These pictures were taken this week of Wal-mart signs at the PepsiCo warehouse that is the future development site of Himmelrich Associates that was previously presented to the community as a Harris Teeter.
UPDATE: Reportedly, the developer claims this is a short-term warehouse lease (2-3 months), and that their plans haven't changed. It should also be noted that their plans involve a big box grocery anchor. Wal-mart often presents itself as a grocer, and there has been no commitment from Harris Teeter to the space presented to the community.
Also, given the severity and frequency of flooding in the area, it would be wise for everyone involved if the drainage effect of such a development in a flood plain be revisited.
UPDATE: Developers confirm that Wal-mart has a short-term lease to store materials. They also state that they are pursing a big box retail anchor for the site, but they claim to not be pursuing Wal-mart as tenant at this point in time. We are still trying to confirm that Wal-mart hasn't expressed interest in the site for retail development.
UPDATE: Developers are saying Wal-mart has expressed no retail interest in the property.
Not only has Dimitri's (an historic Hampden dive bar) just closed, but the new owner/operator Steve Verstandig (of CityWide Properties), wants to bring in an unneeded Mexican chain restaurant - La Tolteca (sources say), the quality of which one typically has to drive out to the suburbs to enjoy.
According to the Baltimore Sun article, "We thought there was a void in the area,' Verstandig said. He said Hampden has 'a lot of trendy restaurants with American food,' but could use more Mexican restaurants serving authentic dishes made from scratch. (Nearby Hampden restaurants serving Mexican-inspired food include Golden West Cafe and the recently reopened Holy Frijoles.)"
This comment bespeaks an ignorance on the part of the new owner of Hampden's diverse culinary community serving "non-American" cuisine that includes Daniela's, Grano, Mt. Everest, Souvlaki, The Corner, La Cuchara, Luigi's, etc. But also, kudos to The Sun pointing out how Verstandig seems to conveniently overlook beloved Hampden staples Holy Frijoles and The Golden West Cafe.
At this point, I want to take to moment to reiterate how chains function. Chains rarely open where there is no competition, they actually do the opposite - they look to open where there are other businesses similar to themselves (seems counter-intuitive, I know).
Since chains can operate on more of an unfair economic level than a locally owned, independent business (meaning they can afford to operate at a loss for a period of time until their competition closes), when they see a cluster of businesses similar to themselves, what they see is an established market that they can use their size and scale to dominate - not a market that is already being served.
That is to say, if a Mexican restaurant like La Tolteca is looking to open in Hampden, it is not because of a "void in the area," as Mr. Verstandig claims, it's actually because there is an established market that they feel they can exploit and dominate.
Wednesday night, March 9, 2016, the Hampden Community Council, the Medfield Community Association and the Wyman Park Community Association teamed up to host a Candidate's Night Out forum at the Keswick Mutli-Care Facility.
This was an opportunity for the community to meet the candidates seeking to represent them.
It was like a super-nerdy convention without the cosplay or white long boxes of comics and obese men in under-sized Wolverine t-shirts loaded with pit-stains. A local politics convention, complete with booths, people handing out promotional material, the opportunity to talk to the people you were actually there to see, and then, of course, the main event - where candidates for the 7th District and 14th District city council seats, Baltimore City Council President and Mayor of Baltimore introduced themselves to the people they would like to represent and had a few minutes to answer pre-event submitted questions.
This wasn't a debate. But in an election where there are so many candidates, it was a good way to separate the competent from the incompetent,
One thing I noted was that if you're watching a chair for someone at an event like this, make sure you guard it aggressively. About halfway through the proceedings, the man sitting in front of us got up for a minute. Within seconds, a woman sat in his seat. The woman he was with tried to explain someone was sitting there, but the snagging the seat woman didn't care - refusing to relinquish her newfound chair (even though there were a number of other open chairs in the room). When the man returned a few minutes later, somewhat miffed as to what happened to his seat, he and his wife ended up getting up and moving away to the back of the auditorium, possibly leaving the event.
Here is my impression of the candidates, at least the ones who bothered to show up. The names crossed out are the candidates who didn't show up. I have essentially separated the candidates into 2 categories, Competent (which means I would suggest you looking into them further for your vote) or Incompetent (which means they aren't worthy of your vote).
