Your Letters About the Proposed

Development of Baltimore Country Club Land

Sent to Baltimore Public Officials and Copied to RolandPark.org

On this page you will find e-mail letters written to city policy makers for or against 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.

Letters Written to Policy Makers

and Copied to RolandPark.org

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:

I am horrified at the idea that the old Roland Park golf course could be sold to Keswick in order to build a senior residence and adjoining hospital buildings.
 

Children need "open space" to play, meet other children, breath fresh air, admire nature, hear a variety of birds, watch a fox, walk their dogs, fly their kites, sled ride in the snow, etc. Adults also need to be able to relax in the peaceful atmosphere of the green fields, participate in their children play, meet neighbors and make new friends.
 

I can understand the need for more retirement homes but they should not be build at the expense of a neighbor-hood. The charm of places like Roland Park — a haven for people with children — is what attracts people to this city. I can see Keswick eventually being allowed to build along Jones Falls Road (as the latter already has an assisted-living home, stores, schools and is on a main thoroughfare), but to allow Keswick to build large annexes mimicking houses along Edgevale Road would be an irreparable destruction of one of the most sought after Baltimore neighborhoods — and one more interference with the eco-system.

Thank you for reading this letter and I hope you will be able to help us protect the beauties of Roland Park.

Ghislaine D. Godenne, M.D.

June 22, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:

To permit the changing of the character of a neighborhood for a country club that now resides almost exclusively in the county is disloyal. The neighborhood was built with them and now they have decided to desert.

The city needs to respect the residents of Roland Park and, if and when the time comes, vote against the BCC proposal. Roland Park residents have remained in our city, instead of moving to the county, because in Roland Park they can still have quiet and ample green space in close proximity to downtown. In return, they have extreme maintenance costs for their 100-year-old historic properties and very high taxes, while making few demands on city services.

Roland Parkers also bring many resources beyond tax dollars to much of the city in terms of involvement and participation. Changing the complexion of Roland Park with this large-scale project (323 Resident facility) lessens the opportunity for individuals desiring quiet green city living, and affects in some way each of the 1,000 homes in the neighborhood.

John F. Marra, M.D.

June 22, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:

Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke has just publicly (and rightly) praised Roland Park Place for its recycling efforts and its activities to help the greening of the city (http://rolandpark.org/documents/MESSAGEFROMMARYPATCLARKE.pdf).

It is ironic that this same week neighboring Roland Park has been informed of the impending sale and paving over of the remnants of the old Baltimore Country Club golf course. If allowed to come to fruition, this would represent the greatest loss of green space in Baltimore in countless years.

Roland Park is nationally famous, the country’s first planned garden suburb, laid out in part (Plat 2) by the same people that gave us New York’s world-famous Central Park. Roland Park is an acclaimed historic landmark — and once it is gone, it is gone.

Roland Parkers are unequivocally a benefit to the city. Residents pay exorbitant property taxes, ask and receive little in the way of public services, and endure third-world standard sewers. In return, we just wish to keep our green spaces.

I ask that you do whatever you can do to help preserve the nature of Roland Park, this to include registering your opposition to — and voting against in council, if and when the time comes — the Keswick Multi-Care Center’s plan to build a large retirement community over the Baltimore Country Club property (17 of its 30 acres).

There are acres and acres of unused, paved-over land in this city. The municipal government should under no circumstances approve the destruction of green land before all options for in-fill development in currently derelict areas have been explored. Mayor Dixon’s Cleaner Greener Baltimore initiative is welcome (http://www.cleanergreenerbaltimore.com). As a concerned Roland Park resident, I earnestly ask that you and your council colleagues uphold its vision by voting down the BCC approval process.

Douglas Munro

June 24, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:

As a Roland Park resident of 19 years, I am shocked at the misguided BCC land-sale proposal, which would have a totally negative effect on this rare city neighborhood. The effects of poor city planning are not something one expects to suffer from when purchasing a home in an historic district with very strict and enforced covenants.

