Was Growth Management Well Served by Terrapin Run?

Abstract

A recent decision from the Maryland Court of Appeals—Trail v. Terrapin Run, LLC—has generated much discussion among academics and practitioners about the role of the local comprehensive plan. Does the plan have "teeth" and play some meaningful role in the outcome of day-to-day development decisions? Or is it merely a lazy guide to an ambiguous future? Three commentators share their perspectives. We begin with John Delaney, a land use attorney from Maryland, who describes the court's opinion. Professor Charles Haar, the seminal thinker and teacher about the role of the comprehensive plan, discusses the origin of this debate and suggests we get back to the basics. Theodore Taub, a land use attorney in Florida, concludes with a growth management perspective from a very different statutory scheme than Maryland's. Undoubtedly, the ball is in the Maryland Assembly's court now. In fair disclosure, the American Planning Association, along with its Maryland Chapter, filed an amicus brief in this case. It is available at www.planning.org/amicusbriefs/pdf/terrapinrun.