commission for Veterans
240-678-8709

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

Prince George's County's Commitment to the Rural Legacy Program is spotlighted by rezoning of land east of US 301in the rural tier

As the date for deciding the fate of Woodland draws near, the environmental impact weighs heavy on those who would stay after the rezoning takes place and the bulldozers alter forever the ecosystem of the Patuxent Rive around Upper Marlboro. The proposal is to site a strip mall in the middle of at least three of the planned green areas for central Prince George’s County. The county’s current General Plan calls for the staging of the development of recreational facilities to be proportional to population growth in specific areas. Future needs for parkland were anticipated (in 1982 and 1992) for the northern, central, and southern portions of the county. The open space goals, established by the General Plan, are redefined by each Area Master Plan where achievable and measurable growth objectives are established. The county is an active participant in the state’s Rural Legacy Program[1], though active may be an ironic appellation if the re=zoning ofr Crain Corner goes through..

Collington Branch is a component of the Patuxent River watershed that originates near Bowie, runs southerly and connects to the Western Branch tributary in Upper Marlboro, which continues into the Patuxent River. The Collington Branch is also planned for a proposed multi-use trail that will connect Bowie with Upper Marlboro. The county owns much of the corridor and plans to fill in any gaps through acquisition and the development process. The Prince George’s County Bicycle and Trails Advisory Group recommended this trail as the number seven trail/bikeway priority in the county.

Patuxent Regional Greenway (Ecological Greenway)The Patuxent Regional Greenway is a partially established regional greenway that includes seven jurisdictions extending from central Maryland through southern Maryland. The Patuxent River serves as the spine for the greenway which runs through Howard, Montgomery, Anne Arundel, Prince George’s, Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary’s counties. DNR currently owns about 15,000 acres along the Patuxent River and isworking with local officials to extend protection along the mainstem. In Prince George’s County the Patuxent River forms the northern and eastern county boundaries. Public properties under the management of DNR, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, M-NCPPC and WSSC make a substantial contribution to the Patuxent Regional Greenway. These lands provide many opportunities for nature study and outdoor recreation. Prince George’s County has adopted land-use and development regulations for the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area and the Patuxent River Primary Management Area to channel development away from sensitive areas in the Patuxent corridor. Public acquisition of the Patuxent Regional Greenway will continue, and these policies will provide a mechanism for protecting water quality and riparian resources on non-public lands.

The Western Branch is a stream valley greenway that originates near Glenarden and connects into the Patuxent River south of Upper Marlboro. Major tributaries of the Western Branch are Bald Hill and Folly and Lottsford branches. Connections will occur with Collington Branch, Southwest Branch, and the Chesapeake Beach Rail Trail corridor. M-NCPPC owns sections in all of these corridors. The Western Branch Greenway is second in size only to the Patuxent Greenway in Prince George’s County. The corridor is under continuing acquisition and will have the longest trail system of any Patuxent tributary in the county.

[1] http://dnrweb.dnr.state.md.us/download/greenways/atlas/pg_TEXT.pdf

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Clear Choices in Prince George's County: Strip Mall or...?

Gazette staff and HPC Commissioner Thompson,

I hope the Gazette editorial page and Greg Holzheimer give coverage to the issue that Commissioner Thompson has kicked into the public arena with his blogsite editorial “PG 79-63 A Potential Historic District for Upper Marlboro.” It merits wider discussion, and the Gazette provides an excellent forum.

There’s a very clear choice facing Upper Marlboro residents. And Thompson points out that the decision is not between doing nothing or developing another commercial strip akin to Alexandria’s nightmarish Rt. 1 corridor. Upper Marlboro could seek historic district designation.

Colonial Williamsburg, for example, is a model for Upper Marlboro. Their planning decisions demonstrate how massive new commercial, housing and other development can enhance and be inspired by a designated historic district. Thompson boldly points out that some prominent locals who oppose historic district designation have privately stated their intention to rezone their land, then “sell and get out of town.” John Peter makes a highly controversial point – it reminds me of chap who shouts out the obvious point in the story “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” And Thompson’s shout should make good newsprint. He’s sadly correct when he challenges the genuineness of tears being shed by some local preservationists who nonetheless intend to destroy the treasures in their stewardship. They must be reminded of their moral obligation to save the archeological and architectural gems left to us by earlier residents of this County.

