Receive this blog via Email


Voted 'best news blog' by readers of The Baltimore Sun in the 2010 Maryland's Outstanding Blog (or Mobbies) awards.


    The views and opinions expressed in the media, articles or comments on this site are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by CBF and the inclusion of such information does not imply endorsement by CBF. CBF is not responsible for the contents of any linked Web, or any link contained in a linked Web site, or any changes or updates to such Web sites. The inclusion of any link or comment is provided only for information purposes. CBF reserves the right to edit or remove any comments and material posted to this website and to ban users from the site without notice. Partisan, pornographic or other inappropriate content, product or service promotion, foul language or bad behavior is expressly forbidden and will be removed.

Mobile Auto-Detection: Bay Daily

Tracking Code - Bay Daily

« Isle of Wight: Coal Plant Is STILL Lousy Idea | Main | Bill Would Ban Spreading of Manure on Farm Fields in Fall and Winter »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

We are all in agreement that we should protect farmland and the Chesapeake Bay. The question is who should pay for it? The Governor's approach lacks compensation to farmers for giving up the life savings that they hold as equity in their farms. In a sense punishing the very farmers who have not sold to developers.

Each $1,000,000 in equity seized from a farm family represents only 50 cents per family, if shared by all Maryland families. If we are all in this together, as the Governor claims, why should a farm family bare 2 million times the cost?

No matter how you cut it, the Governor's bill is just not fair!

1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware that farmland carries any perpetual guarantee to the owner by the state or counties in regards to zoning density. These claims of property rights remind of an investor in the stock market who stupidly believes that their investment in the stock market carries some sort of guaranteed rate of return -- this is a fantasy not based in reality.

2. I want developers and the farmers to reimburse me for the lower home values, higher taxes, and damaged Chesapeake Bay that is the direct result of sprawl development in the rural areas of Maryland.

O'Malley's proposed bill does allow farmers to subdivide their land somewhat even in the most protected "tier four" areas -- for example, to allow five lots and five houses for family members or others.

But it would not allow more than that.

The MD Department of Planning reports that their examination of property values in counties with strong zoning laws against subdividing farmland (for example, Baltimore County) are not lower than counties with lax zoning laws. So it is not clear that property values will be hurt.

TB; Actually I would say that the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution protects property rights. Mr Pelton's assertion that that reviews of property values in low vs high density counties showing no difference in values cannot stand up to peer review. Like so many statistics from environmentalists they are suspect at best. Certainly if there was no loss of value to the farmer in his land with the loss of development rights then why would the state even consider paying a landowner to sell his development rights.

As far as TB being reimbursed for lower values, higher taxes, and a damaged Chesapeake Bay. Get real. First, where do you live. I'll bet that at some point the land you're on was once a farm. Lower values? Last time I looked, the higher density areas of the western shore far outstripped the land values of the Eastern Shore. Finally, if low density development should reimburse you for damage to the Bay, then you should reimburse me for the flush tax I've had to pay to fix your sewage treatment plants and come to think of it for the 500,000,000 gallons of overflow into the Bay and it's tributaries from those same waste water treatment plants.

I don't want to simply jump on Bill's ban-wagon but he has it exactly right!

TB: If you contend that you should be reimbursed by rural developers, and I don't necessarily disagree, shouldn't you be reimbursed by urban developers as well??? Nitrogen is Nitrogen! Is the Govenor's position of polluting the Bay from the urban area really a better approach?

And Tom, although I believe your concerns are sincere you have to realize that MDP's analysis is strictly baloney. They know, I know, and the unbiased fiscal analysts got it right, there is a loss of value from restricting septic systems! See for yourself.

If you don't believe me, ask your CBF scientists if they can confirm MDP's contention that the Nitrogen from septic systems is ten time worse than houses on WWTS!

Please let me and your readers know what you find out!

I already know the answer.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)