Politics – Gary Bennett Publishing

Frederick County’s mysterious claim to presidential fame

By Gary Bennett

President Reagan with Richard Allen at a working luncheon at Camp David during a visit of President Jose Lopez Portillo of Mexico in 1981.

This article appears in the February 12, 2026 issue of Frederick News-Post’s “72 Hours” entertainment magazine.

Located within Catoctin Mountain Park in northern Frederick County, Camp David is a rare national historic site that virtually no American ever gets to see.

Many visitors have been close to the secluded enclave — hiking at Cunningham Falls or traveling Route 77 near Thurmont — without ever laying eyes on it. Camp David spans roughly 125 acres and is protected by about 200 Marines on any given day. There is intentionally no signage directing visitors to its location.

Mysterious, perhaps, but every president since Franklin Roosevelt has used the camp for business or pleasure — more often the latter. Within its confines, presidents and their guests have debated world affairs and enjoyed golf, tennis, bowling, swimming, skeet shooting, horseback riding, basketball, wallyball or movie nights in a private theater.

Now more than 80 years old, Camp David began modestly. Completed by the Works Progress Administration in 1940, it was originally known as Hi-Catoctin and served as a federal retreat.

In 1942, Franklin Roosevelt sought relief from Washington’s humid summers, appropriated the retreat and renamed it “Shangri-La” after the fictional kingdom in “Lost Horizon.” Presidents have been showing off the site ever since, and more than 50 heads of state have visited.

The following stories come from Michael Giorgione, who served as Camp David’s commander under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, as recounted in his book “Inside Camp David.”

According to Giorgione, “One head of state, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, huddled there with President Roosevelt in 1943 to pore over plans for the invasion of Normandy. Since the camp is just a short drive from Thurmont, the leaders drove to the [now defunct] Cozy Restaurant so Churchill could see what a jukebox looked like. He handed the stunned owner some coins for the jukebox and bought a beer.”

Roosevelt enjoyed sitting on the porch, often with guests, sipping whiskey and smoking cigars. He even had an extra-wide door installed outside his bedroom, opening like a drawbridge, to allow him to exit quickly in his wheelchair in case of fire.

President Harry Truman seldom visited, preferring trips to Key West and the “Southern White House.” Even so, he added steam heat to the presidential lodge, allowing the retreat to be used year-round.

President Dwight Eisenhower was a frequent visitor and is credited with renaming the retreat after his grandson David, though it retains the official government name Naval Support Facility Thurmont. An avid golfer, Eisenhower built a compact four-hole golf course and enjoyed grilling steaks outside his cabin. He famously hosted Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev there in 1959.

Presidents Kennedy and Johnson used Camp David sparingly.

John F. Kennedy visited primarily for consultations with cabinet members, members of Congress and former President Eisenhower during the Cuban Missile Crisis and after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. He enjoyed swimming in the heated pool. Giorgione recounts an embarrassing incident in which overheated water left a sheen of melted asphalt on Kennedy’s face — an episode the president handled with humor.

Lyndon B. Johnson preferred his Texas ranch but Lady Bird Johnson loved Camp David’s flowers and peaceful setting. “I leave my troubles outside the gate,” she once said. Johnson nevertheless used the retreat for meetings with advisers about the Vietnam War.

Richard Nixon enjoying the great outdoors at Camp David in 1972.

President Richard Nixon was a frequent visitor, averaging about one visit every two weeks during his five years in office. He favored Camp David’s quiet during the Vietnam War and Watergate era and enjoyed tennis, bowling — often alone — and playing piano. Nixon was described by Giorgione as “stand-offish,” though “Mrs. Nixon was very nice.” Nixon made more modifications than any other president, including adding an hourglass-shaped pool at Aspen cabin and building Laurel, an entertainment cabin often featured in the media.

President Gerald Ford, by contrast, was remembered fondly. “He was a prince. He and his wife were great,” Giorgione wrote, adding that they were “just like you and me.” Ford often ate lunch with staff in the mess hall and enjoyed walking in the woods, followed by Secret Service agents. Betty Ford loved the flowers and regularly thanked those who tended them.

President Jimmy Carter spent limited time at Camp David but hosted its most consequential event — the Camp David Accords. In 1978, Carter personally moderated peace talks between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, leading to the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty and a Nobel Peace Prize. Carter was described as cordial to staff, enjoyed woodworking and took walks with his daughter Amy.

President Ronald Reagan was a frequent visitor who recorded his weekly radio addresses from the camp. He especially enjoyed horseback riding and movie nights.

President George H.W. Bush often used humor in notes about camp maintenance. “Mike — the toilet in the presidential bathroom is not responding to presidential commands,” he once wrote to Commander Mike Berry. In 1992, Bush’s daughter Dorothy was married at Camp David — the first wedding held there. Bush installed a regulation horseshoe pit and enjoyed playing wallyball with staff.

President Bill Clinton visited infrequently, averaging only a few trips per year. He attempted, unsuccessfully, to broker a peace agreement between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in 1993. The Clintons enjoyed walking the tree-lined paths.

President George W. Bush was a regular presence, spending hundreds of days at Camp David. He hosted foreign leaders, planned responses to the Sept. 11 attacks and enjoyed basketball and card games. Giorgione recounts Bush’s concern that his bed was uneven, prompting an exhaustive investigation — including Giorgione himself lying on the bed to test it. At the end of his second term, Bush refurbished the basketball court, Leatherwood, for incoming President Barack Obama.

President Barack Obama found Camp David exquisitely beautiful and hosted the Group of Eight summit there in 2012 after protests ruled out Chicago. A basketball enthusiast, he made frequent use of the court.

