Recently, the Greater Baltimore Committee (GBC) released a new ten-year strategic plan calling for (in their words), a “sea change,” to boost economic opportunity in Baltimore city and five Maryland counties adjacent to Baltimore — Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard.

Founded in 1955, GBC is a not-for-profit organization with approximately 400 members. 

Their membership includes large, mid-size, and small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, foundations, educational providers, and healthcare institutions in the Baltimore region.

All the geographic areas served by GBC are unique, but all recognize the value of mutually beneficial collaborative efforts on economic development matters.

In an ever-changing world, GBC ‘s new strategic plan acknowledged a pressing need for changes on a better definition of their traditional purposes and their traditional goals.

Accordingly, their new plan includes new purposes and new goals to guide private and public investment and regional collaborations designed to result in transformational positive change in the Baltimore region.

Specific GBC goals are included in three broad areas of economic development. They are:

Industry and innovation
Place and community
Talent and people

Ultimately, GBC’s vision is to position the Baltimore region’s residents, businesses, and quality of life amenities, as a globally recognizable and competitive brand. 

The overall success of GBC’s new plan is based not only on new purposes and new goals. It also depends upon on a continuing commitment to collaboration from businesses, political leaders, developers, educators, workforce providers, nonprofits, entrepreneurs, current economic development organizations, and other key stakeholders in Baltimore City and the five surrounding counties. 

Based on past measurable successes with GBC, they understand they do best by not competing against each other, but by working together to compete globally for current and emerging economic engines that provide good jobs, good wages, good benefits, and economic stability.  

They also understand the needs of the leaders such economic engines. These leaders are much less interested in artificial human made geographic boundaries that delineate county and municipal borders and are much more interested in what a region can provide in terms of a long term, reliable, and positive business environment along with a supply of skilled workers.

No doubt any discussion of any changes leading to a new regional approach to economic development for the Mid Shore region may be unsettling to some. It is new and it is different.

 With all due respect for those who may be unsettled with this commentary, I offer the following thoughts that futurist Leon Martel includes in the preface to his book “Mastering Change”:

“We live in a world of change, yet we act based on continuity. Change is unfamiliar: it disturbs us. We ignore it, we avoid it, and often, we try to resist it. Continuity, on the other hand, is familiar; it provides safety and security. I propose a new approach to the future and a new strategy for dealing with it. The new approach is to recognize that change is natural and to be expected and that continuity is unnatural and to be suspected. The new strategy enables us to identify those changes that will affect our businesses, our occupations, and our personal lives; it helps us determine their kind and see their dimensions, and it assists us in making use of them. If we make this strategy a conscious ongoing activity, change will become familiar, and we will welcome it, seeing in it not cause for alarm but reason for action. And as we come to understand and use change, we will be better prepared for the future, increasingly able to make tomorrow’s world the world we want.”  

I suggest now is the time for the leaders in Talbot, Dorchester, and Caroline counties (at a minimum) to immediately engage in meaningful discussions on the feasibility and benefits of launching a Mid Shore version of a regional economic development organization comparable to the GBC. 

The key words are comparable to the GBC, not identical to the GBC.

I am not suggesting Mid Shore leaders adopt GBC’s purposes and goals without modifications that work best for the Mid Shore now and going forward. I further suggest we already have an outstanding organization in place to serve as a new leader in regional economic development.

That organization is Chesapeake College. 

The college has served the Mid Shore region with distinction since it was chartered as Maryland’s first regional community college in 1965 and opened in 1967. 

Offering a wide range of adult learning opportunities, they have extensive experience in developing and conducting workforce training programs. The availability of these programs is a great selling point for economic development prospects.

I also suggest that in addition to a new regional economic development organizational model, the Mid Shore must have an open and transparent process for developing regional economic development goals based on citizen input to maintain and advance the Mid Shores’s position in Maryland as the “Land of Pleasant Living.”

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

Today is Memorial Day.

The origins of Memorial Day go back to the end of America’s Civil War, the deadliest war in American history. In that four-year conflict, more than 622,000 Americans died, more than died in World War I and World War II combined.

By the late 1860s, countless towns and cities across America launched springtime tributes at the graves of fallen soldiers from both sides of the Civil War.

These tributes were often community-wide events during which businesses closed, residents decorated the graves with flowers and flags and recited prayers to honor and remember the fallen.

