|
|
| -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- History On this page we'll post select background information and a few "developments" that concern the Spring Grove issue. There are too many to list all of them, but here we provide some background to anyone who is unfamiliar with the issue (at the end of this page), and selected updates for those who are concerned. September 2, 2010 - On the topic of Campaign Finance Numbers.
The number of dollars candidates raise for their campaign.
The number of people who donate those dollars.
These numbers and other campaign finance information are available via the Maryland Board of Election website, as public information.
(Source of all data listed below: Paul S. Herrnson, P.I., Maryland Elections Center (College Park, MD: Center for American Politics and Citizenship, University of Maryland).
(website: http://www.mdelections.org/campaign-finance/advanced-search/
PART 1.
As of August 17, 2010, how much did our candidates for County Council District 1 raise? And, how many individuals or business entities combined contributed to those funds as of August 17? According to the website mentioned above, here are some figures:
Listed alphabetically:
Brian S. Bailey $34,044 raised from 198 contributions
Rebecca Dongarra $24,565 raised from 93 contributions
Greg Morgan - $60,625 raised from 336 contributions
Tom Quirk $71,762 raised from 293 contributions
Steve Whisler $41,795 raised from 399 contributions
PART 2.
In addition to their own campaign accounts, candidates have access to funds from slates they are on - if they are on a slate. For voters interested in campaign finance questions, slates pose challenges to determining who contributes what to a candidate, because donations via slate contributions are indirect. (see example in parts 3 and 4, below). According to the website listed above,
Brian S. Bailey is not on any slate.
Rebecca Dongarra is not on any slates.
Greg Morgan - is not on any slates. Tom Quirk is a member of the West Baltimore County Slate, which has $77,762
Steve Whisler is a member of the Slate for Fiscal Responsibility, which ha $2,428
PART 3.
These are the "slate mates" for the West Baltimore County Slate as of August 17, and the website shows us how much each Slate mate donated to the slate so far.
Organization Amount contributed Date Received
Baltimore County West Democratic Slate $1,500.00 8/6/2010
Citizens for Adrienne Jones $10,000.00 8/4/2010
Committee to Elect Baltimore County Orphans Court Judges $1,200.00 7/30/2010
Empowering Each Comunity PAC $1,200.00 7/27/2010
Friends for Julie Ensor $1,000.00 7/26/2010
Friends of Shirley Nathan-Pulliam $10,000.00 7/23/2010
Citizens for Delores Kelley $10,000.00 7/21/2010
Committee for Kamenetz $10,000.00 6/19/2010
Friends of Tom Quirk $2,000.00 6/16/2010
Friends of Leronia A. Josey $1,000.00 6/10/2010
Citizens for Adrienne Jones $10,000.00 6/1/2010
Friends of Shirley Nathan-Pulliam $10,000.00 5/20/2010
Citizens for Delores Kelley $10,000.00 5/12/2010
PART 4.
Who made campaign contributions to campaign accounts of these Slate members? Some of those donations are fed to the slate. The campaign finance website lists who contributed to a candidate and the contribution amount. You can search by candidate, or contributor; For example:
In the 2010 Election cycle, County Executive Candidate Kevin Kamenetz, one of the Baltimore County West Democratic Slate Mates, raised over $60,000 on one day, January 13, 2010. Via an advanced search on the website, you can download a spreadsheet that shows who donated on that date. For instance, here are some donations that Mr. Kemenetz received on January 13, 2010, as listed on the website:
Organization Amount contributed Date Received
300 Frederick Road LTD. Partnership $3,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
403 Frederick Road LTD. Partnership $3,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Auto Properties II, LLC $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Bear Home Improvement, Inc. $100.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Benfield Corporate Park, LLC $4,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Chadwick Manor, LLC $2,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Cherry Branch, LLC $4,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
CVP - Security Boulevard $2,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Financial Licensing Co. Three, LLC $3,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Gwynn Mill Joint Venture LLC $2,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Hampton Roads Acceptance Company $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Heritage Chevrolet Buick $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Heritage Chrysler-Jeep $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Heritage Dodge/Jeep/Chrysler $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Heritage Honda $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Heritage Mazda $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Heritage Subaru Volkswagen $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
HRAL, LLC $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
J.K. ELM, Inc. $500.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
KB of Baltimore, Inc. $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
KCI Technologies, Inc. $500.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Key Highway Investments, LLP $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Koros Inc. $500.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
License Finance Company Two, LLC $3,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Marsden Enterprises Inc. $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Merritt - 038, LLC $2,500.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Mile One Holdings, Inc. $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Minebank LLP $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
One Forty Center LLC $4,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Patapsco Avenue LLC $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
PRO-BEV License Company Four, LLC $3,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Republic Services, Inc. $2,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Resource Technologies, Inc. $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
SBF Capital, LLC 1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Schlachman, Belsky & Weiner, P.A. $250.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Snyder Home Services, Inc. $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
The Mt. Wilson Partnership, LLP $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
The Range at Red Run $2,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Timanus Lane Partnership, LLP $2,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Valley Village Associates, LLP $3,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Whalen Properties LLC, Catonsville Series XV $3,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Whalen Properties LLC, Dorsey, Series XIV $3,500.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Whalen Properties LTD Partnership, Columbia Series VII $3,500.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Whalen Properties LTD Partnership, Easton, Series II $3,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
Worthington C.C. LLC $4,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity
YOFA, LLC $1,000.00 1/13/2010Business Entity [Remember, these donations are only from one day!]
