What's New

Maryland’s Historic Buildings Tax Credit has been one of the most successful programs in the country for historic preservation. The more we revitalize older communities, the less we are paving over open space for new growth and creating new pollution sources in the process.

But rule changes have made the program unworkable, and last year a bill to fix the program was gutted by the House Ways & Means Committee.

The Historic Buildings Tax Credit has been key to renovations like the walking mall  in Cumberland, the National Park Seminary in Silver Spring, downtown Cambridge, and Tide Point in Baltimore.

Fixing the program would stimulate jobs during the current economic downturn. There is no better time to restore the tax credit and give a boost to smart growth.

How You Can Help

Del. Sheila Hixson is chair of the House Ways & Means Committee.  Email her to urge her to restore the Historic Buildings Tax Credit.

Brief Summary

Maryland's landscape has changed dramatically in recent years. Beautiful rolling farmland has given way to one sprawling subdivision after another.  Forests and meadows that used to act as giant green filters have become asphalt slabs that send pollution into the Chesapeake Bay.  Every year, more than 17,000 acres are developed in Maryland—an area larger than Manhattan.

This is much more the result of bad decision-making than simply an outcome of population growth. Between 1990 and 2000, population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed climbed 8 percent, but the amount of developed land jumped 41 percent.

Maryland is nationally renowned for two growth management policies.  In 1969, the state created Program Open Space, dedicating a one percent tax on real estate sales to buying land to preserve it forever.  In 1997, Gov. Parris Glendening championed the Smart Growth law, which required counties to designate priority growth areas and threatened to withhold state money if they failed to steer most growth within the priority areas.

The first of these has been a great success.  We have preserved half a million acres.  More than $100 million per year goes into the program.  The second has had much less success.  The rate of development outside of priority growth areas is the same as it was before the policy was adopted.