Cambridge’s City Manager, Tom Carroll, resigned Monday over what he says is a lack of progress in changing the direction advanced by the Cambridge Waterfront Development Inc. (CWDI) for Cambridge Harbor. Mr. Carroll is the second City Manager to leave under this City Council in less than 3 years.  So, what is CWDI and what are the problems?

CWDI is an independent non-profit agency set up in 2018 and funded by the City, the County and the State.  The members of the board of CWDI were appointed (not elected) by the three entities. The purpose of CWDI is to oversee the development of the approximately 35 acres of land where the old hospital was on the Choptank River.  By creating a single entity such as CWDI, the City, County and State allow developers to deal with just one agency instead of having to deal with the three different governmental entities.  This idea has been used all over the US to develop areas but usually agencies such as CWDI hire experienced, professional development companies. CWDI is trying to develop the property on its own.

Our CWDI wants to set itself up as a permanent organization to handle all real estate, tax issues and maintenance in its area of control – very much like becoming a city within a city.  CWDI is setting up funding streams using increased real estate taxes to pay for employees’ salaries and maintenance operations.  This area of the City could have different codes and rules made by an appointed group and not by elected City officials.  CWDI would have a separate maintenance organization, separate equipment to maintain its properties and a separate marina which it will operate.

Our CWDI wants the City, County and State to put up over $50 million for infrastructure – sewers, electrical, streets, parks, parking lots, sidewalks, and public art, etc. before any companies have committed to the project.  The City would have to take out a huge loan of $33 million to net $22 million and would have to wait at least 30 years, if not more, to get paid back though increased taxes.  It is estimated that the City and County would, with interest, pay $60 million over the life of the loan (or $2 million a year between the governments).  

Keep in mind that even after the taxpayers have put up $60 million over 30 years for the Cambridge Harbor project, CWDI would, under their current proposal, still have a funding gap of millions. They would need to seek funding from other public subsidies or come back to the City for more funding to close this gap.

Our CWDI has an additional problem in that there is not enough “economic value” (taxable land) to make the project work financially for the City.  CWDI has set aside almost the entire waterfront from the bridge around to the Richardson Museum for nonprofit use.  In addition, they are planning to put the “Y” in the premier spot on the site.  (CWDI states that there is no deal with the Y but if you follow the money, CWDI has spent $5,000 on plans for developing the old “Y” site and the “Y” has spent $47,000 of the City’s ARPA funds on plans for the CWDI site). 

Our CWDI is very guarded with its information. It refuses to give the City pertinent information and is not cooperating with the City.  Therefore, we now have two amphitheaters being planned, one at the Packing House and one at Cambridge Harbor. The City will also have two marinas – the old City Marina, which is not full and needs a lot of work, and now a new proposed and taxpayer-subsidized marina at Cambridge Harbor.  It seems like there could be better coordination for multi-million-dollar projects like marinas and million-dollar projects like amphitheaters in a small City like Cambridge. 

Our CWDI does not provide the public with minutes of its meetings, detailed budgets or the details of its plans. CWDI has been in existence for over 5 years and has yet to announce one private company committing to the site.  Therefore, the City is being asked to develop the site with no tenants in sight.  It could be a very lonely, expensive place.   

There seem to be major problems with the CWDI, and the public does not know enough to make a fair assessment because the information needed is being held tightly.  I can only assume that if the City Manager finds it so troubling that he feels he needs to resign, then the City Council should take action and lay out the issues to the citizens.

What can you do?  Contact your City and County Council representatives and tell them to withhold any funds until all the issues are worked out in open sessions.  Enough of this closed-door decision-making – let the light shine in and let the citizens know what is going on.

Chuck McFadden is the president of the Cambridge Association of Neighborhoods.

 

In a notable twist of political dynamics, Governor Wes Moore, a fellow Democrat, finds himself at odds with members of his own party in the Maryland House of Delegates over budget priorities. Moore, who has consistently pledged not to raise taxes, now faces the daunting prospect of vetoing a budget bill proposed by fellow Democrats that would do just that. This predicament underscores a deeper rift within the party and raises questions about the alignment of fiscal policies with Democratic principles.

Governor Moore’s $63.1 billion budget proposal marks a departure from conventional approaches, emphasizing fiscal restraint and economic revitalization without resorting to tax increases. As a former investment banker, Moore brings a keen understanding of budgetary intricacies and the imperative to align government spending with tangible outcomes. His commitment to fiscal responsibility resonates with many Marylanders who seek prudent management of taxpayer dollars.

