Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Maryland’s Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy

8/3/2019 Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Marylands Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy

1/16

GrowinggoingGONE?

Growth on Marylands

Eastern Shore and Meeting Its Challenges

Through Eastern Shore 2010

A report from the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy


2/16

It took 300 years after Captain John Smith mapped the Chesapeakefrom 1 607 to

1907for 60,000 acres of the Shore to be developed. In just the next 23 years, more

than three and a half times as much land will be developed!

Portion of the EasternShore to be Developedby 2030

According to the Maryland

Department of Planning, about 160,000

new residents will make the Eastern

Shore their home in the next 25

yearsadding more than 70,000 new

houses and consuming an additional

215,000 acres of farms and forests.This

equals approximately 450,000 totalacres of forest and farm land that will

be forever lost to roads, subdivisions,

malls and parking lots.Thats a loss of

open space bigger than Queen Annes

countyequal to all the tillable farm-

land in Kent,Caroline and Cecil counties.

It all comes out of finite open

space.

Recent archaeological evidence

suggests humans have flourished on the

Shores soils and rivers since earliest

North American inhabitation, thousands

of years before the Chesapeake Bay

formed. For almost all that time, the

human imprint was light. Between 1900

and the construction of the first BayBridge in 1952, the Eastern Shore grew

by an average of about 300 people a

year.

Introductionor centuries,Marylands Eastern

Shore has been an idyllic land-

scape of farms and quaint small towns.

With a traditional way of life built from

generations of living in accordance with

the land,residents continue to depend

on farming to maintain a thriving

economy.While agriculture remains the

Eastern Shores top industry, the Shore

is rapidly losing its rural character and

small town charm. Counties face devel-

opment proposals on their rural lands,

while towns face proposals along their

edges that would double, triple and

even quadruple their current popula-

tions.Left unchecked, this unprece-

dented growth pressure will forever

destroy the rural legacy that makes the

region an exceptional place.

The demand for land these days is

rising more than three times as fast as

population. Each Shore newcomer,on

average, requires nearly an acre

roughly the size of a football field.

If that number seems large,

remember that in addition to new

homes, more people mean more shop-

ping malls,more roads, more parking

lots, more schools, more power lines,

more second homes,more sand and

gravel extraction.

Today, the Shore adds that many

new residents every two and a half

weeks, a pace that will br ing the

Eastern Shore population approxi-

mately 160,000 new residents during

the next few decades of this centur y.

This unparalleled population

increase understates the likely impacton our rural economies, scenic water-

ways and quality of life.Across the

board, peoples demands on the envi-

ronment continue growing faster than

population. It took 300 years after

Captain John Smith mapped the

Chesapeakefrom 1607 to 1907to

develop 60,000 acres of the Eastern

Shore. In a third of that t imefrom

1907-2007, the Eastern Shore more

than doubled that developed acreagewith 175,000 developed areas.

The Eastern Shore adds

about 6,000 new

residents every year.

F

If present trends

continue, total land

developed from the

years 1607 to 2030

will total 450,0 00

acres. Therefore,

nearly one out of

every 5 acres on the

Eastern Shore will be

developed.

Note:This map is to scale,showing the size ofdeveloped land area in proportion to the land areaof Maryland's Eastern Shore.

Rate of Land Developmenton the Eastern Shore from 1607 to 2030


3/16

The Eastern

Shore, like

Everglades or

Adirondacks, h

always convey

sense of where

are, a quality o

existence that

needs no

elaboration.

3

Growing more compactly is the onlyway to save the rural Shore so long as population

keeps expanding. Lots of proven models for at tractive, desirable shapes and patterns of

land use exist.These lie in our existing towns, which have charm ed visitors and served residentswell for centuries now.

Older, native residents likely recall so fondly a Shore that was more rural than now,yetmore

urban, or town-based. Kids walked or biked to schools, choir practice, Boy Scouts, fishing, even to

squirrel, rabbit and quail hunting in woods or fields on their towns edge.