President Joe Biden visited about once every three or four weeks during his term, often bringing extended family. He enjoyed relaxing, playing games and occasionally hosting high-level policy discussions.

Donald Trump spent little time at Camp David, preferring Mar-a-Lago or his Bedminster property. “You know how long you’d like it? For about 30 minutes,” he once told a reporter. He did not host foreign dignitaries there and later canceled plans to host Taliban leaders.

George W. Bush at Christmas time at Camp David, 2005

•••

Camp David Presidents’ Day Quiz

Do Democratic or Republican presidents tend to visit Camp David more often? Answer: Republican presidents

Which president visited the most times? Answer: Reagan

Which president was most like “one of the guys” at Camp David? Answer: Ford

Which president hosted Camp David’s seminal event, the Camp David Accords? Answer: Carter

Which president installed the first golf course at Camp David? Answer: Eisenhower

Which presidents played basketball at Camp David? Answer: George W. Bush and Obama

Which president didn’t care for Camp David at all? Answer: Trump

Which president gave Camp David its current name? Answer: Eisenhower

Which president enjoyed bowling at Camp David? Answer: Nixon

Which president enjoyed playing wallyball at Camp David? Answer: George H.W. Bush

Federal Government Shutdown’s Effect on Housing

By Gary Bennett

This article appears as the featured December blog post on Frederick County Government’s Affordable Housing Council website.

The federal government shutdown recently and thankfully ended but could have long-lasting effects on the ability to provide affordable housing for those who need it most.

The reason is simple: an entity as large as the federal government cannot turn on a dime and cannot ramp up fast enough to reestablish the safety net programs that are so crucial to poor and working-class Americans.

Sadly, many of these crucial programs were under fire even before the shutdown began. The reduction or delay in government benefits will affect the decisions people have to make today about how they spend their available resources.

During the shutdown many young families burned through whatever savings they had trying to keep their head above water. Others maxed out credit cards to survive. The shutdown opened the door for financial overload for many. Many if not most, are now further from homeownership than they were prior to the shutdown.

Let’s look at some pocketbook facts.

According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average household’s monthly expenses were $6,440 ($77,280 over the entire year) in 2023. That’s up from $6,081 ($72,967 over the entire year) in 2022. The average annual income after taxes was $87,869 in 2023, up from $83,195 in 2022. Even under the best conditions, that leaves little room for error or an unexpected major expense.

Naturally, housing is the largest average expense for most Americans at $2,120 per month, making up 33% of typical spending. That is the absolute highest ratio Americans should spend for their housing to not be considered cost-burdened or “house poor.”

Housing costs are followed in order by transportation, food, personal insurance and healthcare. None of these costs can be looked at in a vacuum. All are interrelated. If, for example, your housing subsidy goes away, it would be extremely difficult to make up for that in other areas.

Food

On the food front, low-income families may have trouble buying food if safety-net programs stall.

The SNAP program, which some 42 million Americans rely on for food assistance, has been the subject of much uncertainty — and an escalating legal battle — in recent weeks. The Trump administration said last month that it would suspend SNAP funding in November due to the shutdown, prompting a wide outcry and a series of legal challenges.

At this point, beneficiaries in some states have gotten their full monthly allocations, while others have gotten partial payments or nothing at all. Reopening the government means restarting SNAP, but it’s not clear how quickly full payments will resume since that varies by state. And, many who rely on the program are worried that benefits could be cut again.

One lesson that both parties should take from the fight is this: You should not play politics with the food assistance program that 42 million people, including about 18,000 in Frederick County, depend on. In the future, SNAP benefits and other federal payments should be specifically exempt from cutoff during a shutdown. Congress should direct the government to continue paying these vital benefits.

Housing

On the housing front, the government shutdown created significant disruptions and delays for various housing services, like loan processing, rental assistance payments, and federal insurance programs.

For home buyers and sellers, significant delays are expected for government-backed loans from the FHA, VA and USDA. That means big delays for families waiting on mortgages and for developers and homeowners seeking refinancing or rehabilitation funding. First-time buyers that rely on federally backed loans would likely be hit hardest.

Lenders rely on the IRS for income and tax verification. The shutdown caused major backlogs in this process, delaying loan approvals for conventional loans and those backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that can’t be reversed quickly.

For renters and homeowners who get federal assistance through programs like the Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers and Project-Based Rental Assistance, the prolonged shutdown will almost certainly mean funding gaps when reserves are depleted, creating financial uncertainty for public housing agencies and participating landlords.

Public housing agencies may need to rely on limited operating reserves for daily operations and emergency repairs, potentially forcing them to limit services or delay critical capital improvement projects.

Homeless assistance grants recipients will almost certainly experience delays due to needing HUD staff approval that will be heavily backlogged thereby disrupting the continuity of services.

For federal workers, the State of Maryland has taken steps to protect against evictions and foreclosures. This means an involuntarily furloughed federal government employee at risk of eviction or foreclosure can ask the court to temporarily pause the eviction or foreclosure during the shutdown. Federal employees are protected even if they are required to work during a shutdown.

For everyone else, it has been reported that HUD has restored Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) funding for both November and December. But nothing is guaranteed for January because of the shutdown.

State Resources

The State of Maryland is doing its best to step in during the shutdown and during the time it takes federal programs to ramp up after the shutdown.

If any homeowners get behind on mortgages, they shouldconnect with a HUD-approved housing counseling agency for free and objective guidance on available options. If foreclosure action has been filed, they should act quickly and consider reaching out to a nonprofit legal services provider.

If evicted from a rental home, reach out to the Access to Counsel in Evictions Program for coordinated legal services. Maryland has recently passed several tenant protection laws.