Funds from a candidate's personal campaign account can be put into a slate (shared) account, and via the slate funds are allocated to another candidate on the slate. That's what happens any time a candidate receives more slate funds than he or she puts in. And, that is why its difficult to know, just from looking at a Candidate's personal account, everyone who supported their campaign.
Here is a link to an article about slates (albeit, the article deals with another Maryland County, but the principles and campaign laws are the same)...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/24/AR2010032400408.html
And a quote from that article"
"On its face, the law restricts contributions (made) to council members -- who vote on development issues -- and the county executive from developers with projects awaiting county approval.
But the law includes a clause that makes contributions to slates permissible, a loophole that critics say rendered (the law) toothless .... In the years since (the law was passed), county officials have formed slates that have legally taken thousands of dollars from developers every year, and this election cycle is no exception."
Potentially relevant to the Spring Grove Issue, note that ON THIS DAY ALONE, Whalen Properties made a total donation of $13,000 to Kevin Kamenetz. (In contrast, the website records do not show any 2010 donations from that developer to Candidate Joseph Bartenfelder). Posted by Michele Mazzocco --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 2, 2010 - Who's running for County Council Person in District One? Some folks are asking us about the upcoming elections. In our Baltimore County District (One), we have an outgoing County Council person (Sam Moxley). Five candidates seek that Council Seat. The Candidates for County Council include FOUR Democrats and ONE Republican.
The four democrats will face each other at the Primary Election in September. If you are registered as a Democrat, you can vote for ONE of these during the Primary election in September (presented in alphabetical order): Brian S. Bailey, Rebecca Dongarra, Greg Morgan, and Tom Quirk. The winner of the primary will face the one Republican candidate, Steve Whisler, during the General Election in November. Could the councilperson have a role in determining Spring Grove's future? YES!
Sam Moxley expressed support of the Promenade to Governor O'Malley. Our new council person will hopefully speak on behalf of his or her constituents' positions and on the actual needs of the greater District 1 community. When a State land use or land sale decision involves a very local issue, the members of the Maryland State Board of Public Works (the Governor, Treasurer, and Comptroller) often turn to local elected officials for input. In fact, when members of the Catonsville Voices Board met with staffers of a member of the Board of Public works, we were told that our State delegates and county council person would be asked for input on a decision concerning Spring Grove. So, what do the candidates have to say about Spring Grove's future? We've been asked by some members of our email list about each candidate's position on the Spring Grove issue. Well, that question was posed to the four democratic candidates during the Democrat Candidate Forum held at the Catonsville High School. When students at Catonsville High School asked the four democratic candidates, “What is your position on the proposed development at Spring Grove?” here are the candidate's responses:
a) Brian S. Bailey was the first one asked to answer this question.
"As someone who does a lot of shopping elsewhere outside of where I live here in Southwest Baltimore County, and as someone who attended and graduated from UMBC, it is my belief that an additional area that will promote development with expanded retail opportunities is not something that we as a community should shun without thorough and sincere consideration.” We need to be very careful about how we use any space which could be deemed surplus by the State of Maryland…we should attempt to preserve, renovate, and repurpose some of the existing buildings if possible. My biggest priority as it relates to the Spring Grove campus is the construction of a new, state-of-the-art, secure facility. Having the Spring Grove Hospital Center and the affiliated organizations here in Southwest Baltimore County is a true benefit to the local economy…technical, professional, well-paying jobs. The healthcare community is the largest employer in the Catonsville area. Should there be land available following the construction of said new hospital, there needs to be a process by which the surrounding communities and region can have input into what that land should be used for.
[As of June, 2010, Brian Bailey HAS NOT signed the Catonsville Voices petition to Protect Spring Grove.]
[Brian Bailey has not written to the Editor of the Catonsville Times about the Spring Grove issue (pro or con). ]
For more info on Bailey, see www.BrianSBailey.com
b) Tom Quirk answered the second.