Shopping and jobs were predominantly local. Most people managed well with a single auto-

mobile, often driven substantially less than 10,000 miles per year.Life was not perfect, but no

one ever complained about being packed too densely. For centuries much of the Shores char-

acter and identity has resided in its river towns, crossroads towns and bayside communities.

Isolated subdivisions offer no place to belong to, no connectivity;emotional, physical or

cultural, says Margo Bailey, Mayor of Chestertown.

W e need the towns if we are going to keep development out of farmlandthey are where

the infrastructure for growth is, says Shane Johnston, a Caroline county planner.

n 2002,the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy created an inter-county agreement called Eastern

Shore 2010:A Regional Vision, which set high expectations for growth management.Tailored for the

specific regional needs of the Shore, this agreement is made up of four land use goals which were all

proposed to and adopted by the six Upper Shore governments of Cecil, Kent, Queen Annes, Caroline,

Talbot and Dorchester counties.

This repor t summarizes how the Shores leaders have done and where they must take action.

Many of the facts and figures presented in this repor t represent the six Upper Shore counties, while

some are inclusive of the entire nine-county Eastern Shore, with the distinction made when appro-

priate.This report summarizes how the Shore has done and lessons learnedand where county and

municipal leaders need to go nextas ESLC proposes an upgraded set of 2010 goals for adoption

by county governments in 2007.This document presents the original goals of Eastern Shore 2010and reports on the progress to achieve them. It also presents updated goals and related standings of

the counties.

Background onEastern Shore2010: A Regional Vision

Meeting the Challenges of Growth

I


4/16

Original Agreement from 2002

East ern Shore 2010: A Regional Vision

Whereas the Maryland Eastern Shore is one of the last great Chesapeake Bay land-

scapes, with a distinct natural, historical, cultural, and economic character and quality oflife; and

Whereas the Maryland Eastern Shore landscape, quality of life, and resource-basedeconomy are threatened by growing development pressure; and

Whereas the future of the Maryland Eastern Shore, including the management ofgrowth and development, enhancement of our resource-based economies, protection of

our land, vitality of our towns, and definition of our growth centers, substantially involve

the interests of the undersigned counties.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the undersigned counties agree to

work cooperatively to maintain and enhance the Maryland Eastern Shore through this

regional partnership, recognizing the need for innovative solutions and shared goals toprotect our unique region, and to achieve the commitments set forth.

WE WILL WORK COOPERATIVELY TOWARDS THE FOLLOWING GOALS:

Strive to protect from development through the use of voluntary preservation

programs 50% of Eastern Shore land outside of locally-designated growth areas by

2010.

Recognize our resource-based economy as a key part of the Eastern Shore heritage and

future by integrating agriculture, fisheries, and forestry into each countys economic

development plan by 2005.

Work with existing communities to guide at least 50% of new annual development

into locally-designated growth areas by 2005. Develop a regional transportation plan that integrates the use of public transportation

and alternative modes of transport within and among communities by 2010.

Signed Autumn 2002 by:

John W. Cole, President Ronald H. Fithian, President

County Commissioners Kent County

of Caroline County Board of County Commissioners

Nelson K. Bolender, President George M. ODonnell, President

Cecil County Queen Annes County

Boardof County Commissioners Boardof County Commissioners

Thomas A. Flowers, Ph.D., President Levin F. Harrison, President

Dorchester County Talbot County Council

Board of County Commissioners

THEREFORE,

IT IS HEREBY

RESOLVED that

the undersigned

counties agree

to work

cooperatively

to maintain

and enhance

the Maryland

Eastern Shore

through this

regionalpartnership,

recognizing

the need for

innovative

solutions and

shared goals

to protect our

unique region,

and to achieve

the commitments

set forth.

This is the intent

statement from the

original 2010 declara-

tion of 2002.The

revised version of this

agreement, designed

to take into account

the new growth chal-enges facing the

Shore, may be found

on page 8.