Local Resources

Local Continuums of Care offer emergency rental assistance, street outreach, shelter, and permanent housing assistance for individuals at risk of or experiencing homelessness. Contact your community’s coordinated entry hotline or intake point for access to local services.

The city of Frederick recently announced it will provide rental assistance, flexible payments, and other services to federal workers affected by the government shutdown. About 3,500 federal workers live in the city according to the city’s website.

Frederick County has recently approved $2.5 million in aid to organizations helping county residents dealing with the impacts of the federal government shutdown. $1.5 million is allocated to provide grants to nonprofit organizations in the county and an additional $1 million for local food banks to help them meet demand. The county is home to about 12,000 federal workers.

‘YIMBY’ analysis ignores reality

By Gary Bennett

The letter to the editor appears in the September 12, 2025, issue of the Frederick News-Post

The Sept. 5 column “Forget YIMBY. The housing shortage could disappear on its own.” is an example of a column from an outsider that really says nothing.

The word “could” in the title should be the tipoff. I “could” become a millionaire tomorrow. Sure, but not very likely.

The same can be said about the author’s opinion on a subject he apparently knows little about. He says the housing shortage will straighten itself out in five years due to demographic shifts and a surge in construction.

Five years sounds pretty good, but that is no solace to the 20- and 30-somethings who can’t find an affordable home for their growing families now.

Demographic shifts and a surge in construction also sound plausible, but I know from my time on the Affordable Housing Council of Frederick County that affordable housing simply cannot be built without incentives to do so.

The math just does not work because of the cost of land and other factors, including the price of materials, and, yes, zoning regulations.

I’m part of the demographic that would like to downsize, but downsize into what? Plus, we’re living longer than ever.

He goes on to say the housing issue is a local one and cannot be solved by national policies or national groups like YIMBY.

He is mostly right. Housing policy is a local issue, but national policies play a big part, especially federal tax credits and funding from HUD.

Frederick politicians say all the right things, especially at election time, but the problem is when push comes to shove in public meetings, the NIMBYS — the “Not In My Backyard” types — often win the day because they are organized and motivated, and they vote.

That is why national groups like YIMBY (“Yes In My Backyard”) have state and local chapters that work at the local level.

I’ve been in discussions with the national YIMBY group to start a Frederick chapter to hold politicians accountable and to push back at the NIMBYs. If you are interested in joining our cause for more affordable housing now, contact me at gabennett01@comcast.net.

Gary Bennett
Frederick

Editor’s note: Gary Bennett is a member of the Affordable Housing Council of Fredrick County, but is speaking on his own behalf.

Policy Priorities for 2025

Frederick County Affordable Housing Council

By Gary Bennett and Hugh Gordon

On March 10, Frederick County’s Affordable Housing Council (hereafter referred to as “the Council”) released its 2025 affordable housing policy priorities.

The Council advises Frederick city and county government officials on housing policy and advocates for safe, sanitary and affordable housing for all Frederick County lower- and middle-income households.

The policy priorities for 2025 do not take into consideration matters likely to be covered by Frederick County’s new housing needs assessment and strategic plan currently in the planning stages. The study is being conducted by TPMA Consultants and the county’s Division of Housing. Once the draft is presented for public comment, the Council will respond. Following final county approval of the study, the Council will incorporate recommendations from the study into its policy priorities for 2026.

The 2025 policy priorities outlined below are matters deemed important enough to go forward without waiting for completion of the housing needs assessment study.

Streamline Frederick County’s and the City of Frederick’s building permitting process.

At a September 2024 meeting hosted by the Council, non-profit and for-profit developers and builders indicated that the permitting process is overly cumbersome and costly. The Council has contacted city and county officials to establish a strategy and action plan to resolve permitting obstacles, working with the public sector and developer/builder stakeholders to address these matters with established timelines.

Encourage municipalities, the public and other stakeholders beyond the City of Frederick and Frederick County to develop relationships with the Council regarding housing policy best practices.

The Council will develop a strategy and action plan in the second quarter of 2025 to address specific municipalities at public forums. Independent of this effort, the Council will reach out to invite municipal officials, the public and stakeholders to monthly Council meetings.

Continue working with Frederick County and municipalities on implementation of area plans as part of the Livable Fredrick Master Plan.

As such, the Council will continue its active participation with the Housing Element Advisory Group and offer recommendations. It is also working with the county on attaining the goals set out in the 2023 county executive’s Housing and Quality of Life Transition Plan.

Appoint a Council member or consultant to act as liaison with county and city legislative officials with a goal to accomplish the recommendations of the forthcoming Frederick County Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan.

Hugh Gordon, chair of the Council, commented that accomplishing these priorities demonstrate a proactive effort on the part of the Council to address one of the greatest needs existing in the Frederick community: “The need for affecting implementation and the potential for assisting seniors, school teachers, police officers, firefighters, restaurant workers, and other vulnerable residents of Frederick County to achieve their dream of living in a safe, sanitary and affordable home.”

Historically, the Council has been quite successful in developing housing priorities and encouraging elected officials to give them fair consideration.

Last year, the Council was instrumental in advocating to update the city’s Moderately Priced Development Units (MPDU) ordinance. The ordinance now encourages increased development of affordable housing in the city by requiring developers to pay $2 per square foot for every unit in the development if they opt out of building the required number of MPDUs.

The Council also pushed for updating the 2016 Frederick County Affordable Housing Needs Assessment study to better reflect current housing and economic realities and to develop a strategic plan to address the findings. This project is now in the early planning stages.

Finally, the Council has helped institute the implementation of the City of Frederick’s rental registration and inspection program and encouraged municipalities in the county to allow construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), many of which are doing that.

