Governments rarely embrace the radical, and the Maryland General Assembly's failure to approve a growth management bill this session is no exception.
Instead of a decisive move to bring order to the rapid growth the state will likely experience in the next 30 years, the Maryland Growth and Chesapeake Bay Protection Act -- better known as the 2020 bill -- has been moved onto the back burner of summer study.
Fifteen months earlier, Gov. William Donald Schaefer charged the growth commission with looking into the effects of rapid development on the Chesapeake and coming up with solutions that would control growth until the year 2020.
The study took the commission in varied directions, looking at such things as the effects of automobile emissions and land erosion on water pollution, the impact of development on state forestland and the strain of building new roads and schools on the state's purse strings.
The resulting bill cast a net as broad as the study, setting strict, uniform growth standards for local jurisdictions. The intent was to target growth to heavily populated areas, while limiting growth in rural ones.
When confronted with swift opposition, the commission briefly hesitated but steeled itself when Mr. Schaefer urged publicly that the panel "be bold." They did, with a modified proposal that went to the General Assembly, asking that a framework for the measure be set in motion, with details to be worked out later.
But in weeks of debate, the clamor of opposition grew so loud against the measure -- the Maryland Association of Counties (MACO), Maryland Chamber of Commerce, farmers and bankers joined in the chorus -- there was little doubt legislators would retreat.
Still, even among those who opposed the bill, there was widespread agreement over the goal of reducing suburban sprawl and protecting the bay. Not supporting those goals would be to take pride in rush-hour bottlenecks and bans on rockfish.
But another goal of the legislation that did not get debated much in Annapolis this year was in fact a major reason the growth commission proposed such a radical bill in the first place. It was also a major reason for its defeat.
The commission felt that local governments had done a poor job of adhering to their own growth management plans and needed the state to force them to comply.
To understand this goal, consider K. King Burnett, a 55-year-old Salisbury attorney who sees the need for a 2020 bill every time he takes a drive along the rural roads of Wicomico County.