4


5/16

We have mo

to lose thanreputation.

Consider the

Calloway fam

who farm more than

thousand acres of gr

also grow melons an

vegetables for the N

York markets;and in

their spare time tak

tons of rockfish, whit

perch and catfish witmany as 28 commer

fyke and pound nets

along 15 miles of the

Nanticoke River

bordering Dorcheste

county.

At one time or

another, the family s

they have tr ied abou

everything the regio

to offer: oyster ing, ee

pott ing, raising hogs

catt le, making sausag

and scrapple, catchin

snapping tur tles, fur

ping and selling wrea

of crows foot picked

their woods.

This is just a

sampling of what is a

stake across more th

million acres of ferti

soils, invested richly

the waters of North

Americas most prodtive estuarythe larg

intact block of farml

remaining between

Maine and North

Carolinaall within

overnight drive to

markets serving abo

half the U.S. populat

ORIGINAL GOAL 1: Protecting Landoal 1 of the original Eastern Shore 2010called on county governments by 2010 to protect half of

all open space outside areas specifically designated for growth.Meeting that goal would perma-

nently preserve from development 578,277 acres from Cecil t o Dorchester.Thats 900 square miles,

nearly equal to all of Kent, Queen Annes and Talbot counties.

The six counties

are vir tually halfway tothe goal, with more

than 283,000 rural

acres protected.But

none is on track to hit

their 2010 target, and

shor tfalls in each will

likely range from

15,000 to 25,000

acres.

Collectively, the

shortfall will amountto 113,740 acres,or

178 square miles.Thats like a mile-wide swath of potentially developable farm and forestland, running

vir tually the full length of the Delmarva Peninsula.

ORIGINAL GOAL 2:

Maintaining a Working Landscapeoal 2 called for promoting the Shores tradit ional occupations agriculture, forestry and fishing

by incorporating them into county economic development plans by 2005.

The counties have done this, at least in policy. Other effor ts are underway to add economic value

to these traditional ways of making a living. However,only two of the upper Shore counties, Cecil and

Queen Annes, have gone beyond a paper commitment, with staff devoted to marketing and promoting

agriculture and other natural resource-based industries.

County economic development goals and implementing

actions for resource-based industries may be contained in one or

more plans the comprehensive plan, the county economic

development plan,or a regional economic development plan.Goal

statements and implementing actions vary considerably from

county to county,making it difficult to summarize the plans of

each county in this publication.The following is a representative

example of a goal statement and implementing action, from

Queen Annes County:

Goal Recognize the impor tance of resource-based indus-

tries to the countys economy and take steps to suppor t and

expand them.

Strategy The County should, in general,participate in

regional effor ts to expand resource-based economic oppor tuni-

ties,such as the Heartland Fields project in Queen Annes County

and Kent CountysChesapeake Fields init iative.

5

Bob and Jean Payne

protected their Kent County

dairy farm.

G

Projected Progress Toward the Preservation ofHalf the Land Outs ide Growth Areas by 2010

G


6/16

ORIGINAL GOAL 3:

Curbing Sprawloal 3 committed county governments by 2005 to guide at least half of new growth into areas

already planned to accommodate it where communities already exist and where state and

local money is directed for public water, sewer,roads and schools.

All six counties have met this goal since 2004.

Across the upper Shore,however, it is a qualified success,achieved largely by more development

insidegrowth centers, but without any building slowdown on the natural land outsideof them.

The problem is that large building lots are the norm outside growth centers more than five

times the size of lots inside, on average across the Shore. In upper Shore counties, slightly more than

half of new homes those

outside growth centers are

consuming close to 90 percent of

all open space.

Last year, Cecil County

rezoned about two-thirds of its

228,000 total acres from which

the county estimates will elimi-

nate 24,000 houses being built on

farmland.

An integral part of this

zoning change is a program to let

rural landowners sell develop-

ment rights for use in growth

areas.

