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,
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
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
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
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
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
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?"
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.
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
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
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
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
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."
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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?
GOV. GLENDENING: No, no and no.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.