However, the budget presented by Democratic lawmakers in the House of Delegates diverges sharply from Moore’s vision. Their proposal includes tax and fee hikes, directly contradicting Moore’s promise to voters and his principled stance against burdening Marylanders with additional taxes. For Moore, vetoing such a budget bill becomes his only recourse to uphold his pledge, setting the stage for a contentious showdown within the party.

The crux of the disagreement lies in differing approaches to addressing Maryland’s fiscal challenges. While Moore advocates for targeted spending cuts and strategic investments to spur economic growth, some Democratic legislators favor revenue-raising measures to bridge budget gaps. This ideological discord reflects broader debates within the Democratic Party about the role of taxation and government intervention in fostering economic prosperity.

Moreover, the House Democrats’ insistence on tax hikes disregards the potential consequences for Maryland’s economic competitiveness and affordability. Raising taxes could stifle business growth, deter investment, and exacerbate financial strain on households already grappling with rising costs of living. In essence, it’s a gamble with Maryland’s economic future that Moore, as Governor, cannot afford to take lightly.

As the budget proposal moves through the legislative process, Governor Moore faces a pivotal moment in his tenure. His commitment to fiscal prudence and his promise to voters hang in the balance, with vetoing a tax-increasing budget bill emerging as his only viable option. This decision carries significant political implications, shaping perceptions of Moore’s leadership and the Democratic Party’s priorities in Maryland.

In the end, the outcome of this budget battle will reverberate beyond partisan lines, impacting the lives of every Marylander. It’s a test of principles, leadership, and fiscal stewardship—one that Governor Moore must navigate with unwavering resolve and a steadfast commitment to the promises he made to the people of Maryland.

The author is an attorney who resides in Stevensville, Maryland.

 

In order to pay for upcoming structural deficits and increased spending in the Maryland operating and capital budgets, tax and fee increases have been informally discussed among some members of the General Assembly.  One such potential tax proposal is to increase the Maryland Sales and Use Tax.

In the ongoing discourse over whether to increase Maryland’s sales tax, a candid revelation from a Western Shore delegate about a decade ago offers a prescient glimpse into the prevailing sentiments within the state’s political landscape. The delegate’s straightforward admission, “Clay, if you think the urban delegations cares about Kent County, I’m going to tell you ‘No’ “, serves as a sobering reminder of the historical disparities between the Western and Eastern Shores. This revelation, shared with me approximately a decade ago, sheds light on the perennial struggle faced by the Eastern Shore in securing fair and equitable treatment in the halls of Annapolis.

As I reflected on this insight in an article I wrote for Center Maryland in December 2014 (“There’s a Blue Dog Room in Maryland’s Third Party”), the stark reality emerged that the Eastern Shore, with its old-style conservative Democrats and Republicans, finds itself vastly outnumbered by the progressive Western Shore Democrats who wield considerable influence in the state’s political landscape. The sentiment expressed by the Western Shore delegate encapsulates the prevailing attitude in Annapolis—one where the concerns of the Eastern Shore, particularly those related to the impact of undifferentiated tax policies on local businesses, are met with a dismissive “who cares” attitude from many progressive leaders.

It is against this backdrop that an increase in Maryland’s sales tax takes on a more sinister hue. The Eastern Shore, already grappling with a political climate that marginalizes its concerns, now faces the prospect of an additional economic hurdle in the form of a heightened sales tax. The notion that Eastern Shore residents would willingly pay a 6 ½ % to 7% premium to make purchases within Maryland, especially when the neighboring state of Delaware beckons with a tax-free haven, is a testament to the shortsightedness of such a tax policy.

To argue that Marylanders will voluntarily pay the “use tax” for their Delaware purchases that are imported into this state is laughable. The complexities of cross-border economic interactions, particularly with a state boasting a tax-free haven, belie the simplistic notion that such an increased Maryland sales tax adequately compensates for the financial burden placed on Maryland’s Eastern Shore residents.

The juxtaposition of economic trajectories between Middletown, Delaware, and Kent County, Maryland, further accentuates the potential consequences of a sales tax increase. While Middletown, Delaware experiences a surge in economic growth and prosperity, neighboring Kent County, Maryland languishes in stagnation. This stark divergence prompts a poignant question: Does anyone in Annapolis wonder why neighboring jurisdictions can experience such disparate economic outcomes when the areas share a geographical border?

