Saturday, November 24, 2012
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
I have sent Mr. David T. Hill, Administrator of the Charles Village Community Benefits District, 2434 St. Paul Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 an invoice covering my services in removing leaves as he states the CVCBD does for all areas of Charles Village. In fact it would appear that the work is only accomplished on the gateway streets and in the area immediately surrounding the JHU properties and business district as five (full time or temporary) employees were positioned there cleaning up that area. It would appear that most of the side streets are ignored by the Benefits District and therefore as I am obliged to pay the tax that is supposed to clean up my street, that I should be paid for their work not performed.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Another neighbor's view on the adequacy of a streetcar
The latest issue of the Charles Villager contains quite an article by Peter Duvall touting the proposed Charles Street trolley. Like just about all articles in the Charles Villager, it only presents one side of the issue, and one could conclude from the article that there is no opposition to the proposed trolley. Therefore, i would like here to discuss three problems with the proposed trolley: the design and route, the method of financing the construction, and the operating costs.
The Design and Route: The proposal is for the trolley to operate almost entirely on one way streets and for the trolley to share its entire roadway with cars, trucks and buses. The trolley will travel north mostly on Charles Street, go east on University Parkway, go south on St. Paul Street, go west on Mt. Royal Avenue (crossing Charles Street), go south on Cathedral Street, and go through the Inner Harbor using a route that I need not discuss here. Thus, the route is basically a figure eight with the crossover point at Charles Street and Mount Royal Avenue. Therefore, if anything blocks the route for a significant amount of time, for example if there is a car accident on the track or if a streetcar breaks down, half of the route will be shut down, either the northern part above Charles and Mt. Royal, or the southern part below that intersection. Unlike a bus or the Circulator, the trolley cannot go around a blockage or an accident. In fact, Charles Street has been closed down just north of North Avenue due to a water main break. If the trolley were in operation, that would have shut down the northern part of the route. When the Metro or the Light Rail is blocked, the MTA runs buses to fill the gap; will that happen with the proposed trolley?
The streetcars that I remember in Washington, DC were on wide two way streets and occupied the center of each street. There were two parallel sets of tracks, one for each direction, and the route was shared with cars, trucks and buses only at intersections. If a streetcar broke down, following streetcars could temporarily use a section of the other track. This is similar to how the Light Rail had only a single track for much of its route when it was first built until it could be expanded.
The Financing of the Construction: When the trolley was first proposed, the plan was to use tax increment financing, and Peter Duvall's article makes clear that that is still the plan for covering construction costs. Tax increment financing has three parts. First, the City Council would pledge that the increase after a certain date in real estate tax collections in a specified area around the trolley (the tax increment), or a fixed percentage of that increase, would be pledged to pay for the construction of the trolley. Secondly, in order to begin construction in a timely fashion, the City would issue bonds to be paid off using the tax increment. And thirdly, the City would set up a backup special tax district to kick in if the tax increment should prove insufficient to make the bond payments.
If real estate values go up sufficiently, this can seem like a way to pay for the trolley with what essentially is free money. The downside, however, is that the tax increment will be used to pay off the bonds rather than being available for education, public safety, sanitation and the other numerous needs of the City.
The big problem comes if the tax increment is not sufficient. We recently have seen revenue from the City real estate tax in Charles Village go down and not up. Unless real estate values soon take off again, there is no way that there will be a sufficient tax increment to finance construction of the trolley. Instead, we who live near the proposed trolley can expect to be hit with an additional surtax.
David Funk, a lawyer who has worked with the Charles Street Development Corporation and who drafted possible state legislation for the trolley, has said that there is no requirement that tax increment financing include a backup special tax district, and I have no reason to doubt what he has said. However, it is hard to imagine that investors would buy tax increment financing bonds without a backup special tax district unless they were promised a huge interest rate, and even then, it is doubtful that they would buy the bonds. Indeed, at a hearing in Annapolis that I attended concerning a bill to abolish all special tax districts (the bill was to solve a problem in Prince Georges County, but a bill could not apply to only one county), a representative of the City government testified that the bill would kill all tax increment financing. In short, if tax increment financing is used for the construction of the trolley, we are at risk of another surtax, and that surtax may be sizable.
Peter Duvall's article hinted at 50 year bonds, but bonds are rarely issued for such a long period. Moreover, the interest rate is generally higher on longer term bonds.
