Keynote Address: Forging Metropolitan Solutions to Urban and Regional Problems

Good afternoon and thank you, Bruce.

I am sorry I could not be with you earlier for your discussions. As

a former County Executive and professor at UMCP for 27 years I enjoy those

types of talks. Instead, this morning, I attended the Geographic Information

Systems Conference where we talked about the topic I will talk to you about,

Smart Growth.

I am particularly pleased that I was asked to speak AFTER lunch. I have

given enough speeches to know that you never want to be the person standing

between the audience and lunch!

As I said, I spoke about Smart Growth earlier today. To put it in a

nutshell: Smart Growth marks the first time that a state has designed a

system of public investments as a series of private sector incentives and

disincentives. We do this to combat suburban sprawl, protect the environment,

revitalize older communities, and conserve limited public resources.

Our philosophy is that we should NOT use tax payer dollars to promote

sprawl. We should NOT use tax payer dollars to encourage the abandonment

of our cities and of our established communities, and instead we ought

to be using our tax dollars to revitalize existing communities.

Now, having said that in philosophical terms, what does it mean in a

personal term? I’ll tell you where I really saw this come to bear.

My wife Frances Ann (ph) and I have been married for a little over 20

years now. Back when we were courting—looking around the room, half

of you don’t even know what the word courting means—(laughter), but

back when we were courting, she lived up in Cumberland, Maryland, in Western

Maryland, and I lived in College Park here in Prince George’s County.

And every weekend, I would go up to visit her and we’d have dinner either

Friday night or Saturday night with her parents, and then we would go to

downtown Cumberland. And we would walk along, and the stores would be open,

and there would be little cafes, and there would be lounges, and there

would be theaters. And at any given time, up until about 9:00 or 10:00,

there would be a couple hundred people just milling up and down the street

in this small town.

About 12, 13 years ago, someone decided to build a regional shopping

mall about, I guess, maybe 15 miles outside of town in a place called LaVale,

if you know Western Maryland. The state of Maryland, in a burst of enthusiasm

for new economic development, helped make that happen by providing $12

million to help build the road up the side of the mountain to make it economically

viable.

And when you go to downtown Cumberland today, as my wife and I did just

a few weeks ago, a third of the stores are completely empty, a third of

the stores are, you know, second-hand shops and things like this. And we

went there to visit some friends, and we had a cup of coffee at a little

coffee shop. Seven o’clock in the evening we went out, and you could look

up and down the street, there was no one there on a Friday evening.

Now, we taxpayers used our resources to promote the end of economic

viability in one of the older communities in the state of Maryland. And

these decisions are going on all over the state constantly. In Chestertown,

they’re debating whether or not to build a Wal-Mart right outside of Chestertown.

And I walk the city streets with the mayor and see the abandoned stores

there already. And I think what we’ve got to come to is a basic philosophy,

again simple, but I think profound, and that is we will not use tax dollars

to promote sprawl.

Now, my message is simple today, and that is, we must change the direction

of growth habits across America. I’m not saying it’s a good idea to change

the direction of growth. I think it’s absolutely imperative that we do

so. We must come together and make these changes.

Before talking Maryland’s Smart Growth initiative, let me just tell

you why I feel so passionately about this. We respond publicly to the world

as we see it. And that is, as I was looking around the room, I know a good

number of you here. Frances Ann and I have a boy now 17 years old, Raymond.

Half of you saw him grow up and all, right, but a 17-year-old boy.

Our greatest pleasure, my son and I in particular, and my wife could

only do it so often, she wasn’t quite as enthusiastic, but it was going

to the lower Potomac and camping out and fishing. It was going to the Patuxent

and crabbing. It was going out on the Chesapeake Bay. And we would spend

hours and hours in a little town called—not even a town, a little place

called Nanjemoy in southern Charles County.

And in Nanjemoy, friends of ours had a little, tiny cabin. And we would

sit on the dock, and we would listen to the Orioles game, and we would

catch channel catfish. And we would do that for three days in a row. And

we’d come home and be smelly and everything else. But it was a wonderful,

wonderful time for a father and a son.

Now, my fear—my fear—is if we don’t change what we’re doing in

this country today, if we don’t change what we’re doing in Maryland, that

what was so wonderful a memory for me and our son, who’s now this weekend,

in fact, graduating from high school and will be going off to college,

he will not have that opportunity with his children or their children.