The Frederick County Affordable Housing Council meets the second Tuesday of each month at 2:30 pm at a location designated by the Council. Confirm meeting dates and location by checking https://www.frederickcountymd.gov/6371/Affordable-Housing-Council or by calling the Frederick County Division of Housing at 301-600-3518.

The issues are difficult but the stakes are high for all of us. The Frederick County Affordable Housing Council invites you to participate.

Meetings are open to the public and public participation is highly encouraged. Agendas can be obtained at the website noted above. Public comment is welcome at all meetings.

Gary Bennett is a retired association executive with no stake in the housing market except for being a concerned citizen. Hugh Gordon is the association executive for the Frederick County Association of Realtors and has decades of experience as a mortgage banker. They are long-time Frederick County residents and members of Frederick County’s Affordable Housing Council.

Regional Housing Infrastructure Gap Act

By Gary Bennett

This article appears in the March 2025 edition of the Woodsboro-Walkersville News-Journal, page 5.

Municipalities around Frederick County that deny housing projects because they will “change the neighborhood character” or because they simply “don’t want any more housing,” should be ready to prove in an objective, measurable way how new housing will adversely affect their community if Maryland House Bill HB053 (cross-filed with Senate Bill SB0430) passes the Maryland legislature and ends up on Governor Moore’s desk.

Known as the Regional Housing Infrastructure Gap Act (or Housing for Jobs Act), this proposed legislation will tie a region’s number of jobs to the housing needed to support those jobs. The legislation purposely aims to make it more difficult for jurisdictions to oppose reasonable housing projects.

The proposed legislation is similar to “Fair share” planning and zoning rules in New Jersey, Connecticut and other states that require each municipality or region to provide a proportional amount of affordable housing based on factors like population, jobs and land availability, essentially ensuring that the burden of providing low-income housing is distributed equitably across different areas, preventing concentration of affordable housing in only certain neighborhoods.

The housing gap in Frederick County was estimated to be 5,700 units in 2016, and we all know the gap has widened since then. It is especially dire for those at the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. To update our estimated gap, Frederick County is now in the early stages of a new housing study that will also lead to the county’s first housing strategic plan.

Even with people suffering with homelessness, overcrowding at others’ homes and doing without enough food, medicine and clothing to pay their exorbitant housing costs, some municipalities around Frederick County (excluding Frederick City) have made it abundantly clear that no residential growth or very slow residential growth are the only policies they will accept and support. We read about this time and again.

It shouldn’t be this way. Just like it takes a village to raise a child, it will take the entire county to solve our housing problem.

All municipalities in the county should share in the expected growth we cannot stop. There is not much we can do to quell demand to live in our county short of ripping up Carroll Creek, razing our delightful downtown and walling off our picturesque scenery and open spaces, which are already protected by the state and county and can’t be built upon.

Sure, we could shutter our windows and stop all housing projects in their tracks if we wished, but then we would become like other no-growth counties that eventually wither and then try to get back on track. This stance may work for people who live here now, but what about our children and aging parents who wish to stay. Where do they go?

The proposed legislation aims to peg needed housing to jobs. Specifically, the bill says that for every 1.5 jobs within our county, there should be one housing unit. Under our current jobs-to-housing ratio, the county would need to build 7,000 homes to reach that ratio, a number not far from our estimated 2016 gap of 5,700.

Pegging housing to jobs makes sense. People want to live close to where they work, and for a host of environmental, energy, family and community reasons, we should want that, too. Under the bill, planning and zoning boards and town councils must approve housing projects unless there’s a very good and objective reason not to.

Municipalities would be able to stop housing development projects only if:

It would have a specific adverse impact on the public health or safety to the residents who would live there, and there is no feasible way to mitigate it.
It is in an area with inadequate water or wastewater facilities to adequately serve the project, and there is no feasible way to mitigate it.
It is in an area zoned for heavy industrial use or on conservation property.
It is in a school attendance area that has verifiable current or projected full-time enrolment that exceeds 100% of the school’s estimated or state-rated capacity, and there is no feasible method to comply.

The bill authorizes the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development and Department of Planning to calculate regional housing infrastructure gaps, provide the apportionment of regional housing infrastructure gaps to all counties and incorporated municipalities and establish that certain local jurisdictions have an affirmative obligation to expeditiously approve housing development project applications.

The “affirmative obligation” clause is a big one and a paradigm shift in how business is done now.

Currently, municipalities are under no obligation to help solve our county’s housing problem and often do not even see it as their problem. They are perfectly happy for most of the development to happen in Frederick City. Under the bill, a local jurisdiction may not deny a housing development project unless it has a justification that “clearly outweighs the need for housing and is supported by clear and convincing evidence.”

Indeed, if a local jurisdiction denies a housing development project, the local jurisdiction must provide in writing the reason for denial, specifying how the denial complies with the law. The proponent of a housing development may bring an action in the appropriate circuit court to enforce it. If passed and signed by the governor this session, which is likely, the Act will take effect on January 1, 2026.

This potential shift in state housing policy is not surprising. We should remember that land use control is constitutionally guaranteed to states, not municipalities. States have often delegated this authority to municipalities, as they’ve done in Maryland. But it can be taken back when local decision makers misuse the privilege.

It’s too bad doing the right thing has to be mandated, but we suspect the state has had enough new housing developments stopped in their tracks for specious reasons to warrant action. The days of simply not wanting more housing to stop projects may become a thing of the past.

The bill is still in draft form and there’s a very long way to go. It is currently in the House of Delegates with a hearing scheduled for March 4 at 1:00 pm. Frederick County Delegate Ken Kerr is a co-sponsor.

A new way to finance affordable housing in Frederick County

By Gary Bennett and Hugh Gordon, members, Frederick County Affordable Housing Council.