The Operating Costs: When I represented the Abell Improvement Association on a task force charged with examining details of the trolley proposal, we were given figures from the consultant hired by the City to refine the proposal for the trolley. The plan was to have the same rate structure as the MTA so that passengers would be able to get day, weekly and monthly passes that could be used on both the MTA buses, Metro and Light Rail and on the trolley. With such a plan, and with the assumption that the money that the City now spends on the purple line of the Circulator would be contributed to the operating costs of the trolley, and with the assumption that the MTA would contribute an amount equal to what it would save by no longer having to serve the riders who would use the trolley, and with the assumption that the City would raise its parking tax citywide to further subsidize the trolley, there still was a need for a special tax district to cover a deficit in the operating costs for the trolley.
Note too that by law, the MTA is required to get 40% of its operating budget from its fare boxes, with the rest coming from a subsidy from the State. The MTA barely meets that requirement. Can anybody believe that we will not be taxed a sizable amount to subsidize the trolley? Or will there be another source of funds?
Note too that if, as the article states, long term continuation of the Circulator is iffy, then so is a City contribution to the trolley of an amount equal to what the City now spends on the purple line of the Circulator.
In short, the Charles Street Trolley is a bad deal for us in Charles Village and for the City. The purple line of the Circulator, if it is extended north to University Parkway, will do everything for us that the trolley would do. It will have a comparable operating cost and will avoid the construction cost of the trolley. It certainly will not cost that much more than the present purple line which goes only as far north as Penn Station.
Steve
The Design and Route: The proposal is for the trolley to operate almost entirely on one way streets and for the trolley to share its entire roadway with cars, trucks and buses. The trolley will travel north mostly on Charles Street, go east on University Parkway, go south on St. Paul Street, go west on Mt. Royal Avenue (crossing Charles Street), go south on Cathedral Street, and go through the Inner Harbor using a route that I need not discuss here. Thus, the route is basically a figure eight with the crossover point at Charles Street and Mount Royal Avenue. Therefore, if anything blocks the route for a significant amount of time, for example if there is a car accident on the track or if a streetcar breaks down, half of the route will be shut down, either the northern part above Charles and Mt. Royal, or the southern part below that intersection. Unlike a bus or the Circulator, the trolley cannot go around a blockage or an accident. In fact, Charles Street has been closed down just north of North Avenue due to a water main break. If the trolley were in operation, that would have shut down the northern part of the route. When the Metro or the Light Rail is blocked, the MTA runs buses to fill the gap; will that happen with the proposed trolley?
The streetcars that I remember in Washington, DC were on wide two way streets and occupied the center of each street. There were two parallel sets of tracks, one for each direction, and the route was shared with cars, trucks and buses only at intersections. If a streetcar broke down, following streetcars could temporarily use a section of the other track. This is similar to how the Light Rail had only a single track for much of its route when it was first built until it could be expanded.
The Financing of the Construction: When the trolley was first proposed, the plan was to use tax increment financing, and Peter Duvall's article makes clear that that is still the plan for covering construction costs. Tax increment financing has three parts. First, the City Council would pledge that the increase after a certain date in real estate tax collections in a specified area around the trolley (the tax increment), or a fixed percentage of that increase, would be pledged to pay for the construction of the trolley. Secondly, in order to begin construction in a timely fashion, the City would issue bonds to be paid off using the tax increment. And thirdly, the City would set up a backup special tax district to kick in if the tax increment should prove insufficient to make the bond payments.
If real estate values go up sufficiently, this can seem like a way to pay for the trolley with what essentially is free money. The downside, however, is that the tax increment will be used to pay off the bonds rather than being available for education, public safety, sanitation and the other numerous needs of the City.
The big problem comes if the tax increment is not sufficient. We recently have seen revenue from the City real estate tax in Charles Village go down and not up. Unless real estate values soon take off again, there is no way that there will be a sufficient tax increment to finance construction of the trolley. Instead, we who live near the proposed trolley can expect to be hit with an additional surtax.