The sheer mass of the proposed project and its resulting impact reflect, from the start, utter disregard for the neighborhood and its thoughtful planning. This may be a reflection that the BCC membership is now largely comprised of Baltimore County residents who may no longer feel connected to Roland Park or Baltimore City and care little about the future of either.

I am hopeful that, as a diligent representative of this district and neighborhood, you will help to ensure that this quick deal does not occur. It is valuable for a healthy city to provide a variety of living situations. Roland Park provides a unique opportunity for its city residents: opportunity for a little quiet green space yet nearby to city interactions. Let us work together to protect the integrity of a unique neighborhood with national acclaim.
Thank you kindly for your attention.

Maggie Marra

June 25, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:
 
As residents of Ridgewood Road, we are writing to request that you do all that is in your power to reject the sale of the BCC property to Keswick. As homeowners  within a block of the planned development, we have several concerns:
 
Increased traffic in a residential neighborhood: We already have a fair amount of "through traffic" because of people using Ridgewood and Hillside roads as a way to navigate between Roland Avenue, Cold Spring Lane and Falls Road as they head to Poly and Western schools or access the Jones Falls Express. Even now, I worry about crossing the neighborhood streets with my boys — and with the planned Keswick development, the traffic would be considerably worse. 
 
Character of the traffic: It's not just increased traffic but also the type of traffic that must be considered. There will be (a) an increase in ambulances (at any hour of the day or night) and (b) more delivery trucks. Although the majority of the planned housing is slated for "independently living adults," as the population ages, there will be greater need for increased nursing facilities — adding to the ambulance traffic.
 
Impinging on precious green space: We moved from Dupont Circle, Washington, D.C. to Roland Park nearly five years ago. We wanted to live in a city, but in an area  with more green space for our children and dogs. Roland Park seemed the perfect fit. Will it still be?
 
Complete disregard to the historic character of the neighborhood: Our home, like most in Roland Park, is over a 100 years old. The Baltimore Symphony Orchestra was actually founded in our living room. We were drawn to the house because of its historic character and that of all the other houses surrounding it. The scale of this development would be completely out of place in the neighborhood. It would deter potential homebuyers from considering the area and, frankly, I think it would prompt our family to consider moving. Our taxes are very high and the maintenance costs of these old homes are considerable, but we balance these negatives with the beautiful park-like quality of the neighborhood that is now threatened.
 
Setting a precedent: Rezoning of this green space sets a precedent for further development of this kind in Roland Park and, looking more broadly, to other historic neighborhoods in Baltimore. 
 
We sincerely hope that you will consider the impact of the Keswick proposal on Roland Park residents.
 

Amy and Steve Lutzky
June 25, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:

As a homeowner in Roland Park, I am very opposed to the proposed commercialization by Keswick and BCC on Falls Road. This is a commercial enterprise with the attendant customer, worker, and service vehicle traffic. A 400-car garage is indicative of the scale of the project. This is, I fear, another step in the changing of Falls Road from residential to commercial all the way to Northern Parkway. A much better use of this property would be as a park and dedicated green space complementing the athletic fields across the street.

I am very disappointed that BCC and Keswick have not made more detailed information about the project available to the community. They do have plans and renderings, which should be made public.

W.N. Sharpe, Jr.
June 27, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:
 
As a resident of Roland Park and concerned citizen of Baltimore City, I urge you and your colleagues to oppose the rezoning of the BCC Roland Park property and development by Keswick Multi-Care. Each of the five points below is reason enough for opposition, and taken in totality demonstrate to me why such an eclectic community as Roland Park is so galvanized and unified in its opposition to this proposed development (at least in my conversions with several dozen people thus far). Yet in every challenge lies opportunity, and I believe it is incumbent upon all of us to seize this opportunity to strive to do right by the community and the City of Baltimore, while satisfying the fiscal needs of BCC. But first, the development as currently proposed must be defeated.
 