Affordable Housing Crisis newspaper headline and related economic news, with coins

This article appears in the February 2025 issue of the Emmitsburg New-Journal, page 46.

In our last affordable housing column, we talked about all they ways developers scramble to fully fund affordable housing projects. This is important because a project is not feasible unless it covers 100% of its funding gap.

That is why Frederick County and the State of Maryland try to be aggressive when helping affordable housing developers. The county and state often step in with funding options such as:

Waivers or deferrals of impact of fees charged to buyers that meet income requirements for affordable housing purchases from a developer.
Loans from Frederick County’s Housing Initiative Fund’s (HIF) Deferred Loan Program. The purpose of this fund is to provide flexible loans to support affordable housing in Frederick County.
Maryland’s Department of Housing and Community Development’s (DHCD) nearly $24 million in federal funding to provide gap financing to affordable housing projects statewide in the form of HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships American Rescue Plan Program (HOME-ARP).
County guidance in using “rental housing works,” a fund through DHCD providing $3.5 million in gap funding.
The use of some county owned-land for affordable housing projects combined with a federal loan for pre-development costs thereby reducing two key costs.

Other funding possibilities in various stages of discussion and could come online in the future include:

Implementing a Frederick County Rental Registration and Inspection Program to mimic the one Frederick city has in place and using the proceeds for rental assistance and affordable housing projects.
Waiving development fees for housing projects meeting certain income requirements.
Increasing the portion of the County Recordation Tax revenue going into the Housing Initiative Fund, which is then used to support affordable housing projects.

IDAs and TIFs

Even more creative help may be on the way soon.

The Affordable Housing Council wholeheartedly supports a push for enabling legislation to allow Frederick County to expand the use of funds under the State of Maryland’s Industrial Development Authorities (IDAs) to include affordable housing.

IDAs were created long ago to establish an entity that captures future tax growth for an area slated for development and reinvests it. It has been used mostly for industrial parks. It was never intended for affordable housing but could be used for that purpose in the future. Prince George’s County has this authority now.

If enacted, the County Council would create the tax capturing entity, adopt a project area plan and how the funds can be used in that area. The board of the new entity would then approve specific projects like affordable housing.

This would be an important new revenue source for affordable housing projects. It has the possibility to be the gap financing that allows new projects to happen faster.

IDAs are based on well-established tax increment financing (TIF) districts. TIFs have been used in the past as a mechanism to fund public infrastructure improvements in connection with private development projects.

In the affordable housing realm, TIFs could be used for infrastructure needs for site readiness such as water, gas, and sewerage. Items like these need to be ready and paid for before an affordable housing project kicks off. As we’ve said before, tax credits are fine but developers need money upfront.

How do TIFs provide financing?

Under the TIF process, special obligation debt would be issued by the county to provide funding for infrastructure improvements benefiting a certain district. The incremental future real property tax revenues are pledged to the repayment of the special obligation debt. There will be incremental real property taxes created because the assessed value of the TIF district properties increases as a result of the planned new infrastructure.

Because only a portion of the future incremental tax revenue is pledged to repay the debt service, the TIF structure allows the county to continue to receive the tax revenue today that existed prior to the new development and to also receive today the future tax benefit of the project to fund the project.

It is important to note that this is not a new tax on citizens. The plan takes the place of issuing bonds.

Currently in Frederick County, commercial entities are responsible for 22% of the tax base. Citizens pay the rest. We cannot bring in more commercial development unless we have more affordable housing.

The plans for future housing development in the South Frederick Corridor is a specific example where this could work well since developers know the county plans to add value by creating affordable housing there.

Frederick is not alone. Many Maryland counties have expressed interest in this type of affordable housing funding.

A bill has been drafted to allow TIF districts in Frederick County and other counties to be used for more than industrial development. It is before the legislature’s Ways and Means Committee right now. Delegate Fair and Senator Lewis-Young are supportive now. Maryland Secretary of Housing Day and Maryland’s Affordable Housing Coalition are also supportive of this.

Financing for affordable housing projects is intricate and arcane, but the more you know, the better you can help us advocate for creative financing that gets these critical projects off the ground. If we don’t, we’ll have few options for our children and parents to live in Frederick County, and economic development will suffer as a result.

How Jimmy Carter did it

By Gary Bennett

After Jimmy Carter died December 29 at age 100, much was made of his remarkable post-presidency, and rightfully so. He not only lived longer and spent more time out of office than any other ex-president, he carved out an extraordinary charitable and statesmanship portfolio for himself that culminated in the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002.

In 1976 I was a young political science major at a small liberal arts college in Maryland. My professors spent countless hours discussing Jimmy Carter’s rise to the presidency and his four years inhabiting the office, which happened to coincide exactly with my college career.

I feel super qualified to give my two cents here.

I decided that Carter was an undeniably attractive candidate. He was governor of a large southern state, even so was untainted nationally by racist or segregationist policies, was relatively young and active, had a brilliant naval career, was a businessman, and perhaps most importantly, had an “everyman” quality about him.

Carter’s timing was impeccable, too.

In 1976 the country was still reeling from Vietnam, Watergate and Richard Nixon’s resignation. Oil shortages were rampant. The economy was in free-fall. Trust of government was at an all-time low. Republicans oversaw this mess, and Washington democrats had no answers either.

Jerry Ford was in the White House, but he had never been elected to that post. He hadn’t even been elected vice-president. Many saw Ford as a best-case temporary caretaker and worst-case presidential imposter.

To me, Ford seemed like a nice enough guy. He appeared to be a loving husband and father, was purported to be a Christian, was moderate in temperament and his politics and had lots of government experience after a long career in Congress. Not too bad; I could have voted for him.