Quirk first gave a brief history of Spring Grove, and commented that currently we do know how much or if any land will be declared surplus. He stated that his three priorities, should land be surplused at Spring Grove are 1) ball fields and open space, if a small amound of land - like maybe ten acres - is declared surplus; if more land is declared surplus, then 2) UMBC, as an economic engine in the district, should be given consideration to expand its research facilities. 3) if enough land is surplused, then mixed use development “makes a lot of sense”, and would benefit the community by meeting local commercial needs. He specified that he'd like to see something like a Barnes and Noble book store, and a Wegman’s or Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods, a hotel, etc., at Spring Grove. Quirk referred to the 2006 Spring Grove Task force and stated that as councilman he would assemble a committee to make recommendations.
[As of June, 2010, Tom Quirk HAS NOT signed the Catonsville Voices petition to protect Spring Grove. ]
[Tom Quirk DID write a letter in strong support of the Promenade, which he submitted to the Editor of the Catonsville Times, and which was published August 1, 2007]
http://www.explorebaltimorecounty.com/opinion/6008368/letters/ For more info on Tom Quirk, visit http://votetomquirk.com/
c) Greg Morgan was the third of the four candidates to respond.
“Well I guess I’ll be the first one to answer the question. I do not support the project, and I support the process even less. If UMBC needs 6 to 8 more buildings, and if UMBC says it needs a hotel, move the police department to Spring Grove, and put a hotel at UMBC. In fact, I think the court house should be moved to Spring Grove. We should focus efforts for Spring Grove on the hospital that is already there, and opportunities for Rec and Parks. We need to revitalize aging areas. I was here and saw what happened to Westview Mall when Security Mall was built, and saw what happened to Security Mall when Columbia Mall was built; And now, there is a substantial commercial vacancy rate of 25% in the Whitehead Road Business/Office area and (lots of) vacancy along the Hollins Ferry Road Industrial area in Lansdowne and along Route 40. We should focus on revitalizing that, and if we build anything new at all, all we would be doing is redistributing jobs and retail. “If I’m elected, I’m going to listen to the people, and most of what I’m hearing is that the people do not want it (the Promenade).”
[Greg Morgan HAS signed the Catonsville Voices petition to Protect Spring Grove.]
[Greg Morgan has not written to the Editor of the Catonsville Times about this issue (pro or con).]
For more information about Greg Morgan, visit see http://www.votegregmorgan.com/ d) The final response came from Rebecca Dongarra.
“The Promenade is a symptom of the process. The process is upside down. Instead of the community leading ideas, we have developers leading the process. Spring Grove should be targeted for open space. The Southwest region of Baltimore County is way below the recommended levels of open space per capita. Recently, (there was a bill proposed in the State Legislature) that would make it easier for a commercial developer to develop Spring Grove), and I was the only candidate to testify in opposition to this bill. “Do we need the Promenade? Absolutely not.”
[Rebecca Dongarra HAS signed the Catonsville Voices petition to Protect Spring Grove.]
[Rebecca Dongarra has not written to the Editor of the Catonsville Times about this issue (pro or con). ]
For more information about Rebecca Dongarra, visit http://www.peopleforrebecca.com Posted by Michele Mazzocco April, 2010 The "Promenade Bill" (as staffers who took calls from dozens of constituents referred to it) passed the Senate floor before the General Assembly closed up shop for the year. So much for representation of "the people." March 30, 2010 The "Promenade Bill" (as staffers who took our calls referred to it) passed the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee Testimony in SUPPORT of the bill was presented by UMBC and the Greater Catonsville Area Chamber of Commerce (presented by George Brookhart). Testimony AGAINST the bill was submitted by 1000 Friends of Maryland, Catonsville Voices, the Central Maryland Transportation Alliance, and Rebecca Dongarra. March 24, 2010 The "Promenade Bill" (as staffers who took calls from dozens of constituents referred to it) passed the House Floor this week, and moved on to the State Senate, where staffers took dozens of calls in opposition to the Bill. Posted by Michele Mazzocco March 18, 2010 The "Promenade Bill" (as staffers who took our calls referred to it) passed the House Ways and Means Committee. Testimony in SUPPORT of the bill was presented by UMBC and the Greater Catonsville Area Chamber of Commerce (presented by George Brookhart). Testimony AGAINST the bill was presented by 1000 Friends of Maryland, Catonsville Voices, and Rebecca Dongarra. Posted by Michele Mazzocco Thursday, March 18, 2010 As you make your final March Madness bracket selections, note that HB1161 has been referred to the House Ways and Means Revenue subcommittee. Delegate Kumar Barve is the Chair of this committee. kumar.barve@house.state.md.us For more info on House Bill 1161 (HB1161), entitled “Tax Increment Financing and Special Taxing Districts - State Hospital Redevelopment,” see blog entries below. Posted by Michele Mazzocco Wednesday, March 17, 2010 Catonsville Times has published our letter on HB1161 http://www.explorebaltimorecounty.com/news/105161/proposal-would-make-taxpayers-pay-development-spring-grove/ Thursday, March 11, 2010
