In 2001, the American Farmland Trust (AFT) conducted a Cost of Community Services (COCS) study in Kent County as part of the Delmarva Farmland Strategy, with the purpose to “bring new tools to communities that are struggling with how to accommodate change and growth while retaining a profitable agricultural sector.”
AFT is a non-profit conservation organization founded in 1980 to stanch the loss of productive farmland and encourage environmentally sensitive agricultural practices.
Fourteen years later, the issues seem the same.
The results revealed that for every $1 of revenue from residential properties, Kent County spent $1.05 providing services to those lands. For $1 from commercial and industrial land uses, the county spent 64 cents to provide services. And, for every $1 from farm and open land uses in the county. Only 42 cents was spent providing services.
The study’s intent was to “change the dialogue in a community from speculation to projections and from emotion to analysis.”
Yet, in continuing discussion generated in the Mid-Shore counties of Caroline, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne’s and Talbot counties about development versus open space, the economics of preserving farmland seem muted—unless I’m not listening.
Before readers think I oppose residential development, I don’t. Like many, I like planned unit developments, where in most cases the land is used efficiently, with open and recreational space included in the design. Like many, I also support in-fill development in towns and cities.
Forty years ago I lived in Columbia, MD, a new city developed by Jim Rouse, an Easton native. It epitomized the best aspects of a planned community in its inclusion of residential, commercial and industrial development, along with plentiful open space, walking trails, recreational amenities and use of trees and landscaping.
What I disdain is what I observed this weekend driving to and from Philadelphia through Middletown, DE, where I see little evidence of appropriate and thoughtful land use development. Instead, uncontrolled, ugly development, consequently spawning more and more shopping centers, self-standing emergency departments, churches and other facilities catering to the needs of an ever-increasing population, strikes this passerby as irresponsible.
At the risk of sounding self-righteous, I drive frequently through Middletown. My adverse reaction only grows. In the spirit of full disclosure, I do enjoy stopping at the WaWa; the service is notable.
When I talk with friends in Talbot County, I discover that many others share my disgust at the utter changeover of what was a small town serving an agricultural economy. We all hope that what happens in Delaware stays there.
It’s to state the blindingly obvious that most of live on former farms. My wife and I do. We live in Easton on the former Brookletts Farm owned once upon a time by Dr. John Earle. It’s easy to forget that we Americans live on farms that once raised crops instead of houses.
In often heated discussions about development versus preservation of open space, primarily farms but also forests, one can forget that housing developments import people who contribute their voices and talent to a community. We can’t and shouldn’t close our doors.
I started off citing statistics pointing to the intrinsic economic value of agriculture. The culture and history of our Mid Shore counties are tied to farming and cultivation of productive soils. And farmland demands far fewer services than does a residential development in terms of educational, infrastructural, police and fire and emergency services.
The tension between development and preservation of open space will never dissipate. Perhaps, however, we can consider the economic value of retaining agricultural land, while seeking non-sprawl development opportunities in our towns and cities.
Middletown, DE is a thriving example of development gone amuck. I so enjoyed returning home this weekend to Easton through the farm fields of Kent, Queen Anne’s and Talbot counties.
Kenneth Miller says
Balancing gowth, whether it be residential, commercial or industrial, has and continues to be a major challenge for everyone. More often than not, local muncipalities tend to look at increased real etstae tax revenues as their guiding principle, without necessarily fully analyzing or comprehending the future economic burdens on the muncipality or, the long term environmemental impact of such development. While local governments, planning and economic development boards typically have good intentions, often cleverly presented development, traffic pattern and economic benefit plans can sway the best of intentions. Unfortunately, the lessons that should be learned from the many examples of poorly forumulated developments, are frequently ignored…and by the time they are fully realized…most everyone who cares about open vistas, green space and attractrively designed curb-appeal projects…begins asking…”what happened”?
While economic progress and requiste growth are essential to our society, we must continue to raise the bar of performance and work collaboratively on maintaining an all important balance between farming, living, development and being good stewards of the environement – for current and future generations!
Charlie Adler says
Geez, really?
Columbia is a good and poor example in the Country for planned development. Sorry, Rouse, no offense. It simply carries no sense of place from a community standpoint.
Howard, you make great observations, howardever; the intricacies of new communities and urban planning coexist amongst a huge range of variables.
In Middletown’s and Columbia’s case it is or was farmland. There was no urban center to begin with. The outer influences from other cities reduced what small town identity there was.
I drove through Middletown for year during high school. It was a small town center then. At least they are trying to embrace a restoration and reinstill the town center. It’s not a great example of urban planning, but they do have a plan to reinstill a sense of place whereby residents identify as their home.
Columbia is simply a sprawling nothingness of whathaveya. You couldn’t pay me to live there these days. It has to be the worst designed sprawl there is in the State..
It’s kinda like Easton, Md. Relatively poor planning on designating an identity for its current residents and infill potential.
Oxford, Md. has it worse. All the newbies have no connection to the spirit of what still exists but cannot be simply relate to what was or how it became.
These are the trials for community building.
Anthony Duckery says
Dear Editor,
I think this letter is completely correct, and long overdue. The observation of the author is indeed true, and goes without saying…a shame! I pray that more authors have the heart to disclose such things in the light of what’s enough, and what’s pathetic just as the author of this article has. Two thumbs up for Mr. Howard Freedlander.