G

6

Percentage of New Residential Building Permitswithin Growth Areas in 2004

Number of New Residential PermitsOutside of Growth Areas in 2004As exemplified by Kent

County, the best

ndication of success in

directing growth is

when the percentage

of share of growth

occuring in growth

areas is high, and the

number of homes

actually built ouside

the growth areas

is low.


7/16

Take A Ride, County Ride, and the

Dorchester Developmental Unit

Specialized Transportation.

Other efforts include a Delmarva

oal 4 proposed development of

a regional transportation plan,

including alternatives to the automo-

bile.This is critical because automobile

use continues rising three times faster

than population throughout the

Chesapeake region.

The impacts of this go beyond

congestion and strains on county

budgets.Transpor tation and land use

are inseparable issues.A constantly

expanding road network, especially one

responding to piecemeal, county by

county pressures, inevitably sets the

stage for more sprawl development,

which in turn raises demand for more

roads.

The upper Shore counties have

made little progress toward the kind of

regional planning needed to break this

cycle.A few laudable transportation

alternatives exist, such as Upper Shore

bike map of quiet back roads

connecting Shore communities;also the

town of Viennas plan to insure walk-

able, bikeable connections between

new development and the existing

community.

As with land use, the Shore can

choose a different transportation

future,but it cannot wait.

ORIGINAL GOAL 4:

Planning for Transportation as a Region

G

The Shore can avoid the congestion above by creat ing communities designed to be walkable, bikeable, and

served by transit.

Bikeable connections

between newdevelopments and

existing communities

are an important

part of regional

transportation

planning efforts.

Transportation

and land use are

inseparable issues.


8/16

Revised Agreement from 2002East ern Shore 2010: A Regional Vision

Whereas Marylands Eastern Shore is one of the last great Chesapeake Bay landscapes, witha distinct natural, historical, cultural, and economic character and quality of life; and

Whereas the Eastern Shores lands, quality of life, and farming, forestry and fisheries indus-

tries are threatened by growing development pressure; andWhereas the future of the Eastern Shore, including the management of growth and devel-opment, definition of our growth centers, protection of our land, vitality of our towns, and the

viability of our farming, forestry and fisheries industries substantially involve the interests of

the undersigned counties; and

Whereas the population of the Eastern Shore is projected to grow by 38 percent or 160,000people in the next 25 years, which will cause the development of 250,000 acres of land. Eastern

Shore citizens and their elected county leaders must take charge of growth to shape a desirable

future for ourselves and for future generations.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the undersigned counties agree to work

cooperatively and exercise leadership to maintain and enhance the Eastern Shore through this

regional partnership, recognizing the need for innovative solutions and shared goals to protectour unique region, and to achieve the commitments set forth.

WE WILL WORK COOPERATIVELY TOWARDS THE FOLLOWING GOALS:

Strive to protect from development through the use of voluntary preservation programs 50

percent of Eastern Shore land outside of designated growth areas by 2010, including an

annual dedication of combined county and municipal funding for land preservation in an

amount equaling at least 1.5 percent of the county operating budget for a given year.

Implement the county economic development plan for the Eastern Shores traditional indus-

tries of farming, forestry and fisheries.

By 2010, manage county growth, including working with municipalities, to: 1) annually

guide at least 80 percent of growth into designated growth areas, 2) establish a maximum

annual residential growth rate, and 3) include a workforce housing element in the countycomprehensive plan pursuant to House Bill 1160, which established a state workforce

housing grant program.

Develop a regional transportation plan by 2010 that provides alternatives to a new Bay

crossing and emphasizes the use of alternative and public transportation within and among

communities.

President President

County Commissioners of Caroline County Kent County Boardof County Commissioners

President President

Cecil County Board of County Queen Annes County Board of County

Commissioners Commissioners

President President

Dorchester County Board of County Talbot County Council

Commissioners

Managing

rowth and

prawl to protect

e environmentas over-

helmingly the

rimary concern

entified by

tizens, by a

argin of nearly

-1 over the

econd place

sue, jobs ande economy.

he latest

evisions to

astern Shore

010 reflect

hese remarkably

olid public calls

or action.

