Just as squirrels will keep attacking a squirrel-proof bird feeder until they demonstrate that no bird feeder is truly squirrel-proof, developers can be expected to keep seeking permission to build on property that they've been told they can't build on, if they think they can sell houses.
So it is in Aberdeen, where a developer is again seeking to get piecemeal what other developers have thus far not been able to secure: permission to build houses in the area of Gilbert Road in the general area of the Wetlands Golf Course.
This time, the developer is Clark Turner, a generally affable and soft-spoken fellow who has demonstrated it is possible to do well in the world of real estate development by saying please and thank you. This trait may make a difference this time around, but that remains to be seen.
Turner is seeking annexation — and all the public amenities that go with it — from the City of Aberdeen of 38 acres where he hopes to build 50 single-family homes expected to cost in the $400,000 to $450,000 range. To date, the proposal has met with criticism and general opposition from many of the same people who previously opposed Aberdeen's annexation of property in the vicinity of the Wetlands Golf Course for development.
Larger scale versions of the Wetlands annexation and development plan have met stiff opposition and, to date, the opposition has prevented such action on the part of Aberdeen, knocking a few people who favored annexation squarely out of public office.
At times, the dispute became personal and downright nasty, which did little to help the cause of those who were behind annexation plans as some of them engaged in rather beastly politicking and other boorish behavior.
Last week, over objections raised at a hearing on the matter, the Aberdeen Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend the city annex the 38 acres. Commission member Terri Preston, who voted for the annexation plan, expressed a sentiment often articulated over the years by officials in Aberdeen when she said: "… I think we do want to expand the city, we want to get better housing, we want to bring people in…"
This is a perfectly rational and legitimate position, but it isn't necessarily in keeping with the will of the people of Aberdeen, who have, in recent years, consistently said no to development in the Gilbert Road-Wetlands area. Sure, new people are nice, but it's more important in a representative democracy to accommodate the wishes of the people who already live in the area.
Moreover, there are some strong public policy arguments against allowing more development in the Wetlands area. Though Aberdeen sees westward expansion as its manifest destiny, Harford County views most of the greater Aberdeen area west of I-95 as being outside the county's growth area. Ordinarily this conflict is one a city could justify being in with the county government, but in this case, Aberdeen is increasingly beholden to the county and should probably consider aligning its planning goals with those of the county.
The availability of public water is the issue on which development depends, and on which Aberdeen's relationship with the county hinges. Aberdeen has for years been in search of a water supply it can control to be able to and develop as it sees fit. Without such a source, Aberdeen has been living on borrowed time with regard to the ability of its water supply to provide enough for new development.
Indeed, an earlier and larger incarnation of the Wetlands annexation plan was seen as a way to pay for major new water processing capabilities for the city. Since then, however, Aberdeen has struck deals with the county government wherein the water-rich county increasingly is seen as the future source of water for the city's public water system.
This shift, which was probably the right thing to do in terms of assuring a reliable water supply for the people of the city for the foreseeable future, has two key long-term effects. First, it means the city needs to be careful when increasing its commitment to provide water, regardless of the source. Second, and more importantly, the city shouldn't be cavalier in subverting the county's land use vision because it will become increasingly dependent on the county to provide water to make that development possible.
In this round of the Wetlands area annexation, the same opposition that prevailed before will probably prevail again — with Mr. Turner's charm being a variable that could make a difference in the other direction. Regardless of how this development plan goes, however, more can be expected to follow. All should be rejected not only until the city and county come into some sort of harmony when it comes to land use visions for the long haul, but also until Aberdeen's voting majority changes its view on growth and development in the Wetlands area. Otherwise, fights over growth and the wishes of the few, like Preston on the planning commission and the Aberdeen elected officials already kicked to the curb, trying to supersede the wishes of the voting majority could result in some rather ugly developments.