David Funk, a lawyer who has worked with the Charles Street Development Corporation and who drafted possible state legislation for the trolley, has said that there is no requirement that tax increment financing include a backup special tax district, and I have no reason to doubt what he has said. However, it is hard to imagine that investors would buy tax increment financing bonds without a backup special tax district unless they were promised a huge interest rate, and even then, it is doubtful that they would buy the bonds. Indeed, at a hearing in Annapolis that I attended concerning a bill to abolish all special tax districts (the bill was to solve a problem in Prince Georges County, but a bill could not apply to only one county), a representative of the City government testified that the bill would kill all tax increment financing. In short, if tax increment financing is used for the construction of the trolley, we are at risk of another surtax, and that surtax may be sizable.
Peter Duvall's article hinted at 50 year bonds, but bonds are rarely issued for such a long period. Moreover, the interest rate is generally higher on longer term bonds.
The Operating Costs: When I represented the Abell Improvement Association on a task force charged with examining details of the trolley proposal, we were given figures from the consultant hired by the City to refine the proposal for the trolley. The plan was to have the same rate structure as the MTA so that passengers would be able to get day, weekly and monthly passes that could be used on both the MTA buses, Metro and Light Rail and on the trolley. With such a plan, and with the assumption that the money that the City now spends on the purple line of the Circulator would be contributed to the operating costs of the trolley, and with the assumption that the MTA would contribute an amount equal to what it would save by no longer having to serve the riders who would use the trolley, and with the assumption that the City would raise its parking tax citywide to further subsidize the trolley, there still was a need for a special tax district to cover a deficit in the operating costs for the trolley.
Note too that by law, the MTA is required to get 40% of its operating budget from its fare boxes, with the rest coming from a subsidy from the State. The MTA barely meets that requirement. Can anybody believe that we will not be taxed a sizable amount to subsidize the trolley? Or will there be another source of funds?
Note too that if, as the article states, long term continuation of the Circulator is iffy, then so is a City contribution to the trolley of an amount equal to what the City now spends on the purple line of the Circulator.
In short, the Charles Street Trolley is a bad deal for us in Charles Village and for the City. The purple line of the Circulator, if it is extended north to University Parkway, will do everything for us that the trolley would do. It will have a comparable operating cost and will avoid the construction cost of the trolley. It certainly will not cost that much more than the present purple line which goes only as far north as Penn Station.
Steve
__._,_.___
| Reply to sender | Start a New To |
Recent
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Streetcar Campaign article highlighted in The Charles Villager
"The Charles Villager Holiday 2012" issue ran an article entitled "Baltimore Streetcar Campaign Compares Nationally". I presume the "comparison" is the chart produced by the article's author, Mr. Peter Duvall , but what I find there is nothing that would support the Baltimore Streetcar campaign. In fact what I see is the opposite and I will attempt to explain:
1. In one section of the article, Mr. Duvall reports for the proposed Baltimore Streetcar "Route Miles are 3.5 miles" while another section of the article he reports a 4 mile route. Three and one-half miles (as originally presented in the original plan) to four miles (if extended toKey Highway 39th Street University Parkway Inner Harbor St. Paul Street North Charles Street Mount Vernon Inner Harbor Key Highway, which could then increase the cost to construct the line up to $500 million
2. The author of the article goes on to state that to pay off the "substantial" upfront cost of the streetcar line it can be done over 50 years (actually 55.74 years) through the $1. total ticket cost for the traveling public. And he presumes the City will also be using additional income from presumed increased real estate values to pay for the capital costs as well. Stating that the cost of a streetcar ride could be only $1.sounds quite reasonable comparing it to the regular bus line's cost of $1.60 per ticket today if every thing were to work out as he suggests, he has forgotten the Operational Costs needed to run the streetcar which would raise the ticket cost substantially. He uses the $1. per ticket to both pay for the capital costs and to run the streetcar system – but only up to the "start-up period". None of this makes any sense at all. Based on his projections, apparently utilizing U.S. Transit Projects analysis, by the year 2030 the annual ridership will amount to 7 million passengers, or simply 19,178 passengers per day to equal revenue of $19,178. in order to pay off an accumulated debt of $390 million dollars, plus unknown and on-going operational costs. There is no way that this streetcar can run financially sound with such a small revenue base. Unless the supporters are back to the idea of surtaxing property owners within a mile on each side of the streetcar routes comes back into play as it did in the initial plans for this campaign.