But then he did the unthinkable: he pardoned Richard Nixon. Most of the country did not want that.

I do believe Ford truly wanted to “end our long national nightmare” as he said, get the country moving again and give some peace to Nixon. This act of political courage was probably the right thing to do, but as most pundits now agree, almost certainly cost Ford the election in 1976.

That was not clear at the time, however.

Polls insisted the election was going to be tight, and they were right. During the primary season of 1976, Ford came out swinging, doing all he could to hold onto his job. He somehow fended off an aggressive challenge by Ronald Reagan and went on to accept his party’s nomination for president that summer.

Into this swirling, unsettled political mess came an unknown governor and peanut farmer from Georgia named Jimmy Carter. He started off 1976 as one of many democrats vying for the nomination. Think of the dozen or so republicans who competed for the republican nomination in 2016 before Trump emerged. That’s how it was for the democrats in 1976. As Trump did in 2016, Carter survived primary season, picking off his competitors little by little until there was no alternative.

Along with good timing, there may have never been a luckier politician than Carter.

There was no de facto leader of the democratic party in 1976 who would be the natural heir apparent to the White House like Ronald Reagan was for the republicans in 1980. George McGovern was not a good option; he was swamped by Nixon in 1972. Hubert Humphrey lost narrowly to Nixon in 1968 and was the choice of the party apparatus, but he chose not to run. Teddy Kennedy was scandal-ridden and not an option.

Carter was unknown, but he was the only large state governor, other than ultra-liberal Jerry Bown of California, to run in a year when the electorate was looking for an outsider. Governors were attractive. The other choices were all long-time Washington insiders: Mo Udall, Birch Baye, Lloyd Bentsen, Frank Church, Fred Harris, Henry “Scoop” Jackson and Sargent Shriver. They were sometimes chided as the “seven dwarfs.”

None of these politicians came off as trustworthy. Carter did. He wisely embraced his “outsider” image to perfection and hammered away at it in commercials and debates, telling us he would never lie to us. He eventually emerged as the easy democratic winner.

Not so for the republicans. Reagan took his candidacy all the way to the convention floor and nearly upended Ford. This bitter rift damaged the republican party and, along with the Nixon baggage, was too much to overcome.

Even with all these advantages, Carter eked out only a narrow win over Ford, 297 to 240 electoral votes. The popular vote was 51% to 49% in Carter’s favor.

That part of history is well known. What is not so well known is how Carter rose to the governorship of Georgia, thereby positioning himself for this improbable presidential run.

The answer is he leveraged a superior intellect and ambition with good old-fashioned hard work. Carter, much like Harry Truman, used county-wide community service activities, numerous business contacts statewide, and his national naval contacts to become a well-known activist and rising star in his state. As a born-again Christian and church leader he was also well known and respected among Southern Baptists who dominated Georgia politics.

His resume was almost pitch-perfect for the times.

He received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946. He served in the Navy from 1947 to 1953 as a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific, rising to the rank of lieutenant. He completed graduate work in reactor technology and nuclear physics. He served as senior officer of the crew on the nuclear submarine Seawolf.

When his father died in 1953, he resigned his naval commission and moved back to Georgia, taking over the Carter farm. He quickly became a leader in the community, serving on county boards that supervised education, the hospital authority, and the library. In 1962 he won election to the Georgia Senate. He lost his first gubernatorial campaign in 1966, but won the next one, becoming Georgia’s 76th governor on January 12, 1971.

Carter famously declared in his inaugural address as governor that “the time for racial discrimination is over.” This was a shocking pronouncement for a southern governor at the time and came after months of wisely downplaying his feelings about discrimination during the election.

He was ineligible for a second term in 1975 so began planning his run for president. His moderate democratic policies, ability to get southern votes, and ability to champion social justice positioned him well in 1976.

And, as they say, the rest is history.

Gap Financing: A Barrier to Affordable Housing

By Gary Bennett and Hugh Gordon, Members, Frederick County Affordable Housing Council

This article appears in the January 2025 issues of the Woodsboro-Walkersville News Journal and the Emmitsburg News Journal.

It is true that most developers are not hurting for money. No news there. But it is equally undeniable they provide great community value, particularly when working to provide affordable housing.

Unfortunately, there’s a huge barrier affordable housing developers must overcome: the ability to fully fund development and pre-development costs without the promise of market-rate revenues. As one developer put it: “Providing housing at rents low- and moderate-income folks can afford and still cover our costs is like trying to solve a Rubik’s cube.”

Think of it this way: To build any development, a developer must pay for land, materials and labor, not to mention taxes and myriad permitting and other government fees. During the last two decades these costs have skyrocketed while renter and homeowner salaries have stagnated. Therefore, rents that low- and moderate-income households can afford are often too low to cover the full costs of building, owning and managing an affordable property. Add to this the seemingly never-ending delays in the governmental approval process, and you have a recipe for possibly abandoning a project.

When development and pre-development costs can’t be met by traditional methods such as taxable and tax-exempt bonds, local bank loan funds, General Partner (GP) capital, or Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs), developers must turn to other methods to fill the gap.

Hence the need for what is known in the affordable housing world as “gap financing.”

Gap financing, also known as bridge or interim financing, is a short-term loan that can help affordable housing developers fill the gap between the cost of a project and the funds available. To fill the gap, developers usually need help in the form of subsidies. Those subsidies most often come from local, state or federal governments, but can also come from other sources.

The sources include tax credits in various forms, mortgages with below-market interest rates, tax-exempt bonds, federal grants or loans from programs like the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, local grants, land donations, contributions from charitable foundations and deferred developer fees.

