Your Letters For (or Ambivalent About) the Proposed

Development of Baltimore Country Club Land

On this page you will find e-mail letters written to us in favor of, or not protesting, the proposed sale of 17 acres of currently green, open land owned by the Baltimore Country Club to Keswick Multi-Care Center for development as a continuing-care center. Scroll down for newer correspondence.

RolandPark.org is not responsible for the content of the letters, which reflect the views of their authors and not necessarily those of the Roland Park civic associations.

To return to main letters page, click here.

For (or at Least not Opposed to) the Development

Letters to RolandPark.org

_____

Friends, we all resist change, and that resistance is some part of the maintenance of Roland Park's comfort and charm. This proposed change, however, strikes me as a reasonable request. It would front on Falls Road, where traffic is already heavy and the added load is unlikely to make much difference. The land is pleasant green space, but it is the property of BCC, not public land, and they don't use it, so it is reasonable for them to sell it. Serving as a once or twice yearly sledding slope is not much use for the tract.
 
If we want to preserve it as open space, it seems logical to me that we must buy it. BCC is entitled to some return for its equity. We can't just complain. Put up or shut up.

 
John Sadler
June 30, 2008

_____

I grew up in Roland Park. I lived on Midvale Road in the '60s and early '70s. I use to putt on the golf course greens the Baltimore Country Club maintained even after opening Five Farms and selling most of the golf course land upon which today sits Poly/Western and Cross Keys. I have fond memories of sledding down the hills of BCC on snowy winter days. When I married and moved into the Orchards, I continued to enjoy the grounds of BCC.
 
I’m not a member of the BCC, do not work for Keswick and will not benefit from the project; however, I recognize the special favor the club provides to Roland Park residents, never enforcing its legal right to remove trespassers. What I fail to understand are the signs I see up and down Roland Avenue proclaiming “Save Our Park.” To what does this refer? Surely, the organizers of this opposition plan recognize the difference between public and private property rights. I think it is rather disingenuous to suggest that land BCC owns and has graciously allowed its neighbors to walk freely on, should be subject to a propaganda campaign that is misleading. Fortunately, we still live in a free country and any and everyone is entitled to oppose any development on BCC land, but does the RPCL have the right to convey false information suggesting the people are losing something that they indeed do not own?
 

Mark M. Deering

July 26, 2008

_____