When it comes to major decisions over development and land use in Baltimore County, there’s long been a chasm between the long-term goals of encouraging economic growth, creating affordable housing, promoting homeownership, preserving the environment and fostering diversity versus the realities of what developments will actually be approved any given day by the County Council.
Elected officials will certainly talk a good game — the county’s master plan spells out all sorts of lofty ambitions, down to the specifics of proper landscaping or how commercial corridors should promote walking and biking — but when it comes time to actually make a decision? That’s when councilmanic courtesy comes into play, and each member of the council is given deference over development in his or her (but far more often “his”) backyard. The result? Aside from boosting each council member’s clout and campaign donations from favored developers, such decisions often do not reflect those long-term planning goals.
This continued old-boys’ network approach to land use choices sparked a flurry of activity recently when County Executive John “Johnny O” Olszewski Jr. found himself at odds with the council over a series of bills. One day, Olszewski is threatening to veto legislation allowing “two-over-two” condominium townhomes in Liberty West that circumvents county requirements for impact fees and community input meetings, and the next he’s allowing it to pass without his signature. The fact that Councilman Julian Jones had enough votes to override a veto probably had a lot to do with it. Meanwhile, Olszewski did veto a bill enabling apartments and townhouses to be built in the middle of a business park in Hunt Valley that was exempt from the customary design standards. The council soon after overrode the veto on a 5-to-1 vote. Councilman Wade Kach supported the project, and it was his district. Never mind that the county attorney warned that the measure was illegal for giving favored treatment to a specific landowner.
This practice of allowing councilmembers to be veritable zoning czars of their own districts doesn’t seem to have caused county residents to run the rascals out of town. What does seem to worry elected officials, however, is making tough land use decisions. Take, for example, creating affordable housing as the county agreed to do a decade ago to settle a lawsuit brought by the NAACP. Recently, the county finally made some notable progress in that area but only because it inked a deal with MCB Real Estate to preserve 460 units in existing multi-family developments in Nottingham, Parkville and Sparrows Point, using sweeteners like a multi-million-dollar deferred loan and reduced taxes. Getting a new apartment complex approved that might have low-income tenants? Good luck with that. Neighbors will likely protest, and then the local councilmember will object to please his constituents, and the rest of the council will fall in line.
The question is: Can Baltimore County prosper without a more disciplined approach to planning? So far, the outlook is not so good. The latest U.S. Census numbers show Baltimore County is losing residents, only one of three subdivisions in Maryland to do so in 2023 (Baltimore City and Garrett County in far Western Maryland being the other two). It’s not proximity to the city that’s holding it back. Anne Arundel borders the city, too, and it’s still growing. No, the big challenge appears to be economic stagnation as Baltimore County has done little to reinvent itself from the booming 1970s, ’80s and ’90s as shopping malls close and major employers like Bethlehem Steel are shuttered. The county needs to revive its commercial corridors and encourage mixed-use redevelopment (while raising standards in its public schools). That simply isn’t happening. At least not at the needed scale.
The best remedy? Until local residents become more politically active and start pushing back against the politicization of land use decisions, the best hope may yet be in reducing the clout of individual members. The proposal to expand the council from seven to nine members, as recently recommended by a council workgroup, should help. It would at least raise the likelihood of more diverse representation — assuming that the council approves the charter amendment, that it’s endorsed by voters this fall and that new district lines are drawn fairly (and within Voting Rights Act standards). And who knows? With a larger council less locked into politically self-serving habits, some refreshingly new ideas might come, like actually following the county’s master plan.
Baltimore Sun editorial writers offer opinions and analysis on news and issues relevant to readers. They operate separately from the newsroom.
