For the Chesapeake Bay, "this will be a defining election," says Parris Glendening, the Democratic candidate for governor, in an interview for this column.
Certainly, he and Republican Ellen Sauerbrey, the subject of next week's column, offer contrasting philosophies on how Maryland's foremost natural resource is best protected.
Mr. Glendening, virtually alone, has offered since the primaries a range of proposals on how government should serve the environment. Mrs. Sauerbrey, blasted by environmentalists for her voting record as a legislator, has said that promoting private sector economic growth and development is key to environmental protection.
Mr. Glendening promises a more aggressive approach to
managing population growth than Maryland has seen to date; also, strong support for preserving open space and for helping farmers voluntarily control their polluted runoff.
He is prepared, he says, to push Virginia and Pennsylvania to maintain their wavering commitments to the bay cleanup; however, he declined to commit himself to a key provision of the current cleanup agreement: to permanently cap pollution from sewage and farms at 40 per cent of 1985 levels.
The interview continues in an edited Q&A; format:
Few would disagree that environment suffers in a poor economy. What's wrong with protecting the bay by focusing mainly on "growing" the economy?
It is appealing, but very simplistic. . . . It leads to the philosophy that whenever the environment might get in the way, the economy always dominates.
That is [Mrs. Sauerbrey's] philosophy, and George Allen's [Virginia's governor], and if we get those two side by side, the bay's in real trouble. For two reasons, I think you can actually do better economically by meeting our commitments to the environment:
First, the bay is what Maryland's all about. The businesses of the future, the high-tech, biotech and information system companies want to attract put a high emphasis on quality of life. [The bay] is part of our competitive edge.
Second, good environmental policy, done properly, can save us considerable money. For example, state and local government spends literally hundreds of millions every year to accommodate new growth. A lot of that goes to sprawl development: new roads, new schools, new sewers. We can't continue to have as much of this 5-acre cookie cutter type of growth and call that rational development.
Q: How would you direct growth away from sprawling across farms and forests? Governor Schaefer's strongest attempt to do it, the "2020" plan, backed by environmentalists, failed. The growth management law he signed a year later has no teeth.
A: The 2020 plan won't work. It would have centralized a lot of land-use planning decisions and tried to control sprawl almost exclusively through the regulatory process.
I would have each locality come up with its own plan to direct growth away from outlying areas and into existing centers, then use a series of incentives and disincentives to help it happen.
For example: Don't ask the state to pay 50 percent of a new school or open up a new highway if it is not consistent with directing growth.
I'd urge tax incentives to the private sector, job-creation credits, investment in revitalizing older developed areas, all aimed at directing growth.
Q: How do you pay for that? Even though sprawl costs more in the long run, the upfront costs of redevelopment or for infrastructure to handle denser development can be higher.
A: To the extent you bring jobs to those areas -- and people go where the jobs are -- this will help pay. As an illustration, if you XTC give employers a 20 percent rebate on state taxes for new workers in designated growth areas, you still gain 80 percent in ++ tax revenues. For jobs that employed people already there, taking them off welfare or unemployment, you could give a much higher rebate.
There will be a trade-off: telling people in places where we have made a huge public investment in infrastructure, like mass transit, that we are going to develop around them at higher densities; we can't afford to do just single-family homes there.
Q: Since the state began taking part of it for general funds in 1984, Program Open Space "lost" more than $250 million that could have gone to preserve farms and natural areas. Do you support full funding, and the tax that supports it (half of a percent on property transfers), which is very un- popular with the real estate industry?
A: We need the program, fully funded, no question, and I don't think any alternative funding source is realistic.
I think Realtors are mainly concerned about adding to closing costs for first-time homebuyers. A number of states have small, revolving loan funds to help buyers with that.
Q: Will you hold to the present commitment to cap nutrient pollution from sewage and farms at 40 percent of 1985 levels? Otherwise, as population rises, any progress we've made could erode.
A: In all honesty I just don't know. . . . I haven't gotten into that in the depth I'd like. It is obviously a major, emerging issue.
Farm runoff is a significant source of bay pollution. Will you back mandatory cleanup for farmers if they don't meet voluntary goals by 1997?
Q: I don't want to wait to see if [farmers] fail. Technical assistance and funding to help them have been cut back. I can see a revolving, low-interest loan fund and other measures to help. Then, if 1997 comes and they are not meeting goals, we'd have more moral justification to make it mandatory.
A: What about natural resources? The "Tree Bill," a law to protect trees from development, is under attack from developers and legislators; and some feel the state's goal of "no net loss" of wetlands may be unrealistic.
I don't think the Tree Bill is working very well. You almost need two different kinds of laws -- an urban corridor law similar to our county's [Prince George's] and something more forest management oriented for rural areas.
With wetlands, it's absolutely essential to protect them for both habitat and capacity to filter [polluted runoff]. I have a little bit of a problem with what "no net loss" means. I've seen situations where wetlands were created inadvertently or were of poor quality, and [trying to protect them] created some problems.
Q: Do you support environmentalists' efforts, unsuccessful in the last legislature, to broaden Maryland's interpretation of who may sue to stop environmental degradation?
A: Nothing so broad as they proposed. It would lead to paralysis; but Maryland's is one of the narrowest interpretations and ought to be broadened.
Q: Environmentalists and citizen activists in your own county say you are too friendly with developers.
A: Some say I'm not pure enough on environment. I understand that. I'd argue that we need leadership that understands the need for balance. If you don't, eventually you get reactions like Mrs. Sauerbrey's and George Allen's.
But take a trip down the Patuxent River from Laurel and look at the Anne Arundel County shore, and then Prince George's' -- we have acquired almost the entire shore- line.
And I said we were going to keep the 100 square miles east of U.S. 301 in our county open, and we have a major, major open space, a phenomenal gift to future generations.
;/ NEXT SATURDAY: The views of Ellen Sauerbrey