And I think we owe it to our children to come to grips with the need to

change.

Now, for 50 years, America I believe has been sold on the concept that

moving up means moving out there somewhere. In the years following World

War II, we all know the history. American veterans and their young families

rushed from their city rowhouses to newly built suburban tracts, always

in search of green lawns and bigger lawns and their piece of the American

dream. And the view became that the American dream was out there.

This flight, really, in large and middle-sized cities and towns continues

even to this day. Just as our parents packed up and picked up and moved

out of the cities, today’s baby boomers are packing up, picking up and

moving out of the suburbs, where they were before. The older suburbs are

being abandoned now, just as the central cities were. Every day, more and

more people leave our inner cities, our older established communities for

ex-urbia and for the rural areas. It is happening in my home state of Maryland,

it is happening to some extent in every state in this country, and we have

seen the result of this sprawl.

In its path, sprawl consumes thousands of acres of forests and farmlands

and woodlands and wetlands, and it requires us to build new schools, new

streets, new water and sewer lines, new police stations, new parks, and

you can go on and on. In its wake, sprawl leaves boarded up homes, vacant

storefronts, closed businesses, abandoned and often contaminated industrial

sites, and traffic congestion stretching for miles and miles as people

try to come back to job centers.

I also emphasize, this is an economic matter as well. Sprawl is creating

a hidden debt of unfunded infrastructure repairs and services that will

run into the billions of dollars. And it’s rare that time goes by now that

you don’t see some major water pipe burst, for example, as we had in Baltimore

just recently, as they had in Northern Virginia just this last week, here

in this area. And it’s because of the inability to invest in the older

infrastructure because we’re putting all of our money into new infrastructure

for sprawl out there.

Simply put, I believe that it’s not only the debt of unfunded infrastructure

and the social dysfunction and the urban decay and environmental degradation,

but I believe that sprawl is a disease that is eating away at the heart

of America.

Now, to show you the pace of what we’re talking about, in Maryland alone

during the past six months, approximately 5,000 people left Baltimore city.

We issued a little over 3,000 new septic tank permits, and nearly 10,000

acres of forest and farmlands were lost in the last six months alone. And

I want to tell you, you can go to just about any state in the country,

certainly on the East Coast, and you’re going to have comparable or greater

figures.

We estimate that over the next 25 years, Maryland will grow by more

than a million people, roughly 20 percent. Another half million people

will leave existing towns, cities and suburbs, and move to the outer areas

unless we make some changes. Because of these population trends, we stand

to consume as much land in the next 25 years in Central Maryland as we

consumed in the entire 300-year history of the state of Maryland.

Now, while the environmental costs are difficult to estimate and the

social costs are difficult to put dollar numbers on, there are areas we

can talk about dollars. Every new classroom costs $90,000. Every mile of

new sewer line costs roughly $200,000. And every single-lane mile of new

road costs at least $4 million. That is what we’re building into our equation

of cost.

Perhaps more important to me, however, and I think this is true for

most Marylanders, for most Americans, more important is the loss of community.

When I talk about the loss of community, if you think about more traditional

communities, literally with families on the front porch, keeping an eye

on one another, knowing one another’s children, and then you think about

what we have today, where people’s idea of moving up is in fact 5-acre,

10-acre, 20-acre home sites, in doing that, in many cases, people live

10 years next to their neighbors and don’t even know their first names.

Now, we cannot allow this to continue to happen. When we talk about

a lot of social problems, commitment to education, dealing with juvenile

problems, when we talk about that, it seems to me that, indirectly, we

are seeing the consequences of a loss of community as we spread ourselves

so thin that community no longer exists.

I’ll tell you a story that I said to the legislature when we debated

this issue. I told them how when I was county executive, one afternoon

I came home, and our son was about 4 or 5 years old, and we had a caregiver.

My wife is an attorney with the Federal Election Commission, and we had

a caregiver. And I went home, and I said to the caregiver, “Where’s

Raymond?” And she said, “He’s out riding his bike.” And

so I looked up and down the block and I didn’t see him. And my neighbor

right across the street was out working on his yard, and he said, “I’ll

bet you’re looking for Raymond. He just went down that street there.”

