From Patrick L. McGrady, Chairman, Maryland Liberty PAC:
Patriot,
Your property rights are under attack right now. This month the Cecil County Commissioners will vote on adoption of a “Transfer of Development Rights” ordinance.
This ordinance is nothing more than a ploy used by the far left to further control where development occurs and whether farmers can develop their land. We must stop this disastrous legislation as soon as possible and let the County Commissioners know that if they vote for this ordinance we will be giving them a pink slip in 2014.
This “Transfer of Development Rights” program is designed to make county government a broker between developers and farmers. County government would buy and sell “development rights” from farmers to developers.
The claim made in defense of this boondoggle is that it is somehow a free-market solution to promoting “smart growth,” however, you and I know different. Further government intervention in land use is not free-market, it’s government control.
If the government is given the power to break apart your property rights they are more able to take them away – – and that is exactly the intention of this silly proposed ordinance. We need you to comeout on August 21st to stop the County Commissioners from passing this disaster of an ordinance:
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
2:00 p.m.
County Administration Building
200 Chesapeake Blvd, Elkton
Elk Room – First Floor
This program will put the government squarely in the way of every single property owner in Cecil County who would have the “audacity” to want to develop their own land. You see, these statists don’t believe you have the right to live in rural areas, they don’t believe you should have the freedom to live where you would like.
For Liberty,
Patrick L. McGrady
Chairman
Maryland Liberty PAC
Obviously this McGrady kid knows nothing about TDRs.
I would appreciate a complete explanation of the process of TDR. Would you be willing?
Google
A TDR program like countless other counties have (including Harford) is a free market method of preserving agricultural and rural land.
Say a farmer owns 200 acres. In Harford County (not sure about Cecil) zoning dictates that he would generally be able to develop 20 residences on that property. A TDR program gives him the option of selling those 20 development rights to a developer, who then can build those 20 residences in a designated receiving area — a place where development has been targeted and where public services are already available (water/sewer, roads, schools, etc.). The price of the development rights are determined by the free market. The farmer keeps his land and keeps farming, but he has sold away his ability to develop it in the future.
Everyone wins and development is directed where it should be. I’m shocked that Mr. McGrady would be against such a free market program that saves taxpayers millions of dollars by not requiring infrastructure to be extended throughout the entire county.
I know this letter pertains to Cecil County, and every county’s TDR program is a little different. But as a life-long Harford County Republican, I am shocked and dismayed that the chairman of the local GOP is against a program that is strongly supported in the county’s conservative heartland in the rural northern part of the county.
The problem is in the permanent nature of the process– It’s not a 10, 20, or 100-year freeze on development. It’s permanent. In 50 years when the US looks substantially different, the farm land might be in the middle of the largest City in the world, and it cannot ever be used to it’s highest and best use.
I believe in freedom and property rights. This is an example of neither.
First of all, TDRs are forced upon no one. They are an option that a landowner can avail him or herself of. This might be hard to believe by someone who is not from a rural or agricultural area, but many landowners want their land to stay in farming. They bought the land, they worked the land, and they want it to stay that way. The TDR program allows the farmer to sell something he owns (development rights) to someone who desires them (developers). Supply and demand. Free market. Personal choice.
Secondly, it is possible for the land from which the TDRs were sold to be developed in the future. Again, all programs vary slightly, but it is conceivable that a landowner who sold development rights in the past can buy rights from another property owner in the future (provided that the area is or has become a receiving area).
Farmers might want to separate their development rights from their property rights, but that doesn’t make it good policy.
We disagree on this– and that’s perfectly fine– but I do not believe it is good policy to handicap all future owners of a property.
Why should a farmer have the right to restrict all future owners?
Because the farmer respects the land and the legacy it leaves for all of us – that being the case it’s an avenue that folks get a value on their property that is saleable but still offers some protection to agricultural or legacy properties. If we didn’t have a way to put the brakes on development this entire county would end up looking like York Rd. Maybe the farmers look at their rolling hills and grazing cattle and abhor that idea. It is thier right…as much their right as you think it might be some future persons right to dispose of thier property as they see fit.