3. At the beginning of his article Mr. Duvall writes that "some North Central Baltimore residents wonder why it isn't easier to get toMount Vernon Towson
4. Mr. Duvall mentions how thrilled people were to have the free circulator extended along the same line that the streetcar would service. He presumes that the City lacks the funds to run expanded circulator routes, but doesn't utilize any specific sources to prove his point, as the City believes that it will have sufficient income to continue the route from projected parking revenue. We are quite sure that the Mayor considered these costs prior to advising the traveling public that the circulator would continue throughCharles Village
5. The author continues his sales pitch about how wonderful it will be with the streetcar running north onNorth Charles Street St. Paul Street
Certainly our money can be wisely used to upgrade the existing bus system that provides services for all residents as well as for those who travel along this corridor. Increase the ridership on the circulator but don't create a system that will cost far more than the proponents will advise us and, based even on Steering Committee figures, will never obtain financial sustainability. Let's quit fooling ourselves because this clearly is not a well thought out idea and will not benefit anyone. Statistically it is based on unfounded ideas that have not been thoroughly investigated and, even using the author's own figures, does not make any financial sense.
1. In one section of the article, Mr. Duvall reports for the proposed Baltimore Streetcar "Route Miles are 3.5 miles" while another section of the article he reports a 4 mile route. Three and one-half miles (as originally presented in the original plan) to four miles (if extended to
2. The author of the article goes on to state that to pay off the "substantial" upfront cost of the streetcar line it can be done over 50 years (actually 55.74 years) through the $1. total ticket cost for the traveling public. And he presumes the City will also be using additional income from presumed increased real estate values to pay for the capital costs as well. Stating that the cost of a streetcar ride could be only $1.sounds quite reasonable comparing it to the regular bus line's cost of $1.60 per ticket today if every thing were to work out as he suggests, he has forgotten the Operational Costs needed to run the streetcar which would raise the ticket cost substantially. He uses the $1. per ticket to both pay for the capital costs and to run the streetcar system – but only up to the "start-up period". None of this makes any sense at all. Based on his projections, apparently utilizing U.S. Transit Projects analysis, by the year 2030 the annual ridership will amount to 7 million passengers, or simply 19,178 passengers per day to equal revenue of $19,178. in order to pay off an accumulated debt of $390 million dollars, plus unknown and on-going operational costs. There is no way that this streetcar can run financially sound with such a small revenue base. Unless the supporters are back to the idea of surtaxing property owners within a mile on each side of the streetcar routes comes back into play as it did in the initial plans for this campaign.
3. At the beginning of his article Mr. Duvall writes that "some North Central Baltimore residents wonder why it isn't easier to get to
4. Mr. Duvall mentions how thrilled people were to have the free circulator extended along the same line that the streetcar would service. He presumes that the City lacks the funds to run expanded circulator routes, but doesn't utilize any specific sources to prove his point, as the City believes that it will have sufficient income to continue the route from projected parking revenue. We are quite sure that the Mayor considered these costs prior to advising the traveling public that the circulator would continue through
5. The author continues his sales pitch about how wonderful it will be with the streetcar running north on
Certainly our money can be wisely used to upgrade the existing bus system that provides services for all residents as well as for those who travel along this corridor. Increase the ridership on the circulator but don't create a system that will cost far more than the proponents will advise us and, based even on Steering Committee figures, will never obtain financial sustainability. Let's quit fooling ourselves because this clearly is not a well thought out idea and will not benefit anyone. Statistically it is based on unfounded ideas that have not been thoroughly investigated and, even using the author's own figures, does not make any financial sense.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Without cause still continues.........
During the recent election of the Quad Representatives, all four participants agreed in essence to Ms. Floyd's question about the "without cause" issue that applies where fellow Board Members can remove an elected and/or appointed member on the board without cause wasn't fair. One Quad Representative stated to the audience that Ms. Floyd misrepresented herself when asking the question, as there was no such stipulation in the by-laws of the CVCBD. However, when this provision was pointed out, he admitted in front of those who gathered at this meeting, that it was unfair and that he would check it out.
