Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Surplus State Land topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Majority leader proposes using surplus state land for housing and solar leasing

2389992 · February 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 10-61 would require the state to assess surplus land for suitability for housing development and solar leasing. Majority Leader David Moon told the committee the goal is to generate housing and energy capacity on underused state property; county association witnesses supported the concept but raised questions about local collaboration.

Majority Leader David Moon presented House Bill 10-61, proposing that Maryland more aggressively evaluate surplus state land for housing development and solar leasing.

"If we have state land that is not being used, the bill would suggest we should put it to use for housing and energy production," Moon said. He described the bill as requiring targets for housing units and megawatts of energy generation on state land and asked the committee to consider broader housing types beyond exclusively subsidized affordable housing.

Witnesses included Charlotte Fleckenstein of the Maryland Association of Counties, who told the committee the bill asks the state to "assess and determine if any excess land properties in its inventory are suitable for affordable housing or solar development." She said the legislation provides a way for state and local policymakers to work together on housing and clean-energy solutions.

Moon and witnesses discussed existing statutory surplus land inventories and scoring methods from prior bills, and Moon said he wanted to expand suitability scoring to include mixed-income or market-rate development when subsidized affordable housing is not forthcoming. He also acknowledged possible fiscal-note implications and said some changes could reduce or eliminate that impact.

Committee questions focused on local coordination, scoring criteria, and how the state would prioritize affordable housing versus other productive uses. No committee vote was recorded in the hearing; sponsors and stakeholders said they were available to work on technical changes.

Context: supporters argued the bill would convert maintenance-burdening surplus property into productive uses that advance housing supply and climate goals; critics cautioned about local impacts and the need for clear suitability criteria.