1. Under the guise of "residential" development, the proposed Keswick development has significant elements that are not "residential" in character at all. In addition to being at variance with the permitted uses in R-1 zoning (e.g., single-family homes as are the norm in Roland Park), the development would entirely change the residential nature of the community. Even if considered as a conditional use of R-1 (which I oppose), a "planned unit development" by my plain-language interpretation is intended to be residential, and this proposed development certainly has major elements which are not residential.
 
2. The historic value in preserving Roland Park, a national icon of the "right" kind of residential planning, as well as the historic value of the BCC property itself as an original and integral part of the Roland Park, will be severely compromised by the development. Olmsted (the planner responsible for New York City's Central Park, many U.S. National Parks, and numerous other renowned community neighborhood and park developments) had a significant role in shaping Roland Park. Placing an incompatible use with incompatible structures at the expense of signature-Olmsted green space in the midst of historic Roland Park would represent a loss to Baltimore's historic character that could not be regained or replaced. Also, in addition to its historic value as an original green space of Roland Park, the subject BCC property has additional, independent historical value as being the home to the 5th U.S. Open golf tournament in 1899. BCC recognizes the import of this history by including its mention in the club history available on http://www.bcc1898.com, and with a permanent plaque on the Roland Park course tee #1 overlooking the proposed land to be developed; the hole #1 fairway and green, one of the last remaining vestiges of the original course, are part of the subject land purchase.
 
3. The proposed development, if approved, would impair the value Roland Parkers hold for their property and community, with potential cascading effects to local businesses, government revenues, and related constituencies. The value I am speaking of is not only the monetary value of our homes (which would surely be affected), it is the value which compelled us to move to Roland Park in the first place. The park-like setting (implying quiet, a natural setting with flora and fauna, escape from busy streets) will be gone in one fell swoop for many Roland Park residents with this development. Replacement of the park-like BCC property (home to foxes, birds, a last remaining piece of stream, a riparian buffer containing mature trees, and generally serving as mitigation to urban frenzy) by a noisy, traffic-heavy, unnatural, and non-compatible development as proposed would be creating new conditions in direct opposition to those valued. In short, Roland Park would no longer be a city community renowned as one of the best for its park-like qualities. By impairing the value residents hold for their property and community, people would be less attracted to Roland Park and home values could suffer, which would have other negative downstream impacts on neighboring businesses and revenues available to the City via property and income taxes. So, Roland Park residents would suffer, and other City residents and businesses would likely be impacted.
 
4. The precedent set with a decision to allow this proposed development is at variance with the growing commonsense approach on enhancing green space, and could have negative effects on other city planning initiatives. In the face of a growing urban trend to create and enhance green spaces (including Baltimore's initiative), why destroy existing, historic green space while ample opportunities exist to reclaim other, previously developed land? Ann Klassen says it all in her OpEd piece written for the Baltimore Sun, 22 June 2008. (http://www.rolandpark.org/documents/Klassen062208.pdf)
 
5. The situation confronted by Roland Park residents, in the brief time we have been given, can lead one to conclude that BCC intends to win its position by pushing its way through the system and minimizing stakeholder involvement. If true, and I wish it were not, this would be a travesty of due process. The facts that lead me to this conclusion: (a) Roland Park was not included in nominating or evaluating alternatives or even knowing that this process was occurring, (b) Site plans requested over two weeks ago by Roland Park important to community awareness development at this late stage have not been delivered, and (c) BCC's letter to its members (with an edited version being placed on the Roland Park web site) is misleading in characterizing community support  I would like nothing other than to be wrong here, but in the absence of other BCC action to the contrary, I can only conclude that there is a reasonable likelihood that BCC intends to push this through in spite of what the community thinks. In my experience, when this happens to a community, so might the associated political process go. I am therefore also concerned that the rezoning evaluation process be inclusive of all appropriate stakeholders and follow the letter of the law completely, and I am counting on you, as our representative, to uphold these principles.
 