I don’t know why this point needs to me be made, but it does: Although it’s the “Upper Marlboro way,” the fact that some of these historic properties were built by ancestors of the current owners doesn’t legitimize their decisions to build strip malls atop them. It makes their decisions more embarrassing.

A balanced solution: Upper Marlboro residents must discern a middle ground between the obligations to one’s community, and a crass interpretation of one’s individual property rights. A balance can be found. Establishing a historic district with it’s Local Advisory Committee (LAC) in greater Upper Marlboro could provide those communities with a review board that ensures future new growth is not just a “quality dollar maker” for the developer, but also a quality, aesthetic addition that enhances your tremendous historic heritage.

Any editorial, and the article by Greg, might put Upper Marlboro’s historic district proposal in context. There are a number of other County areas that are aggressively trying to designate themselves as historic districts. This is the latest wrinkle in the campaign by our Historic Preservation Commission and the rapidly emerging preservation constituency to improve the County’s long-term future. Prince George’s can become the Washington region’s “preferred living environment” among its neighboring jurisdictions. But not by building more schlock like Fairfax County’s Route 1 corridor.

Dave Turner

Monday, March 30, 2009

Prince George's County to decide the fate of PG79-63 - a Potential Historic District

Prince George’s County will soon decide whether to permanently destroy a possible historic district. The inclusion of a shopping mall in the district will adversely and permanently alter the character of the northern part of the proposed Woodland district of eastern Upper Marlboro. As some people are at this time considering designating Upper Marlboro itself as an historic district, commercial development is looking to put an end to one already in place. But, the residents of Old Crain Highway decided not to apply for historic status because it would hamper individual efforts to ultimately negate the history of place. The desire of some residents is based upon a personal market strategy which is to sell the land at maximum return and eventually leave the county while those who stay will have to deal with the changes in traffic, crime, and pollution. Designation of an area as a historic district will not directly affect property values, unlike inclusion of a strip mall in a rural historic setting. Because Local Historic District properties are protected from insensitive development, owners may be more inclined to make improvements to their properties, and this may increase the value of all property in a given district. [1]

This is the issue here in Crain Corner; some will make money at the expense of the rest, rather than all raising the aggregate value together through common purpose. National and statewide economic studies show that historic district designation first stabilizes property values, and then slowly values begin to rise. In most cases properties in local historic districts appreciate at rates greater than: (a) the local market as a whole, and (b) similar neighborhoods that are not designated. This is akin to the principal behind subdivision covenants, which are put in place by a homeowners association to ensure quality improvements and to enhance property owners’ investments (though private covenants are often more restrictive than public ordinances). A historic district that is aesthetically cohesive and well promoted can be a community's most important attraction. The retention of historic areas as a way to attract tourist dollars makes good economic sense. The protection of local historic districts can also enhance business recruitment potential. Companies continually re-locate to communities that offer their workers a higher quality of life, which is greatly enhanced by successful local preservation programs and stable historic districts.

[1] Frequently Asked Questions about Local Historic Districts

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Prince George's County and Development Axioms

Development Axioms
As we consider the re-zoning of land in Woodland, Upper Marlboro so that someday we can build a strip mall at Crain Corner, the wicked, messy world of land use policy comes in to clear focus. I am indebted to the work of Dr. Robert Lackey for my land use "riff" on his essay: Axioms of Ecological Policy, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon 97333

Policy Axiom 1 — The policy and political dynamic is a zero-sum game

The most unsettling part of development, land use and ecological policy for most residents and stakeholders is that the selection of any proposed policy will result in winners and losers. There is no “win-win” policy, which we of course expect our politicians to find; the search is fruitless even at a superficial “political” level of analysis. To quote Dr, Lackey, “There are always winners and losers even though people running for office may try to convince the voters otherwise.”

In the escalating quest for land, a finite resource, in areas of expanding human populations or expanding economic activity, the competition for developable land can be fierce and nasty. Any land use decision results in a set of winners and another set of losers. The winners and losers may be those in this generation or future generations, obvious or vague elements of society, or in near or distant regions. The benefits and costs may be both monetary and nonmonetary; may be realized immediately or over many years; and may be diffused across many segments of society or concentrated on a few. As in most policy options result in some interest groups getting what they want (or at least most of what they want), others getting little or none of what they want, and still others ending up somewhere in between. In short, the role of the policy analyst is often to identify for the policy maker who are the winners and who are the losers. In contrast, the role of the policy maker is to decide who wins and who loses.