And I went to the corner and I still didn’t see him, and he wasn’t supposed

to do more than go around the block. And someone else saw him and said,

“I saw your boy going over there toward the school.” And I went

over to the school, and there were a bunch of children playing there. And

I’m standing on the side looking, and a person in a home that faces the

school said to me, “Are you looking for your son? He just went to

the tennis courts.” And I went over there, and I said, “Raymond,”

I said, “You’re not supposed to be riding your bike this far. What’s

going on here?”

And he looks at me, and his eyes get all big. He said, “Dad, how

did you find me?”

(Laughter.)

And after we got over the practicalities of it, I told him, I said,

“Raymond, the whole community knows you here.”

Now, let me tell you, it wasn’t because it was the county executive’s

son, because that same community spirit exists there. We know our neighbors’

children. We know where they’re going to school. I can tell you, two houses

down when one of the teenage neighbors are coming home because I know what

station they listen to in their car when they pound that music out.

(Laughter.)

Now, that is what’s being lost, and that’s where I think is even perhaps

a bigger danger than just the economics. Maryland’s effort to battle sprawl

really dates back several governors and almost a quarter of a century.

The last four governors all made both efforts and contributions in this

area. We’ve all tried to protect the Chesapeake Bay by land use efforts

in terms of taming suburban sprawl. These efforts, the prior governors

laid the foundation for what we did today in terms of the adoption of Smart

Growth.

Now, let me emphasize, I said our Smart Growth initiative. This is not

no growth. This is not slow growth. This is Smart Growth.

Over the past year and a half, my administration and I have worked with

elected officials and the people of Maryland to craft a plan that simultaneously

supports a healthy economy and controls sprawl. I know there are people

out there who say that we cannot protect the environment and at the same

time have a real prosperous economy. I strongly disagree with that view.

I think it’s a false dichotomy to say you’re either for the economy or

for the environment. We can have both a clean environment and a vibrant economy.

Now, I know this is true because in Maryland, we are showing that you

can have the economy grow and prosper and you can protect the environment.

Right now, the Maryland economy is absolutely surging. Jobs are at an all-time

high. Unemployment is at a six-year low. The last monthly report showed

that unemployment figures dropped in every jurisdiction in the state, including

Baltimore city. We had the fourth highest income level of the nation. Our

welfare rolls have declined by 29 percent in the last two years. And we

have a $670 million budget surplus.

And at the same time, we are recognized as having perhaps the most progressive

environmental policy in the nation.

From the beginning, we recognized that our Smart Growth initiative,

to be successful, had to involve the people of Maryland, Republicans and

Democrats, municipal and county officials, environmentalists and farmers,

community leaders and business people, and the general public. And we came

together with a year—almost a year-long community debate. And thanks

to the bipartisan grassroots effort, the Maryland General Assembly passed

the entire package of legislation that responded to our concerns about

sprawl.

Key to the success, I believe, in our decision process was to step outside

of the box. We decided not to create another level of review or a new set

of regulations. Rather, we said let’s affect the bottom line as people

make decisions. And we decided to use our $15 billion budget as an incentive

for Smart Growth and to use our tax laws as a disincentive for sprawl.

Now, our critics said we would not be able to make such sweeping change

in one session. And quite candidly, we did have to push hard. We had to

play hard ball, including using the budget. But it really was a victory

for common-sense policy, and I was pleased at the overwhelming support

on a bipartisan basis that we ended up receiving in both houses of the

legislature.

It was a package of bills, and I won’t go through great detail, but

let me just tell you, the first measure that we passed was perhaps one

of the most important. And that was our Brownfield facilities program,

to help clean up Brownfields, the reuse of abandoned industrial areas in

urban sites. And this has been done in a number of jurisdictions across

the country.

I did just recently visit one of those sites in Baltimore city, and

let me tell you, I was thrilled not only about the enthusiasm of the new

owner, but I was thrilled by the neighbors that came when we had this celebration

of the Brownfield declaration, because these are people who had lived with

an abandoned factory. It was an early burlap-bag-manufacturing factory

that was now becoming a computer center right in the midst of their neighborhood.

And think what that means in terms of jobs and in terms of stability and

dealing with crime.