The way I figure it, if a candidate couldn't be bothered to show up or, at the very least, have some of their campaign staff there handing out literature, then that candidate doesn't deserve my vote.
BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL: 7TH DISTRICT Asa, Antonio (Democratic) Bell, Marshall (Democratic) Church, Kenneth Paul (Democratic) Davidson, Kerry J. (Democratic) Day, Jamar E. (Democratic) McMillan, David (Democratic) Pinkett, Leon (Democratic) Purenell, Tamara (Republican) Royalty, Ahmed (Democratic) Tarrant, Shawn Z. (Democratic) West, Wesley (Democratic)
SUMMARY: In the 7th District, the only candidates who seemed competent were : - Leon Pinkett (Democratic) - Shawn Z. Tarrant (Democratic)
BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL: 14TH DISTRICT Boyce, Thomas (Republican) Clark, Mary Pat (Democratic) Carter, David E. (Democratic) Williams, Terrell (Democratic)
SUMMARY: Incumbent Mary Pat Clarke is the only candidate vying for the 14th District council seat who showed up to this event. The 14th District is my voting district. Despite the differences we may have had in the past over Residential Permit Parking, Mary Pat still works hard for her district and I believe is generally well-intentioned. She has my vote.
BALTIMORE CITY COMPTROLLER: King, Mike (Democratic) Pratt, Joan (Democratic) Bombach, Jon (Libertarian)
SUMMARY:Mike King is the only candidate to show up. He seemed very passionate about audits (as did a number of candidates for other offices). I'm not sure he came off as particularly competent, but he didn't come off as incompetent either. However, Pratt didn't care to show up, and I'm not sure electing a Libertarian (Bombach) to Comptroller would benefit the city.
SUMMARY: Judges didn't speak at this forum. However, they were there, asking for votes. The current judges are running as a slate, and some of them were handing out their pamphlets and asking to vote for "Sitting Judges". Oppenheim is a running as an equal justice reformer. He has some ideas about a fairer bail system. He was a friendlier and more engaged candidate. I felt like the sitting judges were a little put-out by having to campaign. I also think this tends to be an office where we just rubber-stamp people. My friends Marty and Emily are campaigning for Oppenheim, and that and meeting him is good enough for me. As for the rest of the judges, I have no idea.
BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT: Gartanga, Susan (Libertarian) Meek, Conner (Green) Trueheart, Kim (Democratic) Wiggins, David (Democratic) Wright, Shannon (Republican) Young, Bernard C. "Jack" (Democratic)
SUMMARY: Neither of the candidates who showed up struck me as competent. However, if pressed between Trueheart and Wright, Trueheart seemed like the sort of well-intentioned character who could make things interesting in City Hall. Wright did not come off as competent in any way.
MAYOR OF BALTIMORE: Clifton, Mack (Democratic) Cupid, Gersham (Democratic) Dixon, Shiela (Democratic) Embry, Elizabeth (Democratic) Girard, Armand (Republican) Gutierrez, Patrick (Democratic) Harris, Joshua (Green) Klauda, Sarah (Unaffiliated) Marriot, David (Green) McCray, Emanuel (Green) Mckesson, DeRay (Democratic) Mosby, Nick (Democratic) Pugh, Catherine (Democratic) Ray, Benn (Write-In) Stokes, Carl (Democratic) Torbit, Chancellor (Republican) Walden, Alan (Republican) Wardlow, Larry (Republican) Walsh, Cindy (Democratic) Warnock, David (Democratic) Wilson, Witon (Democratic) Young, Calvin (Democratic)
SUMMARY: So, the candidates who showed up who seemed to make competent mayoral candidates were: - Elizabeth Embry (Democratic) - Joshua Harris (Green) - Catherine Pugh (Democratic) - Benn Ray (Write-In) - although I did not speak
And competent in a pinch: - Carl Stokes (Democratic)
Second Thoughts: I have been supporting Nick Mosby. However, the fact that he didn't show up to the forum has made me think twice, unfortunately. On the plus side, he did have campaign workers show up and hand out literature. So I give him half a point.