Searching for the nonexistent but ever politically tantalizing win-win solution
often ends up frustrating everyone. Except for the most trivial policy issues, compromise is necessary to craft a proposed policy that is democratically possible. Thus, Land-use and its sub set of ecological policy winds up as the classic zero-sum game. Accepting this reality encourages serious discussion about how to best resolve complex development, land use and ecological policy issues.

Policy Axiom 2 — The distribution of benefits and costs is more important
than the ratio of total benefits to total costs

Benefits are the consequences of a policy options or decisions that are categorized
as good outcomes. Benefits are sometimes measured solely in terms of money, but are
more broadly encompassed by all the desirable things that are most likely to happen.
Conversely, the costs are the undesirable outcomes that are likely to happen (often, but
not always, measured in monetary terms). Complicating policy analysis is that, exclusive of money, one person’s benefits may be another’s costs. Preserving a wetland, for example, is a benefit for those wishing to preserve such land in its unaltered condition, but such a policy option is a cost to those who wish to ditch and drain the same land to build a retail strip mall.

To the uninitiated it may seem that the most important factor in decision making
is weighing the total benefits against the total costs. Rather, it is usually the case that the most important factor is the perception of who receives the benefits vs. who will bear
the costs.

Weighing costs vs. benefits is tricky. Because costs and benefits are not simply the things that are measurable, but include loss of personal freedoms, religious or spiritual preferences, individual rights, etc. Benefits and costs can be categorized as either “real” or “perceived.” Real benefits and costs are the things that analysts are keen to measure, perhaps mostly because they can be measured. Perceived benefits and costs, however are the things that people mostly weigh in determining their position on a particular policy issue. They are arguably impossible to measure with much confidence.

Policy Axiom 3 — The most politically viable policy choice spreads the
benefits to a broad majority with the costs limited to a narrow minority of the
population

Democracies theoretically operate on delegated compromise validated by periodic voting. To gain sufficient political support (votes) for a proposed policy, it is prudent for
the decision maker to spread the benefits across a sufficiently large number of people to garner majority support. The corollary is that those (including future generations) who bear the costs should be a minority and the smaller the better. In political dialog the narrowly-defined minority is often labeled pejoratively as a “special interest” or some other term meant to isolate the group from the majority and weaken the force of its argument.

Consider the question of whether a particular dam should be removed to help
restore native aquatic species. Almost assuredly the policy debate will be framed as a
conflict between the general interests of society (e.g., providing reliable electricity,
protecting native species, or maintaining cheap barge transportation) vs. special interests (e.g., greedy electric power companies, elite environmentalists, or corporate grain farmers). To market their policy preference, proponents will try to couch their choice as that of the majority (mainstream) and the opponent’s position as being that of a small minority (special interest).

Or consider the strip mall proposal which is framed as one of economic activity in construction and jobs as well as one of providing service to the greater community versus the environment and history. Each side of this debate will claim to be in a majority

None of these policy advocacy tactics necessarily are wrong, immoral, or unethical, but rather reflect the nature of democratic debate. Those involved in policy analysis or providing science to help inform policy debates, however, should be attuned to such tendencies.

Policy Axiom 4 — Potential losers are usually more assertive and vocal than
potential winners and are, therefore, disproportionately important in decision making

With many policy questions, those who bear the costs, the losers, have a disproportionately greater influence on the decision making process. While policy analysis tends to evaluate the rationality of competing policy arguments, the political process tends to weigh breath and vigor in support of each competing policy option.
Issues of perceived fairness are important in the political process, but difficult to quantify
in policy analysis.

For example, consider the possible listing (under the U.S. Endangered Species Act
or the Canadian Species at Risk Act) of a fish species found only in a relatively small
geographical area. Except for committed preservationists, most people see the issue as
not pivotal although they may philosophically support species preservation in general.
In contrast, those whose land and livelihood will be adversely affected are likely to be
aggressively hostile to the proposed listing.

Policy Axiom 5 — Many advocates will cloak their arguments as science to
mask their personal policy preferences

Technocrats, as I apply the label, are individuals with scientific training who are responsible for implementing law, land use or zoning codes or ecological policy. There is an understandable impulse by technocrats to insert what they think is or should be the appropriate public policy goal or option. For example, should ecological restoration be aimed at recreating the ecological condition that existed at the beginning of the Holocene, just prior to 1492, or at the end of last week? The answer requires making a value judgment C a policy choice which is necessarily a political judgment C and it is not a scientifically derived decision. Ecologists and other scientists should assess the feasibility and ecological consequences of achieving each possible restoration target. Selecting from among the choices, however, is a societal enterprise.

