According to the environmental elite and NIMBY’s who performed at the recent public hearing at the Civic Center, if cluster subdivisions in the rural areas are not killed by tomorrow afternoon the County will be overrun by hordes of homeowners, Perdue will go bankrupt and all flora and fauna will disappear. That’s not about to happen and won’t occur any time soon, if ever.
Some particularly pertinent data was issued recently by the Planning Office – see the attached charts.
Especially significant to the downzoning debate: development in the rural part of Wicomico County (outside the “Metro Core”) has decreased markedly. In the decade 1986-1997, there were 2,283 new lots were created on a total of almost 6,000 acres of land. But, in the decade following the comprehensive rezoning of the County in 1998, only 678 lots were created on about 2,500 acres. And, as posted on this blog yesterday, during that decade (plus 2008) only 263 lots were created in cluster subdivisions. Much of that 11 year period was a record development bonanza, but less than 1,000 acres in the area zoned for agriculture (“A-1” District) was subdivided for cluster development, of which most of that acreage became permanently preserved open space, available for agriculture, at no cost to the taxpayer.
The data projections indicate that the rate of growth in Wicomico County will continue to decrease – see the charts for Population/Household Growth Trend” and “Jobs” that show a downward spiral well into the future. Those ads and propaganda that the proponents of slow/no growth are using to kill cluster subdivision development are self-serving bunk.
Don’t tell the Chesapeake Bay Foundation or the Wicomico Environmental Trust about these data! They will simply get the government to change them.
8 comments:
The downzoning is ridiculous and the way it is being pulled off by the County Council is outrageous.
The second part of the story is that right now, over 43,000 acres in the County A-1 zoning district have been preserved thru a combination of public and private efforts, most of which occurred in the last 11 years.
For Wicomico:
Farmland preserved thru Malpf 7,500 acres
Maryland Environmental trust 1,786 acres
Other State easements 2,032 acres
Wicomico Parks and Rec 1,557 acres
Chesapeake Forest Products 22,150 acres
Glatfelter Pulpwood timberland 5,300 acres
E. S. Adkins timberland 3,100 acres
So ten times the land used up in development in the last ten years have been preserved. And this doesn't include the 50% set aside for development acres. And yet we have a "crisis of development" eating up our farmland. The federal CREP programs have taken more farmland out of production than development. Jeesh.
I love all the uneducated people commenting on this issue. Cracks me up. Oh no! Somebody's gonna take mah land! I can't wait until my generation is in control and all you old fools are out of this County.
Joe before you start hating on the Chesapeake Bay Foundation you should fully understand all that they do to protect the area. And, sometimes we do need to be saved from ourselves. Just look at all of the crap that use to go on until some of us became environmentally conscious.
Oh year, where's Mike Pretl? You guys only come out when it's for attention or you can get a rise out of someone. Again, where's Mike Pretl? Where was he when the WWTP was spilling into the River? I rest my case.
Joe,
I'm not sure you should have posted these figures because they don't support our arguments. The first graph shows that in the last 23 years there has been a total loss of at least 10,600 acres of land outside the core. Thats a lot. Also, there is consistently far more land outside the core being developed than inside, at least 4-5 times as much. Thats also not good for our side. What these graphs don't show is that development increased dramatically between 2004-2007.
The second graph looks good at first until you realize that a 12.5% population increase per annum is HUGE. That is extreme exponential growth. And going by the first graph it seems that most of these folks are finding their homes out in the rural developments, i.e. not in the core.
The third graph shows that jobs plummeted between 1985-1995 which is when the largest development boom in the county occured. So now we definately can't say that development is driving job creation. Thanks but you just shot us in the foot.
6:35:
Or should I say "idiot"
That population data is per decade, not per year.
And if you think growth can be sustained long term without more jobs you really are stupid.
Just pointing out what the data says, I don't like the truth either. Now, how do you think they got the population growth for the decade? they took an average of the years. moron. One thing we need to look at is how this development outside the core effects our taxes. Where is the data on that?
Post a Comment