Patrick, I just don’t think you understand TDRs adequately to be in a position to render a reasoned opinion. In your last comment you suggest a scenario where a future landowner is “handicapped” because he or she bought land where the development rights have been sold off. However, the buyer knows this going in to the transaction and the selling price will always reflect that. This is how it’s worked in other counties including Harford for many decades.
You’re quite fond of throwing around the terms “freedom” and “property rights”, but you’ve yet to make an adequate case that either of those are in any way compromised by TDRs, nor have you shown the concept to be bad policy.
Don’t the properties where the development is directed also have “rights”? How does this help the developer?
Of course. The rights already on a receiving property remain. For example if a developer owns a plot that already has 10 development rights and he buys 10 more development rights, then he could build 20 units on this property. So the 10 units that could have been built on the rural sending area are not built there, but in the more urbanized receiving area where public services are available.
The developer benefits by being able to build more houses. The construction worker benefits by having more work. The farmer benefits by receiving income for his property while keeping his land in farming. The residents of the rural area benefit by not increasing traffic and by keeping the area rural. The taxpayer benefits by not having to undertake the costly extension of infrastructure like water, sewer, roads, and schools further out from where those things are concentrated.
So this is a way of upzoning without going through the usual channels? If a property is “zoned” for 10 units but the developer builds 20 we are creating a high density area that could have an adverse impact on the property owners already there. Are they unprotected by the usual land zoning and variance process?
Smart growth , Agenda 21 , Plan Maryland , and ICLEI – if you are not familiar with these terms , you should spend some time learning how they are robbing you of your freedoms.
As a conservative this might be one of the only issues where we depart ways. Absolute private property rights were possible when we had 1/10 the population in the county (Harford or Cecil) – right now the developers lurk around farmland waiting for the heirs to happily sell the farm. Meantime they move off to FL if they don’t live there already leaving the rest of us to deal with urban sprawl and hideous ill-advised strip malls. We’re lucky to have as much open space as we do but without careful consideration of planning and land use we could lose it all very quickly. Once dug up and plowed under you’ll most likely never get that land back. It makes sense to cluster developements and retail centers in areas where it allows for preservation of open space and agricultural lands. To sell it all to the highest bidder is selfish and assumes our kids have no rights to a liveable planet.
Cecil will be Harford before you know it. Its a shame stand up and say no!
Not all Conservatives want to be stuck in endless traffic and sprawl just because a prodevelopment property owner from Harford County says we should. Harford County already is one big strip mall and cookie cutter development. We own a farm and prefer our rural way of life. Sometimes it just isn’t all about the money, but I don’t think that you would understand.
This guy and his family make their money off of the taxpayers collecting section 8 payments yet he wants to cut everyone elses chance.
So may I ask a dumb question?
If a farmer wants to sell his farm, what does he care whether he sells the “rights” to develop the land to the local government, or sells the land and development rights to an actual developer? Either way they get paid. Seems like a farmer saying to the government, no I don’t want your corn subsidy, I’d rather just grow corn– what??
Does anyone really care that much what happens to their after they sell it?
Why not allow the government a opportunity to step in and preserve land when it is deemed wise for the public good?
Seems like the only person who loses here are developers.
Boo-hoo.
Agreed. I have no problem as a taxpayer with a percentage of my revenues going towards land preservation. I encourage and in fact, would be willing to pay a bit more if I knew it would be used in a pooled fund for specific use to buy developement rights to historic or environmentally sensitive lands. I also give to the nature conservancy for the very same purpose. The best way to save it is to buy it – that’s the only foolproof free market solution.
In fact I’d double down on that idea and take these business incentive monies that are completely unnecessary; the most recent example was nearly a million dollars and move those efforts towards preservation. A million bucks would get us a pretty big park; a huge tract of woods and fields and a place for wildlife and migratory birds whose presence enriches our lives. Much rather hike in preserved lands than pay some contractor a million bucks for apparently no reason whatsoever.