ANNAPOLIS. At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing today, testimony was presented in support of proposed legislation that would apply tools developed for "smart growth" transit oriented development zones to private commercial ventures on State Hospital property. This bill, House Bill 1161, entitled, "Tax Increment Financing and Special Taxing Districts- State Hospital Redevelopment," is sponsored by District 10 Delegate Adrienne Jones, with Delegates Burns and Nathan-Pulliam as co-sponsors. Seated beside sponsor Delegate Jones, a representative of UMBC and George Brookhart of the Catonsville Chamber of Commerce testified in support of this bill. Steve Whalen was in the audience. Representatives of Catonsville Voices testified in opposition to this bill. Our testimony made reference to your signatures on the our petition to protect Spring Grove from high density development. As stated in the closing of our testimony, "HB1161 would not only provide a mechanism to bring high density development to Spring Grove, but it would rely on public dollars to do so. In other words, we’d get to pay for unwise development that we don’t want...!" Posted by Michele Mazzocco
Saturday, March 3, 2010
Transit Oriented Development (Smart Growth)- Has the District 10 Delegation Capitulated to Developers? Environmental Maryland recently posted a useful reminder about a simple smart growth principle called “transit oriented development.” In this context, “ transit” refers to public transportation including trains, buses, and light rail. Building neighborhoods and business zones around such infrastructure is an obvious way to add to our commuting, shopping, and recreational opportunities and convenience without increasing automobile traffic. It also reduces our transportation costs overall, and it decreases our aggregate use of fossil fuels. Transportation hubs in our region that should be the focus of such development efforts include the Light Rail to Security Square Mall, the Halethorpe MARC Train Station on Route 1, and bus transportation lines along Routes 40 and 144. Spring Grove, notably, is not part of such smart growth planning- if high density plans proceed there the individual automobile would be the king. Having spotted this reminder about basic smart growth principals, I am impressed and concerned by legislation now under consideration by Maryland’s General Assembly, House Bill 1161 (HB1161), entitled “Tax Increment Financing and Special Taxing Districts - State Hospital Redevelopment.” This bill was introduced on February 17, 2010, sponsored by the three delegates from District 10 (Jones, Burns, and Nathan-Pulliam) , one from Baltimore City (Hammen), and the Speaker Michael Busch from Disctrict 30 (vicinity Anne Arundel region). On the face of it, this bill has the reasonable goal of providing state subsidized financial incentives for State Hospital Redevelopment, appending these venues to existing provisions for transit oriented zones. However, adding "State Hospital," per se, is concerning. It would be one thing if this bill advocated for the use of state subsidies to encourage the enhancement of truly public resources such as parks, or of historic adaptive re-uses of some of the superb old buildings that can be found on our aging State Hospitals. The language, however, is far broader than that. Here it is: (5) “‘STATE HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT’ MEANS ANY COMBINATION OF PRIVATE OR PUBLIC COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, OR RECREATIONAL USES, IMPROVEMENTS, AND FACILITIES…” Note the use of the words “any…private…commercial” and it is not hard to imagine that for-profit developers will be encouraged by this legislation, encouraged by the public resources that would be used to facilitate a move forward on projects such as the high-density building proposed at Spring Grove. Indeed, given that this bill is sponsored by all three delegates from District 10 which includes Spring Grove, it appears these delegates are signaling their support for high density development on this property. I hope I am wrong, but I fear I am not because the coincidence is too great. Of course, if I am incorrect, it would be easy enough for the sponsors of this bill to revise it so that tax incentives for state owned Hosptial land be tailored in favor of recreational, open space, and historic preservation uses only —uses that not only enhance quality of life for those in urban and suburban regions in particular, but for all Marylanders, by encouraging smart growth that has minimal impact on the Chesapeake Bay water shed and our natural environment more broadly. I’d be delighted to see such changes to HB1161, but as it stands presently it seems quite plausible that this legislation is a presage of high-density development on Spring Grove (and other State owned grounds) that erases precious open/green spaces in already high-density zones of Maryland, and further underwrites private development efforts with public resources including real property, state subsidies, and tax breaks. While it may be reasonable to publicly subsidize the redevelopment of transit-oriented zones, as the bill is written, the addition of private development of State Hospitals is counter-productive and may furthermore represent a stealth effort by law-makers-especially in District 10- to placate 'big box' development. Posted by Michael Abrams see for a link to HB1161 click here http://mlis.state.md.us/2010rs/bills/hb/hb1161f.