The Eastern Shore’s economic interdependence with Delaware is a reality that cannot be ignored. As policymakers deliberate on tax policies, they must heed the warning signs from the past and recognize the consequences of an unjust burden on the Eastern Shore. A myopic focus on urban priorities at the expense of rural communities threatens the delicate balance of Maryland’s economic ecosystem.

In conclusion, a sales tax increase, when viewed through the lens of historical neglect and dismissive attitudes towards the Eastern Shore, reveals itself as a potentially divisive and detrimental policy. Annapolis must reckon with the reality that fair and equitable treatment of all Maryland residents, irrespective of their geographic location, is essential for fostering a thriving and united state. Only through thoughtful consideration and inclusive policymaking can Maryland hope to bridge the divide and create an environment where the economic well-being of all its residents is safeguarded.

Clayton Mitchell is an attorney who resides on the Eastern Shore

 

Who is ready for more sticker shock at the grocery store? Well…get ready. It’s going to happen right here in Maryland. 

On March 1, the Senate Committee on Education, Energy and the Environment voted favorably on Senate Bill 1, which means it will now go to the Senate for likely approval. If passed, it will end retail energy competition and choice in Maryland, and take us back to the days when everyone was forced to shop with the government-backed utilities. 

It’s arguably the most anti-business and anti-consumer bill I’ve ever seen brought before the General Assembly. And if possible, the bill has gotten even worse.

Amendments have been added to the bill that will prohibit a green energy producer from marketing “green energy” unless it has been approved as such by the Public Service Commission. Which must, according to the bill language, consider THE STATE WHERE THE RENEWABLE ENERGY WAS PRODUCED.

Here’s what this means:

There will be even more pressure to chew up Maryland farmland for the installation of solar panels. 

As a result, there will be fewer family farms producing less food for local consumption, and prices at the grocery store will go up even more than they already have.

That’s basic economics.

To summarize, we will be paying even more for our electricity because that’s what always happens in a monopoly.

And now we will pay more for our milk, bread, eggs and vegetables. 

This is a windfall for the big utilities and it is a land grab for big energy corporations. It is a punch in the gut for consumers who don’t need and cannot afford to deal with higher costs at the grocery store.

Senate Bill 1 is anti-business. It is anti-consumer. And it is anti-green energy. Please contact your senator and delegates today and ask them to tap the brakes and think this through before voting for a bad bill.

Len N. Foxwell is the principal of Tred Avon Strategies and the former chief of staff to Comptroller Peter V. R. Franchot

In the corridors of legislative power in Maryland, a bill looms large, bearing the ominous moniker Senate Bill 1 / House Bill 267. This legislative concoction threatens to strip away the cherished right of choice from Maryland’s electricity and natural gas consumers. The intended consequence? Cementing the dominion of utility monopolies while muffling the voice of the customer.

Baltimore Gas and Electric, among others, wields an iron grip over the market, a fact that evokes the ire of many consumers. Despite fervent opposition, BGE’s petition for a staggering three-year, $408 million rate hike found favor in December. If permitted, this would culminate in a jaw-dropping 30% monthly rate increase this year. Such unchecked control, it is plain to see, bodes ill for the ratepayers.

Cast your mind back to 1999 when Maryland’s lawmakers, in a gesture towards fostering consumer choice, ushered in legislation aimed at broadening the array of electricity options available. Yet, despite the ostensible diversity promised, the tentacles of utility monopolies still ensnare a staggering 80% of residential customers, leaving the notion of choice a mere chimera for many.

Advocates of Senate Bill 1 / House Bill 267, like former Maryland Governor Parris Glendening, tout its virtues in a recent online news publication, alleging that retail energy suppliers have raked in undue profits at the expense of the consumer. However, this narrative conveniently sidesteps the elephant in the room – the exorbitant profits amassed by utility monopolies, which then find their way into the coffers of organizations like “Power for Tomorrow,” serving as a haven for erstwhile regulators and governors in their advocacy pursuits.

A damning report from The Energy and Policy Institute unmasks the opaque machinations of Power for Tomorrow, revealing its aversion to any attempts at fostering competition in the utility sector. Under the guise of consumer advocacy, this Arlington-based cabal furtively advances the interests of corporate behemoths.

The former champion of consumer choice, Governor Glendening, merits accolades for his role in shepherding the Electric Customer Choice and Competition Act of 1999 into existence. However, his dalliance with Power for Tomorrow warrants scrutiny, exposing the veritable collusion between regulated utility monopolies and those ostensibly tasked with safeguarding consumer interests.

