When the Inner Harbor fireworks display was cancelled on New Years’ Eve, Baltimore City police commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III admirably decided to join officers patrolling the Bridgeview-Greenlawn neighborhood. He and an aide saw people firing sawed-off shotguns into the air and chased them into a house where the Commish held a suspect at gunpoint and called for backup, safely apprehending two suspects and seizing a small arsenal of weapons.

The story has been reported by the Sun and the Associated Press, and was even picked up by the New York Times! Just one more reason to admire Bealefield, who has presided over the police department as the city sees its lowest homicide rate in two decades.

Posted at 11:42 am
Categories: Uncategorized | No Comments

The Baltimore Sun and the Washington Post have jointly announced that they will begin sharing content on January 1, 2009, allowing each paper to benefit from the other’s expertise and reporting.

It’s a great move for the Sun, which could certainly use the depth in national and international reporting that the Post could offer, and I can imagine that the Post would benefit particularly from leveraging the Sun’s sports and metro reporters (though, as part of the deal, they will not share coverage of Maryland state government or University of Maryland athletics, since the papers are considered competitors in those areas). The downside, of course, is that both newspapers will likely shed more staffers, deemed redundant by the cooperation.

But as newspapers fight for their lives in this digital age, I think cooperation like this will be an important tool. Leaner, more specialized newspapers are likely to be the only ones that will have value as more people get their news from TV and the Internet.

It calls to mind the idea, often floated in media circles, that newspapers in each city will eventually become local correspondents for every newspaper around the country. For example, the Baltimore Sun will report on Baltimore and share its coverage with every local newspaper in America, essentially becoming every paper’s Baltimore correspondent. The Washington Post becomes America’s Washington correspondent, etc. This would allow papers to drastically reduce staff and expenses, while still providing the kind of local coverage, analysis, and commentary that only a local newspaper can provide.

It’s a harsh reality, but it is reality in the changing media landscape. The Sun’s latest move, troubling though it may be for Sun staffers, demonstrates an attempt to adapt to that landscape.

-Evan Serpick

Posted at 12:59 pm
Categories: Uncategorized | No Comments

For the last few weeks, I’ve been enjoying the new mural on the Bank of America branch on the corner of Fleet St. and South Broadway in Fells Point. It’s a beautiful scene which depicts the area’s seafaring traditions, as well as the city’s more modern developments accross the Harbor. (My photo skills are fairly lacking, but in the shadows on the left, high-rise buildings in vibrant colors stand in stark opposition to the rest of the mural.) In a grand piece full of nice touches, I especially like the boy holding a lantern at the bottom, partially blocked in my photo by that SUV. The boy’s lantern is actually a pre-existing light on the building that the artist incorporated into his work. I was intrigued enough, in fact, to track down some information about the artist.

His name is Nelson Rivas, but he goes by the name Cekis. Born in Santiago, Chile in 1976, he points to the political posters in his country during the turbulent 1980s and to Latin America’s vibrant tradition of muralists as inspirations for his art. He has painted murals in Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Valparaiso, Sevilla, Zurich, Hamburg, New York—and now, Baltimore. He is based in Brooklyn. Check out his blog, which includes some photos of the long process of painting the Fells Point mural.

As always, leave a comment or email me with story ideas: sevan@baltimoremagazine.net

Posted at 11:27 am
Categories: Uncategorized | No Comments

We hear that former Congressman Kweisi Mfume might be angling for a job in President-Elect Barack Obama’s administration. Mfume, who represented Maryland’s 7th District in Congress from 1987 to 1997 and has also served on the Baltimore City Council and as President and CEO of the NAACP, worked tirelessly on Obama’s presidential campaign, dating back to the primary season, and is said to be in close contact with the President-Elect’s transition team.

On Sunday, the Examiner mentioned some other local politicos who might be in the running for posts in the Obama Administration, including state Attorney General Doug Gansler, who co-chaired Obama’s Maryland campaign office and once worked as an assistant U.S. attorney for Eric Holder, who Obama tapped to be his Attorney General yesterday. State labor secretary Tom Perez, who is on Obama’s transition team, and Rep. Elijah Cummings, who co-chaired Obama’s Maryland campaign with Gansler, are also mentioned among the locals who might be headed to Washington.

