From the bay shores of Worcester County to the Catoctin foothills of Frederick, a surge in development has sparked a political backlash that threatens to shake up courthouses across much of the state this fall.

Fed up with crowded classrooms, jammed roads and vanishing open space, voters in five counties ousted incumbents in last month's primary elections who had been tagged by critics as too pro-development. Growth remains a hot topic in races for county executive, council or commissioner in at least a dozen counties.

"People are incredibly frustrated with what's happening in their neighborhoods and in their communities," said Dru Schmidt- Perkins, director of 1000 Friends of Maryland, a coalition of business, environmental and preservation groups formed two years ago to fight sprawl.

Development was a factor, if not the cause, in primary upsets in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Montgomery, St. Mary's and Worcester counties.

Growth controversies are political fodder in at least seven other counties: Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Kent and Prince George's.

The development backlash seems strongest in some of the "outer" suburbs -- largely rural counties that are rapidly becoming bedroom communities of Baltimore or Washington.

No county executive has been unseated by the growth backlash, but it has affected an open race in Howard. Longtime County Councilman Charles C. Feaga lost his bid for the GOP nomination to another councilman, Dennis R. Schrader, after Schrader made an issue of Feaga's ties to developers.

Whether voters' frustration with growth will affect the race for the State House remains to be seen. Runaway development trails far behind voters' concerns about education, crime and taxes when they are polled about what they want their governor to address in the next four years.

Nevertheless, Gov. Parris N. Glendening is touting his sponsorship of Smart Growth legislation that would use state funding to direct growth to areas where roads, sewer and other public services exist. Ellen R. Sauerbrey, his Republican challenger, has said she would not seek to repeal the law, but has made it plain she has little enthusiasm for it.

Builders object

Builders contend they are being made scapegoats by citizens upset about increased traffic, crowded schools and crime. Maryland's population growth has tapered off in the past decade, and planners project it will slow more.

"Any time they get hung up at an intersection and have to wait through two or three [traffic] lights, they say there are too many people," said John E. Kortecamp, executive vice president of the Home Builders Association of Maryland, which represents contractors in the Baltimore area.

Even at reduced rates, the population growth is significant, says Ronald M. Kreitner, director of the Maryland Office of Planning, because it comes on top of what has occurred.

Adding to the public's perceptions of increasing development is an increase in construction this year.

The number of new housing units permitted in the first six months of this year increased 24 percent statewide over the same time last year. In the Baltimore region, the growth was about 11 percent, but in the Maryland suburbs of Washington the number of new housing units authorized soared 50 percent.

"I think people are so upset with the loss of open space, with the loss of farmland," said Jeanne Lynch, a Republican Worcester County commissioner elected eight years ago on a controlled-growth platform. "They're just so upset with the march of sameness."

Anti-growth themes vary

Opposition to growth crosses party lines and takes several forms.

In some counties, candidates are vowing to slow development, in others to direct it to specific locations. Some hopefuls are calling for increased commercial development to "balance" residential growth, while others are proposing to increase the fees developers must pay to finance classrooms and roads to serve new housing.

In Harford, citizens upset about that county's growth petitioned for a referendum imposing a yearlong moratorium on development. Despite getting more than 10,000 signatures in support of the ballot question, it was declared illegal by the courts. Activists say they hope to channel the public's support for development curbs into the elections for county executive and council Nov. 3.

"There's a lot of problems," said Chris Cook, a 37-year-old state ,, worker who helped form the Friends of Harford. His litany includes daily traffic backups on Interstate 95 and schools so overcrowded that students must start eating lunch at 10: 30 a.m.

"These are things that affect people on a daily basis, and people are intelligent enough to realize there's a link between those [problems] and the number of homes," said Cook, who remembers growing up in Harford when gridlock was nonexistent. The Harford citizens' group has endorsed a slate of candidates for county executive and council.

In Charles County, with citizens up in arms about schools, crime and falling property values, the commissioners voted last month to impose a six-month moratorium on new townhouse construction while they study tighter development controls.

Builders are fighting back, both in the courts and on the hustings. A group of developers filed suit last week to block the moratorium, and the Suburban Maryland Building Industry Association, which represents builders in the Washington area, withdrew its endorsement of the incumbents.

But the Charles County commissioners' vote to stop townhouse construction was not enough to win over growth critics. The Sierra Club has endorsed challengers to three incumbents, including board President Murray D. Levy.

"We have an experience with these studies," said Alex Winter, an environmental activist. "This one conveniently takes us past the elections. What's really needed is a change in outlook and a change in control."

