The Charles Villager

 Oh, I love to get my copy of the "Charles Villager" as it gives me an opportunity to keep up with the fairy tales that abound in this community.  This edition, "Winter 2013" is of particular interest to the community as  the CVCA is attempting to get the community interested in appearing at the FY 2013 CVCBD hearing on the proposed new budget in order to "think creatively about new programs you would like to see implemented".  First of all, the date is incorrectly listed as April 9th at 6:30p.m. when the correct date is April 23rd as was just pointed out in an e-mail exchange to the Administrator by a community member and the April 23rd date was confirmed by said Administrator.  It would be helpful to the community if the CVCA would send out a corrected issue.

As for thinking "creatively about new programs you would like to see implemented" by the CVCBD, when the CVCBD was advertised and sold to the community it was first and foremost as a security force and people were warned "You don't want to have another murder in Charles Village, do you?" to urge them to vote to pass the CVCBD's enabling legislation.  They have only recently accomplished some "maintenance services" and we have gone many years with inadequate or non-existent supplemental security services.  What would make anyone think that they could handle any other new program?  When an organization cannot function as it was anticipated to perform by the voters, why should said organization be distracted by some other function that would also be poorly handled and diminish any service presently provided?  I would think that the City which governs its budget would like the CVCBD to accomplish its primary goals rather than embarking on some new set of ideas such as ones that have repeatedly failed in the past. 

On another note, the publication advises that Mr. Hill has requested JHU to provide funding of "$1.5 million per year for 5 years, and is one of the 32 HCPI [Homewood Community Partners Initiative] recommendations that President Daniels accepted in his announcement".  I believe that accepting recommendation does not translate into funding those proposals but only to taking them under consideration. Asking for $1.5 million and actually getting it brings one thing to mind, since when does the CVCBD need an annual commitment of $1.5 million after getting almost $767,000. per year in surtaxes from you and me?  Since when does the CVCBD need $2,267,000 a year to operate a small sanitation crew and two officers employed a few hours over the weekend?  If JHU actually decides to give the CVCBD that $1.5 million funding, then I don't think that we should have to pay this surtax and the $1.5 million from JHU could provide both the sanitation and full 24/7 off-duty policing as promised in selling the CVCBD to the community.

JHU plays an important position in our community and indeed in the State of Maryland, but the CVCBD should not be running to them for additional funding every year.  My belief is still of the opinion that the CVCBD is a failure, has been a failure since inception and has been corrupted continuously by poor management. Lack of support from this community shows this.  When CVCBD calls a meeting, most likely only the few staunch supporters will attend and then the CVCBD reports on those meeting exaggerate the figures of the attendees.  I have been told repeatedly that the CVCBD is constantly looking for supporters and cannot find them in the community, and the reason is simple, no one supports this venture which just places another tax on an already tax burdened community.   And no one wants to spend countless hours on committee after committee and meeting after meeting of what should be a simply-run, truly community governed agency with a paid manager/Administrator as the law calls him/her.

As I said on the first line of this little article, I really love to get my copy of the Charles Villager, as it allows me the opportunity to explain the facts and clear up the misinformation provided to this community by a newsletter that refuses to provide a "Letters to the Editor" column.