SB 1 stands poised to usher in a new era of monopoly hegemony under the pretense of consumer protection—a wolf in sheep’s clothing if ever there was one. Let it be known: the erosion of the competitive market is no panacea. I urge you to wield your voice and preserve your choice, lest the specter of utility monopolies cast its suffocating shadow over the landscape of consumer rights.

Clayton A. Mitchell, Sr. is an attorney who resides on the Eastern Shore

 

The recent commentary published in Maryland Matters attacking the ability of farmers to install solar panels on their farmland is deserving of condemnation after a fact check. The lead author is the PR person for the massive poultry industry and appears to be worried that farmers choosing to augment their farm income with solar arrays may lead to less land to grow more chickens and grains to feed them.

Left out of this demand to curtail solar on farmland are these facts:

1. Maryland has 2 million acres of farmland, about 32% of all our land mass, with 12,400 farms averaging 161 acres.
2. From 2017 through 2021, the number of Maryland farms has remained the same.
3. Placement of solar panels on farms does not necessarily remove land from productive agricultural uses.
4. Farm owners can benefit from using the electrical energy produced and by payments from solar installation.
5. The biggest threat to farmland loss is from farmers selling land for development which solar installations can help prevent.

The authors would deny property owners the right to lawfully do

as they wish with their land, especially a revenue generating use with great societal benefits from the generation of carbon and pollution free electrical generation. There are already crippling regulations in place in many counties, including Anne Arundel, making it exceedingly difficult to place solar panels on farmland.

The column’s authors assert that “When farm fields are covered by solar panels, they cease to be farms.” Readers should know of the many examples of farming being augmented by solar installations.

Triple Creek Farm in Howard County has a 27-acre solar array on its 97-acres that has been in the family for 90 years. The owners were having difficulty surviving growing grains and cattle. The solar arrays are mounted on sun-trackers six feet above the ground allowing grasses and hay to grow underneath. Sheep graze in the shade below the panels, reducing the need for maintenance and providing farm income. This is happening all over the country and the term “agrivoltaic” farming has been coined.

The perimeter of the solar arrays not being used for sheep grazing is planted with native pollinator habitat enriching the soils and helping farm production as 75% of food crops rely at least partially on pollination. The solar arrays generate about 13.7 million kWh per year of electricity eliminating greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking 1,282 cars off the road or planting 98,380 trees.

Left out of the column that would deny farmers the choice of what to plant on their farms, is that the Delmarva Chicken Association representative well knows that one of her most prominent members, Perdue Farms, in 2011 installed a 6,720-panel solar array on their land in Bridgeville, Del. And subsequently installed a 5-acre solar project next to their Salisbury headquarters.

They touted the planting of a pollinator-friendly habitat under and around the latter as “a no-brainer for us … pollinator habitat can help increase yields of a variety of fruits and vegetables, including soybeans — one of the key components of a chicken’s diet … pollinator-friendly solar is a great way for electric utilities and corporations to ensure the solar energy they are buying does not result in negative tradeoffs.”

In 2017, Perdue Farms was part of a coalition of agriculture, conservation, and energy organizations that gained enactment of legislation to establish statewide standards for pollinator-friendly solar.

The Delmarva Chicken Association representative would block significant solar expansion on farmland, the best and cheapest way to meet our state’s ambitious clean energy goals. This is despite the industry record breaking chicken production on the Eastern Shore in 2022 with $5 billion in wholesale sales for 4.4 billion pounds of chicken meat, a 38% production increase in 20 years.

Chicken litter (poop, etc.) produced from 4,889 chicken houses reached 1.6 billion pounds creating serious ecological issues. Farmers should not be denied the ability to plant solar panels under the guise of making more land available to grow chickens and the grains to feed them. Isn’t 2 million acres of farmland enough?

The writer is an attorney and environmental leader who served in the Maryland General Assembly for 16 years, 12 as a senator. 

The editorial was originally published by Maryland Matters. 

 

Maryland is increasingly becoming a multicultural, multiethnic, and multilingual state. Last July, the state reported that 16.7 percent of the population were born outside of the country– around 946,000 multilingual individuals out of 6,180,253 total residents. According to 2020 U.S. Census Bureau numbers and Data USA, about 22% percent of the state population identifies as belonging to ethnicities other than White American or African American alone, that is, Asian (about 6%), Multiracial (about 3.6 %), and Hispanic (about 12%). Relatedly, nearly 21 percent of Maryland households report speaking languages other than English at home as their primary language. The five most common languages in Maryland’s households other than English are Spanish (494,447 households) and Chinese, including Cantonese and Mandarin, (72,246 households), followed by French, Korean, and Tagalog.