The trouble with Wal-Mart

In Kent County, citizens opposed to construction of a Wal-Mart outside Chestertown have succeeded in petitioning it to a referendum. The vote might be moot, as courts have ruled in favor of the store, but residents want the vote as an expression of their concern.

A Wal-Mart played at least a cameo role in the defeat of two incumbent commissioners in Worcester County. James G. Barrett, the commissioners' chairman, and Commissioner Granville Trimper lost their re-election bids after local activists blasted their ties to builders and criticized their refusal to limit development along the ecologically fragile coastal bays.

"We moved here for the natural surroundings and quality of life," said Erin Fitzsimmons, an Ocean City activist. "No offense to Anne Arundel County, but we don't want to become 'Glen Burnie by the Sea.' "

In St. Mary's, where expansion of the Patuxent Naval Air Station is fueling dramatic growth, a Republican challenger beat an incumbent commissioner who had opposed a plan to protect the county's dwindling farmland.

The challenger was a member of the planning commission and had helped draft the plan, which would have directed growth to existing towns and villages.

"Whenever you have a meeting around here, the cry is: 'You wouldn't want us to look like Waldorf!' " said Shelby Guazzo, the successful challenger, who says county officials need to get a handle on "uncontrolled growth" by guiding it.

In Howard, the two candidates for county executive, Republican Schrader and Democrat James N. Robey, have pledged to curb development if elected. Some council hopefuls are taking the same tack.

"The vast majority are competing to show their colors in favor of managing growth," marveled Columbia Democrat Guy Guzzone, a council candidate and former Sierra Club staffer who has been fighting a Rouse Co. development near Laurel.

School crowding a problem

The development backlash is muted, but simmering, in a few counties.

In Carroll, incumbent Commissioner Richard T. Yates lost his bid for re-election as citizens in the southern part of the county complain of crowded schools with inadequate lunchrooms.

"We have pupils eating lunch at 10 a.m. That's not quality of life," said Carolyn Fairbank, an Eldersburg resident who is running for commissioner as an independent.

In Frederick, one of the most rapidly growing counties in the state, Republican John L. Thompson Jr. says he is a conservative who is concerned about the costs to taxpayers of poorly planned development. He favors boosting fees developers must pay to cover in full the costs of expanding schools to serve new residents.

"I'm not what you call a green candidate," said the Walkersville burgess. "I'm not a no-growth candidate, but I do want it to pay its own way, and if it can't, it should not occur."

In Montgomery, incumbent County Executive Douglas M. Duncan is not seriously challenged, despite his attempts to promote development. But an incumbent councilman, William Hannah, lost his bid for re-election to a challenger, Phil Andrews, who had made an issue of the councilman's campaign donations from developers.

"We approve of a certain amount of growth, as long as the roads and schools can keep up with it," said Charles Wolff, a Montgomery activist.

Should Andrews win, slow-growth advocates believe they have a chance of controlling the nine-member council and countering some of Duncan's development initiatives.

In Prince George's, developers believe they face a county council that is hostile to growth, but environmental activists lament that they cannot curb building more.

"We're the most overbuilt county in the Washington area," says Janet Pelley, a Sierra Club activist, noting that there are 40,000 housing units approved but unbuilt there. Yet she and other slow-growth advocates say they hope this election will increase the "green" votes on the nine-member council by one, to three.

Backlash spreading

Other areas where development controversies played a hand in incumbents' losses include:

In Anne Arundel, incumbent Councilman Thomas W. Redmond Sr. failed in his bid for re-election to represent the northern end of the county. The Democrat had angered voters by his support for a NASCAR racetrack, which they feared would produce traffic jams.

In Baltimore County, incumbent Councilman Louis L. DePazzo's votes for controversial development in the eastern part of the county were among the reasons cited by voters for defeating him.

The local uproar over growth has apparently not spread to statewide races. That perplexes Glendening's staff and some activists like Stewart Schwartz, head of the Washington-area Coalition for Smarter Growth.

"No local government can solve this problem alone," said Schwartz, a Northern Virginian who credits Glendening with a good first step toward curbing a national problem.

But many Maryland activists say they have not decided whom to support for governor, despite Glendening's Smart Growth program. The plan could help localities manage development better, but they say they don't know whether they trust Glendening to follow through.

"The state doesn't have anything to do with local permits and zoning," said Harford's Chris Cook, who added, "We can't spread ourselves too thin."

Pub Date: 10/04/98