In addition to the Brownfields legislation, we also crafted what we

called a priority funding or Smart Growth area. And this will allow the

state to direct its resources for programs, existing programs, such as

housing, transportation, sewer and water, direct those resources toward

areas specifically designated by local jurisdictions for growth and meeting

rigid state standards: Must be on water and sewer lines, must meet a minimum

residential density of three and a half units per acre, and other standards

that we have outlined.

Now, I have instructed every department, and the law will require as

of October of next year that every department must review, is their expenditure

in a Smart Growth area, their capital expenditures or their program support

that would affect the growth and development in a Smart Growth area? Each

department has been told that their resources must be used as incentives

to direct growth where it belongs.

Now, what does this mean as a practical matter? We’re already doing

this in several areas. We changed the school construction formula. Now

the first priority for the state portion of school construction goes to

those schools in existing communities for renovation, for wiring, for technology,

for new science wings, for expansion. When I came in, 40 percent of the

school funding, roughly $150 million, went into those areas. Today 82 percent

goes into existing schools.

We had an interesting experience. The mayor of Hagerstown, in Western

Maryland, came to me and he said, “The state’s going to build a new

district court building up here.” And I said, “Yes, I know that.”

And he said, “Do you know where they’re going to build it?” And

they were going to build it out in a suburban area.

And I talked to the chief administrative judge, a very wonderful gentleman,

now retired, Judge Sweeney (ph), and I said, “Judge Sweeney, why are

we going to put it out there?” And he said, “You know, when you’re

downtown, you have to worry about parking.” And he says, “This

is so convenient for the judges, and we’re going to have our own parking

area over here.”

(Laughter.)

Now, I’ve got to tell you, Judge Sweeney is a wonderful person, there’s

no question about it. He was not focused, however, on Smart Growth. We

have a new administrative judge, Martha Raison (ph). She understands clearly.

The new courthouse is now going to be in downtown Hagerstown. And if we

don’t have confidence in the economy of Hagerstown, then how is the private

sector going to have it? And this is when I say, use the budget as an incentive.

That is what we’re doing.

Same thing in Easton. If you go to Easton, it is a beautiful—on the

Eastern Shore—it is a beautiful community. The downtown area is struggling,

however. They were going to put the new district courthouse outside. We

said no. Then they were going to build a new structure. And we said no,

why don’t you take one of the existing structures, renovate it? And I’m

very pleased that next week, that will be dedicated and opened in Easton

for the mayor, in fact, who has now passed on, who devoted his life to

the downtown area.

With this Smart Growth method, we will be investing taxpayers’ dollars

in areas that provide efficient and effective use of our funds, that support

the revitalization of existing neighborhoods and rural villages, that supports

areas designated by local governments as priority areas, and that reduces

the pressure for sprawl and for unending development.

Now, in addition to those two components, we’re also as part of our

package trying to preserve the rural legacy through a new greenbelts program.

This will work in conjunction with other existing land conservation and

preservation programs to help preserve rural acreage throughout Maryland.

We will be putting roughly $170 million into the purchase of the development

rights for 90,000 acres to keep open space around our areas where we want

to concentrate the development.

And finally, we have amended the tax code so that there is a new job

creation tax credit to give those businesses that choose to locate or expand

in growth areas an income tax credit for their corporate income tax. This

is also augmented with an innovate program to provide cash incentives for

people who choose to buy homes near the places where they will work.

And let me tell you, I know clearly that these new programs and these

new attitudes about sprawl are not a panacea. They’re not going to solve

everything tomorrow. You’re not going to immediately turn around and say

look at this difference. But they are starting the process of protecting

our environment and our natural resources and starting the process of preventing

the devastating effects of runaway development.

Simply put, our hope is that if homebuilder A is building within a Smart

Growth area and meets the water and sewer requirements, meets the density

requirements, he or she will receive help on that project on everything

from tax credits to roads to infrastructure improvement.

If homebuilder B, on the other hand, takes a farm and decides to build

out there somewhere, he or she still has the absolute legal right to do

so, but there will not be tax credits, there will not be public dollars

for water and sewer lines, and there will not be public dollars for roads.

I believe that what will happen is that the bottom line is that the

same house will cost considerably more out there and that the bottom line

economics will force more and more people to invest in existing community.

(Applause.)

Now, the fact is that Maryland, I think, has a rare opportunity, and

I’m pleased with the interest and excitement coming from around the nation

as people are asking us to see the details of our program and all. But

I think Maryland has a rare opportunity to show the nation that Smart Growth

can support a healthy environment and a strong economy. We have already

received requests from so many different people asking how we did it, how

it’s going to work.