Thoughts about some of the other mayoral candidates: - Gersham Cupid - Pro-cop. - Patric Gutierrez - He's the "We're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it anymore" candidate from a Scorsese movie. - DeRay Mckesson - So the fact that he decided to hold a fundraiser in the New York home of a Citibank executive the same night as this candidate disqualifies him as a legitimate candidate. I'm not sure what Mckesson hopes to get out of running for the Mayor of Baltimore, but I suspect he'll get more out of it than the city will, and that's too bad. - Alan Walden - This guy was a WBAL radio voice. Pretty sure he shit-talked me either during the Independent Hampden or Bmore Local days on that station. Regardless, it'd be like voting for one of the more uptight characters from the TV show Mad Men. - Larry Wardlaw - Seems unlikely he'd live through the first term (although I in no way wish him ill. You keep clearing your throat in microphones, wandering around auditoriums while you're supposed to be on stage, and taking pictures of the folks you're on stage with for as long as you can. You be you, Larry.) - Cindy Walsh - Seemed like the Bernie Sanders-supporting cat lady on your block who lectures you about recycling even though you recycle. - David Warnock - He is a smaller, local version of Donald Trump masquerading as Michael Bloomberg. Successful at business does not equate to successful at governing. For those who say, "I want to elect a business person as a politician," I ask, "Why? Would you hire a plumber to replace your roof?" - Calvin Young - He was there and said hi, but left early without participating in the forum.
When proponents of Council Bill 14-0397, Hampden Residential Permit Parking (which restricts a significant portion of Hampden to 1 hour only parking (currently amended to 2 hours), 24 hours a day, 7 days a week) discuss parking congestion generators, the two main targets they most often cite in explaining why they need such severe restrictions is Johns Hopkins University and the Rotunda redevelopment.
Hopkins, they point out, charges their employees to park in their parking garage just like every other academic institution I've ever worked at. But since the neighborhood offers ample parking, many employees have opted to take advantage of that instead of using the garage. Some area residents don't like that.
But in community meeting after community meeting I've attended, pro-RPP testimony often reveals a significant fear of possible parking congestion as a result of the Rotunda redevelopment as a rationale for this legislation as well.
Usually at these hearings, when more rational minds suggested it might be wiser to wait to see what, if any, kind of impact the Rotunda will have on the neighborhood, they were shouted and mocked down by pro-RPPers suggesting that such an attitude isn't so much pragmatic as it is naive.
Here we are in the final days of the the RPP debate/legislation, and the Rotunda, via their Facebook page, has decided to finally sound off on the subject with a post saying...
We understand that some neighbors are concerned with the future conditions of parking directly adjacent to the Rotunda. As the developer of the Property, Hekemian and Co. reaffirms the following commitments to our neighborhood.
Hekemian will provide ample free parking for all retail and office customers and employees. Hekemian will make over $1 million in road improvements along 40th, including a major re-alignment of the Roland Ave and 40th / 41st Street intersection. Hekemian will provide free resident garage parking for units with direct access to 38th street.
It's a bit late in the game, Rotunda. And your commitment to the neighborhood won't mean much to the small business community if this RPP being voted on Monday passes as a result of what you are doing. But then, your tenants will actually benefit from it.
Let me explain...
Let's say this RPP passes on Monday, as it's expected to do. Aside from residents on neighboring blocks who don't have RPP, who else suffers the most from this? The Hampden independent business district on 36th Street as parking congestion will be pushed right up against Avenue, and (as is typical of RPP) more residents request RPP thereby restricting more public access to public city streets.
Visitors to Hampden's Avenue will have nowhere to park. However, visitors to the Rotunda will, since they have a parking garage with "ample parking."
This RPP actually benefits the Rotunda and their chain stores by harming the Hampden's award-winning, independent retail district.
So this RPP legislation - it hurts residents. It hurts the Avenue. It benefits the Rotunda, it benefits their corporate chains by putting stress on its competition and it benefits a small handful of residents who had enough pull to get Councilperson Clarke to draft this extremely flawed piece of custom legislation. If passed as is, this RPP will have a profound and dramatic effect on Hampden's Avenue and Hampden as a whole.
