It's a good sign that a new report pointing out significant weaknesses in Maryland's Smart Growth policies is creating a buzz among state legislators and planners. That could make the path smoother for any reforms to make the laws more effective.

The report, published in the latest Journal of the American Planning Association, examines the effectiveness of Priority Funding Areas, established in the late 1990s as tools to encourage growth near existing infrastructure by directing money for roads and other improvements to densely-populated areas. By and large, the report states, PFAs don't work. Statewide, the percentage of single-family homes built within Priority Funding Areas actually went down after the establishment of Smart Growth legislation, from 76 percent to 71 percent. By region, western Maryland showed zero change after the legislation, while central and southern Maryland decreased by 6 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The Eastern Shore actually showed an increase in the percentage of single-family homes built within Priority Funding Areas, from 53 percent to 60 percent.

The report offers several explanations for this trend, including a lack of integration between state and local plans, not enough state spending within the areas to make a significant impact, and the use of existing data, rather than projected criteria, to develop the areas.

What the report doesn't mention, but surely contributed to Smart Growth's ineffectiveness, is that developers seeking approval for subdivisions in rural areas often provide funding to mitigate the impact of the new homes. Developers have effectively been able to supplant the state as a primary source of funding for infrastructure; in exchange, they have been granted development rights in rural areas, contributing to sprawl and all its not-so-pleasant attributes, like long commutes.

Sen. Brian Frosh, a Democrat representing Bethesda who has been active on environmental matters, said the initial Smart Growth bill was useful, but didn't begin to solve broad planning problems, many of which stem from a lack of mass transit linking population centers. Also, when the bill was passed, it had been watered down to the point that it lost much of its effectiveness.

Maryland Department of Planning Secretary Richard E. Hall isn't quite ready to give up on Smart Growth. Members of his staff have been working on a statewide strategy, dubbed Plan Maryland, which would offer a comprehensive, holistic look at growth. The strategy would consist of a central document that covers key programs and maps out how local and state plans relate.

This is a worthwhile exercise, and one that should have taken place before Smart Growth took effect. Still, this type of effort will help address one of the key points of the report — a lack of coordination between state and local policies.

State Del. Stephen Lafferty of Baltimore County, a member of the House Environmental Matters Committee, said that local governments have been too lax in allowing development outside designated growth areas. A planner for Howard County, Lafferty suggested that additional incentives could be offered to developers, such as a fast-track review process for projects within PFAs or reduced processing fees.

"The report is provocative," he said. "It requires us to look at PFAs to ... create systems to allow them to work better."

When it comes to adding new incentives or programs to improve Smart Growth, Hall said Maryland already has many tools to direct growth properly, and those need to be fully evaluated before considering any wholesale changes.

"The bottom line is there's no silver bullet for this stuff," he said. "When you talk about where people want to build houses, that's a sensitive issue."

Smart Growth principles are generally sound, as developing infrastructure around populated areas is more cost-effective. With the landmark legislation more than a decade old, revisiting the details now should help it remain relevant in the years ahead.