8

Appr ove d

Appro ve d

Appro ve dAppr

o ve d


9/16

A STRONGER APPROACH:

Eastern Shore 2010 Upgradeshe following section of this repor t refers to the updated Eastern Shore 2010agree-

ment, which was strengthened as a response to the growth pressures that have

emerged since the original iteration was developed and signed by county leaders in

2002.The updated Eastern Shore 2010 revises the four goals to call for local counties toprovide a minimum amount of funds for land protection, implement their economic

development plans supporting the farming,fishing and forestry industries,direct 80

percent of new growth to villages and towns, set a maximum growth rate, create a plan

for workforce housing and suggest alternatives to another Bay Bridge, including a public

transportation plan.

T

UPDATED GOAL 1:

More Money forLand Protectiono help meet Goal 1,protecting

578,277 acres by 2010, ESLC

proposes that the upper Shorescounties

dedicate an amount equivalent to at least

one and a half percent of their annual

budgets to preserving land.

Its a reasonable demonstration of a

real county commitment toward land

preservation. Caroline County proves it

can be done by a rural Eastern Shore

county.As of Fiscal Year 2007,Caroline

budgeted $1,140,000 for land preserva-

tion,which represents an amount equivalent to 2.5 percent of

the county budget.A variety of revenue sources are available

to the counties, including impact fees, excise taxes, transfer

taxes bond funds and funds from the county budget.

Kathleen W hite (center),

owner of Sedgewick Farm in

Queen Annes County,permanently protected her

land in 2006 by working with

ESLC and John Hutson (left)

of the Maryland

Environmental Trust.

A whopping 78 percent of voters say they would suppor t

reasonable investments of public funds to attain such a goal

and this suppor t ranged from 69 to 82 percent across the

six counties. (ESLC)

County Land Preservation Budget vs. County Operating BudgetCounty Total Co. Budget FY 07 Land Preservation 1.5%of

Budget* Total Budget

Caroline FY 07-$44,835,924 $1,140,000 $672,500

Cecil FY 06-$128,757,979 $1,000,000 $1,900,000

Dorchester FY 06-$61,649,417 $77,000 $924,000

Kent FY 04-$26,950,944 $100,000 $404,000

Queen Annes FY 06-$81,431,864 **0 $1,221,000

Talbot FY 06-$66,500,000 ***$550,000 $997,500

Note:Total county budget f igures are the most recent available on-line as of 9/08/06. Dollar figures per percentage are rounded

*Figures are for county generated funding only and as provided by county land preservation staff **PDR program in process of being established

***$500,000 has been proposed as a county budget expenditure

T

Shortfall in County Land Preservation Fundingvs. Amount Equivalent to 1.5% of the Fiscal Year

2007 Operating Budget(in order of most to least shortfall)

photobySandraEdwards


10/16

ven as the Shore takes on a more suburban look, harvesting the land and waters still

contributes more than a fifth of total economic output from the six upper Shore counties,

some $2 billion annually. It employs about one of every eight citizens here, more than 15,000 in all.

Like the land and waters they depend on, these natural resource-based industr ies have values

beyond easy economic measurement.They are what makes the Shore the Shore.Their economic

health is a front line defense against sprawl development.

Indeed, 95 percent of those polled agreed that promoting natural resource based industries was

impor tant to preserve the Shores way of life.

Goal 2 calls for implementing incentives for such industries in every countys economic develop-

ment plan.Queen Annes recently created an office of agriculture and economic development.

Implementing actions for the economic development of resource-based industries vary considerably

from county to county, making it very difficult to summarize the plans of every county in this publica-

tion. Here are two examples. Caroline, Dorchester and Talbot are working jointly through the Mid-Shore Regional Council to:

Create a full-time posit ion to focus solely on the economic development of resource-based indus-

tries in the three counties.

Investigate the feasibility of a barley-based ethanol plant.