Posted at 10:00 am
Categories: Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Last night, at Metro Gallery on Charles Street, local residents got their first chance to meet with the planners of the Charles North Vision Plan, the vast development project that aims to transform the area north of Penn Station into a cultural, business, and transportation hub.

The Central Baltimore Partnership, a coalition of 31 groups including the mayor’s office, several departments of the city government, JHU, MICA, and the University of Baltimore, hosted the Open House. The standing-room-only crowd of about 200 sampled snacks provided by local restaurants Station North Café and Joe’s Squared Pizza and listened as Joe McNeely, executive director of the Central Baltimore Partnership, presented its Charles North Vision Plan.

The recurring theme of the night was “Slow down!” McNeely and Fred Lazarus, MICA president and chairman of the CBP Board of Directors, felt continually compelled to remind the assembled—many of whom questioned the development’s impact on the surrounding neighborhoods’ current residents and businesses—that the process was in its earliest of stages.

“We’re at the beginning of this, we’re not at the middle or the end,” said Lazarus, and McNeely reminded the assembled that Harbor Place took 30 years from conception to completion (an apt comparison since the same firm, BTA+/Matrix Settles, that designed Harbor Place has drawn up the plans for Charles North).

For now, the CBP is focused on acquiring several specific properties, like the Chesapeake Restaurant and the former Chateau Hotel, and targeting them for development. McNeely said the first 5 to 10 years would be spent building critical mass with individual development projects like these, and that some of the plan’s biggest components, like Asia Town, won’t be completed until the final stages.

He described four “anchors” of the vision:

1. Penn Station and its immediate environs, which, he said could be transformed into a bustling complex of retail shops, hotels, small-footprint residential high-rises, and public space, and utilize robotic parking to add thousands of parking spaces.

2. The corner of North Avenue and Charles Street, which will see a revival and expansion of the North Avenue Market, a renovation of the Parkway Theater and other dilapidated buildings, and become a primary destination for fairs and other events.

3. Further north, the area centered along 20th Street was pictured transformed into Asia Town, with Chinese-style chop shops and an Asian department store. Interestingly, he mentioned that developer Tony Cheng, who will spearhead Asia Town, wants it to be Chinatown, but the CBP is resisting in light of Korean and Indian communities in the area.

4. To the west, a creative/design zone anchored by a MICA studio center, a new design center, and galleries.

Once the question and answer session began, locals pushed for details about how developers would get funding given the current credit crunch (and how much of that funding would come from local sources), if they would provide economic assistance to local residents and businesses, and whether existing arts organizations would be involved in the planning.

Time and time again, Lazarus and McNeely repeated variations on “We don’t know yet.” They repeated their desires to work with all stakeholders in the community, encouraged everyone interested to come to their planning meetings, and to contact them with specific questions, but ultimately said they were at the “vision” stage and did not yet have details on funding or the fate of specific properties.

They did offer one reassurance: Barabara Robinson, state delegate for the 40th District, sat in the front row for the presentation and, afterward, asked if any homeowners would be affected by the CBP’s acquisitions. Lazarus reassured the assembled that all acquisitions are of commercial properties.

Overall, the night included many lofty and laudable ideas and schemes, but we know about the best-laid plans. And so, apparently, does the community. Those who attended the meeting seemed geniunely excited by all the talk, but understandably suspicious. Having been burned by promises before, many seemed content to see if the developers’ actions speak as loudly as their words.

Posted at 5:19 pm
Categories: Charles North, Infrastructure, Public Space | No Comments

Today, city officials will announce details of the Charles North Vision Plan, a grand $1 billion renewal effort that aims to transform a 100-acre area north of Penn Station in central Baltimore into a “cultural crossroads.”

The Sun has many of the details of the project, designed by the same people who brought us Harborplace, here, and the Daily Record has a different perspective here, including some of the potential hurdles developers might face in claiming properties as eminent domain and opposition from local businesses who have been left out of the planning process.

In the coming days, we’ll look into the Vision Plan, talk to city officials, developers, and local residents and businesses, to see what impact it might have on the city.