But it's not too late...
The final vote is Monday, February 9 at 5PM at City Hall. We only need one vote to swing support.
If you can, please call any of the following council people. If not, please email them and express your concern. Ask them to vote no against Council Bill 14-0397, and if, for whatever reason, they can't bring themselves to do that, ask them to simply abstain from voting.
District 5 Rochelle "Rikki" Spector 410-396-4819 410-396-6800 fax Room 521, City Hall [email protected]
District 6 Sharon Green Middleton 410-396-4832 410-244-5343 fax Room 516, City Hall [email protected]
District 9 William "Pete" Welch 410-396-4815 410-545-3857 fax Room 532, City Hall [email protected]
Well, since the possibility of the Rotunda opening sometime in the next couple years has resulted in a handful of residents panicking about possible parking difficulties and screwing over the rest of the neighborhood, let's take a look at what they are so freaked about about.
Below is a leaked, tentative lease plan for the Rotunda - including businesses who've signed leases, those who have leases outstanding, those with Letters of Intent, and lots of available commercial space.
And while this is singularly the most unpopular piece of Hampden legislation I've ever seen make its way though Council, it seems likely that this will become law. Here's how that happens.
A small group of residents have parking complaints. However, since they don't have enough signatures to follow the established procedures to get Residential Permit Parking via the Parking Authority, they have to get a City Council member to sponsor legislation.
In this case, Councilperson Mary Pat Clarke, whose intent started with a desire to help residents, crafts a custom piece of legislation for a minority of residents. And since the initial meetings to create this legislation only involved that minority, what came out of it was a flawed piece of legislation. Specifically, the most draconian parking restrictions in Hampden - where, unless you are a resident who can afford to purchase and/or take the time to get a permit every year, you can only park in the area for one hour a day, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That means if you live in this area, you won't be having holiday parties. Your kids won't be having any birthday parties at your house. There will be no back yard cookouts for you and your friends. You can't have overnight guests (unless you also purchase a guest permit). Oh, and if you have the misfortune of living a block or two away from where this RPP zone is going, you get to have nearly three times as many cars parking on your street - your block's usual parking, the parking from the folks ineligible to get parking permits (visitors), and the parking from residents who never get permits.
What we are left with is a vicious piece of legislation that was crafted more out of a punitive attitude towards a neighborhood that has become popular, that was crafted more out of a sense of xenophobia, that was crafted more out of an irrational sense of entitlement, that was crafted more out of a sense of nostalgia for a neighborhood that never really was than out of practicality, common sense or pragmatism. It is a bill that will only create more parking problems for many, and make a few pay for a pass and a chance to park where they once parked for free.
Once public hearings were had and the community at large started voicing its increasingly louder opposition to the legislation, the handful of residents who were the catalyst for this responded with a "why are these people here? Why do they think they have anything to say?" attitude. In order to try to cover their tracks, proponents sent out organizers trying to, retroactively, get signatures on a very flawed and stilted petition. Still, some blocks refused to sign on.
Along this process, the Hampden Community Council voted overwhelmingly to oppose the bill. The Hampden Village Merchants Association voted to overwhelmingly to oppose the bill. And a petition circulated throughout the neighborhood garnered over 900 signatures in opposition to the bill.
But still the bill was introduced to the Baltimore City Council's Land Use and Transportation Committee. During the hearing, 7 people testified in favor of the legislation and 14 people testified in opposition to the legislation. But it being passed out of committee was already a foregone conclusion, making its passage in general council all too likely.
The reason why this passed out of committee was because it was a piece of legislation introduced by a councilperson that deals specifically with that representative's district (and the one right next to it). So, out of collegial courtesy, it gets a yes vote out of committee by members. In this case with the one exception being Nick Mosby, whose district is right next to this one and as a result, will feel the effects of RPP (and has subsequently been overwhelmed by calls and emails asking him not to support it).