Almost all affordable housing projects begin with tax credits awarded by the state. The most common of these is the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (or LIHTC, pronounced LIE-TECH.) It finances about 90% of all affordable housing developments nationwide. This U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) program was enabled by Congress in the 1990s, was an undisputed bipartisan success and is operated by each state’s housing agency including Maryland’s Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCH).

Tax credits are greatly needed to make the books work, but the problem is that LIHTC is ultra-competitive and extremely limited. In Maryland, DHCD establishes its affordable housing priorities and then developers compete for the tax credits based on how well their project satisfies those priorities. Developers receiving an award use the tax credits to raise capital from investors. Only a handful of Frederick projects have won these tax credits in recent years.

Because a project is not feasible unless it covers 100% of its funding gap, every source of funding matters. A relatively modest local contribution can be the critical investment that makes a project work and allows the community to benefit from a large amount of federal subsidy that would otherwise flow to a different community.

That is why Frederick County and the State of Maryland try to be aggressive when helping affordable housing developers. The county and state often step in with funding options such as:

Waivers or deferrals of impact of fees charged to buyers that meet income requirements for affordable housing purchases from a developer.
Loans from Frederick County’s Housing Initiative Fund’s (HIF) Deferred Loan Program. The purpose of this fund is to provide flexible loans to support affordable housing in Frederick County.
Maryland’s Department of Housing and Community Development’s (DHCD) nearly $24 million in federal funding to provide gap financing to affordable housing projects statewide in the form of HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships American Rescue Plan Program (HOME-ARP).
County guidance in using “rental housing works,” a fund through DHCD providing $3.5 million in gap funding.
The use of some county owned-land for affordable housing projects combined with a federal loan for pre-development costs thereby reducing two key costs.

Other funding possibilities in various stages of discussion and could come online in the future include:

Implementing a Frederick County Rental Registration and Inspection Program to mimic the one Frederick city has in place and using the proceeds for rental assistance and affordable housing projects.
Waiving development fees for housing projects meeting certain income requirements.
Increasing the portion of the County Recordation Tax revenue going into the Housing Initiative Fund, which is then used to support affordable housing projects.
Standardizing the eligibility criteria and process for approval for Frederick County’s tax abatement policy known as Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) for all LIHTC projects.

Even more creative help may be on the way soon.

The Affordable Housing Council recently learned about a push for enabling legislation to allow Frederick County to expand the use of funds under the State of Maryland’s Industrial Development Authorities (IDA) to include affordable housing.

IDA was created long ago to establish an entity that captures future tax growth for an area slated for development and reinvests it. It has been used mostly for industrial parks. It was never intended for affordable housing but could be used for that purpose in the future. Prince George’s County has this authority now.

If enacted, the County Council would create the capturing entity, adopt a project area plan and how the funds can be used in that area. The board of the new entity would then approve specific projects like affordable housing.

Financing for affordable housing projects is intricate and arcane, but the more you know, the better you can help us advocate for creative financing that gets these critical projects off the ground.

NIMBYism is Self-Defeating

By Gary Bennett and Hugh Gordon
Members, Affordable Housing Council of Frederick County

This article appears in the December 2024 issues of the Woodsboro-Walkersville (MD) News Journal, page 5.

NIMBY means “Not In My Back Yard.” It can apply to almost any human endeavor one does not want near them. But, for the purposes of our discussion today, it applies to housing. You are a NIMBY if you push back against any kind of housing initiative in your local area no matter how much sense it might make.

There is no shortage of NIMBYism in Frederick County. For example:

No-growth candidates recently carried the day in Walkersville town elections. Here are some of their comments: “I don’t want to see any more townhouses built.” I don’t want to see any more houses built.” “We don’t need more houses.” And the most pithy: “I’d like to see people come in, spend their money, and leave.” Inexplicably, all this was in addition to comments that the city needs more funding to tackle existing projects, the very thing additional tax revenue from more homes would bring. The irony is hard to ignore.

There’s more: Mount Airy stopped a mixed-use development plan in its tracks due to traffic concerns. Brunswick’s city council sent back to its city staff a proposed zoning ordinance change that would have allowed old buildings to be used for housing. Thurmont residents voted in referendum to disallow annexation of 17 acres of county land to stop a high-density development. We could go on and on.

But reasonable people must ask themselves this: Is it worth it to prevent so many people from having a home of their own so I can have things just the way I want them?

Tired old expressions are used repeatedly: “This new development will change the character of my neighborhood.” “Our town will lose its identity.” “Our way of life is being threatened.”

We are not fooled. What this really means is “I like the way things are now and I’m not going to let anyone else come in and change that.” This is not only selfish but short-sighted.

Why should just the generation that benefitted from the wealth of this country – those like me who built their incomes with access to high-opportunity jobs and reasonable, in-balance housing costs – be able to live in the best neighborhoods, in the best municipalities and prevent others from doing the same?

We’re shooting ourselves in the foot when we push back on all growth. Research has shown that increasing access to affordable housing is the most cost-effective way to reduce childhood poverty and increase economic mobility in America. Children living in stable, affordable homes are much more likely to thrive in school and have greater opportunities to learn inside and outside the classroom and increase their earning potential.

The hard truth is we don’t have enough housing in the county to satisfy demand. That is irrefutable. Experts and politicians from both sides say the same thing.

Ask the 20- and 30-somethings around Frederick County about their housing prospects. You’ll get an earful. Many are starting families and would like to find a starter home, but can’t. We have let them down. Sure, it has always been tough on young families trying to buy that first home, but the housing situation is worse now than it has ever been.

Young people have few options. Millennials are now the largest generation in American history, outpacing the baby-boomers. They are aging into their prime home-buying years with no homes to buy. In a recent survey, fully 55% of adults under age 30 say the lack of affordable housing is a major problem.