Please leave comments and questions that we’ll try to address in subsequent posts…

Posted at 9:25 am
Categories: Uncategorized | No Comments

Our latest report on the ongoing saga of Keswick Multi-Care’s proposal to build a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) on green space owned by the Baltimore Country Club in Roland Park continues today with an interview with Keswick CEO Libby Bowerman (pictured standing next to the space in question).

We initally reported on the meeting, two weeks ago today, at Roland Park Elementary School, where Keswick presented it’s plan and faced strong opposition from the Roland Park Civic League, which hosted the meeting, and its hundreds of supporters in attendence. Soon thereafter, we posted an interview with Civic League president Phil Spevak.

In today’s installment, Ms. Bowerman says she considers the Civic League meeting a total failure in terms of dialogue, and suggests the due process demanded by the Mayor and city government to consider the Keswick proposal has not yet begun. She says that despite promises from Councilwomen Sharon Green Middleton and Mary Pat Clarke not to introduce a Planned Unit Development to the Council—as would be required for development to move forward—other Council members have suggested they would introduce it. Further, she says she’s heard from many members of the community who support the Keswick plan and that at least one neighborhood association has invited the Keswick to present it under less hostile conditions. The plan, she insists, is far from dead.

BM: What was your reaction to the Roland Park Civic League-sponsored meeting?

LB: My initial reaction was, as I said at the meeting, real disappointment that there wasn’t any attempt at dialogue. There were dueling Powerpoint presentations. We presented our Powerpoint, there was no time for discussion after that, no time for questions and answers after that, which is the ideal time, if anybody had any questions, to ask them. Then, the Civic League presented their presentation. We understood the meeting was about our—was mainly about us. We didn’t realize that the meeting was going to be predominantly about what the Civic League wanted to present.

BM: What are your thoughts going forward? What are the next steps?

LB: Well, as I said that evening and as I still fully believe, the Mayor and city officials are supporting us to go through a due process, and that due process is not dueling Powerpoints or eye candy, as I think one of the land committee members said. It really is sitting down at a table or sitting in a large hall—however many, it doesn’t matter—and talking about the real details of how we go forward and work together, both with the Civic League, the full Roland Park neighborhood, and more importantly than that, with the city of Baltimore, because this is really a city project.

BM: Among the people at the meeting, the overwhelming sentiment seemed to be that they weren’t interested in this plan. Does that make you think twice about the plan or consider any changes?

LB: I’m still anticipating that we will go through a very long and detailed process. I don’t think that’s begun yet. I still—going back to the dueling Powerpoints—don’t think that we have had a real open exchange process yet and until that happens, I’m very optimistic because that’s what we need to have happen, that’s what the city is expecting, that’s what the Mayor actually requested of both Keswick and the Civic League, that we sit down and talk about the project, not that we present Powerpoints. In my mind, that hasn’t happened yet.

BM: What did you think about the message, which Dr. Spevak read, from the mayor’s representative, who attended the meeting but had to leave early, saying it was clear to him that what needed to take place for due process had taken place? Did you feel like that was not an accurate reflection of what the mayor was thinking?

LB: It’s not an accurate reflection from my conversations with the Mayor, no, because she has been very succinct in stating that discussions needed to take place about the merits of the project. And that didn’t happen.

BM: It seemed to me that people did listen to the Keswick presentation, but just dismissed it, out of hand. They weren’t interested so much in the details—this was a proposal that people were not willing to consider. What details would you like people to consider that weren’t considered that night?

LB: They have yet to tell us anything that they would like to have. Their whole position is that nothing will work on this land. They want nothing.

BM: They want a park.

LB: Well, I don’t know that they want a park. I’m sure the Baltimore City government would be thrilled to put a city park and a city public swimming pool on that property, because it would serve a lot of people in that part of the city and there’s not a public park or a public swimming pool, but I don’t know that that’s what they want. They just say they don’t want anything.

BM: It seemed to me pretty clear that they were saying they want to purchase the land themselves and turn it into a public-use park. That’s what I heard at the meeting. You had a different impression?

LB: I did not hear the public park part. That may be what they said. Yes, they did want to purchase the property, I did hear them say that. Certainly we have a legally-binding contract to purchase the property. It is private property. We have two and a half years, or longer if we need it, in order to fill the contingency of the contract. And, again, I still anticipate that one of these days, we’re going to start this due process. We are trying to follow the request made to us of city government and particularly the Mayor.