The historical practice of placing flowers on the graves of the fallen led these events to be widely referred to as “Decoration Day.”

The first national observance of what is now called Memorial Day occurred on May 30, 1868, in the Arlington National Cemetery in Washington DC. The speaker was civil war veteran James A. Garfield, then a member of Congress and a future president.

In 1938, Congress officially approved Memorial Day as a federal holiday.

From 1868 until 1970 Memorial Day was observed annually on May 30. That date was selected because it was not connected to any battle or end date of any war.

Over the years, the scope of Memorial Day was expanded to honor and remember all the members of the United States military who died in World War I and World War II. Korean War, Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

In 1971, Congress decided Memorial Day should be observed annually on the last Monday in May.

Sadly, since then, Memorial Day has largely been replaced by far too many Americans from being a solemn day of remembrance to being the third day of a long holiday weekend.

It is characterized as the unofficial start of the summer vacation season, trips to the ocean, family picnics, and retailers holding sales events.

It is time to restore Memorial Day to what it was intended to be.

It is a time to reflect upon stories like the one below by June Wandrey Mann.

I discovered it two years ago and featured it then in a Spy Letter to the Editor.

It merits repeating.

June Mann served as a First Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Nurse Corps during World War II.

Between 1942 to 1946, she served in Africa, Sicily, Italy, France, and Germany.

In her post war book — Bedpan Commando — she wrote about her experiences. In it she wrote “Working in the shock wards, giving transfusions, was a rewarding, but sad experience. Many wounded soldiers’ faces still haunt my memory.”

Her recollection of one experience in August 1943 while serving in Sicily is especially heartbreaking.

“An eighteen-year-old boy is carried into the shock ward, and he looks up at me trustingly asking, ‘How am I doing, nurse?’ I just kiss his forehead and say, ‘You are doing just fine, soldier.’ He smiles sweetly and says, ‘I was just checking,’ Then he dies. We all cry in private. But not in front of the boys. Never in front of the boys.”

With all due respect to Nurse Mann who was a member of the “greatest generation,” I suggest that at least once on every Memorial Day weekend, it is not only OK, but very appropriate to cry … in private, in front of others, or do both.

We should do so in remembrance of all American military veterans who, as Abraham Lincoln observed in his Gettysburg Address, “gave the last full measure of devotion.”

David Reel is a Public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

 

With the recent agreement between the Biden and Trump presidential campaigns on debates, the top of the list of outcomes to watch for from those debates will be voter perceptions of the physical and mental state of the candidates. It will be heightened this year largely due to the relatively advanced ages of both major party candidates.

Such perceptions, while widespread and generally accepted, are not always accurate.

That was the case when the first televised presidential election debates between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon were held in 1960.

Going into the debates, both candidates had sterling credentials. Both were young –Nixon was forty-seven and Kennedy was forty-three. Nixon served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, as a U.S. Senator, and as a two-term Vice President. Kennedy also served as a as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and as a U.S. Senator. Both were World War II veterans. Kennedy was also a war hero who saved the crew of a Navy PT Boat after it was attacked and sunk.

Regarding their credentials on personal health conditions, they were polar opposites.

To address chronic and debilitating back pain, Kennedy regularly took codeine, Demerol, methadone, barbiturates, anti-anxiety medication, prednisone, and Ritalin. He also suffered from Addison’s disease, a thyroid condition that required regular injections of steroids. None of this was evident on the debates especially on the first one watched by an estimated 60 to 70 per cent of the voting universe then.

In post-debate surveys after the first debate, many viewers perceived Kennedy as vigorous, healthy, and robust. Many also viewed Nixon as tired, ill, and lethargic.

Some suggest Kennedy’s long-term affliction with of Addison’s disease and long-term use of steroids resulted in hyperpigmentation which gave him a healthy tanned appearance on the debates. Nixon’s haggard appearance likely resulted from a bout with the flu and a painful knee injury that he suffered while climbing out of a car. Neither were chronic nr serious.

In any event, as is often the case in the political arena, initial perceptions become permanent.

Ultimately Kennedy defeated Nixon by a very thin margin.

Presidents with serious medical and cognitive conditions that were downplayed, not publicly acknowledged, or discussed openly occurred well before the 1960 presidential debates.

Grover Cleveland underwent surgery to remove a cancerous tumor in his mouth.