Pending any delays, the City Council is slated to hear and give a second vote (the vote that actually counts) to this bill on Monday, February 2 with a third and final vote (largely ceremonial) on February 9. The collegial courtesy that we saw in the Land Use Committee will also take place during this council votes. Meaning, unless pressured to do otherwise, the council will default to a "Yes" vote.
And that is how an incredibly flawed, and an incredibly unpopular piece of legislation custom-crafted to benefit a very small minority in the neighborhood while still having an impact on a significant portion of the neighborhood will come to pass. UNLESS...
The only way to stop this is by contacting every member of City Council and letting them know you need and expect them to vote against this legislation and why. But you need to do it now. The next City Council vote is scheduled for Monday, and each step this bill passes makes it all the more likely it will pass.
So don't delay. Please contact the City Council now and ask them to oppose Council Bill 14-0397, Hampden Residential Permit Parking. Below are their email addresses and phone numbers. Feel free to Tweet them and/or post on their Facebook wall too.
Council President Bernard C. "Jack" Young 410-396-4804 410-539-0647 fax Room 400, City Hall [email protected]
District 1 James B. Kraft 410-396-4821 410-347-0547 fax Room 503, City Hall [email protected]
District 2 Brandon M. Scott 410-396-4808 410-396-4414 fax Room 525, City Hall [email protected]
District 3 Robert Curran 410-396-4812 410-396-8621 fax Room 553, City Hall [email protected]
District 4 Bill Henry 410-396-4830 410-659-1792 fax Room 502, City Hall [email protected]
District 5 Rochelle "Rikki" Spector 410-396-4819 410-396-6800 fax Room 521, City Hall [email protected]
District 6 Sharon Green Middleton 410-396-4832 410-244-5343 fax Room 516, City Hall [email protected]
District 7 Nick Mosby 410-396-4810 410-347-0537 fax Room 513, City Hall [email protected]
District 8 Helen Holton 410-396-4818 410-396-4828 fax Room 518, City Hall [email protected]
District 9 William "Pete" Welch 410-396-4815 410-545-3857 fax Room 532, City Hall [email protected]
District 10 Council Vice-President Edward Reisinger 410-396-4822 410-545-7353 fax Room 511, City Hall [email protected]
District 11 Eric T. Costello 410-396-4816 410-545-7464 fax Room 527, City Hall [email protected]
District 12 Carl Stokes 410-396-4811 410-396-1594 fax Room 509, City Hall [email protected]
District 13 Warren Branch 410-396-4829 410-347-0534 fax Room 505, City Hall [email protected]
District 14 Mary Pat Clarke 410-396-4814 410-545-7585 fax Room 550, City Hall [email protected]
On Wednesday, January 28th, just after lunchtime, the august chambers of the Baltimore City Council hosted a struggle that set neighbor against neighbor in a fight for tradition against the inexorable forces of pernicious disruptive change. Or perhaps vice versa.
The setting was a meeting of the Land Use and Transportation Committee. The topic was the proposed implementation of Residential Permit Parking in certain blocks of Hampden. The players were two small groups of thoughtful, committed citizens (one considerably smaller than the other).
Some may be interested primarily in the numbers, so here’s a summary for the cyborgs: 21 citizens testified. 7 supported the parking plan, while 14 opposed it. After the testimony, two council members, Nick Mosby and James Kraft expressed their intention to oppose the proposition if and when it comes up for a general vote. When the committee voted, five members supported the plan while one opposed and one was absent. Thus the Hampden RPP plan moved out of committee, to be brought before the entire City Council.
The fourteen citizens who testified against the plan conveyed a consistent message that, to the extent that there is any parking problem in Hampden, Residential Permit Parking was not going to solve it. Homeowners, merchants, clergy, somebody from Remington: everyone agreed that RPP was not a good idea, that the process thus far has verged on unethical, and that, again, the RPP is really not a good idea.
The seven who supported the plan were united in stressing that parking was a real problem on their blocks, regardless of how plentiful parking may be elsewhere. More than one person expressed frustration at feeling trapped in their houses after 8pm, fearing where they’d have to park if they moved their cars. Addressing a common criticism, they insisted that they did not expect to park directly in front of their respective houses, but only wanted a reasonable walk from their cars.