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CURRENT FACTS - As of 2010 The Spring Grove land has not even been declared 'surplus' yet - so, it is not even for sale! The developer who wants 30 acres of the campus is trying to buy the property, even though it is not for sale. If you are concerned about the threat of high density development (some ten+-story buildings along a one-mile-long development in the heart of Catonsville, contact your State and County officials to inform them that you do not support the sale of Spring Grove State land for the purpose of high density development. Discussions between the developer and State and County politicians have continued for years, despite the fact that the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene do not have current plans to surplus land at the Spring Grove Hospital Campus. Even if it were to surplus land, why are there not more transparent discussions of what outcomes would be best for the Hospital Center and for the Catonsville community? MARCH 2010 LETTER TO THE CATONSVILLE TIMES Proposal would make taxpayers pay for development at Spring GroveLetter to the editorPosted 3/17/10On March 11, the House Ways and Means Committee in Annapolis heard testimony on House Bill 1161, entitled "Tax Increment Financing and Special Taxing Districts -- State Hospital Redevelopment." This bill proposed that tools originally developed to generate public funding for "smart growth" infrastructure in transit oriented development zones be applied to private commercial ventures on state hospital property and on property that is "adjacent or reasonably proximate" to state hospital property. Moreover, the bill appears to be designed to cater to a single developer who happened to be present at the hearing. The bill sponsor is District 10 Del. Adrienne Jones, with District 10 Dels. Emmett Burns Jr. and Shirley Nathan-Pulliam as co-sponsors. The developer hopes to acquire 30 acres of the Spring Grove Hospital Center property to build a 1.4 million square foot multi-use high density development, adjacent to this functioning state hospital. The hospital is within the District 10 boundaries. The proposed development has widespread community opposition that continues to be ignored by many of our elected officials. This bill could very well be the means by which this proposed high density development on Spring Grove comes to fruition. Moreover, it could set a dangerous precedent for the redevelopment of state hospitals and possibly other state-held lands throughout Maryland. Testifying in support of this bill, seated next to Del. Jones, were three individuals, including George Brookhart, the president of the Greater Catonsville Chamber of Commerce. Representatives of Catonsville Voices testified in opposition to this bill, making reference to the hundreds of signatures on our petition to protect Spring Grove. We opposed HB1161 because it would provide a mechanism to bring high density development to Spring Grove via public dollars. In other words, we'd get to pay for unwise development that we don't even want! We learned only recently that this bill was being heard, and the news did not come from an elected official. I know of several individuals, myself included, who recently contacted our elected officials for updates on threats of high density development on the Spring Grove property. None of the delegates we contacted mentioned HB1161. How about a little more transparency in government? Michele Mazzocco Catonsville Voices NOVEMBER 2009 A reporter for the Catonsville Times has begun a multipart series on Spring Grove Hospital Center. See the article from the Catonsville Times, November 18, 2009 We are pleased to see attention being devoted to this issue, to promote transparency. Still, we were disappointed by the omission of the citizens among other referenced stakeholders (the Governor, county officials, and private developer promoting high density development at Spring Grove). The Spring Grove property belongs to the people and thus should be evaluated for its best use moving forward. It offers a unique opportunity to imprint a community vision for its use. In public forums and by the numerous signs appearing all around the greater Catonsville area, it is clear that the citizen voice is chiming in -- as it should and must. We have submitted a letter to the editor and will update this site to include the link to it, if it is published. We sent a copy of that letter to our email group. In our letter, we cite that previous master plans for Spring Grove have acknowledged that it is a community gem that should be protected. Thousands of Catonsville area citizens agree. PART II http://www.explorebaltimorecounty.com/news/103127/spring-grove-development-discussed-years/ "Part II" Part II appears in the Catonsville Times for the week of November 25, 2009. These are important articles that we urge you to read, and read carefully when you have time, to become and stay alert about the issues.
Note that, in this second article, the reporter refers to master plans that were actually completed by trained professional evaluators. We are pleased to see that he has studied these plans and is reporting recommendations that "mainly called for continued present use of the property with dedication of a portion of the site for open space or park or active recreation use."