Similarly, notions of degraded or damaged ecosystems, the metaphors of
ecosystem health or biotic integrity, or the relative importance ascribed to natural
conditions vs. altered conditions need to be calibrated by societal values and preferences, not by those offered by scientists and technocrats. For example, one person’s Adamaged@ecosystem is another person’s Aimproved@ ecosystem. A Ahealthy@ ecosystem can be either a malarial swamp or the same land converted to an intensively managed strip mall. Neither can be seen as objectively Ahealthy@ except through the lens of an individual’s values and preferences.

Policy Axiom 6 — Demonizing policy advocates supporting competing policy
options is often more effective than presenting rigorous analytical arguments

Some people become frustrated when they fail to recognize that political debates are partly logical argument and partly image. Negative images are often considered more effective in swaying people than positive ones.

In fractious land use policy debates, proponents often spend more energy demonizing their opponents than sticking to rational policy analysis. Experience shows that such tactics are often effective in policy debates; many people are moved by negative arguments.

The conflict is over which of the myriad competing human priorities is most important — food, electricity, water, transportation, fishing, or a host of others. To label proponents of abundant electricity, efficient farming, cheap transportation, or shopping malls as “enemies of the environment” is unfair in policy debates and counter productive. Rather, each policy choice or priority tends to constrain others.

Policy Axiom 7 — If something can be measured accurately and with
confidence, it is probably not particularly relevant in decision making

The most important factors in policy making cannot be quantified or at least not quantified in a credible way. Examples of such unquantifiable but important
factors are weighing the relative importance of electricity vs. the well-being of threatened species, balancing a prosperous farming sector vs. maintaining runs of wild salmon, or sustaining a high degree of personal mobility vs. a high level of air quality through emission regulations on automobiles, or even protecting a open space habiat vs. creating a strip mall..

The disconnect between what matters most to policy makers and what can be measured is a reality that should recognize and which will not likely change in the foreseeable future. In a pluralistic society, with a wide array of values and preferences competing for dominance, the land use policy debate is usually centered around whose values and preferences will carry the day rather than over scientific or technical information.

Policy Axiom 8— The meaning of words matters greatly and arguments over
their precise meaning are often surrogates for debates over values

Many citizens get frustrated in land use and ecological policy debates because
the advocates of various competing choices often seem to argue over semantic nuances rather than getting on with making decisions. The precise meaning ascribed to key words is important and is often the battleground over what policy option is ultimately selected. The debate over definitions is really a policy debate. How should pivotal words such as “ecosystem health,” “sustainability,” “degraded,” “biological integrity,”
“endangered,” “wild,” “congested”, “declining property values” and “impaired” be defined? Definitions chosen will lead (at least in the mind of the uninformed) to a particular policy option. Thus, the debate over what might appear to be semantic nuances is really a surrogate debate over values and policy preferences. Because certain definitions tend to help support one particular policy preference, participants in policy debates devote considerable energy to trying to get their definitions adopted.

Citation: Lackey, Robert T. 2006. Axioms of ecological policy.
Fisheries. 31(6): 286-290.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Prince George's County Considers a Strip Mall in the Rural Tier

Prince George’s County is going to consider in a few weeks altering the geo-political boundaries of its rural tier in order to bring a strip mall into and on top of an historic register nomination district near a major east coast waterway. They public claim is that there is a need for the neighborhood do be destroyed because it does not have enough strip malls. The idea that this project is for the neighborhood is purposely vague because the developer and the neighbors, as well as Prince George’s County’s politicians who will decide this use, know that “[a] strip mall is a collection of several stores located in the same building that share a common parking lot. Typically strip malls contain stores like video rental stores, small grocery stores, fast food restaurants or small independent cafes. The strip mall is often located at major intersections in a town or city and is normally most easily accessed by car. Due to a typically high volume of traffic, bicycling or walking to a strip mall can be difficult.” [1]

My sense of the will of neighborhood is limited, but I suspect that we are not against shopping malls, and are in fact happy to see a project which conforms to the broad outline of the general plan. We would support of course the will and desires of the local neighborhoods impacted and would most likely not weigh in on way or another. We known that as we drive along the large and small highways of Prince George’s County, it is all too easy to wave our hand and say: "look at all these unseemly strip malls that make this place look like every other!" But if we are looking for a hardware store, need a cup of coffee, or need some engine repair, our tune changes: we are grateful that we can easily spot the Home Depot, the local independent supply store, the Starbucks, or the tractor & lawnmower dealers. The locale saves search costs, for which we are glad indeed, and we demonstrate this feeling by voting for them with our own money. [2]