BM: What do you think the steps would be of that due process?

LB: First of all, it would require that the Civic League begin to share with us some ideas that they might have that we could consider—modifications, changes to, or uses of some of the property. One of the things about a Planned Unit Devlopment (PUD) is that it gives a great deal of protection to property for a very long time, if not for the entire existence of the property, so to speak. And so the neighborhood and the Civic League have a tremendous opportunity to really get some concessions from us around this property and around this use that will be written right into legislation in the PUD. I’m amazed that they’re not—I’m really quite amazed, in fact— that they’re not actually recognizing that and taking advantage of that.

BM: I think the Civic League is under the impression that, hearing from Councilwoman Sharon Green Middleton and others on the Council, who have said that they will not present a PUD for consideration by the Council, that they don’t need to consider alternatives within the plan. That as long as that PUD is not presented, then this plan cannot go forward at all. Is that an accurate way of thinking about it?

LB: The PUD does have to be introduced by legislation, that is correct. And it is correct that Councilwoman Middleton and, I believe, Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke have said they will not introduce the PUD, however, our own interviews and discussions with other members of the City Council show that there is not that tremendous support against this project. And so, therefore, we are confident that, in time, we will prevail with getting the PUD legislation introduced.

BM: Does it have any bearing that the two Councilwomen who represent this area [Middleton and Clarke] are so strong in their opposition? Councilwoman Middleton said that had received something like 515 emails opposed to the plan and 19 supporting it.

LB: Well, unfortunately, all of the people who have spoken to me haven’t sent 500 emails to any Councilwoman or Councilman, however I have gotten overwhelming positive support and response to the project. There are probably equally as many people who have expressed excitement, enthusiasm, and support of the project, as from the Civic League. For example, the Baltimore Country Club members, 90 percent of those voted to approve the sale of this property, based on the project, not just the sale. And several hundred of those live in Roland Park. Although perhaps they’ve been the more silent majority, they have made themselves known to Keswick.

BM: Why do you think they’ve been more silent?

LB: I think they’re waiting for us to get into a due process that provides them the opportunity to speak in a neutral forum, or in a more balanced forum than perhaps the real emotional one of the Civic League meetings. And, as you know, there were people at that meeting who did come forward and speak in favor of the project, that’s been true in every meeting that we’ve been to. So it’s not that this project is without support.

BM: What kind of forum do you think would be more neutral?

LB: I think a forum that could be sponsored by some senior groups, could be sponsored by some church, perhaps sponsored by our hospital association, our [continuing care retirement community] (CCRC) groups—sponsors that are not the Civic League and are also not Keswick, but that would present an opportunity for us to really talk about the issues. Also, when you talk about a more neutral setting, I think some place that’s maybe more in the city and not that’s either in Keswick’s neighborhood or Roland Park’s neighborhood, some other place where we can have an open discussion.

BM: You’ve mentioned several times taking the discussion more city-wide. Do you think you’d find more support taking the project city-wide?

LB: Any kind of project that is going to provide housing for seniors—and we certainly know, in today’s economic world, that’s going to be an even bigger issue than we had imagined, with baby boomers aging—any kind of project like this located anywhere, but most especially in Baltimore City, is really going to draw from, not only the state of Maryland, but also probably from the east coast region. I’ve worked in a CCRC before. Many people move there to be close to their children, that would be true of this CCRC as well. Yes, it will draw from the immediate neighborhood, yes it will draw from around the city, but it’s not unlike the Lyric or one of the symphony halls because people come there from all over the state and even as visitors. And that would be the same thing as a CCRC. That makes it a very unique kind of program. It attracts not just locally, but also from a broader base.

BM: One of the things that people at the meeting seemed to have the most trouble with was the square footage of development, comparing it to the Legg Mason tower or Mondawmin Mall. What do you say to explain that?

LB: It’s difficult to visualize three-dimensionally what a structure such as your home, my home really looks like if it has three stories and so many square feet, it’s difficult to visualize that kind of a structure versus a commercial one. What we’re proposing is not remotely commercial, it’s very residential. That’s comparing apples and oranges in my mind. It’s hard to compare a very institutional mall with eight houses or ten houses or buildings that have multiple occupancy, like a very small condominium-type structure that has, say, three or four residents in one building. That’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about a high-rise or a Mondawmin Mall.

