This article was republished with permission from 91欧美激情’s news partners at .聽Sign up for today.
This article was written 91欧美激情鈥檚 news partners at聽聽and republished with permission.聽Sign up for聽 today.
An overlapping patchwork of laws, some dating back nearly a century, may give Montgomery County鈥檚 top planning officials significant leverage in their negotiations with the state over the proposed widening of the Capital Beltway.
If they choose to press their advantage, those planners could significantly impede the Hogan administration鈥檚 plans to add additional lanes to Interstate 495.
鈥淭he Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission is an independent, state-created authority with great powers,鈥� said former Planning Board Chairman Gus B. Bauman.
鈥淭hey鈥檙e not a typical planning agency. They are a major agency in terms of the acquisition and stewardship of public parkland,鈥� he said.
In a July 22 letter to the State Highway Administration, Elizabeth Hewlett and Casey Anderson, the planning commission鈥檚 chairman and vice chairwoman, respectively,聽highlighted the history of county parkland, much of which was purchased from the federal government under the 1930 Capper-Cramton Act.
All of the road-widening proposals the state is currently studying involve parkland the M-NCPPC controls, the planners noted. That means decades-old federal rules come into play, they argued.
Hewlett and Anderson quote from Section 5 of the 1931 Basic Agreement between the county planning commission and its regional counterpart, the National Capital Planning Commission.
鈥溾��(N)o part of any land purchased for park or recreational purposes with the funds provide by the [NCPC], in whole or in part, shall at any time be conveyed, sold, leased, exchanged, or in any manner used or developed for other than park purposes by the [M-NCPPC]鈥�,鈥� the document says.
Does that mean 鈥� as some critics of the highway widening plan have suggested 鈥� that it would take an act of Congress for Maryland to move forward with Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr.鈥檚 plan to add four new lanes to the Beltway?
No, Anderson said in an interview.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 clear that it would take an act of Congress, but I think it would at least take the approval of the National Capital Planning Commission,鈥� he said.
鈥淲hat we鈥檙e trying to suggest in that letter is that there are serious legal obstacles to the state鈥檚 attempting to take additional land outside the footprint of the existing Beltway that runs through those parks without 鈥� at a minimum 鈥� the approval the National Capital Planning Commission and us as well, independently.鈥�
Which means Montgomery County鈥檚 planners 鈥� low-key land-use experts who rarely generate headlines 鈥� hold consider clout over a key Hogan priority.
鈥淭he Parks Department is asserting a very strong hand here,鈥� said Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer (D), chairman of the council鈥檚 Planning, Housing and Economic Development Committee. 鈥淎nd we don鈥檛 have a read yet on how State Highway views that. In their comments, they have not refuted Parks鈥� authority.鈥�
Montgomery planners have signaled repeatedly that they are in no rush to green-light the state鈥檚 plans to finance the road expansion with express toll lanes, raising a raft of issues during months of sometimes tense discussions.
They argue the proposal to widen I-495 and Interstate 270 short-changes transit, relies on old data (or none at all), would threaten neighborhoods near the two roads, would generate additional traffic, pollution and noise, and would subject motorists to widely varying tolls that would be set by a private firm for decades into the future.
The Hogan administration has argued that stalled traffic on major highways is unacceptable and is contributing to environmental degradation.
Anderson, an attorney, said his reading of the law makes it clear that Maryland cannot simply seize the land it needs should negotiations reach an impasse.
鈥淭hey have behaved as though they have the legal right to take the land under the state鈥檚 Quick-Take statute,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he Quick-Take statute says that SHA can take private property for public use. The statute on its face refers to private property, not to public land.鈥�
Do State Highway Administration lawyers think they have the power to take what they need?
Erin Henson, director of public affairs for the Maryland Department of Transportation, wouldn鈥檛 address the question directly.
鈥淥ur focus continues to be engaging all stakeholders, including Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, on the ongoing environmental study process,鈥� she said in an email.
鈥淎s committed at the June Board of Public Works meeting, the Maryland Department of Transportation is not acquiring any land until the federal National Environmental Policy Act process is complete and we have a favorable record of decision,鈥� she added. 鈥淲e will continue to work with National Capital Planning Commission as well as Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission to identify strategies that will avoid and minimize impacts to parklands and provide public benefits.鈥�
Bauman, a land-use attorney at a Washington, D.C., law firm, said a state 鈥渢aking鈥� would surely wind up in court.
鈥淚f push comes to shove, this is going to be a fascinating legal issue for the courts.鈥�
鈥淭he Park and Planning Commission was created by the State of Maryland in 1927,鈥� he added. 鈥淚t has extraordinarily broad powers. 鈥� A lot of what we鈥檙e talking about comes down to 鈥榗an you聽condemn?鈥欌��
