The descendents of Charles Carroll of Carrollton have gone digital. The family has created a website detailing their preservation and development and plans for the pre Independence era estate.
I only wish the Conceptual Site Plan did a better job of including adjacent roads, like Burnside Drive for example.
I only wish the Conceptual Site Plan did a better job of including adjacent roads, like Burnside Drive for example.
7 comments:
The site implies that the "Smart Growth" alternative (option "B") is less financially attractive for the Carrolls than the "McMansion" alternative (option "A"). Yet the Carrolls are pushing option "B".
I wonder whether the Carrolls are truly pushing option "B" out of the goodness of their hearts because it "minimizes deleterous environmental effects", yadda yadda, or if there is some hidden agenda here that makes option "B" more attractive to them.
In other words, if everything on the site is to believed, the Carrolls are pushing the more environmentally-sensible option, which is laudible. However, realizing that the web site is a public relations tool that only presents one side of the story, a good reporter will investigate the true reasons for the push for option "B", be they noble or otherwise.
The Carrols could get a maximum of 409 houses if development were done by right. Their "comprehensive plan" is for them to get 325 houses on the eastern quarter of the Plantation plus have the County pay $20 million for the development rights to another 250 houses through 500 acres of agricultural preservation easements. Last time I checked 575 was more than 409. The Carrolls aren't losing any money on this sweetheart deal, very much the opposite.
I looked at the site again, and found no mention of these 250 additional houses. I'm all for people getting the most value from their land, but the fact that they're using slick public relations mumbo jumbo to divert attention from these additional 250 houses (assuming what Anon 2:53 states is correct) is insulting to my intelligence.
The taxpayers are buying 250 lots from the Carrolls in the form of an agricultural preservation easement to the tune of $20 million dollars. Not that the County will own any of that land, just the Carrolls agreement that they won't develop it. Why should they? They continue to get the rent paid by their contract farmers and a nice fat $20 million to boot.
Farm ground rents for about $50 per acre. Even if they rent out the whole 500 acres in ag pres, the annual rent is $25,000. Not exactly a whole lot of money.
OK, well, the 9:33 comment clears it up. A bit. I think.
So I don't have a big problem with them getting reimbursed in the ag. prev. deal. Whether or not you agree with the whole ag. prev. premise, it seems like it is being used for what it was intended for in this case: giving someone FMV for not building out their farmland. I just wish they would be more forthcoming about it on that site. They seemingly gloss over the details: the "Master Plan" page makes no mention of the $20m number.
Oh, and I can't stand how this blog only time stamps, not date stamps, comments.
sfs,
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I think it's fixed now.
-wb
Post a Comment