Examine the feasibility of aquaculture technologies,with a goal of identifying a pilot project that has

the potential for significant economic impact.

UPDATED GOAL 2:

Making Traditional Economiesthe Future

10

E

Some prom-

ising efforts

are underway to addeconomic value to

the traditional ways

of making a living.

"Food, not feed" is

the motto of

Chesapeake Fields, an

Upper Shore enter-

prise contracting with

farmers to grow high-

value specialty

soybeans for the

Japanese snack food

market rather t hanselling crops literally

for chicken feed.

Another project

is exploring construc-

tion of a $30 million

ethanol production

plant using barley,

which can be double-

cropped along with

soybeans.

And in the

Choptank River,

watermen are

working with scien-

tists to restore the

once-rich oyster beds,

stocking disease-

resistant oysters, and

melding shellfish

sanctuaries with

satellite areas where

harvesting is allowed.


11/16

oal 3 has been significantly upgraded and expanded.

This portion of the agreement calls for counties to:

annually guide at least 80 percent of growth into designated

growth areas;establish a maximum annual residential growth

rate,and include a workforce housing element in the countycomprehensive plan. Polling shows 87 percent of voters are

concerned about the current rate of sprawl, and that 85

percent agree with promoting and investing in existing

communities.

The updated Eastern Shore 2010 agreement raises the

goial for directing growth to growth areas from 50 to 80

percent. This would save tens of thousands of acres,because

development outside growth areas consumes four to nine

times the land per household

(depending on the county) as

development in higher-growth

zones. Zoning is crit ical: both to

accommodate growth where itis planned and to restrict it

where rural landscapes are

desired.Rapid population

growth can undermine the best

county programs for preserving

their rural nature.The Eastern

Shore, which took from 1607 to the 1980s to reach 300,000

people, is on a pace to nearly double that by 2030.

UPDATED GOAL 3:

Growing Smarter, and Slower

G

Historical and Projected Annual County Population Growth Rates*

2000-2005 2005-2010 2025-2030

Caroline 1.01% 1.58% 1.49%

Cecil 2.51% 2.33% 1.65%

Dorchester 0.40% 1.17% 0.73%

Kent 0.47% 0.80% 0.44%

Queen Annes 2.53% 1.66% 0.91%

Talbot 0.84% 0.84% 0.41%

*Prepared by the Mar yland Department of Planning, Planning Data Services, September 2005

Note:Figures do not account for population increases associated with the relocation of mil itar y personnel to the region due to the federal Base Realignment And

Closure process.

What's at stake

are the

Centrevilles andthe Eastons, the

Galenas and

Viennas, the

Federalsburgs

and Cambridges

that are

struggling to

revitalize their

cores, even as

growth sprawls

out across the

countryside.


12/16

Marylanders

now endure the

econd longestommute times in the

ation--30 minutes on

verage--and one cause

workers driving

art her from their jobs

o afford the home they

ant. Just growing

ster, building more

omes, has a poor track

ecord in creating

fordable homes near

o workplaces.

easures that willork, from a recent

overnor's Taskforce on

Workforce H ousing,

clude a range of finan-

al incentives for both

uilders and buyers;

oning to encourage

edevelopment of land

nd older buildings near

b centers;also making

orkforce housing a

ommitment in county

ans.

UPDATED GOAL 3:

Growing Smarter, and Sloweroal 3 includes an objective for setting an upper limit to annual growth.The precise growth rate

is left up to the counties;Making growth pay its full costs,planning for the population current

residents want versus what is forecast, requiring adequate schools, sewers and roads are in place first

all are ways to slow growth.To ensure that people can afford homes in counties where they work,Goal 3 also commits local governments to make such housing a part of their development plans.

Currently,only Queen Annes County requires new subdivisions to include a certain percentage of

modestly priced homes.

Maryland ranks as the nations fourth least affordable state for housing, according to a League of

Women Voters repor t. Marylanders also now endure the second longest commute times in the nation

30 minutes one way on average and one cause is workers driving farther from their jobs to afford

the home they want.The state last year passed HB 1160,creating up to $10 million a year in grants for

counties and towns. But to qualify, local jurisdictions must commit to creating a workforce housing

element in their comprehensive plan. in state-approved growth areas.

G

12

County Comprehensive Plans Compliance With State WorkforceHousing Grant Program Requirements

Grant Eligibility Requirements Counties

Caroline Cecil Dorchester Kent Queen Annes Talbot

The plan contains a workforce housing element Yes Yes No Yes No* Yes

The plan contains an assessment of needs Yes No No No Yes Yes

The plan contains goals, policies, etc. Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

*Please note:The Queen Annes County 2002 comprehensive plan does not contain a separate section on workforce

housing, but does cover the issue under the plans Land Use Element chapter.


13/16

oal 4 repeats the call for Upper Shore governments to develop a regional transportation plan

by 2010 and adds a call for devising alternatives to a third Bay Bridge.

With continuation of current driving trends, which are linked closely with current development

trends, a third Bay Bridge becomes all but inevitable. By 2025,an average days traffic on the existing

twin spans will be nearly as bad as on a weekend day now and 12 hour delays at peak weekend

times would be common, according to a recent state Bay Crossing Task Force report.

Another span would bring irreparable changes to the farms, histor ic communities and rural way of

life on the Shore, with major impacts on presently undeveloped tidal shorelines.

Combined with this would be automotive impacts beyond the obvious traffic congestion and

smog. Paved surfaces in the Bay region are growing five times faster than population, and the roads,

driveways, garages and parking lots for cars account for more than half of it . Small wonder that

stormwater runoff, which is worst where large areas are paved over, is the Shores fastest-increasing

source of water pollut ion, and a major force degrading streams throughout Maryland.For tunately, the grim Bay Crossing task force projections show only what will happen if nothing is

done to reshape growth and transportation.Alternatives exist that would stretch the capacity of the

existing bridges.

The upper Shore counties must immediately engage state government in discussing beach-

or iented rapid transit buses, variable tolls to smooth congestion peaks on the bridges;also ride-

sharing,telecommuting and other alternatives. Better balancing jobs and housing on both sides of the

Bridge could reduce commuter traffic.This could avoid gridlock on the current bridges and major

change to the Shore from another car crossing, and provide time for exploration of mass-transit

options by ferr y or rail.

UPDATED GOAL 4:

Regional Transportation Planning anda New Bay Bridge?

G

13

The upper

Shore coun

must immediatelyengage state gover

ment in discussing

beach-oriented rap

transit like buses, v

able tolls to smoot

congestion peaks o

bridges; also ride-

sharing, telecommu

and other alternati

It is easy to for

that long before th

was a Bay Bridge, it

possible to travel tobeach and back. Ne

a century ago, the o

Ocean City Flyer ra

road train picked u

western shore beac

goers from the boa

docks at Claiborne

highballed the 87 m

of track to Ocean C

in as litt le as two h

and ten minutes.


14/16

The sobering

rojections of

unaway

evelopment

verwhelming the

Eastern Shore are

ot destiny

This need not be

ur future.

14

ITS YOUR DECISION

The Fate of the Eastern Shore?or tunately, the sobering projections of runaway development overwhelming the Eastern Shore

are not destiny.They are based on assumptions that trends of the recent past will continue.This

need not be our future!

Our lands and waters are under assault, but far more remains than has been lost. Shore countiespossess the knowledge and the tools to do better.And by broad and solid margins, their citizens

demand it. Of all t he generations in all of human time here, this one uniquely has the power to alter

ir revocably or sustain the Shore as an island amid the sea of East Coast development. On our

watch it will be largely decided whether or not our Eden gets sliced and diced by development,

served up with a steaming side of asphalt .

Swift and strong action is needed to manage growth on the Shore that maintains our heritage and

quality of life.We are all responsible for what will or will not happen.