BM: So for now, what’s next? In a holding pattern?

LB: I’m never in a holding pattern because that doesn’t exactly describe my personality or the way I do my job. We currently are looking at a number of opportunities to talk about the project—I never stop talking about it any place that I am—there are a number of opportunities that are making their presence known to us now. I’ve had a direct contact from another neighborhood association who was very upset about the process and has offered to allow us to come and present our project because they would like to talk about supporting it. We still need to get into the due process with the city officials and with the neighborhoods.

Posted at 11:05 am
Categories: Infrastructure, Public Space, Roland Park | 2 Comments

UPDATE: After I posted my recap of last week’s meeting, I contacted both the Roland Park Civic League and Keswick Multi-Care to try to set up follow-up Q and As. I heard back from Dr. Spevak at the RPCL immediately and conducted the Q and A below. I had not heard back from Keswick until today, October 22nd. Now that we are in touch, I hope to have an interview with Keswick Multi-Care CEO Libby Bowerman some time in the next couple days…

–

After I posted my recap of the Tuesday night’s meeting in Roland Park, where Keswick presented its plan to build a retirement community on land sold to the company by the Baltimore Country Club, I spoke with Dr. Phil Spevak, president of the Roland Park Civic League, who led the meeting and spoke eloquently in opposition to Keswick’s plan.

Dr. Spevak thought the meeting marked a turning point, at which both Keswick and Baltimore Country Club seemed to realize that their plan would not succeed. Besides the community’s near-unanimous opposition, City Council members, including local representative Sharon Green Middleton, signaled they would not introduce the necesary PUD legislation for the product to go forward. That reality was reinforced this morning when City Council president Stephanie Rawlings-Blake sent an e-mail to Roland Park residents, promising, “I have no intention of introducing the PUD. I also know that Councilwoman Middleton has no plans of introducing a PUD or any other legislation to change the current zoning to accommodate the project as proposed.”

With that in mind, I think Dr. Spevak’s thoughts on what happened on Tuesday night and where the community goes from here are especially enlightening.

Baltimore Magazine: How did you think it went Tuesday night?

Dr. Phil Spevak: I thought it was just a tremendous meeting. I was so excited to see the size of the audience, the enthusiasm, it was just such a great sign of a healthy community. I think it showed the near-total opposition of the community to the Keswick plan. It really sent a definitive message to Keswick. It also gave Keswick a full opportunity to talk to the community, which they absolutely were entitled to, and we wanted them to. I thought they had sufficient time, they acknowledged that they had sufficient time and I was very happy that that happened, because we want to be fair to them. But despite that, I think at the end of that presentation there was no doubt that we all think it’s a terrible plan and we don’t want it.

BM: Keswick CEO Libby Bowerman said at the end of the night that she didn’t think people came with an open mind. How do you respond to that?

PS: They’re smart people in Roland Park and Baltimore and [Keswick] told us they provided all the information [before the meeting] and we carefully made that all available to the community. The community had many opportunities to see the material, they saw it in the 12, 13 roundtables that we had, they saw it on the website, so I think, in some sense, intelligent people looked at the information and did think it was a bad project before they came. But I think you could tell by the way people sat and listened—almost nobody made any comments—people absolutely were willing to listen and would have had their minds changed, but there wasn’t anything that would change anyone’s mind in what they did.

BM: Do you feel pretty confident now that, because of the City Council’s stance, the Keswick proposal seems like a dead issue?

PS: Yes, I was really happy to see the definiteness of the council. We’ve had multiple meetings with the Council members and we heard nothing but support for opposing the PUD, but, to hear the definitive statement by Councilperson Middleton, that the entire Council was standing with her was very good news, and I would say that was a very important take-home message of that meeting. I think the PUD is dead. We’re certainly looking to the Mayor, to hear her opinion on this and that’s important, but I’m also optimistic on what she’ll say. She came out and walked around the land with me. We looked at the land, we talked about the Keswick proposal, and I had the opportunity to explain the community’s alternative plan, and she was excited about the community plan.