William McKinley suffered from depression, phlebitis, and epilepsy.

Woodrow Wilson had a debilitating stroke after which his wife was the de facto president.

Franklin Roosevelt’s physical in 1944 revealed advanced arteriosclerosis, cardiac weakness, and acute bronchitis. Ignoring recommendations from his medical team to retire, FDR ran for and won an unprecedented fourth presidential term. Five months later he had stroke and died.

Dwight Eisenhower had a massive heart attack in 1955 and a stroke in 1957.

Ronald Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease five years after leaving office. There were indications of it in his second term, but it was not confirmed until after he left office.

There are common threads to all the above medical situations. The public was not made fully aware of them or fully informed just how serious they were. That lack of openness and transparency resulted from intensive efforts by presidential staff, campaign advisors, family members, and the media to shield the President from concerns about fitness to serve.

It is ironic that John F. Kennedy once responded to a question about how he addressed the enormous amounts of information provided to him by advisors and staff. JFK said “Before making a decision, I always ask… what am I not being told?”

That is a question voters should demand answers to going forward. Voters and the media on both sides of the current ideological divide in America must embrace a uniform process to get and share those answers. The purpose is not to influence voters but to help them reach informed decisions.

I suggest every presidential candidate and every vice-presidential candidate be examined by a bi-partisan team of independent medical professionals, and their observations be made readily available to every American prior to elections.

I further suggest that post-election and annually while in office, every sitting President and Vice President be required to be examined by a bi-partisan team of independent medical professional viders whose observations are shared with Congress and every American.

This is not a huge ask. It is a best practice for every organization committed to excellence in leadership performance.
As a CEO of a wide range of not-for-profit organizations, I got regular comprehensive annual physical and cognitive exams.

The reason was simple. It assured those whom I served that I was able to perform my assigned duties and responsibilities.
Surely, we deserve and can expect no less for those who seek election to and serving in what is universally acknowledged to be the most demanding jobs in the world. Next up should be the same for those in high levels in the legislative and judicial branches of government.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

The current news from a significant number of American college campuses is reminiscent of a time in the 1960s when there were widespread campus protests over American involvement in a seemingly endless war in Southeast Asia.

This time, college campus protestors (some of whom may not be students at the colleges where they are protesting) are not protesting a long and ultimately futile war.

It’s time to call these present-day protesters what they are not and what they are.

They are not anti-war protesters. They do not acknowledge or condemn the role of Hamas (first designated as a terrorist organization in 1997 by the U.S. State Department) in launching the current and ongoing war in a long history of wars between Hamas and Israel.

They do not acknowledge Hamas started this war on October 7, 2023, when they killed an estimated 2,000 innocent Israeli civilians, including children; and took 250 hostages, some of whom have died in captivity and some of whom are still being held captive (as this is written).

Today’s campus protesters are rabidly antisemitic who support the goals of Hamas – reject the right of Israel to exist, drive Jews from Gaza, erase Israel as a nation, and by extension challenge the principles and values of western society.

Those who defend their actions base their defense in part on American constitutional rights on freedom on assembly and freedom of speech.

That defense is absurd.

American constitutional rights do not defend verbal harassment, threats, and inflicting physical harm on Jews, Jewish students, supporters of Israel, or anyone else.

These rights do not defend illegally occupying buildings and grounds on college campuses to disrupt learning and related school activities such as graduations.

Colleges should never permit or tolerate any advancement of antisemitism under the guise of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

It’s time for public officials and college administrators to walk their talk on their historical and often stated deep commitment to the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

One way to accomplish that is to share widely the following story of Martin Niemöller, a theologian and minister in Germany before, during, and after World War II.

Before the war, Niemöller, like many Germans, resented how Germany was treated after World War I. Niemöller was active in antisemitic political parties and organizations. He was enthusiastic about the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and voted for the Nazi party in 1933.
Early on during World War II he was aware of the Nazi’s persecution of other Europeans, but he remained silent. Niemöller was especially supportive of persecution of members of political movements with whom he disagreed.

Later during the war, Niemöller helped launch a new church denomination that opposed the Nazification of German protestant churches. That led to his being sent to a concentration camp for seven years where he narrowly avoided being executed.

Following the war, Niemöller went on a speaking tour throughout Germany. On that tour, he acknowledged and expressed great remorse over the impact of his own inaction on and indifference to the fate of victims in the holocaust.