Most importantly, perhaps, is what we did not do. We did not create

a new statewide planning czar. We’re simply using the public resources

and the private incentives to protect the environment and to stop sprawl

and to encourage community revitalization.

Later this afternoon, you will hear from experts from the federal government

about—it’s not oxymoronic either—you’ll hear from experts from the

federal government about what we can learn from Maryland and from other

experiences elsewhere.

Let me be perhaps a little bit bold here and suggest that the federal

government ought to follow our lead and reinforce our efforts. And by that,

I mean everything from the reauthorization of ISTEA, the transportation

program, with the flexibility so that we can use our funds in the future

as we are now for neighborhood reinvestment. Just think what would happen

if there was a requirement, for example, to reuse existing buildings before

building new buildings or if there was a requirement that this be in Smart

Growth areas as well within a jurisdiction.

Last fall, my wife and my son and I went down to Greensboro for the

ACC conference. And we made a terrible mistake and we said, let’s walk

through Greensboro, it looks like a beautiful old town. It was a beautiful

old town—probably 25 years ago. It is practically abandoned now. The

area around here, however, is thriving. It’s just absolutely thriving.

When I talk about the federal government role, it seems to me as I look

at these beautiful old buildings, totally empty, that when the next federal

facility in that area goes, if it were designated by some type of policy

decision as a renovation of one of those buildings in downtown Greensboro,

it could do more than just provide space for whatever that function is,

but could start to use the federal budget for the same type of catalyst

that we’re using our tiny little $15 billion budget in Maryland.

Now, when I say that, some people say, well, gee, is that appropriate?

Let me ask everyone to keep in mind that federal policy helped create sprawl,

and federal policy helped drive sprawl. Two major items that you see all

around us. One was the GI Bill, which helped people go out and buy homes,

helped people—veterans come back and buy homes. We’ve got a wonderful

community, Bowie. It was a Levitt community. And I remember when those

homes were advertised for $9,999 when they were started, with a veteran’s

loan. And it’s a thriving little community now, there’s no question about

it, but it was a major suburban sprawl way out there at the time that that

was started.

The other major policy area is the interstate highway system. The interstate

highway system has opened up the suburbs, has been good for the nation

in many ways, but it has also put billions of dollars into making sprawl

possible. If the federal government saw fit to contribute to sprawl in

the past, then surely it can refocus efforts and assist with reinvestment

today.

Public spending clearly affects private decisions. And I urge members

of Congress as well as federal and state officials to try to follow this

lead because if we’re all working together, it’s going to work better.

If we’re successful, if we’re truly successful, there are going to be some

problems for the District of Columbia. That will not happen if the federal

policy uses the same approach. And I have no interest in raiding the economic

viability of our nation’s capital. And that’s why I urge that more than

just Maryland start to address this issue very aggressively.

We are indeed at a crossroads. We can choose several different paths.

We can choose the status quo, which in my mind is clearly not working,

or we can choose a new path, a path less traveled, but that I believe will

be more sensible, and that is the path of smart growth, with a focus on

a healthy environment and a healthy economy. Working together, we can do

that.

Let me just conclude with an observation. Just last week, I went to

a small community in Baltimore Country, Hillendale community, unincorporated

area. The homes were built about 45 years ago. They’re beautiful little

brick structures with four units to a home.

I went through there because the community had invited me. And this

was a community that was having huge problems. Most of the homes have started

to move to rentals, a sure sign of the decline of a community. Drug activity

was up, the age level was going up dramatically as young families left.

Working with the county executive in Baltimore County, we had a comprehensive—and with the private sector—we had a comprehensive revitalization

effort going on. And we went over there to celebrate the 45th family that

had moved in less than one year. And I met those families; I walked through

their homes. They were young professionals with children, with infant children

and very young children. They were an extraordinarily diverse group of

young people.

And as I was walking along several of those homes, there was a little

old woman—that’s the only way to describe her, just a little old woman

sitting on the steps. And I talked to her for a moment. And she had spent

most of her life there. And she said, “Governor,” and she looked

out at the kids riding their bikes in the street. She said, “Governor,

I never thought I would see children riding their bikes again in this community.”

And her voice started to crack when she said that.