Add to the housing shortage the fact that we’re all living longer and hoping to age in place. This causes the turnover of existing homes to slow as well. Many seniors would like to downsize to a smaller home, thereby opening up larger homes to young families, but there is nowhere to downsize to.

The new housing director for Frederick County, Vincent Rogers, sees the problem clearly. “What happens when your adult children want to stay in the area and be close to their families? What happens when you have an elderly parent who can’t afford to stay in the home they are in now? I think it is critical for us to help people understand why increased housing is so important for our entire community.”

There’s nothing to be afraid of. In Frederick County and City (and even in the municipalities), new developments must pass a gauntlet of requirements before they are approved. Either the county or town can support a new development according to its capacity levels or the development must pay its own way. This includes water and sewer, schools, roads, parkland, forest conservation, and parking.

In the Ballenger Creek area of Frederick County (where Gary lives), we have lived it. The Orchard Park at Ballenger Run development in 2019 placed 210 affordable units into the market. He delivers medicine and meals to many of these good folks. Sure, traffic has increased and that took some getting used to, but additional lanes were added to Ballenger Creek Pike and that helped alleviate the problem.

School capacity increased temporarily, too. But the new development also paid for a new elementary school, a beautiful new 4-mile bike and walking path, and additional traffic lanes on Ballenger Creek Pike.

Was all this ideal? Of course not, but you must balance some inconveniences with the clear need for more people to have a home in Frederick County.

So, our plea to you is this: If we want to have a strong, vibrant community that does not stagnate because of the lack of affordable housing, and if we want children, young adults, and seniors to have a chance to live where they love, we must think twice before pushing back every single time a new development appears at our doorstep.

The role of tax credits in affordable housing

By Gary Bennett and Hugh Gordon

This articxe appears in the Opinion section of The Frederick News-Post on Saturday, August 3, 2024.

How do moderately priced dwelling units actually get built in Frederick? The short answer: It’s not easy.

It takes a lot of players coming together to make these units happen. The prices of land, material, labor costs and building fees force developers to concentrate on market rate developments to turn a profit.

All you have to do is drive around Frederick County and see all the “From the $500,000s” signs and $2,500 monthly rent ads to see this is so. Even though city and county ordinances encourage developers to build moderately priced units, many are not built because of fiscal realities.

For the last three decades, when these affordable units do get built, the federally funded low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC, pronounced “Li-tech”) has been the driving force. It is a rare congressional bipartisan success story. It finances about 90% of all affordable developments nationwide.

But these tax credits are limited, and getting one is an uncertain and highly competitive process for developers.

And, the kicker is that counties and municipalities like Frederick have little say in them. Our local governments can sweeten the pot with things like impact fee exemptions, negotiated taxes and deferred loans, but they only hear about these affordable projects when the developer approaches them for a letter of support during the competitive process.

Here’s how LIHTC works:

Federal tax credits are allocated to state housing agencies by a formula based on population. Each state agency, including Maryland’s Department of Housing and Community Development, establishes its affordable housing priorities.

Developers then compete for an award of tax credits based on how well their project satisfies the state’s housing needs.

Developers receiving an award use the tax credits to raise capital from investors. The tax credits are claimed over a 10-year period, but the property must be maintained as affordable housing for a minimum of 15 years.

Units funded by LIHTC must be affordable for people earning no more than 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Rent may not exceed 30% of their income.

What about those making less than 60% of AMI?

That’s a big problem if you believe safe, decent, affordable housing is a basic necessity for everyone like the Affordable Housing Council does. The sad truth is most LIHTC buildings are unaffordable to families with incomes below 60% AMI.

Here’s why:

There are two types of low-income housing tax credits: 4% and 9%. The 9% rate provides more tax credit to the developer, of course, but is ultra-competitive.

Therefore, most affordable units are developed using the 4% credit, which is a “matter of right,” meaning these credits are usually automatically available.

Unfortunately, not as much tax credit for the developers means most low-income developments are not affordable to those with the lowest incomes.

There is a clear need to reconsider how affordable housing is financed in America. Relying on LIHTC is not producing nearly enough units to address the huge deficit of affordable housing.

HUD should adjust rates to ensure that all low-income families can qualify to live in LIHTC buildings.

One way to expand access for very low-income households would be to better coordinate housing vouchers and tax credit projects to help families make up the difference in rent payments.

Frederick’s low-income developments

In recent years, due to efforts by the county’s Division of Housing and the city’s Department of Housing and Human Services, Frederick County and the city of Frederick have attracted a sizable number of affordable rental developments that utilize these tax credits. See the attached chart.

Among a few of the successful older developments not on the chart include Sinclair Way at 350 W. Patrick St., Orchard Park at Ballenger Run at 5234 Black Locust Drive and The Fred on Waverley Drive.

The new Prospect Center campus at the Old State Farm building on Himes Avenue is slated to be mostly affordable units. The plan is for 200 in four years.

The Junction at 511 W. South St. will add roughly 175 units. The Madison at 1724 N. Market St. will add another 60 affordable units.

Frederick County is quite active, but still has a long way to go in providing affordable homes for its residents.

The chart shows a total of about 1,350 affordable units in service now or soon to be. A 2016 housing needs assessment study (scheduled to be updated in 2025) shows a gap of 5,700 units.

To find an affordable home of your own, your best bet is to go to the development’s website and apply or get on a waiting list.

Editor’s note: Gary Bennett is a retired marketing executive. Hugh Gordon is the association executive for the Frederick County Association of Realtors and has decades of experience in the real estate world, including 24 years as a mortgage banker. They are longtime Frederick County residents and members of the Frederick County Affordable Housing Council.