Go to Today's Top News

In Md., a 'Smart Growth' Consensus

Maryland legislative leaders agreed last night to a landmark plan for curbing suburban sprawl while accepting a new school financing plan from the governor that deeply disappointed officials from Montgomery and Prince George's counties.

The legislature, scheduled to adjourn Monday night, was on the verge of settling the two contentious issues after Gov. Parris N. Glendening proposed $167 million in additional education funding for Maryland's 23 counties over five years, compared with $254 million for Baltimore schools. Montgomery and Prince George's officials had wanted substantially more money, and some of their legislators vowed to fight the school plan today on the House of Delegates floor.

Glendening (D) released the additional money only after legislators assured him that they would enact a version of his "Smart Growth" program.

The measure is designed to slow suburban sprawl by funneling billions of state dollars for roads, sewers, schools and other items to areas targeted for concentrated growth.

County governments could allow developments outside such targeted areas, but they would have to pay the related costs without state help.

If it works the way Glendening and other leaders say it will, the plan will change the face of Maryland over the next several decades. They say it will preserve much of Maryland's pristine countryside, rejuvenate existing neighborhoods and reduce government costs for roads and other services.

Without Smart Growth, environmentalists say, current development patterns will eat up more than 500,000 acres of open space and farmland -- an area roughly the size of Prince George's County plus half of Montgomery -- over the next two decades. Some legislators from growing, rural counties worried that the plan would divert too much state money from their regions to jurisdictions with older, established communities such as the Washington suburbs and Baltimore. Rural lawmakers complained it would strip too much land-use authority from local governments.

In the end, several compromises were made, including eliminating a provision that would have given the state Office of Planning veto power over jurisdictions' right to designate Smart Growth areas eligible for state funding. Instead, the office will make recommendations to officials in other state agencies, such as the Department of Transportation, who will make the final decisions.

Glendening embraced the compromise version, which requires final approval by the House and Senate. The governor "thinks that of all of the measures before the legislature this year, Smart Growth will have perhaps the greatest impact on how families and communities live," said his spokeswoman, Judi Scioli.

Sen. Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery) said, "It means we won't be throwing state money after the last town house out in some cornfield somewhere."

Thomas V. Grasso, Maryland executive director of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said that the bill isn't perfect but that it will do much to stem sprawl in Maryland. "You can have all of the regulations you want, but without a major shift in fiscal policy, it won't mean much," Grasso said.

The school funding issue, meanwhile, appears likely to divide Washington area officials from many of their colleagues in the session's closing days.

"I'm just very disappointed," said Montgomery County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D). "It's not a fair statewide approach. . . . If you're a poor kid in Baltimore, you're basically treated better" than poor children in other jurisdictions.

"My immediate reaction is it's not nearly enough [money for the counties]," said Prince George's County Executive Wayne K. Curry (D). "I thought, in light of the Baltimore arrangement, that the state was really about to make real its pledge to be the education state, but I guess I was wrong."

In his supplemental spending plan, Glendening offered the 23 counties no more money than his aides have been suggesting for weeks, but he focused it on schools. The plan would provide the counties an additional $33 million next year to be spent on extended kindergarten, help for children for whom English is a second language, building repairs, community colleges and special grants for poor students.

Prince George's would receive an additional $40 million over the next five years, and Montgomery would get $31 million. Under the county executives' plan, they would have gotten $83 million and $60 million, respectively, over five years.

Meanwhile, Baltimore's troubled school system would receive $30 million in additional money next year, growing to a total of $254 million over five years, assuming future legislatures appropriate the money. In return, the state would gain greater control over management of the city school system. The deal is intended to settle lawsuits alleging that the state has not provided Baltimore children an adequate education.

Glendening's proposed funding for county schools falls significantly short of a plan advanced by Duncan and Curry. They had called for an additional $44 million for the 23 counties next year, increasing to $72 million in each of the next four years.

Overall, the county executives' plan called for an additional $332 million to be distributed for the 23 counties over five years and $254 million for Baltimore. But Glendening said the counties should get $167 million.

Glendening aides said Baltimore's education needs are so great that the city deserves special treatment. Frederick W. Puddester, the governor's budget director, said Glendening "had to balance the needs of schoolchildren throughout the state with being fiscally responsible."

Delegates from Prince George's and Montgomery said the governor had fallen short of what their counties needed.

"It's not acceptable to us," said Del. Nathaniel Exum (D-Prince George's), chairman of the county's House delegation.

"Not enough," said Del. Kumar Barve (D-Montgomery), chairman of his county's House delegation. "It's way short of what we wanted."

Despite those complaints, legislative leaders predicted that the House will approve the plan today. The Senate signaled its approval of Glendening's approach last month. Glendening said the counties will not receive the additional money if lawmakers reject the added money for Baltimore schools.

Duncan said Montgomery County is considering going to court to obtain additional school funding, mirroring Baltimore's strategy. He cited a decision yesterday by the Maryland Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, which ruled 4 to 3 that the county may not intervene in the lawsuits that triggered the plan for additional school aid.

The new spending plan was produced by the governor yesterday as tempers frayed in the legislature over Glendening's strategy of tying the supplemental budget -- which included millions of dollars in additional spending dear to many legislators -- to passage of his Smart Growth plan. The leaders warned Glendening that he was risking a legislative train wreck if he persisted in his strategy.

Staff writer Michael Abramowitz contributed to this report.