Now, to me that represents both the problem and part of the solution.

People moved back because it was, bottom line, economically sensible to

do so, because they could buy a home, they could receive tax credits, they

could receive closing assistance and a renovation loan or a renovation

grant. And that community in fact is working.

What I want to happen, in all candor, is I want little old women sitting

on the front steps all across this country, with the voice cracking, saying,

“I never thought I would see the children back here again.” I

think working together we can do it.

Thank you so very much for your invitation.

(Applause.)

I think the script is as well we’re supposed to take a few questions

here. Or I’ll give options—questions, comments, personal (facts/ attacks

?).

Q Hi, Governor Glendening. Sheryl Cassion (ph) with Georgetown Law

Center. First of all, let me applaud your leadership. Maryland’s giving

us a tremendous example for the rest of the country.

I’d just like to hear you talk a little bit about the political challenges

you faced in building a bipartisan coalition for the Smart Growth initiative.

I’d like just to hear specifically what you did to educate people and how

you were able to build that coalition.

GOV. GLENDENING: Interestingly, the—everyone heard the question,

right? Interestingly, the initial battles and I guess the strongest battles

throughout the whole debate really weren’t that partisan. Part of it is

we have some strong, moderate, centralist Republican leadership in some

of the older areas that immediately saw what we were trying to do, and

they signed on.

For example, the minority leader, the Republican minority leader in

the state senate lives in Baltimore County and was a strong supporter of

doing something with this. And one of the county executives, Anne Arundel

County, where the state’s capital, Annapolis, is, ran as a Republican about

neighborhood conservation. And so he stepped up as well. So it never really

became a partisan issue.

Where the politics entered into it was, first of all, dealing with natural

interest groups that are somewhat suspicious—farmers, for example. Their

retirement account is often the land, and they said, Are you going to prevent

me from building on the land? And so we brought them in, if you will, by

saying the rural legacy will buy the development rights and you still can

retire if you want and get cash out of your land.

The business community. We had meeting after meeting with the business

community talking about the straight economics of this. Do you understand

how much this is costing in tax dollars? The biggest point of resistance

on any of these efforts across the country is the concern from local governments

that you’ll be taking away either land use or zoning rights. And the public

is fearful you’ll be creating some big statewide czar, that they’ll have

no real influence, or a planning board.

We indicated clearly up front, there was no intention of having any

planning board or a state czar or anything of that type, to deal with the

public concern for the local governments. All of the municipalities were

immediately identified, or automatically identified in the law as growth

areas. And therefore, the municipal associations broke with the counties

and immediately supported our program aggressively up front. The mayors

came on board up front. And then within the counties, the older counties,

the larger counties that had older areas were supportive. And so we broke

that traditional hostile opposition from local government.

Q I’m Pam Neary (ph), and I’m at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance

in Minnesota, and a former colleague of Representative Orfield’s (ph) in

the Minnesota House.

And my question for you is, while I think it’s a very powerful tool

to use state expenditures for trying to determine where growth goes, my

experience has always been that the underlying fiscal structures, the tax

codes, et cetera, and the reliance of local communities on a property tax

base that’s often declining when their needs are increasing, and schools’

dependence in particular on that property tax base, have been a real difficult

item to circumvent through spending alone.

And I wondered if you had attempted to update our fiscal structures

as well as our spending structures in trying to deal with this.

GOV. GLENDENING: The issue, you say, of the tax disparity is

valid, continues to be an issue across the country, is slightly less of

an issue in Maryland simply because the state historically has had a very

major involvement in the funding of education, including, unlike in many

states, for example, we pay up to 60, 65 percent of the school construction

costs and, for many jurisdictions, about 40 percent of the operating costs

now. So we have a little bit more of an equalizer than in the past.

The tax disparity issue, however, is still there and is not resolved

by this approach, with the exception that to the extent that it doesn’t

make any difference whether it’s in a suburban or a central city area,

if it is a growth area, it will be equally entitled to the same incentives,

including tax credits and things of this type, and that will help mitigate

a little bit as well. But the disparity issue all across the country will

continue, and this does not fully resolve it.

Q Hi, Governor. My name is Peter Harnick (ph). First of all, thank

you for an excellent speech.

I was wondering, as part of your Smart Growth initiative, whether

you considered raising the gasoline tax? And if so, what happened? And

if not, why not? And is that on the agenda anyplace?