The article goes on to report that Executive Smith refers to a smaller, far less comprehensive, and more biased Task Force Report of 2006 as "the proper county document ... to reference when considering the future of Spring Grove," essentially trumping the more professionally completed evaluations with this county initiaed "study" of State land and State agency needs. This "2006 Spring Grove Task Force Report" is one that we expressed serious concerns when it was first developed. BACKGROUND ON 2006 REPORT AND FOLLOW UP: There is a long history to this 2006 report, which is beyond the scope of this summary, but for starters, a copy of the Task Force report is at this link: And a sample of the "Letters to the Editor" sent in response to this task force report (From May - to June 2006 issues of the Catonsville Times) appear below. (these are just a few from the Times' website. Many were published that spring and summer of 2006, when the proposed Promenade was even 'smaller' than it is now (Whalen was asking for about 12 to 19 acres, and is now asking for 30 acres) Catonsville Times May 26, 2006 Catonsville needs open space, not high-density development I'm very worried about the fate of the Spring Grove property ("Spring Grove ideas multiply," The Jeffersonian, May 18). I've attended several meetings of the task force, including the most recent working session; thus I am privy to the recommendations they are likely to issue in the next few weeks. Central among them will likely be an aggressive call for fast-track approval of a high-density development that will include a hotel, expensive condominiums, several large stores and restaurants, and something on the order of many hundreds of parking spaces. Indeed, it was breathtaking to me that the task force so quickly converged on endorsing this development without so much as a single voice rising in favor (or even in exploration) of maximizing open space and historic preservation at Spring Grove. To me, this seems not only short-sighted but also at tremendous odds with what many in the Catonsville and surrounding communities really want. I speculate that, if this development comes, it will create a mega-mall zone that is not only incongruent with our desired surroundings but, furthermore, one that needlessly distracts our attention from the challenges of maintaining and improving the old town districts that pepper our region with the interesting and nurturing places that we call home. Michael Abrams Catonsville Task force seems closed to suggestion for open space In the April 5 (2006) issue of the Catonsville Times, Marcia Ames reported on the initial community input meeting for the Spring Grove task force ("View of Spring Grove focus of discussion") Her report reflected that "a number of people asked that open space be maintained or converted to low- impact uses that would not increase traffic or destroy the bucolic setting." This report is an accurate representation of the meeting in which I participated and that I observed in its entirety. I, too, spoke in favor of maximizing open space, reflecting a desire to avoid high density commercial-residential development. More recently, at the final May 18 meeting of the task force committee, I was surprised by how little impact the community input had on the draft of the committee's report to the governor. First, the community input is being only partially considered because members of the task force themselves were able to put forth suggestions, based on their individual opinions (that were remarkably similar to one another's), sometimes "voting" for suggestions that received relatively few nominations from members of the community (including one suggestion that not one community member had raised). Second, I learned that, despite the fact that the suggestions that won the majority number of nominations were those for open space and park land, the task force interpreted this nomination as an idea to co-occur with high density commercial and residential housing that will bring thousands of cars per day to the current Spring Grove site, hardly the "low impact uses that would not increase traffic or destroy the bucolic setting." Whether deliberate or an artifact of the process to state positively and not negatively, the result is that the sentiments of the majority of the community have not been registered. As Ames reported, the task force committee "has until June 1 to collect public input and make recommendations to (County Executive Jim) Smith, who has said he wants to have a community consensus should the state declare the ... property ... surplus." If you spoke up in favor of open space as an alternative to high density development, you should be aware that your nomination has been misinterpreted as a patch of green amidst high density development that, if carried out, could potentially include mixed-use buildings, including 10-story structures for housing offices, condominiums, large retail and entertainment facilities, hotels, and lots and lots of cars without well-conceived plans for how those cars can efficiently leave the grounds we now call Spring Grove. I am concerned that the "community" and "consensus" components of the process will not reach the county executive and the governor. Michele Mazzocco Catonsville [Catonsville Times 6/30/06] Time for local residents to step forward and say stop I would like to preface this by saying I have been a Maryland resident for 35 years and have lived in Catonsville my whole life. My family has been here since 1913. I have watched the current development situation for the last year and a half. I have attended the various proposal meetings and have expressed my concerns. It seems to me that the largest voice of the community, the residents, is being completely ignored for the sake of the dollar. Catonsville does not need any more houses, restaurants or, for that matter, residents. We do need all the current open space we have and better traffic control systems. The residents of this community have to stand up for what they believe in. I'm in and around Catonsville almost every day and have yet to run into one person who thinks more houses or Promenades are the answer. Developers will use every means possible to get what they want. I suggest that the residents take the same approach or, one day, we will wake up and Patapsco State Park will be a mini mall. Nathaniel O'Keeffe Catonsville Links to these and other letters are at: http://www.explorebaltimorecounty.com/news/6086656/your-words/ [first two letters on this link] And a related article published online on May 31, 2006 http://www.explorebaltimorecounty.com/news/6040907/study-spring-grove-entrance-first-step/ And just a sampling of more letters to the editor (Please send us a link to your letters if you'd like them to be included) http://www.explorebaltimorecounty.com/opinion/6006400/letters/ [second and third letters]
| |
