Politics & Government
Benoit Eyes Land for Gambrills Park, Council Says No
The District 4 council member presented a resolution to keep the county engaged in talks about an 88-acre parcel near Route 32. Council members said the resolution was not needed, and that a deal for the land would stifle other efforts to expand open spac
A local member of the Anne Arundel County Council wants to keep the county in the negotiations queue for a tract of land in Gambrills owned by the state.
District 4 Councilman James Benoit forwarded a resolution on Monday that he said would keep the county in the loop during ongoing talks about an 88-acre property on Highway 32 in Gambrills currently owned by the State Highway Administration.
Benoit’s hope is to ultimately turn the land into a recreational park for western Anne Arundel County, something he said the area was in dire need of. The parcels in question currently straddle Rt. 32 and are bordered on the west by Burns Crossing Road.
Find out what's happening in Croftonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
The wording of his resolution did not obligate the county to purchase the property, but simply “endorsed the transfer” of it. Currently the property is not even for sale, and the SHA is holding onto it as a buffer so they can build roads elsewhere, under a process called reforestation. But Benoit said he has had talks with SHA about the county’s interest in it. The resolution expresses that interest.
“This simply allows our dialogue to continue,” Benoit said. “This would have SHA keep this door open.”
Find out what's happening in Croftonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.
But Alan Friedman, the county’s director of government relations, called the resolution a “dangerous prospect.” Friedman said the resolution wasn’t necessary to stay in the loop, and would merely raise public expectations over something that would likely never happen.
Friedman said if the state smiled on this transfer, and the county went forward with the purchase of it, nearly $1 million of the county’s open-space fund could be used to buy it. That would eat into any other open-space project the council may have. Friedman described these as “pet projects.”
“That would eat up all of our program open space money. So each of the six of you who are not particularly affected by this happening would lose any number of projects you have in line for project open-space funding,” he said.
Councilman John Grasso said $1 million for 88 acres sounded like “one hell of a deal.”
“Not when you can’t afford it,” replied Friedman.
The council ultimately voted down the bill by a 3-4 vote.
