More thoughts on growth and development

In many ways, this will be a summer rerun. Back in May of 2006, I posted this article. At the time I only averaged about 200 or so readers a week and hadn't joined the Maryland Bloggers Alliance, so this may be new to most of you.

After I reread my words, I think there's really not a whole lot I can add. Many of the questions I had are still unanswered, but I do have a few more thoughts - particularly with the growth (or lack of it) that's plaguing Salisbury. After all, when I wrote the post in the first place, the assumption was that by this time construction would be well underway on the Old Mall project and its hundreds of housing units. Yeah, the market was softening a bit but little did we know how it would crater by now.

So the Old Mall just sits there and people are starting to question whether any work will ever be done before the building meets the fate of the former Civic Center almost 30 years ago. (Until the Daily Times mentioned it, I had no idea that most of the existing Civic Center was essentially a large addition to the portion not wiped out by the fire. Learn something new every day.)

As I note quite often, I work in the development business. My job is to make the dreams of owners and developers become reality. (Sometimes it takes overtime, like this coming week.) We should be happy that people want to invest in our area. However, I can see the point of those who would like to maintain as much greenfield space as possible. It can't always be done, but to me there's nothing wrong with reusing a perfectly good building for a new purpose. Look at the soon-to-be-former Station 16 and the battle underway to control the fate of that building. Personally, I think it could be a good restaurant location, and the clock museum idea could have some merit too. I happen to think it would be better for Salisbury if the building was back on the tax rolls than if the city maintained ownership and control, but a good argument is possible from the other side.

And using the Old Mall as an example again, I'd be interested to know if the mold problem has taken over the building entirely or if there's some portion that's been spared. Obviously it would take a tremendous amount of work to clean up the building and sadly most of it will likely meet the fate of the old Boulevard Theatre. To me, it's a good candidate for a business incubator IF the place can be cleaned up enough. Maybe that's not possible anymore.

But we need to be as business-friendly as possible on the Eastern Shore and in the state of Maryland itself (although Delaware is close enough to create jobs for our area too.) While we have more than enough residential development to go around, we're still lacking in good white-collar jobs, the kind that can keep SU and UMES graduates around.

And we need to strike a balance. I can understand more now why people in Maryland have a passion about Chesapeake Bay. Let me say that I don't want a dirty bay; no one does. I just want a better balance between the radicals who seem to inhabit the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and the people interested in bringing development and good jobs to this part of Maryland (like me.)

It's acceptable on a philosophical level to want more restrictions on a state level; after all, I'm in favor of states' rights. But I'm also opposed to overly restrictive laws at any level. It's why I wasn't opposed to the Blackwater development and really perturbed that the state arbitrarily killed a development of Kent Island, despite the developer complying with the rules. That attitude is what frosts me, and I'm going to keep fighting it.

I found a different link (from WBAL-TV) to the Kent Island story - originally I used a Sun article but the link wouldn't work anymore. Here is the phrase that pays:

"It's a project of monumental environmental proportions," said Comptroller Peter Franchot, who voted against the permit. The developer, K. Hovnanian, needed state approval to build sewer lines and a bridge over Cox Creek.

Before rejecting the permit, though, board members spent four hours combing through state development rules. The builder met all requirements for winning the wetlands permits (emphasis mine), but Franchot and Gov. Martin O'Malley argued that it was proof the requirements need to change.

"Isn't there a point at which our understanding and common sense should not be derailed by outmoded practices" on approving permits, O'Malley asked.

Even state Treasurer Nancy Kopp, who ultimately voted for the permits, said the long debate over the Kent Island project showed a need for new development rules.

Whether you think the rules need to be changed or not, the fact is they were followed. To me this vote was simply O'Malley and Franchot taking matters into their own hands like the good little socialists they are.