| [Brief earlier history: June 15, 2007 Michael and Michele form a group they call Catonsville Voices, after hundreds sign the petition they took to the streets (see About Us). July 6, 2007 The Baltimore Sun wrote an article about the proposed development at Spring Grove and the opposition to this development. ] Sorry, but the link to that article is no longer active...] For more information, see About Us, and the Spring Grove Issue pages. Within the next several years....... We spoke with several neighborhood associations about the concern, and other neighborhood associations started to host meetings also voicing their concerns. After attending one of them, we joined forces with the President of the Golf Course Acres neighborhood association to hold a community wide meeting. The aims of the meeting were to inform the public, and provide an opportunity to share concerns. A community-wide meeting was held to inform the community about the proposed plans. There were two presenters. The first one (Laura) had attended a meeting by the developer, and the other had attended more than six. So, the claim that the opposition is uninformed about the proposed development simply is incorrect. Over 200 people attended this meeting, despite the fact that we had less than a week to advertise the meeting! Most in attendance were opposed to the proposed development. Some background: As of fall 2009, the developer had made at least 23 of his presentation to groups such as neighborhood associations, and countless individual meetings with community members who wish to learn more about the development. This is great, because it provides the public with a chance to learn about the scope and nature of the project. However, it does not provide the public with an opportunity to hear a balanced view. We want to make sure citizens have information from the developer's perspective and from the perspective of those who do not have a financial or other personal interest in the proposed development. As of July 2009, Catonsville Voices has been invited to present at several neighborhood association meetings as well. Feel free to contact us if you'd like a member of our Board, or another community volunteer, to present to your community group. A brief summary of the meeting is as follows: The first presenter, Laura, gave an overview about the proposed development. Laura is the President of the Golf Park Acres Neighborhood Association. The information she presented was gathered directly from the developer advocating for a proposed development at Spring Grove, when he presented at a meeting of her community association. Additional information came from emails sent by the developer, to her, in response to concerns she had emailed to our elected officials. The elected official she had contacted sent Laura's letter directly to the developer, for him to respond to those concerns. Laura presented her concerns to the audience, which include the increased traffic that the development would bring to the area, school overcrowding, the viability of the 'upscale' development, and the developer's wish to "bring an urban feel" to Catonsville - something many in Catonsville oppose. Note that Laura had presented a nearly identical overview at a smaller meeting for her association and Hidden Bluffs. During that smaller meeting, at which the developer's son was present, she confirmed the accuracy of her summary of the proposed development. Here is a brief summary of the proposed development: The developer owns ~ 17 acres on which he had proposed to build a smaller version of a development. He now is approaching the State of Maryland with a request that they surplus and sell to him 29 acres of Beltway frontage that currently is owned and occupied by the functioning --and at capacity --Spring Grove State Hospital. The result would be a one-mile long multi-use development that would include at least one 13 story building (the latest plans we have seen presented by the developer include an office building and a hotel/condo building). The development would include ~250 condominiums, restaurants, hotels, bars, movie theatre, indoor recreation facilities, offices, and retail including up to four large anchor stores. The developer has reported being in discussion withTarget; however, since the developer does not own the land, no commitments have been made by either party. The total square footage of this project, 1.4 million square feet, is the same square footage of Arundel Mills Mall. This vertically integrated facilty would not have the same footprint as Arundel Mills, but it would draw the crowds and traffic associated with 1.4 million square feet of development. The initial, and most recently presented plans called for one 12-14 story office building and one 12-14 story hotel/condo. More recently the developer stated that the development would include one to two high rise buildings.
The developer claims that the project would be 'upscale', yet he also claims one of the benefits as providing shopping and entertainment for UMBC students. So far the only business he claims has expressed any interest is Target, but no commitments have been made. Here is a summary of the alternatives discussed at the meeting, and that are advocated by Catonsville Voices and over 1,000 Catonsville residents who have signed our petition: Following the first presenter's overview of the traffic concerns and other issues, Michele presented information on alternative solutions. Michele is Director of Catonsville Voices, and the information she presented came from data she had collected since she and Michael formed Catonsville Voices in 2007. Michele, Michael, and other community volunteers had taken a door-to-door petition to the streets in the spring and summer of 2007, which is how they learned of the widespread community concern about the proposed development. Michele highlighted that there are two overarching possibilities: Either the state land is sold to Whalen Properties, or it is not. For land to be sold, the State of Maryland must first declare the land "surplus," or excess land. That has not happened yet, and there is no guarantee that it will. [Michele emphasised that this is an issue on which where your voice can make a difference - let your state elected officials know how you feel about the potential sale of state owned land for the purpose of high density largely commercial development!] REGARDLESS of whether the land is declared surplus, an alternative to achieving the additional restaurants and other "benefits" of the proposed development is to support improvement of main streets (Catonsville, Paradise, Arbutus) and to improve Rt 40 business corridor. Michele summarized that any additional commercial needs (if they are truly needs) can be targeted for existing business areas. She cited examples of how these improvements have already begun, and that if Catonsville wants big box stores such as Target, those should be built at existing business corriders - like Rt 40, etc. Why target a functioning, successful, and historic human services campus for high density development? Michele showed photographs of the Spring Grove property, including historic buildings on the campus - many of which are on this website. IF any land were to be declared surplus at Spring Grove, a greater need for the Catonsville area is open space/a community park. Now, the developer comments that a mental health campus is not an appropriate location for a park. I guess he things bars, shops, hotels, and condos are more appropriate? We advocate for development that is consistent with the mission of the existing academic and human services campus, and development that preservest the history of the campus. Folks often argue about 'where the money will come from.' Michele showed examples of recent projects in the Baltimore area where the State and County (or City) governments joined forces to develop a park (meadowood park in Baltimore County) or to preserve a historic structure - see the links for more info | | December 3, 2008 The Catonsville Times ran a story on this meeting. It appeared in the December 3 issue, Page 1. December 5, 2008 Three of us who were involved in the meeting wrote a letter to the Editor of the Catonsville Times, to thank them for the story and to clarify some of the information that appeared in the story. December 10, 2008 The Times published our letter, which we appreciate. In our letter, the Times' Editor inserted notes that included responses from Mr. Whalen. Here is the link check it out! December 17, 2008 We submitted a letter to the Times to counter the editor's action ofinserting misleading comments in our letter of December 10. Atlhough our letter was not published, others who expressed concern for this practice had their letter published this week.