Councilperson Nick Mosby was careful to make clear that he had the utmost respect for Mary Pat Clarke, but due to the overwhelming number of negative emails and phone calls he had received, he simply could not support the plan.
Councilperson James Kraft of the 1st District, although not a member of the Land Use and Transportation Committee, agreed with Mr. Mosby. Mr. Kraft represents both Canton and Fells Point areas that, as he said, “have no parking.” He was able to speak from experience about the practicality of Residential Permit Parking: near the Can Factory in Canton, an RPP zone was implemented but later repealed. Residents found that RPP simply did not work. He also expressed his respect for his colleague Mary Pat Clarke and sympathized that a Council representative must sometimes introduce unwise legislation on behalf of their constituents.
In her final remarks, Councilperson Mary Pat Clarke confirmed that she did not consider the proposal to be unwise and was fully supportive of the residents who were promoting it. She challenged the notion that there was anything underhanded about the process, insisting that every decision and amendment had been made in open public meetings with input from the community.
In the end, twice as many citizens testified against the proposal as testified in support of it. A 900-signature petition against the proposal was entered into the record. The committee voted 5-1 (with one abstention) to approve the plan for a general City Council vote.
After today's forecasted rain, sleet and snow showers, the temperature is expected to bottom out around 32 degrees, which may feel plenty cold for a number of residents in North Baltimore (Remington, Charles Village) who received the following notice from BGE.
BGE has decided to shut off power tonight for 6 hours starting at 11PM.
I called BGE to challenge the wisdom of this policy since, not only will they be shutting off power at a time when most residents will be home, they're doing it at a time of year when many rely on electric heat to keep warm.
The representative from BGE said this was being done because of underground cabling, water caps on the water line, and proximity to power lines on 27th St. and Cresmont and Mace.
The problem I was stressing with BGE was their decision as to when to shut off power.
It would seem to me to make more sense to shut off power at 11AM: - a time of the day when most people aren't home - a time of the day when temperatures generally aren't at their lowest - a time of the day when most people who would be home have somewhere else they can go for 6 hours to wait for their service to resume
When I tried to challenge BGE on this, I was told that there was nothing to be done, that this had already been decided. Decided by whom? If our private, for-profit, gas and electric supplying monopoly is making decisions about cutting residents' service, shouldn't the community be consulted as to the most opportune times to do it?
If you received a similar letter and are concerned about your power outage tonight, I suggest contacting your local city council representative and expressing that concern to them.
This is just stupid planning on the part of BGE. Stupid planning that will leave a number of residents cold and in the dark tonight.
Wednesday, January 28. 1PM. Council Chambers City Hall, 4th floor 100 North Holliday Street (Picture ID is required for admission to City Hall.)
Baltimore City Council's Land Use and Transportation Committee will be hearing the very controversial Mary Pat Clarke-sponsored legislation, 14-0397 Residential Permit Parking Hampden
This is for the new Residential Parking Permit scheme introduced by Mary Pat Clarke in 2014 that will convert a number of blocks around the Rotunda and JHU building on Keswick into 1 hour only, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week parking, unless you are a resident who lives within a certain zone who is eligible for, can afford to, and has taken the time to purchase a permit.
I have attended a number of community meetings about this, and from what I've seen, this proposal is overwhelmingly unpopular. These parking restrictions are not only some of the most severe in Baltimore, they are the most restrictive in the Hampden area. These restrictions will not solve a parking problem, it will just create worse parking problems for neighboring blocks to don't have these restrictions.
Both the Hampden Community Council and the Hampden Village Merchants Association oppose this legislation.
Regardless, Councilperson Clarke is continuing to press it forward at the request of a small handful of residents.
This is a follow-up to "Hampden Slated For Parking Problems", a piece I posted a few weeks ago as preface to a community meeting where some residents were suggesting Residential Permit Parking restrictions for a significant portion of Hampden that would allow those without permits to park there only for 1 hour a day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
In mid-June, nearly 200 concerned residents who are slowly starting to realize what an exclusionary, expensive parking scheme, as launched by a handful of other residents who mistakenly believe this will reserve parking spots in front of their homes for them (spots they mistakenly look at as "theirs) will mean for them all met in Keswick Adult Care to find out just what the hell is going on and why.