These numbers demonstrate the linguistic and cultural richness of the state, and highlight the need to value the many economic, educational, and political contributions that this diversity brings to our communities. Multilingualism has always been part of our social fabric, despite English’s dominance. This has, for many years, created a tension between and within PK-12 education and higher education. While the first has often positioned the multilingual child as a “problem” to fix with the help of English Language Learning (ELL/ESL/ESOL) courses, the best higher education institutions, such as Washington College, recognize acquisition of an additional language is one of the most significant academic and professional assets one can obtain. This tension, between and within PK-12 education and higher education institutions, often limits students designated as English learners from accessing sufficient resources for their academic and professional success.

Unfortunately, due to the lack of a robust multilingual education, by the time high schoolers arrive at college, some have not fully developed their home languages. Similarly, many multilingual students (both ‘heritage’ speakers or international students) have to quickly “catch up” and acquire mastery of the English language during high school to thrive or get into college. Maryland community colleges do not currently award college credit for ELL classes, nor are these classes’s credits transferable to bachelor-awarding institutions. The problem with this “English first” approach is that we, as a society, are missing opportunities to energize multilingual citizens, value their multiculturality, and recognize their hard work.

Students and educators on the Eastern and Western Shores of Maryland are working together to ensure that the academic work of multilingual students is valued by passing the Credit for All Language Learning (CALL) Act in the Maryland General Assembly. The CALL Act requires Maryland community colleges to award degree-applicable credit for advanced ELL courses and requires Maryland colleges and universities to accept these transferred credits for the fulfillment of foreign languages requirements and/or Humanities electives. Multilingual students in Maryland who have taken ELL courses are working as hard as any other student learning French, Spanish, German, or Chinese. As a community college educator on the Western Shore and a World Languages professor on the Eastern Shore, we fully support the CALL Act because of the positive impact it will have on students, their families, and our communities. This Act brings value to the mastering of languages and to the academic work of multilingual English learners.

It is important to consider the positive impact the CALL Act will have on both the Western and the Eastern Shore’s education systems, economies, and cultural lives. At the high school level, the CALL Act would send a message to students learning English that the workforce and academic credentials offered at community colleges are for them, too. Community colleges, meanwhile, would likely see increased enrollments and retention of multilingual English learners. Currently, both Chesapeake College and Wor-Wic College offer robust ESL programs for beginners, and may add offerings of the advanced courses incentivized by the CALL Act. Many colleges and universities support this initiative, from ESL professors and staff at University of Maryland Eastern Shore to Washington College’s professors and staff. They all recognize that multilingual students are an asset for our state and our nation, regardless of a student’s first language.

The benefits of the CALL Act would also stimulate economic and cultural vibrancy in the region. Multilingual employees and multilingual businesses are better positioned to meet the needs of an increasingly multicultural and globalized world. Enhancing workers’ English skills is good for workplace safety, from the farm field to the packing plant to the hospital emergency room, energizing a more efficient workforce. Furthermore, valuing Marylanders’ multilingualism, and recognizing their hard work as active members of our society, is the first step in embracing the rich cultural tapestry made by the many cultures and languages they bring to our Shores.

We encourage our neighbors, on both shores of the mighty Chesapeake Bay, to support the Credit for All Language Learning Act. Contact your state senator and delegate and ask them to vote for SB395 and HB569, respectively. Our students will appreciate it, as will our local schools, businesses, and cultural centers.

Owen Silverman Andrews is a community college instructional specialist of ELL on the Western Shore. Dr. Elena Deanda-Camacho is a professor of Spanish and Black Studies at Washington College.

Today I was bored and looking for a read, anything . I rifled through the mail and found nothing interesting to look at. More bills and promotions, Ad nauseam. In desperation, I picked up a University of Maryland Health flyer and turned the front pages and immediately I spotted what looked at an architect’s rendering of an extremely modern “ progressive architecture centerfold” building , and I learned it was to be the new county health facility slated to be built in 2023-2025 which I guess is right now! Horrors not here in historic Talbot county please!