But most of us chose to live slightly disconnected from the infrastructure of urban living, instead opting for the infrastructure of nature. We chose to live removed from a small walk to a bakery or 7-11. Because we so chose to be slightly removed from these perceived necessities, we do not feel underserved. If we are underserved, it is by the outside traffic which takes a short-cut through the historic Woodland District, making it hard of us to go to….shopping malls. Adding one more right in our midst would only exacerbate this traffic infrastructure “under-service”. I might also suspect a slight “under-services” when it comes to school facilities but that is another story which this strip mall will not address.
[1] Tricia Ellis-Christensen WiseGeek, copyright © 2003 – 2009 ; http://www.wisegeek.com/
[2] In Defense of Strip Malls, Mises Daily by Brad Edmonds Posted on 5/24/2007 12:00:00 AM; http://mises.org/story/2576

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Prince George's County's 19th century land use plan

When it comes to protecting the environment, to enhancing quality of life for everyone, Prince George’s County recently seems to have gotten off the train and begun walking backwards towards the past. First it decided that placing a waster transfer station right next to and slightly overlapping an nationally, as well as state recognized critical area and wildlife habitat, ½ mile from one of the Chesapeake Bay’s major tributaries is a great idea. In deed this site was specifically noted in the general plan for Prince George’s County has part of the rural tier not suitable for industrial development. So of course the county decided using 19th century mentality to place the waste transfer station in the most environmentally sensitive location they could find.

This placement was a 19th century land use decision; land is to be used, it is a blank worthless canvas unless we can put the artifices of man on top and tame unruly nature. Of course such thinking did not consider where drinking water or clean air might come from, because, 19th century thinking knew that clean air and clean water came from God at no charge. The 19th century also thought that some people deserved to work in bondage, or begrudgingly, work and live in an apartheid society, a situation remembered in family lore, but paved over for shopping malls, because the land is cheaper in the rural tier, and endless, why pay more in the city when you can pave over history and the environment at the same time?
The 21st century, seemingly foreign to this county idea that the environment enhances quality of live and that, for instance, biologically harmful, not readily degradable, black trash bags arriving un-beckoned from the composting facility with its state of the art wire mesh protection device are a signal of far worse destruction to come. The bags blow on the wind with the usual litter and will make a perfect landscape addition for guests at the proposed hotel and neighborhoods in the vicinity of Upper Marlboro across from the waste transfer station.

Did I mention community ambiance the smell will create for the new cutting edge up-scale strip mall just north of the waste transfer station? Of course the county will say, “Don’t worry about the odor at Crain Corner, in the rural tier, on currently residential zoned property. We are siting the strip mall just far enough away that you will not be able to smell anything and besides the prevailing winds will mostly ensure that the bags, debris and litter will not make it north to the brand new, yet-another, much needed strip mall.

and just in a report from the news media:

Residents skeptical of retail center near Marlboro Meadows
Developer stresses community input
by Greg Holzheimer Staff Writer

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Green is the color of the Prince George's County RuralTier

The trees and the green space of the rural tier in Prince George’s County is a fundamental pillar of human experience. Psychologists, sociologist and many residents agree on the view that the quality of urban life depends largely on the amount and quality of nearby green spaces. Urban green space not only improves ecological and psychological environment of urban population but also uplift economic conditions of the community. Thus Central Park in New York City, which no doubt has more developmental value than say Crain Corner in Upper Marlboro is off limits for commercial, industrial or residential development.

Green is the color most restful for our eyes, presumably because we evolved in a predominantly green environment. The Prince George’s County general plan recognizes this basic precept. Green spaces, significantly, bring a certain harmony to the urban environment and therefore, play a vital social role in ceasing urban tensions. In presence of trees, city dwellers take part in the rhythm of day and night so that their minds come to rest and find peace (Bernatzky 1978). The rural tier along with the park system serves several important functions like maintenance and sustenance of natural process such as water, gaseous nutrient cycles, support of flora and fauna, and maintenance of psychological health through beautification and enhancement of the appearance of a particular area to paraphrase (Wenger 1984). Recently planners and residents have come to understand the critical and crucial ecosystem service that green areas provide. From carbon storage and storm effect dampening, to habitat and refugium functions, to agriculture and yes to cultural informing services, the rural tier has a value beyond pavement, building, purchases and employment (all of these are important, we needs stores and the jobs they produce).