BM: Ultimately, if the BCC does not want to sell to the community, so it can build a public park, does the community have any recourse?

PS: Yes, but I don’t think that’s gonna happen. I think we can change and get that conversation going. But, to answer your question, it would depend on what that alternative were. If it’s something that would require a zoning change, then it’s just like what we’re in now. If it’s something that doesn’t require a zoning change, then there absolutely would still be opportunities for the community to weigh in. The one that would potentially be most likely to be pursued would be a housing project. The community absolutely has an opportunity on housing development to weigh in on design and setbacks and we’ve had that in other parts of Roland Park, on much smaller sorts of projects.

BM: But they can still go ahead with it, without any approval?

PS: A housing development can go ahead by right, but it doesn’t mean the community doesn’t have any opportunity to weigh in on it.

BM: Did you get a sense that, over the course of the meeting, [BCC President] Mr. Daue seemed to come around to, if not the inevitability of having to look at other options for the property, then certainly that possibility?

PS: I did. I think you’re absolutely right. I felt that from Mr. Daue and I also felt it from Keswick. I think that meeting was a reality check. Both groups, unfortunately, didn’t understand the community when they went ahead with this and they gradually have learned more and more about where the community is, but I think it really was this meeting and seeing the near-universal, just complete rejection of this idea. I think they really got it. And I think that’s the basis for Mr. Daue’s—I believe I heard it—invitation to meet with me, which I would be really happy to do. I also thought Keswick, in their faces and in their words, was also seeing the reality that if they want to go ahead with this kind of project, I felt that they were seeing that it was a waste of time to keep trying to pursue it on this property. It was impossible that they were going to get their PUD and they’d be wasting their time to pursue it.

BM: Did Mr. Daue say anything to you after the meeting that gave you any insight going forward?

PS: The message I heard from Mr. Daue, in the brief opportunity we had to exchange comments makes me optimistic that there could be an opportunity to talk and I really hope that would be possible, because I think there is really an opportunity for both the club and the community to find a solution that they both would see an preferable to where we are.

BM: What are the next steps?

PS: We’re doing a few things. We’re looking to the mayor for her announcement and we’ve let her know that we’ve completed the process that she’s asked us top complete. And I know she knows that because her representatives were there. Second, we’re going to be communicating to our community, first of all that we’re so appreciative of what everyone has done, and then to let them know where we’re heading. It would be good to reflect that while a few of us were up there in front, we have an army behind us and some are visible and some don’t even want to be recognized, and the reason that we were so effective is because of all those people. Just an enormous number of supportive people and we’re gonna communicate that and try to thank people appropriately.

Also, I am going to take up that invitation of Mr. Daue. I was really happy to hear the meeting end in that way. And, as I said my goal is both, protecting zoning and stopping the project, but also to get to the community’s plan and I am going to do whatever I can to try to get a productive dialogue going between the Civic League and the club.

Posted at 1:02 pm
Categories: Infrastructure, Public Space, Roland Park | 1 Comment

On an unseasonably warm October evening, under the harsh fluorescent glare of the Roland Park Elementary School auditorium, hundreds of local residents sat, stood, and sweat last night as they heard Keswick Multi-Care’s proposal to build a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) on land purchased from Baltimore Country Club (BCC). The scene was a bit like the Roman spectacles in which captives were allowed to spar in the Coliseum before being mercilessly fed to the lions. After Roland Park residents were finished with it, the Keswick plan, which needs a Planned Use Development permit (PUD) and the approval of the Mayor and Baltimore City Council to go forward, appeared to be dead in the water, and even the BCC president seemed to be open to alternatives.

After last night, there can be no doubt: Roland Park is nearly unanimous—and fairly rabid—in its opposition to Keswick’s plan. Outside the school, giant banners with slogans like “Kids Like It Green” and “Our History Deserves a Future” filled nearly every square inch of public space as locals filed into the school, almost all of them wearing neon yellow t-shirts—to match the lights?—reading “Neighborhoods Matter!”