Three of the quad members returned to their position as "Quad Representative" and one new one was added who will not be sworn in until January of 2013, so now that the three of the four are already on the board when will they take up the argument against this amendment? As we do not have access to any of the board minutes since May 29, 2012 we cannot know for certain that the three of the four Quad Representatives asked and/or discussed the issue with the remainder of the board. We have heard that there are problems with the web site, and problems still seem to exist with the Reading Garden and it appears to this writer that there are always problems on issues important to this neighborhood, however there are no problems writing up by-laws which contain the words "without cause". Strange that the Board has to get rid of anyone they don't like on the Board by applying to the Board of Estimates year after year to approve this condition, but they cannot fix the computer system that they rely upon every day or get a Reading Garden built after they took credit for it. I passed over there the other day and noted that it wouldn't take that much "sweat equity" to get it looking complete and clean and with the placement of the seating David Hill has in his office, it could still be a Reading Garden. If you want to see what a neighborhood can do when they want to, go to North and Greenmount Avenues and see what a neighborhood did with a lot there. Couldn't Charles Village do just as well?
With respect to the "without cause" issue think of it this way, you elect your representative because you believe that he/she will represent your interest and then the Board gets rid of this person "without cause", no reason given, just "without cause". Is this fair? Is this right? No, it isn't because it takes your rights away as though you had not voted. Let's put this issue in the background, just change the stupid by-laws so it doesn't make us look like pigs.
Three of the quad members returned to their position as "Quad Representative" and one new one was added who will not be sworn in until January of 2013, so now that the three of the four are already on the board when will they take up the argument against this amendment? As we do not have access to any of the board minutes since May 29, 2012 we cannot know for certain that the three of the four Quad Representatives asked and/or discussed the issue with the remainder of the board. We have heard that there are problems with the web site, and problems still seem to exist with the Reading Garden and it appears to this writer that there are always problems on issues important to this neighborhood, however there are no problems writing up by-laws which contain the words "without cause". Strange that the Board has to get rid of anyone they don't like on the Board by applying to the Board of Estimates year after year to approve this condition, but they cannot fix the computer system that they rely upon every day or get a Reading Garden built after they took credit for it. I passed over there the other day and noted that it wouldn't take that much "sweat equity" to get it looking complete and clean and with the placement of the seating David Hill has in his office, it could still be a Reading Garden. If you want to see what a neighborhood can do when they want to, go to North and Greenmount Avenues and see what a neighborhood did with a lot there. Couldn't Charles Village do just as well?
With respect to the "without cause" issue think of it this way, you elect your representative because you believe that he/she will represent your interest and then the Board gets rid of this person "without cause", no reason given, just "without cause". Is this fair? Is this right? No, it isn't because it takes your rights away as though you had not voted. Let's put this issue in the background, just change the stupid by-laws so it doesn't make us look like pigs.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
What's happening at the Benefits District?????
We noted a few strange issues on the CVCBD web site, which we think are interesting in that it makes you wonder what is happening at the Benefits District. Allow us to explain:
The Benefits District has various sub-sections, which I will list hereunder:
Publications --------- last change made was on November 17, 2009. So I have to presume that no publications have been issued since that point in time.
Board Meeting Minutes ------- last updated on May 29, 2012. For five months there haven't been any meetings of the Board? Their web site shows that meetings have been schedules, but one has to assume that no one attended any of the meetings and therefore the results couldn't be printed. I would think that it would be relatively easy to state on a form, that no meeting took place, but really we know they did, so what is taking them so long to issue the results of these meetings? Inquiring minds want to know.
Listing of Board Members ------ last updated in May of 2012 - no specific date mentioned - but it shows that both Council members Clark and Stokes are non-voting members which is wrong. in that they are both voting members, but the Benefits District apparently doesn't know it.
In this section they also list 2 Members from Midtown Churches, Inc., which doesn't exist any more as it was closed several years ago. So shouldn't the City Code be changed to reflect this information.
I understand that they pay some company to keep the site current, but these are just a few of the errors that I noted on the site. Let's have a game, you go out and check the site and let me know the errors you find. It should be interesting in that the Benefits District can write into their bylaws a provision that they can kick someone off the board without cause, but can't correct their apparent errors.
The Benefits District has various sub-sections, which I will list hereunder:
Publications --------- last change made was on November 17, 2009. So I have to presume that no publications have been issued since that point in time.