Niemöller included the following remarks in his presentations about the German Nazis:

“First, they came for the communists. I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
Then, they came for the socialists. I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.
Then, they came for the unionists. I did not speak out because I was not a unionist.
Then, they came for the Jews. I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then, they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Over the years Niemöller varied the names of the groups the Nazis came for prior to coming for him. Sometimes he mentioned all the above groups and other times he selectively replaced them with others such as people with mental and physical disabilities, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. That was the universe he was aware of at that time.

Today, our list could include the same groups plus other ethnic groups, the elderly, children, progressives, conservatives, liberals or virtually any readily identifiable group in our society.

Regardless of using his original list, a revised list, or a combination list from both, Niemöller’s overall message is as important today as when he first delivered it.

Another message that is as important today as when first expressed by philosopher George Santayana who warned “Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

It is my hope that sooner rather than later, college students, college leaders, elected officials and the American public will become more aware of and learn from Niemöller’s history with antisemitism and will also heed Santayana’s warning.

The messages from both are simple yet profound and timely.

We must not be silent, indifferent, or inactive in response to hatred whenever it is directed at any of the groups identified above; plus any others I may have inadvertently missed.

Likewise, we must accept if we do not learn from history, we are condemned to repeat it.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

 

Last week, I had the honor and the privilege to serve as a volunteer mentor and as a volunteer judge at the 24th annual HOPSTART new venture awards program at Johns Hopkins University. 

Hosted by the Center for Leadership Education at Johns Hopkins, HOPSTART is a competition that challenges Hopkins students to develop a business plan around an innovative idea and pitch their plan to a panel of judges. 

Participation in the HOPSTART competition is open to teams that include undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral students at Hopkins. 

Judges for HOPSTART included a diverse mix of entrepreneurs, consultants, business CEOs, not-for-profit organization CEOs, educators, surgeons, writers, lawyers, and information technology experts. 

Fellow judges from the Eastern Shore, including Al Silverstein, Clay Mitchell, and Marty Lostrom, joined me at the event. 

Also at the event was former Eastern Shore resident Len Foxwell, who is an integral member of the Hopkins team that plans and executes HOPSTART. 

Programs submitted for judging were in two categories – General Ventures and Medical Technology/Life Science Ventures.

To say the scope and depth of all the HOPSTART presentations was impressive is a huge understatement.

A sampling of the fifty entries in the program this year included:

A program to leverage the use of the internet to minimize the agricultural expenses for marginal farmers in India and maximize their production at the same time.

An electronic access system for individuals needing medical care to evaluate their current situation and make informed decisions on their best care options and help address long waits in hospital emergency rooms.

A streamlined approach using blockchain technology to simplify and expedite the credential verification process for medical care providers. 

A monitoring method comparable to glucose level monitors for those with diabetes provides an early warning of a need to repeat hernia repair surgery.

There were many more outstanding entries that were not included here. 

Every single entry was characterized by innovative ideas, rigorous research, and a commitment to make a difference in our world.

As a HOPSTART volunteer team mentor prior to the judging event and as a volunteer judge I learned a great deal. 

First and foremost, I learned all the students submitting entries are among the best and the brightest in the world.

As importantly, I was inspired to witness firsthand the commitment of Hopkins students to lifelong learning and to advancing a cause larger than themselves.

Affirming that was a post judging request from one of the teams I mentored prior to the judging. 

The team leader asked me to continue in that role as they move forward on efforts to convert their proposal from an idea into a program that is fully implemented. 

Obviously, they are deeply committed to their project and view it as much more than a once-and-done entry into an awards program.

All the program participants understand and fully embrace the observations of Eric Hoffer, a self-taught American philosopher. 

Hoffer is often referred to as ”the longshoreman-philosopher” based on his authoring ten books while also working for many years as a dockworker in the port of  San Francisco. 

Of his many insightful observations on human behavior and society, Hoffer wrote: 

“In a world of constant change, learners will inherit the future. The learned are perfectly prepared to live in a world that no longer exists.”

At Johns Hopkins, HOPSTART learners will not only inherit the future. 

They will also make our world a better place.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

Earlier this month, I joined countless Marylanders in filing my federal and state income tax returns.

As I did so, the timeless observations of Benjamin Franklin came to mind – “In this world nothing is certain except death and taxes.”