Libby Bowerman, chief executive officer of Keswick, started her presentation by introducing Baltimore Country Club president John Daue, who would remain a focal point for much of the evening. He declared that BCC was committed to Roland Park and suggested that 90 percent of BCC’s members had voted in favor of the Keswick plan precisely because it left so much green space, it was designed to fill a need for senior housing in the community and it fit in architecturally with its surroundings. He aroused the first boos of the night with his submission that BCC’s decision to sell to Keswick “wasn’t about the money.” He suggested, as many on the Keswick side did throughout the night, that BCC could build single-family homes on the 17-acre plot of land without City Council approval. “Not to threaten, but we have other alternatives,” he said. More boos and a shout of “Build the houses!” Indeed, it became clear that the community would prefer more single-family housing to Keswick’s plan to build an institution. He dismissed the community’s suggestion that the property be turned into a park—“It’s not going to happen,” he said—but his opposition seemed to wilt by the end of the evening.

Next, the architect who was hired to design the Keswick facility stood up to explain their plans. Likely wondering what the hell he’d gotten himself into, his shaky red laser pointer outlined the planned facility, noting that the planners had taken care to leave as much green space as possible: Of the 17-acre plot, 5 would be developed as the CCRC, 5 more would be landscaped gardens, and 7 would be left completely untouched. Bucolic renderings of the buildings and surroundings showed that, as Mr. Daue suggested, the plans were be consistent with Roland Park’s architecture and leafy environs. Next up, a traffic study was presented that showed little adverse affects from the development, and Bowerman returned to reel off the benefits to the community and city from the Keswick plan: 500 jobs during construction, 158 permanent jobs upon completion, a $500,000 per year payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to the city (since, as a non-profit, Keswick is not required to pay taxes on its health services), and $1.18 million in property taxes beginning in 2015. And with that, Keswick was rushed away from the podium, held close to a 30-minute time limit.

To start the presentation by the Roland Park Civic League—who have organized the community in opposition to the Keswick proposal—RPCL president Dr. Phil Spevak introduced a lawyer from the community. He got the night’s first standing ovation, stating that, unlike other communities, Roland Park wasn’t looking to develop: “Basically, we want to continue on the trust that’s been carried on for the last 100 years,” he said.

Spevak then presented a video called “Roland Park: The Keswick Issue” (DVD copies of which were distributed to all attendees at the close of the evening—these people are nothing if not organized). The video opens with kids running across verdant fields with prosaic music in the background. The music continues as residents sound off on the unique character of Roland Park, designed by Edward Bouton and Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. to be a green oasis within the city.

Next up was a red-meat presentation by Ken Rice, chairman of the Roland Park Community Foundation. He elicited gasps when comparing Keswick’s planned 466,000 square feet of developed space to the Legg Mason tower downtown, which, he suggested, uses only slightly more space, and the Mondawmin Mall, which uses less. He discounted many of Keswick’s claims, suggesting the traffic study was incomplete and that the green space left over after development would be minimal (the manicured gardens would fenced in and only visible to residents “via helicopter”). To drive home his point, he showed a map with a to-scale version of M&T Bank Stadium in place of the Keswick development, insisting it would only take up slightly more space (“and includes a manicured garden right in the middle,” he poked, pointing to the football field.) He further worked the crowd, suggesting that the space could draw $4.4 million in real estate taxes, that the $650,000 entry fee for the CCRC would price out most local seniors, and that if a PUD was granted, the land could be used to build anything, including office buildings or industrial towers.

With the crowd sufficiently frenzied in opposition, the Alternative Land-Use Chair suggested that the community was willing to buy the property and turn it into a public park. Tufaro returned and got a standing ovation when he spoke directly to the Baltimore Country Club: “If you’re willing to sell it to home buyers, who would pay fair market value, sell it to us—we’re prepared to pay fair-market value.” He then showed a proposed funding plan that would include $1.25 to $3 million raised from the community, $4 to $9 million from foundations and land trusts, and $0.5 to $2 million in public funds, that could equal Keswick offer of $12.5 million.