Hence, for these reasons, I respectfully request your opposition to the proposed development. I also urge you to attend the upcoming Roland Park Civic League meeting on this topic at 7pm on 1 July 2008 at St. David's Church (see http://www.rolandpark.org). The good news is that with all of the attention this issue has and will garner, I am confident that with appropriate deliberation and consideration for all stakeholders' views, parties (speaking as one Roland Park resident at least) should be focused on resolving this issue once and for all. There must be a solution satisfactory to all. BCC, as a landowner, deserves value from its property, but the community, and the city, deserve consideration, too.

 
Ian MacFarlane
June 27, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:

The  Keswick Multi-Care project proposed to be built on Baltimore Country Club land is totally out-of-scale and character with the neighborhood and would go a long way to removing the 'Park' from Roland Park.  It would extend the commercial corridor from Falls Road into the heart of the community and remove more than 17 acres of green space.  It would create many logistical difficulties for neighbors as employees, visitors, ambulances and maintenance providers, in addition to the residents, find their way through our streets.  Additionally, housing values are already suffering; community signs of unrest are surely not what a prospective home buyer wants to see when choosing neighborhoods to consider.  From the potential residents' perspective, we cannot imagine how satisfied the senior inhabitants would be when the Poly night games fill Falls Road with cars and noise from not just its games, but those of many other city schools.

This must have been in the works for quite some time.  The Planning Department and City Hall probably know more about this project than those of us who would have to live with its consequences.   We also understand there is pending legislation, CCB #07/0002, that could have a blurring effect on the current districts, definitions and uses of group homes, nursing homes and emergency shelters.  Who knows ultimately what could end up there? 

Please support your constituents in opposing this project.  As I went door-to-door this weekend getting petition signatures, I can tell you with confidence that the vast majority of the Roland Park community is against the building of this 300+ unit development.  We also hope you will attend this Tuesday's meeting of the Roland Park Civic League at St. David's Church on Roland Avenue at 7pm which is being held solely to address this issue.

Thank you for consideration and considered service to Baltimore.

Chuck & Carole Schreck
June 30, 2008

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon and Members of the Baltimore City Council:

Thank you for all of your efforts to pursue a course of public policy focused on making Baltimore a "green" city. As homeowners and business owners in Baltimore City, we share your enthusiasm for making our city a more attractive place to live and creating job growth along with environmental sustainability. Unfortunately, the tremendous qualities of Baltimore are too often overlooked. Yes, we have problems, but we have also had as much success as any city in reviving neighborhoods and redeveloping "brownfield" space into thriving communities and areas of commerce.

Initiatives in redeveloping 1,000 acres of brownfield sites and thousands of abandoned homes are critical to continuing to improve Baltimore. In addition to these redevelopment efforts, it is also critical we preserve what we have in terms of parks, green space and the strong character and community of our neighborhoods. The development efforts downtown are working and show how responsible brownfield development combined with the preservation of neighborhoods along with their historic structures can result in improved quality of life and increased commerce. We are optimistic that the formation of the Baltimore Sustainability Commission and other efforts will continue this improvement in all areas of the city while taking into account the reality of the 21st century that we must reduce our environmental impact.

As you may already be aware, the Baltimore Country Club has announced its intention to work with Keswick Multi-Care Center, Inc. to develop 17 acres of current green space in Roland Park as a 325 person residential assisted living facility. While a noble objective, the scale and the location of the project will profoundly and negatively change the dynamic of the neighborhood. Our specific concerns are as follows:

1. Traffic is already a significant issue in Roland Park with commuters cutting through small streets at high speeds. Even if the only entrance to Keswick was on Falls Road, employees, delivery persons and residents would almost certainly be cutting through neighborhood streets to avoid traveling north to Northern Parkway or south to Cold Spring Road making this problem even worse.

2. A very high density facility will tax infrastructure for water and sewer which is already at a breaking point (please see  “311” call records) and will result in even more sewage overflow and potentially other problems;

3. Destruction of virgin green space, fields and trees, which are increasingly necessary (We can plant 1,000 new trees a year, but they will not replace the mature trees lost in North Baltimore).

