Urban sprawl is no good for all, but don't ignore the legal realities
10/05/05 By Kevin E. Dayhoff
Recent articles and letters in local publications regarding water allocation, land use and municipal annexation are well intentioned - but clearly indicate a basic lack of understanding of the laws and past court decisions that govern these activities.
That's understandable, because since the early 1950s these areas of law in Maryland have be-come complex by bizarre, byzantine proportions.
In reality, many public officials don't understand the labyrinth of land use law, or they would be more careful about posturing in front of a public that is understandably clamoring for relief. Many pronouncements and promises are great for applause and votes, but woefully short on being legally possible.
In the end, often there is little a public official can do, retroactively, about water or property rights assigned to a property by a legal process put in place decades ago - unless they opt to spend valuable taxpayer dollars (losing) in court.
The next time anyone considers criticizing the City of Westminster about water allocation, bear in mind that you are preaching to the choir. Westminster painfully understands that it must find more water.
Also, understand that you are criticizing the wrong branch of government. For the most part, allocating Westminster's water was taken out of the hands of local officials, by the courts, almost 40 years ago.
In 1964, the city purchased the water system from a private company, which had historically provided water outside the city limits.
In 1966, the Maryland Court of Appeal (Bair v. Mayor and Council of Westminster, 221 P.2d 642 1966) declared the water system a "public utility" as opposed to a "municipal water supply" and made a ruling that forces the city to provide water to any property near any existing water line or "reasonably within its range of performance" - whether or not that property is annexed or in the city limits.
The 1966 Westminster water case is unique and is still used as national precedent. (In fact, it was used as recently as 1995 in a case before the Florida Supreme Court.) Attempting to overturn it may very well not be a wise use of taxpayer dollars.
As far as future land use, growth and development in Carroll County, planning needs to take place long before the housing development is in the public hearing stage or the subject of a costly moratorium.
A discussion needs to take place long before the business of a farm has been rendered unprofitable.
The debate needs to occur before a property owner has been awarded certain legal development rights - which can take the form of a legally enforceable contract, or in any event usually involves at least an implied contract between government and a property owner.
Sadly, the reactionary conversation - often involving unpleasant public hearings, uninformed conspiracy theories, political spinelessness and personal attacks - distorts and polarizes the collective discourse to such an extent that it renders many citizens skeptical about any discussion over growth and development.
The reality is this: You cannot take away a person's property rights or void a legal contract by plebiscite, politics or screaming mob.
That's just one of the reasons it is important that folks attend the community Grassroots Gatherings (http://www.carrollpathways.org/) that are scheduled for residents to get involved in the Carroll County Comprehensive Plan. Go, and ask questions. Many of Carroll County's public servants are the brightest land-use experts in the state.
We may not be able to do much about past land use contracts and court decisions, but the future is up to us. For the sake of that future, a majority of Carroll County residents long for a sober, clearly-worded, intelligent and nonpolitical explanation of farm profitability and the legal issues involving development and growth.
If we don't have that discussion now, our environmental future and the future of our green Carroll County way of life will be history.
Kevin Dayhoff may reached at kevindayhoff AT gmail.com or visit him at www.westminstermarylandonline.net
10/05/05 By Kevin E. Dayhoff
Recent articles and letters in local publications regarding water allocation, land use and municipal annexation are well intentioned - but clearly indicate a basic lack of understanding of the laws and past court decisions that govern these activities.
That's understandable, because since the early 1950s these areas of law in Maryland have be-come complex by bizarre, byzantine proportions.
In reality, many public officials don't understand the labyrinth of land use law, or they would be more careful about posturing in front of a public that is understandably clamoring for relief. Many pronouncements and promises are great for applause and votes, but woefully short on being legally possible.
In the end, often there is little a public official can do, retroactively, about water or property rights assigned to a property by a legal process put in place decades ago - unless they opt to spend valuable taxpayer dollars (losing) in court.
The next time anyone considers criticizing the City of Westminster about water allocation, bear in mind that you are preaching to the choir. Westminster painfully understands that it must find more water.
Also, understand that you are criticizing the wrong branch of government. For the most part, allocating Westminster's water was taken out of the hands of local officials, by the courts, almost 40 years ago.
In 1964, the city purchased the water system from a private company, which had historically provided water outside the city limits.
In 1966, the Maryland Court of Appeal (Bair v. Mayor and Council of Westminster, 221 P.2d 642 1966) declared the water system a "public utility" as opposed to a "municipal water supply" and made a ruling that forces the city to provide water to any property near any existing water line or "reasonably within its range of performance" - whether or not that property is annexed or in the city limits.
The 1966 Westminster water case is unique and is still used as national precedent. (In fact, it was used as recently as 1995 in a case before the Florida Supreme Court.) Attempting to overturn it may very well not be a wise use of taxpayer dollars.
As far as future land use, growth and development in Carroll County, planning needs to take place long before the housing development is in the public hearing stage or the subject of a costly moratorium.
A discussion needs to take place long before the business of a farm has been rendered unprofitable.
The debate needs to occur before a property owner has been awarded certain legal development rights - which can take the form of a legally enforceable contract, or in any event usually involves at least an implied contract between government and a property owner.
Sadly, the reactionary conversation - often involving unpleasant public hearings, uninformed conspiracy theories, political spinelessness and personal attacks - distorts and polarizes the collective discourse to such an extent that it renders many citizens skeptical about any discussion over growth and development.
The reality is this: You cannot take away a person's property rights or void a legal contract by plebiscite, politics or screaming mob.
That's just one of the reasons it is important that folks attend the community Grassroots Gatherings (http://www.carrollpathways.org/) that are scheduled for residents to get involved in the Carroll County Comprehensive Plan. Go, and ask questions. Many of Carroll County's public servants are the brightest land-use experts in the state.
We may not be able to do much about past land use contracts and court decisions, but the future is up to us. For the sake of that future, a majority of Carroll County residents long for a sober, clearly-worded, intelligent and nonpolitical explanation of farm profitability and the legal issues involving development and growth.
If we don't have that discussion now, our environmental future and the future of our green Carroll County way of life will be history.
Kevin Dayhoff may reached at kevindayhoff AT gmail.com or visit him at www.westminstermarylandonline.net
http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?pnpID=978&NewsID=665557&CategoryID=17346&show=localnews&om=1
20051005 WE Urban sprawl is no good for all weked
20051005 WE Urban sprawl is no good for all weked
Kevin Dayhoff Art: www.kevindayhoff.com (http://kevindayhoffart.blogspot.com/)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.