I sense that the Eastern Shore, at least part of it, is waking up to the problem of reckless development. When I met new people last week and told them I lived in Oxford, they commented, “I guess you’re worried about the Poplar Hill Farm development.” I am. When I commented to another friend that I was taking the boat out later in the day, he asked, “Does the water seem worse this year?” It does.
These comments are not a scientific poll, but, when taken together with the Talbot Integrity Project “Fix Lakeside” signs and a continual stream of excellent letters to the editor and articles in The Spy expressing concern over development, I see progress. The chorus of voices saying “no” to developers is growing. That is good news. But will the voices get loud enough to reach the ears of county and town councils? That remains an open question.
Our waters—one of the assets that makes the Eastern Shore a wonderful place to live—are in trouble. The data meticulously collected by ShoreRivers, and other organizations indicates a direct connection between development and declining water quality. This means that every vote in favor of additional development, especially development anywhere near our rivers, is a vote to destroy our way of life and turn the Eastern Shore into something mediocre.
Dare I say it? Development is a dirty word. The dirt is bacteria, phosphorus, poor water clarity, chlorophyll a in the water and more. The “dirt” not only often makes it dangerous to swim in the water but threatens the Eastern Shore economy. Like crabs? Either start worrying about the health of our rivers or give Vietnamese crabmeat a try. Newsflash—the Chesapeake Bay fishery is destructible.
I understand why many of us are concerned about uncontrolled development. What I do not understand is why anyone would welcome and promote massive, character-changing “new towns” such as Lakeside and Poplar Hill Farm. The easy answer is that developers are out to make their bucks and won’t be around to address the repercussions (further deterioration of water quality, traffic congestion, overtaxed schools and health resources, more crime, and “development spurred by development,” meaning construction of more big box stores to meet shopping needs of new residents).
Is it only developers’ desires for profits behind the threats to the Eastern Shore? I think not. The problem is also delusional thinking—the belief that more people will somehow make the community stronger. If Easton or Chestertown were five times as large as they are now, for example, would the cultural offerings in both be greater than they are today? Good question. But when you answer it, ask yourself what the price will be for “moving into the 21st century.” People forget that growing communities frequently mean endless parades of road-widenings and additional trailers to “adjust” for overcrowded schools.
No compelling reasons justify growing the Eastern Shore in a manner that degrades our environment. Already fully developed areas of America have plenty of room to accommodate increases in the population. And re-development of these areas brings the added benefits of restoring economic vitality to cities and, by substituting for development in environmentally sensitive areas, improving the environment.
We also must remember climate change. Many of us live in areas where rising sea levels are, or should be, a major concern. Why should the government permit or encourage development in areas that are subject to elevated levels of risk from hurricanes, flooding, and other natural disasters? Better put, why stick our tongues out at mother nature?
When someone asks you what the “Fix Lakeside” signs mean, you can explain the complicated process for approving new sewer capacity, or you can simply say it means there should be no more development without comprehensive consideration of the impact on all aspects of our community and strict compliance with all approval protocols. You can also say elected officials stop destroying the Eastern Shore!
Disclosure: I am a signatory on the Fix Lakeside petition organized by the Talbot Integrity Project. If you haven’t read the petition and considered signing it, I encourage you to do so.
J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.
Margot McConnel says
Thank you Mr Dean for so succinctly stating what a powerful impact these developments will have in degrading so much of what we all value. For the life of me I cannot understand how our elected officials can support these developments. After all they live here too!
John Dean says
Thank you for reading the piece and for your nice compliment.
J K Munson says
I believe this may be the first article of yours that doesn’t express an idea I vehemently disagree with or am deeply skeptical of…a backhanded compliment perhaps, but so far it’s about the only nice thing I’m able to say about you.
John Dean says
Thank you, I’ll take the compliment. I’ll work to try to make this piece something other than a sole exception to the rule.
Anne C Stalfort says
Another good letter on the question of the future of the county we call home. Are our elected officials listening to our concerns? Are the planning commissions of Talbot County and Easton listening? Is there anyone except for the parties making money from the developments, who support the development of Poplar Hill or support proceeding with Lakeside with no further review?
We are all screaming STOP! Please elected officials, listen.
John Dean says
Thank you for your comment. I hope our elected officials are listening.
Reed Fawell 3 says
I agree. We are at a tipping point. This is plain to see all around.
For example:
The growing degradation and pollution of our waters and wetlands, much of it chronic and happening in plain sight for years, at the Tred Avon and La Trappe headwaters, both historic tidal waters in America’s founding, and essential keys to the health of the Chesapeake Bay, its estuaries, fisheries, and wild life.
Strong, applicable state & local laws should prevent this ongoing degradation. Why haven’t we stopped it?
Two massive traffic generating circa mid-1950 suburban residential subdivision developments with strip and/or regional retail underway at Lakeside, and proposed for Poplar Hill for years now, both on rural lands and headwaters within and surrounded by highly constrained geographies, ecologies, road nets and communities at risk. Strong applicable state and local laws are in place that should prevent Lakeside and Poplar Hill. Why do we even consider them, much less seem unable to stop them?
We need to get deep and honestly into these questions, find the right answers, and then fix these now chronic and festering problems, so they never happen again. Otherwise we will be the generation that destroyed one of the most unique counties and natural wonders and legacies in America.
John Dean says
Great comment. Thank you for it.
Ralph Walker says
Mr Dean you are on the mark. At 87 and here since 1962 I have seen the vision off my Dad’s dock on Peachblossem creek from clear in feet with crabs scurrying about. Place your beach chair and enjoy at Papermill Bridge in today’s world .
You may not be in everyone’s agreement but that is what sensible dialog is about. I believe after being in marine life and work no storm water management will work up this far in the bay. Like a toilet which needs pressure to work the tides here cannot achieve that process. Farmers have been blamed for the problem but developing all these vacant areas will only worsen this problem. Let nature continue to flourish and help the bay to flourish.
Time is not on our side.
John Dean says
Thank you! Thank you for sharing your experiences. Too many people seem to believe our rivers were always dirty and that “It’s just the rain.”
Eva M. Smorzaniuk MD says
Thank you for this compelling letter. Yes, the issues surrounding Lakeside are complicated and long standing, but you have distilled them into a single tenet that growth should not result in the degradation of our county.
John Dean says
Thank you for your kind words. Let’s hope I am right that we are at a tipping point.
Paul Rybon says
Thank you Mr. Dean for summarizing our dilemma. It’s not the locals who object to overdevelopment because they enjoy the better shopping, medical facilities, as well as better jobs resulting from the declining seafood and agriculture activities. Believe it or not it’s the same ‘come heres’ escaping from overcrowded, congested, and polluted areas that truly understand the aesthetic values that we have here and it’s going to be up to them to put a halt to the stampede.