An Anne Arundel County Council bill aiming to speed commercial and housing redevelopment is facing criticism from the county’s NAACP chapter and others over concerns the plan will exempt certain affluent, predominantly white communities.

Bill 2-25, introduced Jan. 14 on behalf of County Executive Steuart Pittman, is a reboot of a previous bill that failed last year after members disagreed over land use policy.

The bill would encourage redevelopment by streamlining the approval process and relaxing some requirements and land use restrictions to increase commercial and housing density in some areas. The bill has been amended numerous times since its introduction, but two particular changes have caused the local NAACP chapter and Anne Arundel Acting Together, an interfaith alliance, to remove their support.

Amendments four and seven exempt certain areas of the county, efforts NAACP and ACT say are dangerous forms of segregation. ACT Treasurer Linda Hanifin Bonner said the organization strongly supports the bill, but only if the council removes their amendments.

“The actions taken by the council members to do this are both alarming and concerning,” Hanifin Bonner said. “It is denying people the opportunity to have options for affordable housing through good policies. The message received from those actions are clearly NIMBY [Not In My Backyard] and racist and pushing the historic pattern of segregation housing policies that were once in the county.”

The sweeping redevelopment bill would encourage reuse of and improvements to older, vacant and underutilized commercial properties. It is also meant to create additional housing, employment opportunities, access to goods and services and promote conservation of natural resources, according to Janssen Evelyn, the deputy chief administrative officer for the county’s executive branch.

The bill would also encourage redevelopment by streamlining the approval process and relaxing some requirements and land use restrictions to increase density in some areas. Pittman has gone on record saying he prefers the bill be applicable countywide but respects each councilor’s wishes to create exemptions for their districts.

“If individual members of the County Council introduce amendments to exempt corridors in their districts that are currently included in the bill, those amendments will pass if enough of their peers from other districts support them,” Evelyn, speaking on behalf of Pittman, said at a council meeting last month. “I don’t have a vote on the council. Bill 2-25 is a smart tool that some have said should be applied countywide. … My interest is in getting the tool applied broadly.”

On Feb. 18, the two amendments, introduced by council members Amanda Fiedler, an Arnold Republican representing District 5, and Shannon Leadbetter, a Crofton Republican from District 7, passed, exempting portions of each lawmaker’s district.

Both amendments passed by a vote of 4-3. Council member Pete Smith, a Severn Democrat, joined his three Republican colleagues on the council in supporting the amendments.

“Equity is under attack,” Steven Waddy, president of the Anne Arundel NAACP branch, said in his public testimony. “The County Council explicitly rejected an equitable housing policy when it adopted three amendments that exempt the most racially and economically segregated sections of the county from being required to include affordable housing in their redevelopment.”

The lawmakers and representatives from the Pittman administration said the bill does not require any development. Community character is a key principle in the county’s long-range development plan, Plan 2040, meaning any development must reflect the community where it takes place. The bill would not force a redevelopment site to include housing or affect the public school redistricting process.

Council Chair Julie Hummer, a Laurel Democrat, said the vast majority of concerns and testimony about the bill have been valid. But she said some residents have been emboldened to voice their opposition to and prejudice toward the prospect of living among individuals of different financial standing and race.

“I am going to vote based on what I believe is the best option for the current and future needs of the county,” Hummer said. “I am not going to be voting to protect or segregate certain portions of our county because a few people don’t want to live near people who don’t look like them.”

The next hearing for the bill is scheduled for April 7.

Have a news tip? Contact James Matheson at jmatheson@baltsun.com, 443-842-2344 or on X @jamesmatheson__