The Keswick project in the proposed location seems ill suited both in terms of the impact it would have on the neighborhood as well as the city’s objective to double the tree canopy over the next 30 years. Rezoning this land and designating it as a "planned unit development" also seems inconsistent with the discussion of a new zoning category to further protect Baltimore's green assets. The Baltimore Country Club, and its overwhelmingly suburban membership base, will benefit from the $12.5 million purchase price — with Baltimore residents who chose to stay in, or in our case move to, the city paying the price with less green space and decreasing home values associated with a rezoned neighborhood.

As Baltimore moves forward with plans to reforest the city with plantings in vacant lots, alleys and abandoned industrial and residential property, it seems to make more sense to preserve virgin green space and wetlands and find an alternate location for Keswick where a planned unit development would have a positive rather than negative impact on the neighborhood and the city as a whole. 

To quote Mayor Dixon, who we believe has done an excellent job of addressing many of the city’s biggest issues in a very short period of time: "Every time I speak about my green initiatives or visit a site that is doing things right, I am reminded of a Native American proverb that says, 'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.' Please take advantage of the wonderful opportunities to learn about sustainability this week, and do your part to ensure a safe, healthy future for our children and our children’s children” (Mayor's e-Mail Newsletter, Issue #64, April 26, 2008).

Please let us know what we can do to work with the city to save our neighborhood and Baltimore’s dwindling green space. 

Dave and Eliza Dunn

June 30, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Clarke:

I urge you to oppose any zoning changes to the Baltimore Country Club land in Roland Park. As you know, the club plans to sale much of its land for the development of an exclusive senior living multi-care living facility. This use does not serve the citizens of Baltimore, and a change in zoning for this project should not be approved. Zoning regulations are established for strong reasons, and they should not be changed unless the neighborhood and the city will derive substantial benefits from such a change. Rezoning a large tract of land in Roland Park for an exclusive senior living and care facility will only benefit members of the Baltimore Country Club, not the citizens or Baltimore or residents of Roland Park. It is essential that Baltimore preserve strong city neighborhoods. The proposed development by the Keswick Multi-Care Center is totally inappropriate for an area that is zoned R-1, and the city will reap no benefit from allowing this project to proceed. I am sure that you will represent the best interests of the residents of Baltimore City and oppose any zoning changes to the property in question. If the exclusive and wealthy Baltimore Country Club needs to raise money for its own benefit, it has ample resources to do so, and does not need the city's assistance in the form of a zoning change that will negatively impact the residents of Baltimore.

Willard C. Everett

July 1, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton, Representatives Rosenberg & Carter and Senator Gladden:

Thank you so much for attending the Roland Park Civic League meeting tonight. 
 
Your support sends a strong message to the community that we can count on you to listen and act with your constituents' best interests at heart. Your support sends a strong message to those who act without regard for their neighbors. Your actions after tonight's meeting will best demonstrate the commitment behind your words. We were delighted to hear that Representative Rosenberg and Senator Gladden were already drafting legislation to preserve our green space before tonight's meeting.
 
There are alternatives that can be advantageous for all of us; our eagerness to find unity behind a different alternative than an out-of-scale project that would ravage one of the last green spaces in our community was clearly conveyed tonight. We look forward to your continued participation in this process.

Chuck & Carole Schreck

July 1, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:
 
Thank you very much for attending last night’s event at St. David’s Church to discuss the proposed sale of BCC land to Keswick for development of a retirement community. As I am sure you heard, there is nearly unanimous and vociferous opposition within the community against this grossly out-of-proportion development. I want to make it clear that this opposition stems from the potential loss of green space that contains innumerable mature trees, open grass land, wetlands, a stream and many varied flora and fauna, and has absolutely nothing to do with the use of the land (i.e., as a retirement community). We would welcome the Keswick to pursue alternative sites, where rezoning would not be required, and the city would not lose one of its remaining park-like resources.
 
I ask sincerely for you to take action, along with your fellow city council members, state representatives and senators, to ensure that the required zoning change does not go through!
 