(Laughter.)

GOV. GLENDENING: No, no and no.

(Laughter.)

We did not consider raising it. And in part, in all honesty, the state

is doing so well, including in finances overall, that there wasn’t I think

much wisdom to go out and try to increase taxes. And in fact, on economic

development, we’ve just reduced 14 taxes, and just reduced the income tax

by 10 percent as well.

Q (Off mike.)

GOV. GLENDENING: No, we did not get into a discussion of any

tax increase. I think that that would have politically complicated the

entire approach.

Q Governor, my name is Clem Dinsmore (ph). I’m wondering whether

your administration has thought about how to leverage the 15 billion (dollars)

to expand the amount of funds that are going into areas intended to be

benefitted by your Smart Growth initiative. And I’m thinking of, for example,

monies that are at least temporarily on deposit with the state treasurer,

monies that could be temporarily deposited with financial institutions

that would commit to lending programs in support of activity in the Smart

Growth areas or, for example, the new pre-paid college tuition fund as

that develops and becomes a significant long-term investment fund, using

funds from that fund to invest and to leverage additional credit for use

in your intended benefitted areas.

GOV. GLENDENING: We did look at those areas, including briefly

the transportation taxes and using pension funds and a variety of other

approaches. When I saw we looked at them, as part of the community involvement

process, what we did is I and many other elected officials and our staff

and people from the environmental community and all went all over the state

on a really massive outreach and said, here’s the problem. And everyone

clearly could see. And we had this wonderful video, by the way, that showed

computer enhancement of the sprawl since the forming of Maryland. And you

see this big amoeba eating up the whole state and all.

And so we said, here’s the problem. Then we asked everyone, what do

you think the solution should be? And we pulled those together. And in

fact, I’d love Ron Young (ph) over here to get you a copy if you want.

But Ron, we had what, about 200-and-something suggestions, including using

funds, pension funds and other public funds this way. And then as we went

through that entire list, we pulled out what we thought was a manageable

bite in terms of getting a full package through the legislature in one

session.

Now, the day I signed the bill, which was just five, six days ago, I

did indicate clearly that while this was a huge step and a nationwide precedent

step, it was not the solution, and we’re going to have to continue to examine

other activities to enhance that, such as what you’re suggesting and many

of the suggestions that were in this book.

Q Hi. My name’s Nanette Goodman (ph). I was wondering how the billion-dollar

inter-county connector fits into the Smart Growth initiative.

(Laughter.)

GOV. GLENDENING: For those from elsewhere, this is a road that

connects 95 to 270. First of all, I love the question because if I were

giving a governor’s certificate to the Little Sisters of the Poor in downtown

Cambridge, someone would say to me, how does this relate to the inter-county

connector?

(Laughter.)

But it is a legitimate question. Let me handle this as a—because

as you know, we’re coming into the final decision and we’re under the federal

provisions of not prejudging build, no build and all that sort of stuff.

But what we wrestled with, and this was a difficult issue, what do you

do on roads overall? And because you need—what we decided, you need

point-to-point roads. And obviously, if you have a growth center over here

100 percent contained, and properly so, and everything was working, we

bought all the development rights around there and everyone was happy and

it looked like an idealistic projection of, let’s say, the Swedish village,

and everyone’s tickled about it, but we had another growth center over

here, you still need the point-to-point roads on this.

And so what we tried to grapple with was how to do this. And the conclusion

that we reached was that roads would be part of the smart growth except

when they were point to point. And when they are point to point, then they

must be designed in a way that does not encourage additional sprawl or

lead to environmental degradation.

Now, we’ve got a huge issue on this one. We know what the point-to-point

is, and we know the huge demand that is there, and what we’re trying to

figure out is how to handle it without promoting further sprawl. And I

don’t know the answer yet, and if I did, I would tell you.

Thank you all very much. I appreciate everyone’s time. Thank you.

(Applause.)

MODERATOR: We thank Governor Glendening. He couldn’t be with us this

morning, but I don’t think he could have found a more effective way of

drawing together the strands of our morning’s discussions. We’re grateful

to you for your thoughtful remarks and your presence, and we’ll all watch

with great interest as you implement these fascinating ideas.

GOV. GLENDENING: Thank you very much. Thank you.