Digesting more of the picture, I went into the next level shock imagining that new 6 story plate glass mid rise building is to be placed out on route fifty at the entry gateway to Easton on the old Longwoods road near the community center, but seriously, literally in the middle of a field. Two things struck me right away. In a green field a six story structure. Crazy , inappropriate. Why isn’t this in town! Who designed this?

Point One , this proposed building is both trendy , rather obnoxious and ugly , but most importantly horribly inappropriate. I ask what a trendy suburban modern structure doing out in the middle of a farm field. I thought Maryland was smarter than this , but I remembered this is a county site, not city. I thought that we as a state were focused on “smart growth” , That means we steer big buildings and new growth into towns, not out in green fields. We’ve made these similar mistakes in other counties and we are supposed to Know better.

Smart growth happens inside towns not outside of them. We keep green fields green because we like agriculture and we respect it. The big idea here is to use the existing town infrastructure already in place, build town density and not sprawl. . Also the need for transportation to and from that facility is reduced for those in town and trips to stores can be combined. Placing facilities like this is a green field is extremely bad planning, unsustainable, and energy intensive. . If state money in involved it this project should be shelved for violating the biggest guiding principle of smart growth, placement. It’s in the wrong place. Obviously looking at the pathology of this project, a county approval trumped city requests. They found a site that the city wouldn’t or couldn’t provide.

Second point: when all Is said and done , this building looks like it slipped off the shelf of a psychologist office, a classic case of multiple personality disorder, playing to modern architecture critics , designs like this are trendy but hold no lasting value.

The Talbot community center just next door is least an attempt at looking like it belongs to Talbot county architectural heritage , it’s looks like a warehouse or sorts albeit a bit out of place also. A community center outside of town ? Oh well. The community center building plays down the dazzle factor and attempts to link to county historical lineage as a commercial “packing house “.

This new medical building does nothing of the sort. It’s arrogant and it’s huge. And it sits right on a gateway site of the city of Easton. All six plus stories of it. I’ll bet the city is angry about this and they should be. The county should have respected the gateway entry site but ignored it.

But this building takes the prize for fish out of water, and As much as I know how important a hospital is to a community ( we all know the value of that investment in our county) , I am shocked to see how much this does not look like Talbot county and how much it does look like suburban PG county. In fact it may have already been built somewhere else and did in fact slip Off the shelf. It’s a bad franchise design at best.

My main point here is to say that nowhere in the process did it occur to the university of Maryland architects or the county commissioners that approved the design that this structure needed to respond to its site and context. It’s in a field!. Are we now a suburban extension of the Washington metropolitan area? Did they think we’d be impressed by modern imagery ? Not really.

Finding the right context for a buildings new image , That’s job one for an architect. It’s important as the building use which should also be legible ( readable) from the exterior.

If this building yells anything it’s saying “ I’m something modern and new” it will soon be dated and horribly out of place. Soon modern building becomes old and dated. Their visual language becomes trite and outdated and suddenly new looks out of place and old, like an ugly 1950’s sweater. It’s almost funny that it even was imagined to be interesting.

Unfortunately, we locals will be stuck looking at a hyperactive modern building out of place for decades to come because an arrogant corporate firm and medical corporation wanted to make a bold and heroic statement. Enough of this ! We demand better. This is hugely Inappropriate!

A bigger problem exists that allowed this to happen. The county has no one with architectural experience to point out the failings of any building design. If someone ( maybe a retiree) could help them through these growing pains, we’d all be better off. We wouldn’t get to where we are now without someone raising a question.

Linkage to our county history is the one thing that makes us special and it’s our distinct competitive advantage. When we throw it to the wind and don’t demand others respect that history, we are lessening our worth. We are corrupting our future..

The owners , university of Md corporations also know better too , but are playing the public using some off the shelf franchise design . No one asked for better. The new emergency care facility in Cambridge at least tries to link the warehouse history of Cambridge to their new facility, Cambridge demanded it in their zoning review but not Talbot. The Cambridge facility looks almost like it belongs. The city knew enough to ask for better. What was the linkage to Talbot , it was not even considered. No one asked or cared. That’s Talbot’s fault.

This building really could have been more. It’s a terribly disappointing performance and and horrible misstep. Building placement and exterior imagery are everything to a rural community. And this six story building ( tallest in county ) fails the test miserably and will scream as an ugly suburban institution for decades , a real shame. It could have been more….. and still could actually. It’s not built yet.

Jay Corvan is a local architect and preservationist from Trappe, Maryland.