Board Meeting Minutes ------- last updated on May 29, 2012. For five months there haven't been any meetings of the Board? Their web site shows that meetings have been schedules, but one has to assume that no one attended any of the meetings and therefore the results couldn't be printed. I would think that it would be relatively easy to state on a form, that no meeting took place, but really we know they did, so what is taking them so long to issue the results of these meetings? Inquiring minds want to know.
Listing of Board Members ------ last updated in May of 2012 - no specific date mentioned - but it shows that both Council members Clark and Stokes are non-voting members which is wrong. in that they are both voting members, but the Benefits District apparently doesn't know it.
In this section they also list 2 Members from Midtown Churches, Inc., which doesn't exist any more as it was closed several years ago. So shouldn't the City Code be changed to reflect this information.
I understand that they pay some company to keep the site current, but these are just a few of the errors that I noted on the site. Let's have a game, you go out and check the site and let me know the errors you find. It should be interesting in that the Benefits District can write into their bylaws a provision that they can kick someone off the board without cause, but can't correct their apparent errors.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Streetcar ????? along North Charles Street ????
The newspapers headlines shouted "Baltimore is an old city .. get over it!!!!!". The issue, this time, being the rupture of a sixty inch water main pipe on North Charles Street. When will it be repaired? No way to know as it depends on what they run into. What about the businesses along the corridor, complete lack of business and complete lack of transportation going through the area unless you can move up another main street. But what happens when the public transportation on that street is a streetcar? What happens to your ability to go to work? What happens to your getting to school? The streetcar could be out of service for weeks and most likely will. The people who depend on this mode of transportation are stuck without public transportation. If the bus routes continue, then they can easily navigate around the obstruction and get you to your final destination without having to revert to automobiles. So why even consider building a streetcar? If you are dissatisfied with the existing bus routes have them improved by investing a nominal amount of money to increase the service so that the buses are not so packed and come more frequently. It makes no sense to destroy a plan that exists and works to put in a plan that is bound to fail.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
A question
I am now posting a question directed to Mr. David Hill, called by some as the Executive Director of the CVCBD, but his legislated title is "Administrator" and the question is a relatively simple one.
First a background before the question is asked. The CVCBD shows a "Baseline Agreement with the Community" on their site which is a so-called synopsis of supplemental services which they provide for the various communities they provide services. However, for some considerable time we have requested that they list the "Charles Village Community Benefits District and Management Auathority Baseline Services" (the official document signed by the city which provides services to this community and other communities in the city). However despite requests made by our City Council Representatives, the CVCBD has refused to issue the actual document on the web site.
WHY? WHY? WHY?
Could it be that they do not want the residents of this community to know that some of the services that they take credit for are already being done by the City? So now we are paying them a surtax to call the city. I believe that anyone reading this could easily pick up the phone and get these services accomplished.
Could it be that there is already a Rat Abatement Program in effect and the traps that are being placed throughout the community without confirmation by owners could be considered illegal?
Could it be that as they do not pick up mattresses because of a potential bed bug threat, that they call the city to do it for them? Strange that one city agency calls another city agency to do what the first one should be doing.
The question remains, WHY??
First a background before the question is asked. The CVCBD shows a "Baseline Agreement with the Community" on their site which is a so-called synopsis of supplemental services which they provide for the various communities they provide services. However, for some considerable time we have requested that they list the "Charles Village Community Benefits District and Management Auathority Baseline Services" (the official document signed by the city which provides services to this community and other communities in the city). However despite requests made by our City Council Representatives, the CVCBD has refused to issue the actual document on the web site.
WHY? WHY? WHY?
Could it be that they do not want the residents of this community to know that some of the services that they take credit for are already being done by the City? So now we are paying them a surtax to call the city. I believe that anyone reading this could easily pick up the phone and get these services accomplished.
Could it be that there is already a Rat Abatement Program in effect and the traps that are being placed throughout the community without confirmation by owners could be considered illegal?
Could it be that as they do not pick up mattresses because of a potential bed bug threat, that they call the city to do it for them? Strange that one city agency calls another city agency to do what the first one should be doing.
The question remains, WHY??
Friday, November 2, 2012
Reading Garden - Part II
Tweefie Millspaugh, a resident on Vineyard Lane sent the following email to be posted on the blog:
In the Charles Village Benefits District Annual Report 2012 Newsletter, there were a couple of photos and blurb on page 2 about the "Greening Project" on Vineyard Lane, which took place on June 14th. I would like to point out a couple of items that were incorrectly portrayed.