NOTE: our letter was published on December 23, 2008 February 4, 2009 An article appeared in the Catonsville Times about our PromeNOT signs. February 24, 2009 An article appeared in the UMBC Retriever, reflecting the controversy over the proposed development. March 13, 2009A story similar to our Catonsville community's issue: Roland Park faced developers who proposed a large development on 17 acres of what is now Baltimore Country Club land. The development would bring jobs and tax benefits to Baltimore City (Sound familiar? here is an article that promotes the 'benefits'). http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2008/08/11/daily27.html?ana=from_rssBut after hanging tight, keeping their eyes on the goal, and keeping their signs on their yards, the plans for the development were withdrawn! [The link has been deactivated by the Sun, but the article was in the March 13, 2009 Baltimore Sun] WAY TO GO, Roland Park! Voices in Catonsville, WE CAN DO IT, TOO!] Our fight will be longer, and more is at stak
April 27, 2009 On April 27, 2009, several members of the Catonsville Voices Board (Michele, Michael, and Madelaine) attended a meeting at which Maryland Senator Kasemeyer, Delegate Jimmy Malone, and Delegate Steve De Boy presented a legislative wrap up. We asked them about the future of open space in Catonsville, and specifically the future of Spring Grove. Although the response and discussion that followed went on for some time, we noted that Senator Kasemeyer indicated that he had not realized until recently that there was oppositon to the proposed planned, and that all of the suddent signs are popping up all over. This reference to the PromeNOT signs are a first indicator that our voices are being heard! Also on April 27, Governor O'Malley was on Midday with Dan Rodricks radio program on WYPR. Michael (from Catonsville Voices) sent in a question about the future of Spring Grove. The Governor responded that they were looking into the issue now. So, contact the Governor, at http://www.governor.maryland.gov/mail/ and express your opinion! Summer of 2009 In addition to continuing to write letters to elected officials, we collected signatures on our petition throughout the summer, at various Catonsville-area locations. All the while, we sure enjoyed our summer baseball games at Spring Grove! Check out this letter that members of the Catonsville Voices Board published in the Catonsville Times on August 26, 2009. Thank you, Times, for publishing our letter!
"What We Did on Our 2009 Summer Vacation" We traveled to New Hampshire this summer. Our first stop was the Stonyfield Farm Factory! What a cool place! This is a business model based on "practice what you preach!" For example, their rooftops are loaded with solar panels, as they continually decrease their energy usage all the while increasing their yogurt production. They team up with local organic dairy farmers to promote healthy farming, while producing yummy healthy treats. You can learn more about them at http://www.stonyfield.com/EarthActions/ Hey, our trip was kind of like the trip that some of our Baltimore County elected officials took to Las Vegas a year ago, only we paid for our trip ourselves, and, well, it wasn't Las Vegas. It was New Hampshire and Vermont. Their trip: Our trip: We visited nature and forest preserves, visited small healthy communities, and attended a book signing by Anthony Flint, who recently published the story of how "housewife" Jane Jacobs wrestled power-developer Moses so that he could not destroy her community! Now, that's our kind of trip! Spring 2010- Holidays are over, its time to get back to work on those letters! The legislative session began in January, which means legislatures are proposing and sponsoring bills now! Write to your state and county elected officials to tell them -- or remind them -- how you feel about preserving Spring Grove, its existing hospital, and the gem of the open space opportunities it affords. Remind them that efforts to support economic development are welcome on our existing business corridors that need help (Route 40, Security Square, Westview Mall, etc.), and that more high density development is not what we citizens seek from our 'leaders.' March 11, 2010- Catonsville Voices testified in Annapolis, in opposition of State House Bill 1162, | |
|