Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid

By Don Mohler

Why do simple statements with broad appeal often turn out to be not so simple at all? The rhetoric and actions in several upcoming Baltimore County election races prove that point—and then some. Unfortunately, this pattern isn’t unique to Baltimore County; it repeats itself across the nation every election cycle.

Full disclosure: I am not, and never have been, a developer or a small business owner. But I have great respect for those who believe in our communities and are willing to invest their time and money to improve our quality of life. That, at least, does seem simple to me.

Having said that, nothing polarizes a community during an election cycle like the issue of development. Yes, development. Somehow, over time, investment in neighborhoods and small business has been demonized to the point of absurdity. Candidates often fan the flames of fearmongering because they know it stirs strong emotions among voters who already feel powerless. It’s a tired tactic—shameless, but effective—and it persists because unfortunately, it sometimes works.

That doesn’t mean community input should be ignored. There have certainly been times when residents were left out of decisions about upcoming projects, and that is wrong. It must be addressed. But acknowledging that reality does not justify pandering to the lowest common denominator or creating an “us versus them” narrative. That approach is disingenuous, and it undermines honest conversation.

By now, the playbook is familiar: a candidate claims his or her opponent is funded by “insiders” or “developers,” conjuring up a convenient villain. They warn that every tree and stream in your neighborhood is under attack. They portray small business owners and investors as adversaries rather than contributors. And all too often, well-meaning people fall for the elixir being peddled by the snake oil salesman. Mrs. Potts was right, “It’s a tale as old as time.”

But it’s also a flawed—and potentially harmful tale.

Should communities have a voice in how they grow? Absolutely. Can we protect the environment while continuing to expand the tax base? Without a doubt. But when our tax base is under strain and affordable housing is approaching crisis levels, shutting down growth is not a viable response.

Many people rightfully feel frustrated and unheard. That frustration is real. But voters also have the ability to cut through the noise, step back and reject voices that suggest the only solution is to burn everything down. Consider your neighbors—the electrician, the carpenter, the plumber. They rely on a healthy local economy. They’re working to support their families, just like you. How does “shutting it all down” work for them?  How about the dentist, doctor insurance agent, and accountant who want an office close to home, something that is good for their family and good for the environment.

Talk to those on fixed incomes—your parents or grandparents—and ask how they feel about rising property and income taxes. The “shut it all down” crowd rarely addresses that reality. If we want to pay first responders competitively, rebuild aging infrastructure, and invest in schools, libraries, and parks, then we face a straightforward choice: grow the tax base or raise taxes. In some cases, it really is that simple.

Too often, debates over development are framed as a binary choice: growth or preservation. That’s a false, and increasingly costly, choice. Anti-growth policies may feel protective in the short term, but over time they can erode a community’s financial stability and quality of life.

When new housing, commercial development, or infrastructure investment is restricted, the tax base cannot expand. Meanwhile, the costs of maintaining essential services remain. Those costs are then distributed across a smaller group of taxpayers, leading to higher taxes, tighter budgets, and difficult trade-offs that affect everything from classroom sizes to emergency response times. Our beloved community declines right before our very eyes.

There is a better approach: smart growth.

Smart growth is not about unchecked development or sacrificing open space. It’s about thoughtful, strategic investment—building housing near jobs and transit, creating walkable communities, and making efficient use of existing infrastructure. Done well, it expands the tax base while lowering the per-capita cost of public services. That’s how communities maintain fiscal health without continually asking more from taxpayers.

Consider the example of Lutherville Station in northern Baltimore County, a project that has been debated for years. Today, the site is largely underutilized—an expanse of surface parking that fails to take advantage of its prime location along a light rail line. This isn’t protected farmland or park space; it’s basically an abandoned parking lot on the site of a failing shopping center. Redevelopment could transform it into a vibrant, walkable mix of housing, retail, and public space—an economic and civic anchor for the community. It’s an opportunity to generate revenue for real public needs without raising taxes. Yet even projects like this face strong opposition. It’s a head scratcher. If not here, then where?

Critically, growth and environmental protection are not mutually exclusive. In fact, poorly planned sprawl often does more environmental harm than well-designed, compact development. Smart growth can reduce traffic, preserve larger areas of open space, and support investments in transit and green infrastructure. It aligns economic and environmental goals rather than forcing a choice between them. Communities that resist all growth become less affordable, less dynamic, and ultimately less sustainable. Young families struggle to find housing, businesses look elsewhere, and the economic energy that supports local services begins to fade. Meanwhile, the fixed costs of government continue to rise, placing increasing pressure on those who stay.

The real challenge for local leaders is not whether a community should grow, but how to grow wisely. Policies that encourage balanced development, protect critical environmental assets, and expand the tax base are essential for long-term success. Smart growth isn’t just a planning philosophy—it’s a fiscal and environmental strategy.

In the end, saying “no” to growth may feel safe, but it often carries hidden costs.

Saying “yes” to smart, thoughtful growth is how communities thrive. Maybe it isn’t complicated after all—but it does start with voters. Just like Stephen King’s Pennywise, the “be afraid, be very afraid” crowd only have the power to mislead and terrify us if we accept the malarkey they peddle. We can reject their scary mailers, fear-driven messaging, divisive rhetoric, and easy answers to complex problems. We can support and elect thoughtful leaders who prefer honest debate. That is how we continue to thrive.

Maybe it really is that simple.

Don Mohler is the former Baltimore County Executive and is currently President and CEO of Mohler Communication Strategies. He may be reached at don@donmohler.com