At this meeting, Councilperson Mary Pat Clarke, the driver behind this initiative, presented the restricted parking plan (roughly a 2 block radius around the Rotunda and Hopkins that resticts access to public city streets to 1 hour only, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week unless you are a resident who is eligible (and can afford) to purchase a city parking permit) as a "done deal" (like so many controversial initiatives are introduced - and, as usual, it's not. Proponents are simply trying to dampen opposition).
Residents who were just hearing about this for the first time were outraged that they were just hearing about this for the first time. Residents who had been quietly working on this scheme for months were outraged that their neighbors had finally found out about it and weren't happy.
"We've been working on this for months! Who are all these people and why are they here now all of a sudden," one organizer conspiratorially bemoaned.
It was a tense community meeting - with a not insignificant number of residents asking, "Well, what if we don't want this at all" or "Why do we have to do this" only to have their questions ignored by Clarke or shouted down by their neighbors.
The term "generator" was used to describe the supposed causes of the neighborhood's parking density. It was used to refer to the Rotunda (an incomplete project that won't come online until late 2015 at the earliest), it was used to refer to Johns Hopkins University (whose purchase of the empty Zurich building and garage has brought life back to that abandoned block), and it was used to refer to the 36th St. business district, The Avenue.
The one area, and the most siginifcant one, where the term "generator" was not used, was to refer to the residents themselves. Where low density homeownership over the years has become more dense as more people have found Hampden a more attractive place to live, this means that houses that traditionally had 1-2 cars now have 4-6 vehicles (it should be noted that these vehicles will be protected under the RPP plan).
When hysterical residents imagining a doom-like scenario as a result of Hekemian's Rotunda redevolopment demanded that we act now and install the RPP immediately, more rational residents who asked, "Well, why don't we just wait to see what happens years from now when that place actually opens" were not countered with a rational argument. They were shouted down with a "NO WAY!", as if their suggestion was somehow ridiculously naive.
The residents behind the RPP are also intent on overstepping their bounds and seeking to install RPP on blocks that, by law, are supposed to be free parking. Residential Parking Restrictions are only applicable along blocks that are residential. This is why you'll sometimes see RPP signs on one side of a block, and nothing on the other where that block rings a private non-residential, commercial or institutional building. Unfortunately here, residents aren't just happy with restricting access to their own blocks, they are seeking to expand RPP along other commercial blocks which they have no discernable claim to whatsoever. Clarke said that Hekemeian has already conceded them the commercial property along the Rotunda, and now the residents are taking aim at the several blocks of what would be free parking along Johns Hopkins' buildings too.
One point I've made about this sort of Residential Permit Parking is that it doesn't actually solve parking problems - it just creates more parking problems (for other members of your community) by pushing more cars onto fewer blocks and the result is often those blocks then seeking RPP. RPP spreads like syphilis in a community. And in fact, as if to underline this point, early in the meeting, a resident from the south side of 36th St., below where this RPP is being proposed, raised his hand and asked, "How do we get these parking restrictions on our block?"
During the meeting, the tradional petition process of getting RPP was discussed - as in why is Mary Pat Clarke drafting special legislation for RPP when there already is a process by which neighbors can get the restrictions (assuming they meet certain minimum thresholds)?
Clarke had no clear explanation to this - but they are now, retroactively, I guess, going through the petition process. In the context of the meeting, it should be noted, that this process was intentionally obfuscated. Clarke announced that neighbors will be coming around to get you to sign on whether you want 1 hour restrictions or 2 hour restrictions. It wasn't clearly pointed out that neighbors don't have to sign the petition at all and that, legally speaking, if blocks can't meet a 60% threshhold, they don't fulfill the city's minimum requirements for RPP (which, I suppose is where Clarke comes in with her legislation). The whole thing seems very sketchy and may be open to future legal action. It's even more troubling that while Clarke is spearheading this initiative, she could not tell us how many parking spaces this is effecting.