Such an alternative seemed more likely after Councilwoman Sharon Green Middleton, who represents Roland Park, stepped to the podium (receiving another standing ovation) and made absolutely clear that the Baltimore City Council would not approve a Planned Use Development permit (PUD) for Keswick. Wearing a “Keep the Park in Roland Park” t-shirt, she declared “I will not introduce any re-zoning or PUD legislation for this project,” and mentioned that she had received 515 e-mails opposing the plan and just 19 supporting it (including 10 suspiciously received the day before the meeting). “My colleagues 100 percent respect my decision and that includes the president of the City Council.” With no chance of Council approval, the Keswick proposal, it seemed to everyone present, was essentially dead

Spevak read a letter from Councilwoman Mary Pat Clark, who couldn’t attend the meeting, in which she said “I support Councilwoman Middleton in her pledge,” and a message from deputy mayor Andrew Frank, who attended most of the meeting, suggesting “everything that was necessary for due process has occurred” and “the Mayor has all the info she needs” to make a decision.

Once the question and answer session started, community members zeroed in on BCC president John Daue. The first questioner asked why his group would not consider a public park proposal from the community. He initially responded that he was committed to the proposal from Keswick, which whom BCC had a contract, and that 90 percent of the membership approved because they thought it was best for the community. When pressed, he suggested “Our members feel that a public park is not compatible with a private country club.” The candid if somewhat vague explanation echoed the sentiment in a letter Daue sent to the RPCL that was circulated at the meeting: “With it’s uncontrolled access and potential for intensive recreational activities, the Club would not consider a sale for [a public park],” he wrote.

Questioner after questioner pushed Daue on his opposition to the community’s interest in buying the land for a public park, and he continually stated BCC’s commitment to Keswick, which whom they had signed a contract. After Councilwoman Middleton’s speech, the failure of Keswick’s proposal seemed inevitable, and community members’ attention turned to alternative uses for the land. When Keswick CEO Bowerman made it to the microphone, she looked utterly defeated. “I am woefully and sorrowfully disappointed in this meeting tonight,” she said, suggesting that the community did not seem willing to consider their plan. Keswick had brought engineers, traffic experts, architects and others with insight into the plan, in hopes that the company could persuade the assembled that they had the best interests of the community in mind, but it seems, she said, “you aren’t interested in talking.”

Dr. Spevak responded that, after months of reviewing Keswick’s documents and plans, “We’ve come to the conclusion that there isn’t any more talking to do [with Keswick].” Two speakers from the audience did responded favorably to Keswick, one who suggested the community openly consider their plan, with the alternatives in mind, and another, who folks in the crowd identified as a BCC member, who angrily suggested the assembled were “abandoning the elderly” in the community.

Mostly, the questions returned to Daue, who seemed to hold the key to the community’s efforts to turn the property into a public park. They continually acknowledged that it was private property and they wanted to pay fair-market value, to make it financially smart for BCC to sell them the property.

Finally, at the clock approached 10 p.m.—three hours after the meeting opened—a questioner asked Mr. Daue point-blank: “If you cannot go forward with Keswick, will you extend an invitation to Dr. Spevak [to hear RPCL’s proposal for a public park].” Exasperated, Daue stood and said simply “Yes.” He relished one of his few rounds of applause for the night, sat down and said, “Now I’m going home.”

Stay tuned for a Q and A with Roland Park Civic League president Dr. Spevak on next steps. Please suggest questions for him in the comments section….

Posted at 11:38 am
Categories: Infrastructure, Public Space, Roland Park | 3 Comments

Baltimore InnerSpace blog—an excellent resource for analysis of local infrastructure—has an insightful post about the Owings Mills Metro station, the Owings Mills mall, and how poor planning has led to a grossly disconnected community. An excerpt:

“The rail transit station must be the focal point for all of Owings Mills, instead of being just a bunch of big parking lots with big access driveways off of Painters Mill Road. The Owings Mall must not be just a mall, but must be an integrated multi-use development serving all types of activity.

Development of all types should not be isolated into pods, each with their own isolated access points. Eventually, all of Owings Mills must be integrated into a unified whole.”

Among the piece’s many valid grumbles are the monumental inconvenience of the metro station, the ridiculous size of the I-795 interchange (bigger than the mall itself!), the isolation of the Restaurant Park on Red Run Blvd., and the backward-looking choices of the mall’s owners. Luckily, the post also points the way to some development solutions. Check it out…

Posted at 12:04 pm
Categories: Infrastructure, Owings Mills, Transit | No Comments