After the Maryland General Assembly adjourned, I suggest Ben was only partly right.

I suggest that in Maryland, almost certain are new state taxes, state tax increases, new state fees, and state fee increases. The only uncertainties about them are when and how much.

Before the 2024 Maryland General Assembly adjourned for the year, this matter was discussed at length, but never fully settled. Some relatively modest tax and fee increases were approved, but none as large as or as far reaching as expected.

None will be approved throughout the balance of this year. The earliest formal discussions on any tax increases can happen is after the General Assembly reconvenes in January 2025.

Battle lines are already being drawn.

Proponents and opponents of tax increases are busy organizing and promoting their positions. Not surprisingly, there are stark and irreconcilable differences between them.

The Maryland Public Policy Institute recently released a statement headlined “Tax Increases Are Never Inevitable.”

The statement includes the following messages — “Maryland’s political leaders would have us believe the state is in a fiscal mess through no fault of their own and that the only solution is massive tax hikes that they’ve put on hold – for now. However, this narrative misrepresents the problem and ignores a real and preferable solution. When pressed, responsible lawmakers admit that the primary cause of the budget chaos at both state and county levels is the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future (a.k.a. Kirwan) education plan. The Spending Affordability Committee projected that budget shortfalls will increase substantially over the next five years “due to the need for general funds to support costs related to the Blueprint.”

The recommended treatments are to “minimize the enactment of new mandates,” increase “efficiency,” and “consider revenue options.” Sadly, legislators seem focused only on that last tactic – i.e., tax hikes. But the Blueprint is not Holy Writ etched in stone. And tax hikes on hard-working Marylanders are not inevitable. Instead of pretending to have no way out, lawmakers could choose to alter the Blueprint’s mandates or eliminate it altogether.”

Supporters of Kirwan, especially the Democratic supermajorities in the General Assembly and the state teachers’ union, have a much different view.
They support increasing state revenues to a level to ensure Kirwan is fully implemented as it was written when the current version was approved by the General Assembly.

They believe they have public support for that. They may be right.

A recent article in the Baltimore Sun had the following headline – “Majority of Statewide Voters Support Blueprint for Maryland’s Future.”

The article included the following.

“An overwhelming majority of Marylanders support the state’s ambitious Blueprint for Maryland’s Future education plan, according to a new poll done for The Baltimore Sun, the University of Baltimore, and FOX45. Nearly three-quarters of the 1,300 likely general election voters polled across Maryland said they supported the Blueprint. When the poll asked about potential changes to the plan to lessen its financial pressures on local [education] budgets, 55% said they supported making some reduction, such as cutting all-day prekindergarten programs (24%), or teacher pay raises (11%). However, 29% said they would not cut anything.’”

The professional pollster who conducted the survey opined the results indicate “profound, widespread” support among voters for the landmark education plan, tempered by “a willingness to set adjustments.

He further observed, “It’s very hard to argue against public education. The intent [of the Blueprint] tracks with the priorities of Maryland voters.”

I suggest the results of this survey, like the results of all surveys, only reflect public sentiment at a point in time. How durable those poll results are has yet to be seen.

The pollster did acknowledge one huge unresolved issue that cannot be ignored going forward. He said, “Local school boards will have to balance how to fund their school districts with meeting their Blueprint financial burden, which could force [school board] members to cut local initiatives. Will it force school boards to cut other things? That’s where the electoral equation changes,”

That is a key observation that leads to more certainty in discussions and debates on taxes and fees in Maryland.

Between now and January 2025, supporters and opponents of Kirwan will be aggressively engaged in efforts to inform, galvanize, and mobilize voters to support their respective positions, ranging from maintaining Kirwan as presently written, adopting modifications to Kirwan and the necessity for and scope of revenue sources needed to fully fund implantation of whatever the final form Kirwan turns out to be.

Depending on the outcomes, those efforts may continue well beyond next year.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

In November, the every four-year routine of counting votes to determine who has been elected as the U.S. President will, as always, generate intense and widely followed media coverage.

While much attention will be focused on the popular vote results nationwide, the most important and meaningful results are which candidate carried enough states to win in the electoral college. Accordingly, media reporting on election night will focus largely on which states went red and which states went blue.

For this commentary, I did a deep dive into the history of the origins, uses, and perhaps some largely forgotten practice changes over time on red and blue color labeling in the American political arena. 