Eastern Shore Land Conservancy is a private, nonprofit organization working to protect land and promote

sound land use planning on six counties of Marylands Eastern Shore. Our volunteer board of directors includes

Eastern Shore landowners representing agriculture, business and local government. Since 1990, ESLC has

protected more than 39,000 acres on over 200 Shore properties.

For more informat ion on protecting your land or taking action on local land use issues, visit www.eslc.org,

and contact our staff at 410.827.9756 or [email protected].

F

W hat YOU can do:

Contact your local elected officials and urge them to sign Eastern Shore 2010andcommit to implementing the changes it calls for.

Show your suppor t for the rural Shore we all love by signing the Eastern Shore2010petition.

Visit www.eslc.org to sign up as a volunteer and work on current issues.

Spread the word by sharing this report with others.


15/16

ReferencesEastern Shore Land Conservancy. (June 2006).Eastern Shore 2010: A Regional Vision, Draft. Queenstown, MD.

Eastern Shore Land Conservancy. (2005).Eastern Shore 2010:A Regional Vision. Attaining the Growth Center GoalQueenstown, MD.

Fodor, Eben.(2001).Better Not Bigger How to Take Control of Urban Growth and Improve Your Community. Gabriola Island,BC,

Canada: New Society Publishers.

Hor ton,Tom. (1998, July - August). A Sense of Place.Style, 42.

Horton,Tom. (2005,June ) Why Cant We Save the Bay?Nat ional Geographic, 22.

Horton,Tom & Chesapeake Bay Foundation. (2003).Turning the Tide: Saving the Chesapeake Bay.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Hor ton,Tom & Eichbaum,William M. (1991). Turning the Tide: Saving the Chesapeake Bay.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Jantz,P.,Goetz,S.,& Jantz, C. (2005). Urbanization and the Loss of Resource Lands in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Environmental Management, 36, 6,808-825.

League of Women Voters of Maryland. (2006). Affordable Housing Study.Annapolis,MD.

Maryland Department of Planning. (June,2006).Eastern Shore Analysis,Draft. Baltimore,MD.

Maryland Department of Planning. (2006).Eastern Shore Growth: Past, Present, Future and Issues.Baltimore,MD: MDP.

Maryland Department of Planning.(September 2005). Planning Data Services: Historical and Projected Total Population for M arylands

Jurisdictions. Baltimore,MD.

Maryland Department of Planning.(2005).Task Force on Traffic Capacity Across the Chesapeake Bay. Baltimore,MD.

Members of Johns Hopkins University (1893). Mar yland: Its resources, Industr ies and Institutions. Baltimore,MD: Board of Worlds

Fair Managers of Maryland.

Mencken and the Shore. (1983,Fall). Washington College Reporter. Vol. 21,Issue 1,9.

National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education. (2006).Todays Vision,Tomorrows Reality;Summary Report of the

Reality Check Plus Growth Visioning Exercise. College Park, MD.

New Jersey Pinelands Commission. (2004). White Paper on Timed-Growth Options for the Pinelands. New Lisbon,NJ: Author.

South Central Assembly for Effective Governance. (2005).The Mason-Dixon Dilemma:Assessing the Impacts of Regional Growth

Patterns In the ChesapeakeWatershed Region. Middletown, PA.

Writ ten by Tom Horton; Edited by Amanda Fisher, Fisher Communications, George Maurer and Kristine George,ESLC.Layout by Liz Fisher, Grafix Galore

Copyright 2007 Eastern Shore Land Conservancy.This publication may be reproduced and material contained within may

be used without permission with credit given to ESLC.

Back cover photo of north Centreville by Caroline Gabel


16/16

I think I understand.

Youre trying to keep the

Garden of Eden here.

Jim Mosley, USDA deputy

secretary, after an aerial tour ofthe Eastern Shore.

Documents

Maryland; Growing going Gone: Growth on Maryland’s Eastern Shore - Eastern Shore Land Conservancy