Simple situation:
A farmer downsizing his holdings, going from a for-profit farm to a hobby farm, but retaining a large amount of property. He would want the ability to dictate the future uses of the land he previously owned, to make sure his hobby farm doesn’t end with a Walmart or Section 8 apartment building next door with weekly complaints about the smell of manure wafting through the area.
The free market should determine the property’s future use, if the government believes it has an interest, it should consider bidding on the property (and face the taxpayer backlash when they are caught buying land from cronies for inflated sums or selling land for cheap), and if the farmer wants to control the future use of the property he can place deed restrictions on it. The government should not be involved in private real estate dealings.
My business does not take any Section 8 or other housing vouchers and we have never solicited any kind of special favors or handouts from the government. I fundamentally disagree with the idea of taxpayer-subsidized housing.
Further, zoning could be implemented in a way that stops development of rural communities for 10, 20, or even 50 years, but that is not what these TDRs do. These are permanent. That’s it, forever. It takes away the ability of people to own their property and the ability of a local government to change the zoned use of a property.
Surely we all understand supply and demand rules here: When the supply of residential real estate falls, ceteris parabis, prices rise. When there is no more land left to build on, prices will skyrocket (and so will taxes).
I am not opposed to people making decisions with their families and businesses– I’m opposed to the government handicapping the ability to use property in the future. Why should today’s owners be able to limit future owner’s ability to use their property to the highest and best use?
Here’s a good (but biased in favor of TDRs) explanation: http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/html/transfer%20of%20development%20rights%20programs.htm
The problem is the permanency. The big-government types want to control all of us so that the only choice we have left in housing is to move into a high-density city. Let’s exercise some good judgement here and push back against these programs.
That would be great except your example of absolute free for all principals would ignore planning and zoning and any other restriction. Sorry it worked in 1910, but with populations what they are now it takes planning. Given your application the only limit would be absolute catostrophic environmental degradation or fighting over the last tree. We can’t let it come to that…
I don’t pretend to understand this issue, but two things concern me about TDRs – first, that the government can set the price for the development rights. And please, correct me if I’m wrong about that. Second, you talk about developers lurking around waiting for big parcels of land to come up for sale, but they don’t just wait around; they also cozy up to politicians, contribute to campaigns, lobby in Annapolis… should we assume that the local government will be a fair and impartial broker in such issues? Doubtful. I’ve seen the campaign contribution lists. If a farmer wants to preserve his/her land and keep it whole, a family trust would be best.
A trust can and will be broken by the first generation that decides the money matters more. Do I trust government? Of course not. Do I wish there were a better way? Of course. Will there be shenanigans? I’m betting yes. Do I think developers cozy up with no expectation of a return for the favor? Of course. However at least this is a way to steer developement where it belongs and still allow farmers something in return for being good stewards.
As someone who as grown-up and lived on a farm all his life I wish they had had this program 20 years ago. Until recently all farmers could do is sell their development rights to the state/county at the price that the state/county saw fit. It would be much more profitable for the farmer to sell his development rights to a contractor. No one is being forced to sell development rights it is at the choice of the land owner. How is this NOT a “free market” principle? Mr Patrick McGrady there are some things you know nothing about and this is one of them. I live in Harford County but FULLY support this proposal
As a person who’s family actually owns a farm in Cecil County, I welcome this program. We would love to have more options other than sell to a developer. I really don’t see the issue here.
“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the
affluent middle class – involving high meat intake,
use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning,
and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
– Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
This quote , taken from the Rio Earth Summit where Agenda 21 was launched, is the kind of thinking that is behind Plan Maryland and TDR’s. Once you understand what the ultimate goal is, all of this bickering becomes silly in the face of what we are dealing with.
Research Agenda 21. Please.
OK. It seems like the purchaser of TDR then transfers the rights to an area where high density development is desired but not zoned for? If my understanding is correct, does this not have adverse implications for folks in the “receiving” area. Their property is perhaps devalued by hyperdense development without having to go through the usual zoning or variance process. As far as the farmer is concerned; this seems shortsighted. Many of the farmers I speak with have told me they feel that this is a land grab. They get a short term settlement for a long term problem. The end goal is the supposed continued use of the land for agriculture. Yet the state and other government regulators (EPA) add restriction on restriction that makes farming less and less profitable. At some point the land cannot be farmed or developed. At that point what happens? Does government swoop in and claim a blighted property through eminent domain or does it revert to WILDLANDS?