There were no Barclay students that I know of there that day. However, the residents of Vineyard Lane who were there working were not mentioned at all.
As of this writing, the "Reading Garden" it was supposed to become, compliments of the CVCBD efforts and grant money, has failed to materialize. And, lastly, as everyone should know, it is obviously not located in Waverly.
Which I am personally am grateful that the CVCBD has someone come by periodically and pick up trash and mow the lot, I am less than pleased with the fact that after much pomp and circumstance about the project, and once Mary Pat Clark (City Councilwoman) and the media left, the plan seems to have fallen by the wayside. I am content with a small green space there, but for the CVCBD to have made promises, and announced the noble effort to the public, and then just drop it, is disingenuous. It leaves people to assume that the plan proceed as advertised, when in fact, the reality is that there has been no change, and the agreement between the lot owner and the CVCBD for basic care is as it has been for several years.
Tweefie reported that she received a response from Mr. David Hill of the CVCBD advising her of some issues with respect to the collection of the grant money and was looking to get some from an additional foundation. Councilwoman Clark has stated that she will assist Mr. Hill as much as possible to locate additional funds for the project.
However, I would like to make a few points here:
1. The City has the ability to provide water to the site of this lot for a fee of $150. so that the plants could have been maintained, but none was secured, which actually meant that unless one of the residents took pity on the plants they would have most likely died after being planted. New plantings need water to survive. To start a garden without water is just a waste of money.
2. Why were the trees not planted and left to die?
3. If the CVCBD are getting paid by the lot's owner to take care of the facility there they should be picking up the trash that is deposited there and mowing the lawn as part of their agreement with the lot owner.
4. A last correction to the Annual Report involves the Hunter Street Community Garden which was not started by the CVCBD, but by a neighbor who was lovingly called Mrs. "B" many years ago. I met this woman several years ago with John Houston who as a Vista employee attached to the CVCBD who was able to get plantings donated by Home Depot where he and I distributed them to the local residents of North Calvert Street and Guilford Avenue.
In the Charles Village Benefits District Annual Report 2012 Newsletter, there were a couple of photos and blurb on page 2 about the "Greening Project" on Vineyard Lane, which took place on June 14th. I would like to point out a couple of items that were incorrectly portrayed.
There were no Barclay students that I know of there that day. However, the residents of Vineyard Lane who were there working were not mentioned at all.
As of this writing, the "Reading Garden" it was supposed to become, compliments of the CVCBD efforts and grant money, has failed to materialize. And, lastly, as everyone should know, it is obviously not located in Waverly.
Which I am personally am grateful that the CVCBD has someone come by periodically and pick up trash and mow the lot, I am less than pleased with the fact that after much pomp and circumstance about the project, and once Mary Pat Clark (City Councilwoman) and the media left, the plan seems to have fallen by the wayside. I am content with a small green space there, but for the CVCBD to have made promises, and announced the noble effort to the public, and then just drop it, is disingenuous. It leaves people to assume that the plan proceed as advertised, when in fact, the reality is that there has been no change, and the agreement between the lot owner and the CVCBD for basic care is as it has been for several years.
Tweefie reported that she received a response from Mr. David Hill of the CVCBD advising her of some issues with respect to the collection of the grant money and was looking to get some from an additional foundation. Councilwoman Clark has stated that she will assist Mr. Hill as much as possible to locate additional funds for the project.
However, I would like to make a few points here:
1. The City has the ability to provide water to the site of this lot for a fee of $150. so that the plants could have been maintained, but none was secured, which actually meant that unless one of the residents took pity on the plants they would have most likely died after being planted. New plantings need water to survive. To start a garden without water is just a waste of money.
2. Why were the trees not planted and left to die?
3. If the CVCBD are getting paid by the lot's owner to take care of the facility there they should be picking up the trash that is deposited there and mowing the lawn as part of their agreement with the lot owner.
4. A last correction to the Annual Report involves the Hunter Street Community Garden which was not started by the CVCBD, but by a neighbor who was lovingly called Mrs. "B" many years ago. I met this woman several years ago with John Houston who as a Vista employee attached to the CVCBD who was able to get plantings donated by Home Depot where he and I distributed them to the local residents of North Calvert Street and Guilford Avenue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)