This is a parking meeting, so there were a lot of irrational attitudes on display. For example, one resident, shaking mad, unironically yelled, "I did not pay several hundred thousand dollars for my house on 37th just to not be able to park in front of it because of the businesses on 36th St." This reminded me of the residents who move to Fells Point and then complain about the bars. That he paid several hundred thousand dollars for his house was the tip-off in the flaw of his complaint - he moved here after the 36th St. business district took off - if not, he would have paid the $60-$80,000 rate houses were going for in the late '90s.
I shouted back, "And why is your house worth hundreds of thousands of dollars? You're welcome!"
There was a lot of Old Hampden Xenophobia Syndrome (OHXS) on display. In fact, a woman I used to live next to, and thought of as friendly, said something to the effect of, "I've been in Hampden all my life. But now all these new poeple are moving in, invading my neighborhood, and changing everything and taking away all the green space. This isn't what I want," (I'm not sure what she meant about taking away the green space). I wanted to ask her, so those two years I was living next to you and we were neighborly, did you really just think I was some kind of asshole the whole time?
Hampden has worked very hard for years to overcome its troubling and embarrassing history and reputation as an exclusionary community where old school residents are hostile to and unwelcome to new people coming in. Unfortunately, these newly proposed parking restrictions move the neighborhood dramatically backwards in that regard. And that attitude was on display at the meeting.
There were typical gentrification complaints, "There ain't nuthin' for me on that Avenue anymore." It's just sad that people still feel that way. At this point, it speaks more about them than it does levy any sort of legitimate criticism of gentrification. But this attitude was squashed (hopefully once and for all), when Hampden resident and business owner Debbie Falkenhan got up to speak.
Deb said, "I think y'all know me, I'm Debbie Falkenhan, I live on Roland, I own Falkenhan's hardware, and I've lived here all my life, and I don't want these parking restrictions. Now I understand some of you feel like there isn't much on the Avenue for you..."
At that point, there was a smattering of applause from Old Hampden, thinking they knew where Deb was going with this.
"I just want to say to you all, get over it. There is more to do on 36th St. than I can recall. I remember what the Avenue looked like in the '80s, and it was a real shithole. None of us want to see that come back, so you need to get over it."
The place erupted in applause save for a few scowls from the scolded.
Then Clarke took a very biased straw poll about who wanted what kind of restrictions and here are the results: Most want 2 hour restricted parking. Then 2 hour restricted parking. Then, after someone called out how about NO restricted parking, that got the third most amount of votes. And then last was the currently proposed 1 hour restricted parking.
I can only wonder what the results would be if Mary Pat had started with No Parking Restrictions and worked her way down. I suspect free parking would have ranked much higher - regardless - it ranked higher than what residents are currently proposing.
The meeting ended with Clarke selecting block captains responsible for gathering petitions even though she was drafting custom legislation for this? I'm still hazy on that. But step #1 is very simple, if you don't want the RPP - don't sign the petition.
But there are a few small points of irony that should be pointed out as we move forward.
Johns Hopkins University, when they first took over the Zurich building and its adjacent parking garage, offered residents the ability to rent spaces in that garage and from what I understand, not a single resident took advantage of it.
Some of the people most vocal and active in trying to get this residential permit parking scheme adopted have parking pads and/or garages that they aren't using for parking.
And finally, when I was a part of Parking Task Force 1.0 - we tried to bring reverse angle parking all the way up Roland Ave. This is something the new Parking Task Force has just revisited and were told the residents won't allow it. This would have meant a dramatic increase in the number of parking spots in an area where they are now looking to expand Residential Permit Parking because of perceived parking density. In other words, they could have had nearly 100 spaces (by Parking Authority's count) nearly 10 years ago but didn't want them. But now, they want to restrict the public's access to these streets to 1 hour a day, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Clearly, when we talk parking, we are not having a rational conversation.
Email Councilman Nick Mosby and tell him how you feel if he is your representative because these restrictions will be felt by homeowners and businessowners in that district as well.
Keep aware of any parking-related community meetings. Join the Hampden Community Council if you are a resident, or the Hampden Village Merchants Association if you are a business, and make your feelings known to them.
Talk to your neighbors about what's going on too.
And finally, don't sign any petitions you don't agree with.