Of course a vibrant Prince George’s County needs businesses and healthy businesses need customers and employees who want to live in the area. We need both quality businesses and quality of life patterning in harmony, not one at the expense of the other. That is why there is a general plan which provides for both development and urban green spaces which managed and, to the extent under the plan allowed, exclusively on the basis of their aesthetic and spiritual values than on utilitarian benefits.

The enormous rate of growth of Prince George’s County along with the growth of urban development, has led to sometimes drastic exploitation of the nature resulting to an unhealthy and unwealthy ecology. Cities are experiencing the problems like deterioration of air quality, higher air temperature, increased noise levels, greater psychological stress and decreased sense of community. Increasingly society recognizes the need for urban green spaces. “With lack of green space, the exponential population increase in the twentieth century will make physical, social, psychological and environmental hazards in the third world countries.” [1]
[1] Miyan Rukunuddin Ahmed, Rakibul Hassan People's Perception toward Value of Urban Greenspace in Environmental Development; http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/ARTICLE/WFC/XII/0347-B5.HTM
1

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Prince George's County & the Crain Corner Strip Mall

There are, apparently, approximately 1 shopping center of some description for every 5600 residents in Prince George’s County. (161 centers 890,000 residents) Development plans call for the addition of at least three more of various sizes near Crain Corner in Upper Marlboro. Some of these are in the plan and to some extent; one is a gross violation of the general plan for Prince George’s County. Local proximate residents are told that we are under served. We are also told that our two local, showing signs of age shopping centers do not fit the new standards of strip mall quality. So we are to infer that we should discard the old centers, not rehabilitate them, and develop three new ones. This of course would give us five, plus Home Depot, two or so car dealerships and a variety of convenience stores. But we are under served.

On the environmental side, we have exactly one river, which cannot be replaced, and one nominee for Historic National Register recognition and should residents want it, Historic District status which will be irrevocably lost if the strip mall goes forward. And the open space ecosystem services which will be paved and built over cannot be recovered at a cost anyone would be willing to pay. We who did not ask will receive as a benefit of the proposed development at Crain Corner an influx of outside traffic we do not want, rural property facing a 40 foot buffer of invasive species hiding parking lots which we are told will not lower the value of our properties. Ever wonder why there are so few strip malls on River Road in Potomac? Could it be because they do not bring value to the quality of life?

Of course a few of us will profit handsomely from the sale of land, but because the rest of us were not prescient enough to also file to destroy this section of the rural tier near to the Patuxent River, the winners will be fewer then the economic losers. This is the free market we are told; if so let us also rezone our land, and move away too, leaving future generations with our dilapidated, out-of-date shopping mall, our gift to our children, concrete and environmental degradation. We only know what we have lost when we look around and it is no longer there.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Does Prince George's County have a Plan - that means anything?

The Prince George's County General Plan,approved by the County Council in October 2002, provides long-range guidance for the future growth of the county. It identifies Centers and Corridors where intensive mixed use (residential, commercial and employment development) is to be encouraged. The plan also divides the county into three development tiers (Developed, Developing, Rural) recognizing the different development goals and needs of different parts of the county. The plan also makes recommendations for infrastructure elements: green infrastructure, transportation systems, and public facilities. The plan includes guidance for economic development, revitalization, housing, urban design and historic preservation. Future implementation efforts are outlined.

The question would seem to be: is the county following the guidelines or are we simply making decisions on the fly with the plan as eye candy for the rest of us not in the development business? Reading the General Plan for the rural Tier one wonders how we were blessed to get a Waste Transfer Station, and with in a few miles yet another, strip mall.

The Rural Tier is comprised of the eastern and southern portions of the county in the Patuxent River, Potomac River, and Mattawoman Creek watersheds. The Rural Tier is the most scenic part of the county and is characterized by fine landscapes, most of the county’s remaining farms, extensive woodlands, numerous streams, and diverse wildlife habitat. Development activity includes mining and widely dispersed, large-lot residential home sites. The preservation of the remaining environmentally sensitive features in this Tier is a priority for any future development. Transportation system policies seek to ensure the operational integrity of the road network for a development pattern that is envisioned as remaining essentially as it is today. The hiker and biker trails system in this Tier is principally recreational in purpose and design.