One of the main cons for these TDRs is the need for public education. (from pro TDR articles) I consider myself to be at least average in intelligence and yet I have found some of the readings and all of the explanations either confusing or incomplete. It seems to me that transactions as important as this should be completely understandable on all levels regarding implications for the present and the future.
If any of my assumptions are incorrect I would appreciate clarification. I am genuine in wanting a complete understanding of this process so if you respond I hope you will do so with that in mind.
Owning land will almost always be profitable. If the farm owner can no longer operate it because of the cost,It can simply be rented to a farmer that can afford to use the land for agricultural use. Land rent prices are in the $200-$300 pre acre range in this area. It is almost more profitable to won the land and never farm it yourself, let some land hungry farmer over pay you and all you do is collect the rent check at the end of the year.
How on earth could you classify a TDR program which is completely voluntary as a “land grab”? If anything, it’s the exact opposite,as the program can compensate landowners whose land has been devalued by state regulations relating to septics. Because a landowner who thought he could build 10 units can now because of state laws can only build 5, this allows those other 5 units to be built elsewhere and for the landowner to recoup his equity.
Patrick L. McGrady wants to be able to buy up some farm land for the purpose of turning it into cheap motels and wayside stops for inerstate drug dealers unfettered by county planning, huh?
But isn’t that how land grabs work? A restrictive environment is created that forces the holder of a commodity into a situation he would not otherwise find himself. I understand the need for proper planning and I am no fan of sprawl. But the heavy hand of our “friends” in Annapolis, DC and the UN are forcing many of these decisions. I agree with the gentleman that suggested we all look into Agenda 21.
So much of our land use policy can be traced directly to that document.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Pete.
@VSEITZ At first, I couldn’t quite figure out if you were really looking for insight or just setting up an agenda position. Now, we know that it is the latter. This program is also good for those of us who like to enjoy the bounty of the Bay and other outdoor aspects of Maryland. This program has support across the political spectrum. I support it, most sportsmen support it, my friends support it, and most of us aren’t usually mistaken for liberals.
You are trying to prevent opportunistic development. Smart move. That’s one way to prevent an apartment complex or unnecessary big box store coming near you. I applaud your thinking sir.
I was looking for clarity regarding the process. I had some misconceptions that are now resolved. I admit it! I did come to the table with some prior opinions. I hope you will look into Agenda 21 and ICLEI if you have not heard of them.
All of the commenters here should actually READ the Cecil County proposal before venting. It is actually a development rights BANK with the county government (ie, taxpayers) actually buying the development rights directly and holding on to them until some point in the future when a developer MIGHT want to buy them. The county already has a more traditional transfer/purchase of development rights program, which despite several years of existence had not generated a single private sector, free market purchase between a farmer and a developer.
This latest proposal is being pushed by– surprise, surprise– some of McGrady’s friends: Republican commissioners Broomell, Mullin and Dunn. Maybe he should educate them about the issue.
The real problem here is that the county taxpayers would be forced to pay the money up front to the farmer–CHOSEN by the commissioners– and hope against hope that someday the economy might improve to the point that a developer would buy the rights from the county to obtain a slightly higher density for a housing project in a designated “growth” area.
This proposal comes on the heels of the Cecil Commissioners recently fronting $1.4 million under another program to a farmer whose land was, and still is, not in any jeaopardy of development due to its zoning, location and lack of infrastructure. This entire endeavor just smells to high heaven.
Is this the same McGrady talking about Liberty and property rights who showed up at Walmart meeting with Scott Delong and said they should not be allowed to relocate. Most of these C4L guys are hypocrites out for themselves.
Come on now– I wasn’t at the Walmart meeting. Don’t be silly.
I tried to change my profile picture, i selected a random image and it started loading but it never completed. Yes, i’m talking about my Avatar/Profile picture which doesn’t responds. Even if the loading gets completed, the profile picture does not shows..
Help me please