There are several thoughts on how color labels came to be used in American politics. Some suggest they came from Britain’s Parliament, where blue has long been associated with their right-leaning political party (the Conservative Party), and red has long been associated with their left-leaning political party (the Liberal Party).

I suggest a more plausible explanation was the decision by American television networks to use color images in their coverage of presidential election results.

The late 1950s and early 1960s included a wide range of changes in American culture. One was a massive shift in how Americans received entertainment and news in their homes. 

After World War II, steadily increasing numbers of Americans stopped listening to radios and started watching television. That trend accelerated when color televisions became more affordable and more widely found in American living rooms. By 1972, a majority of American households had color televisions.

Then, as now, the most important measure of success for television broadcasters is attracting and retaining viewers. The more viewers, the more revenue from commercials. What better way to do that than to use colorful and easy-to-understand updates in news broadcasts for election night coverage of presidential elections? 

For almost 50 years, presidential election results coverage by the three legacy networks (ABC, NBC, and CBS) had no uniform protocol on which colors to use to identify state results for presidential election candidates.

In some presidential election cycles, ABC, NBC, and CBS used blue to designate states won by the Democratic presidential candidate, in other years they used red. The color pattern was reversed with designating state states won by the Republican presidential candidate. In one election cycle, for unexplained reasons, ABC used yellow to designate states won by the Republican presidential candidate. The unintended outcome was confusion especially with viewers who were “channel surfers” continuously searching for the most recent results.

No small wonder that veteran journalism observer Jodi Enda wrote the following in a 2020 Smithsonian Magazine article When Republicans Were Blue and Democrats Were Red. — “In the beginning, blue was red and red was blue, and they changed back and forth from election to election and network to network in what appears, in hindsight, to be a flight of whimsy.”

Uniformity and continuity with color assignments finally became the norm, starting with the 1996 presidential election cycle.

 Presently ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and MSNBC all use the same color guidelines. They use blue for identifying states won by Democratic presidential candidates and red for identifying states won by Republican presidential candidates. 

Beginning in the 2000 presidential election cycle, the use of colors expanded greatly beyond being used to display state-by-state presidential election results.

Since then, red and blue labels have been used and are routinely used to label political candidates and elected officials at all levels, campaigns, and where partisan elections are held — states, counties, cities, and towns.

No doubt that will continue, but one major change may be in the future due to steadily increasing numbers of unaffiliated voters and independent candidates.

Despite the fact that no third-party or independent presidential candidate has had success in winning states in presidential elections since George Wallace won five states and forty-six electoral votes in 1968, it may happen again.   It may happen as soon as this year. 

In recent years, two current U. S. Senators have already been elected after running as independents – Bernie Sanders in Vermont and Angus King in Maine.

If or when an independent or third-party candidate wins a state or states in a presidential campaign, the new color used to record that may be purple, reflecting a new normal when blue and red are no longer the exclusive options.

David Reel is a public affairs and public relations consultant who lives in Easton.

 

 

On June 30, 1952, a ribbon cutting in Anne Arundel County marked the beginning and the end of transportation options between Maryland’s eastern shore and western shore. On that day, the first Chesapeake Bay Bridge opened for vehicular traffic. That same day, a ferry service that had carried 2 million passengers and 1 million vehicles on the Bay since being launched in 1930 ended. Conventional wisdom then was ferry service would never return to the Bay. Now an effort is underway to return ferry service that is very different from that which ended abruptly 72 years ago.

Currently, nine Maryland counties — Queen Anne’s, Anne Arundel, Calvert, Somerset, St. Mary’s, Wicomico, Talbot, Kent, and Dorchester plus the City of Annapolis are working with a consultant to study the feasibility of a new passenger-only ferry service on the Bay. Their final report will include recommendations on next steps if the consultant’s feasibility study concludes such a service is viable and sustainable. Below is the current map of potential routes. It is a work in progress. Routes may be added deleted or modified.

With all due respect to the supporters of this concept, I suggest there are two critical issues they need to consider if they have not done so already.

One issue is the ferry vessel under serious consideration for the proposed new service. It is the Candela P-12 all-electric ferry. It sells for approximately $2 million, does not carry vehicles, seats a maximum of 30 passengers, and has limited storage space for carry-ons such as bicycles, strollers, and wheelchairs.