The vision for the Rural Tier is protection of large amounts of land for woodland, wildlife habitat, recreation and agricultural pursuits, and preservation of the rural character and vistas that now exist. Land use, environmental, transportation, and public facilities policies recommended for the Rural Tier are intended to balance the ever-increasing pressure for residential development and landowners’ equity with the desire to maintain rural environments and character. The policies address: retaining or enhancing environmentally sensitive features and agricultural resources; designing future development to retain and enhance the rural character; providing for a transportation system that helps protect open space, rural character, and environmental features and resources; and assigning minimal priority to public sector capital improvements.

The Environmental Infrastructure Element emphasizes the need to protect important environmental assets - by placing the Waste Transfer Station in the middle of the critical area - and make wise use of the county’s resources. The plan proposes the identification and protection of a green infrastructure. Green infrastructure is defined as a network for large, undisturbed land areas (hubs) connected by designated pathways for the movement of wildlife and humans (green corridors). In addition to the identification of the green infrastructure elements, this plan includes policies that are important to sustainable, liveable communities. Preserving ecological functions - by placing one more strip mall with imperivous surface parking lots -, providing for energy conservation, reducing light pollution, and encouraging construction that uses green building techniques are essential elements of sustainable communities in the twenty-first century and are addressed in this plan.

Prince George's County will consider another strip mall

In an effort to present a level playinf field and a complete understanding of the situation in the Woodland Historic area strip mall re-zoning plan just east of Upper Marlboro, I am posting a letter from Fred Tutman.

"I feel fervently that if we can overhaul some of the planned development craziness being proposed in our vicinity it might buy us some breathing room while the economy slows down a bit and the stuff in the pipeline evaporates. There are some business interests that are hell bent on infusing economic growth for themselves by floating projects for which there are no commercial tenants, or houses where there is negligible consumer demand and no capacity. It’s old school stuff. For example Columbia, MD’s current plan to put 5,500 new homes in the middle of the existing planned community in downtown Columbia (even while the developer is facing bankruptcy) is just such a cockamamie plan-- I suspect to inflate the stock value of the company involved and create the illusion of prosperity for the stockholders and politicians. When in doubt about hard times, let’s build a stadium or a housing development. Better still let’s build some Federally funded roads and that way economic growth will just drive to your doorstep! I think that sort of unsustainable nonsense will soon be deader than most of us care to admit even now, but it’s a convulsive reflex for a segment of the economy that knows no other way of doing business except to build new stuff instead if investing in existing communities and replacing old facilities. The same folks who think that traffic jams are a great business opportunity and who want to build an ICC and a second Bay Bridge too. It is basically publicly subsidized growth and I think it is gradually sun-setting through the current economic collapse and tough straits--but the business practices and the societal ethic need a bit more time to catch up with reality.

We don’t plan our “economic growth” in a vacuum. As citizens have pointed out, some holistic look at impacts makes a lot more sense than just looking at this single project and arguing that it is good for the area without some discussion of capacity, traffic, schools, the environment and so forth. So far as I know the only clear cut arguments in favor of the Faison project is the usual jive about “jobs” and shopping opportunities but some folks I suspect will make money from building it whether or not it ever actually thrives as a viable retail center or not.

To me the bottom line is that this project requires a zoning change and special consideration from the people we elected. The most obvious outcome is that it will enrich the builder and the people who want their land rezoned. If the project goes forward, neither of those parties will live here. There is no question of an entitlement or property rights at all. Nobody is entitled to get whatever zoning they might dream of on their own parcel of land without a fairly high standard of review. Otherwise let’s all rezone and move someplace else? I think we need to just keep raising the level of review and public transparency on exactly what about this specific project and this specific site warrants all the percs that the County is prepared to lavish on them. Surely there is more information available to the County than we were offered the other night by Faison reps? What are the merits to the project that they have alluded to and which the County is favorable to? Beyond that a comparable discussion of what’s in it for the community most effected by the planned project is a natural corollary. The vague nonsense about what’s good for the overall retail economy therefore must be good for Crain Highway is just plain shallow and silly and we need to keep drawing attention to the deficit of merit based arguments….. "

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Patuxent Riverkeeper
18600 Queen Anne Road
Rear Barn
Upper Marlboro, MD 20774
301-249-8200
www.paxriverkeeper.org
Member, Waterkeeper Alliance