This vessel will not be a practical alternative for the huge number of tourists who use Route 50 when going to Ocean City (“downy shore”).

Accordingly, this proposed new ferry service is not likely to generate significant support from eastern shore residents and public officials hoping for a solution to regular summer traffic jams on Route 50.

The second issue is the increasingly limited potential for state funding for this concept.

During the past several weeks in the General Assembly, there have been intense (and yet to be resolved) differences of opinion on how to address structural deficits in the state transportation trust fund and projected structural deficits in the state budget. Those deficits are almost certain to become worse based on the devastating impact on the state economy and state revenues from the tragic collapse of the Key Bridge in Baltimore.

Securing state funding for the launch and operation of a new ferry service on the Bay is not going to be a high priority in Annapolis in the foreseeable future.

I am not suggesting these are insurmountable obstacles or the only obstacles. I am suggesting they are very serious obstacles that cannot be ignored by the proponents of returning ferry service on the Bay.

One path forward may be securing private investment for this concept from investors with the resources to launch and operate it.

Otherwise, returning ferry service to the Chesapeake Bay may be an interesting idea whose time has not yet come.

David Reel is a public relations and public affairs consultant who lives in Easton.

 

 

A recent chain of events led me to think about another chain of events during World War II for a young girl who once aspired to be a famous writer. 

She ultimately achieved that goal, but not in a way that she had ever dreamed about or ever aspired to do.

Her name is Anne Frank. 

Anne died at age 15, along with most of her family, in a Nazi concentration camp. 

Before she and her family were sent to the concentration camp, they spent two years hiding from the Nazis in a secret sealed apartment in Amsterdam. During that time, Anne kept a written diary now known as The Diary of Anne Frank.

Her diary was published posthumously in 1947. Translated into almost seventy languages it is one of the most widely read accounts of the Holocaust. 

I had largely forgotten about Anne Frank and her diary until a series of unexpected events unfolded during a recent weekend. 

On a Saturday afternoon, my wife and I drove to St. Michaels to enjoy a beautiful early spring day. It was a by all measures, a perfect day.

The next morning was far from perfect. 

It started when my wife launched a frantic search for her wallet. Like most wallets, it contained her driver’s license, credit cards, and health insurance cards. It also included a substantial amount of cash for a Monday bank deposit to be used to pay for a long-planned and much-needed home improvement project. 

After retracing all her Saturday steps, we concluded her wallet likely fell out of her back pocket while we were sitting on a park bench in St. Michaels. 

I called the St. Michaels police to ask if anyone had turned in a lost wallet. The answer was no, not yet. The officer volunteered to go to the park and search for it. When he called back, he told us there was no trace of it. He also told us some who find lost wallets take the cash and throw the wallet into a trash can. He was kind enough to search the trash can in the park, but with no success.

Once we accepted that reality, I started to write a list of all the onerous tasks that follow the loss of a wallet. 

Angry and frustrated, I said to my wife, “This is what the world has come to. No one cares anymore except about themselves. You lose a wallet, and no one turns it in. Worse yet, they probably took your cash and credit cards with no remorse telling themselves it was an unexpected stroke of “good luck.”

Minutes later, there was knock at our front door. A couple from Washington DC whom we had never seen before told us they were also visiting St. Michaels on Saturday. They discovered her wallet. Using the address on my wife’s driver’s license they drove to our house on their return to Washington and delivered it.

They refused any reward other than accepting a heartfelt thank you.

As I reflected upon that unexpected random act of honesty and kindness my thoughts turned to Anne Frank and words Anne she wrote in her diary.

With a wisdom and eloquence well beyond her years she penned “It’s difficult in times like these: ideals, dreams and cherished hopes rise within us, only to be crushed by grim reality. It’s a wonder I haven’t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.”

With all due respect to the memory of Anne, I cannot fully embrace her thinking that people are truly good at heart. Many are, but some are not and never will be. This was confirmed by her death, the deaths of most of her family (all but her father who saved her diary) and at least six million other innocent people who perished in concentration camps during the holocaust. 

That said, our experience with a lost wallet was a reminder the best way to honor the legacy of Anne Frank is simple. Not always easy but a most meaningful way. 

In difficult times like these when dreams and cherished hopes rise within us, only to be crushed by grim reality; we can and we should strive very day to be people who are “truly good at heart.” 

David Reel is a public relations and public affairs consultant who lives in Easton.