Given our community’s repeated attempts to purchase the land and hold it in perpetuity for the use of the community, and the fact that the proceeds from the sale of the land would serve only to profit a highly exclusive and county-centric private club, it is

unconscionable that the city council, planning department and other involved entities would find it beneficial to the city to allow such a sale and development to go through.
 
I look forward to hearing your plan of action on how you will work to ensure that space stays open and green!

 
Thomas Hoen

July 2, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:
 
Your “100%” support for Roland Park’s opposition to BCC’s proposed sale of land for the commercial Keswick development pronounced at our July 4th parade is greatly appreciated.
 
This fight is bigger than Roland Park. Much is at stake: pollution of the already fragile Jones Falls watershed, dangerous amounts of traffic on Falls Road, the ruination of the country’s oldest planned neighborhood designed by landscape giant Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., erosion of Baltimore’s strongest tax base and real estate market, and the loss of north Baltimore City’s largest contiguous green space. 
 
Provide us instructions to rally behind you. Together we can keep Baltimore green. We can set a precedent for genuine smart growth in Baltimore City. If the strongest community in Baltimore cannot do this backed by quality representatives such as you, who can? We have to win this fight for all of Baltimore. We are here to help you to victory.

 Allison Barlow and Tom Hoen

July 9, 2008

_____

Dear Councilman Reisinger:
 
Recent opinion pieces in the Gazette have me concerned that the true nature of the dispute between the Roland Park community and the Baltimore Country Club board is not reaching you. In Barry Rascovar’s July 4th "Fishing, Fussing and Fireworks" column, he decries the Roland Park community’s effort to keep park-like land from being developed as a battle of exclusive neighborhoods against needed retirement communities. The problem is, Mr. Rascovar omits the facts:

1. He fails to mention the deal’s real winner: the Baltimore Country Club, a highly exclusive Baltimore County based organization whose membership gets first dibs on the new development s residences (this comes from its own internal publication to members about the proposed sale, third page).

2. He could have also included — but didn't — that Keswick is a non-profit, and what little taxes BCC is currently paying (reportedly around $180K) will be lost to the city.

3. Most oddly omitted is that Roland Park already offers more than 800 elder care beds within its confines. In fact, mere yards from where this new development will cover over irreplaceable Jones Falls wetlands is an elder care facility that is not operating at full capacity.

4. Mr. Rascovar goes on to say that Roland Park is home to elite private schools, as if all members of the community attend these. He does not raise that Roland Park is also home to the best public elementary/middle school in the city, a fact due largely to a diverse and active parent group that is committed to seeing better public education for everyone.

Thomas Hoen

July 9, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:

I am a 30-year resident of Roland Park and former member of the BCC. I am not an anti-business individual and subscribe to the concept that everyone needs to be heard. This “conflict” is a once-in-lifetime opportunity for Roland Park to step up and do something exceptional.

Your desire to bring all the parties into dialogue is very much appreciated. Congratulations on your efforts in getting both Keswick and BCC to come to the meeting at St. David’s church (July 1).

The scale and essence of this Keswick project are totally unacceptable to 99% of the residents in Roland Park. The lack of communication by Keswick and the BCC is also stunning and obviously in poor form from a development standpoint.

Something major appears to be missing in terms of either veracity or motive that the BCC did not respond to David Tufaro’s multiple offers on behalf of Roland Park to purchase the 17 acres some years ago. I do know some of the leaders at BCC and it appears that the Keswick acquisition will probably pass with their vote. For most of the BCC members, it is a way to subsidize improvements to the club which is steadily becoming a Baltimore County Country Club.

I thought Roland Park represented itself very well at the meeting and was respectful to all parties.

Thanks again, councilwoman, for your attention and consideration in this matter.

Blake Goldsmith

July 9, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton [plus a large list of other public servants, too many to reproduce here — Ed.]:

Please allow us to restate our opposition to the proposed Keswick development on the BCC property. This is wrong for the land, wrong for the neighborhood and wrong for us to be forced to accept this. 
 
Please do not support the rezoning of this land from R-1 or the establishment of a PUD. Apparently, the Baltimore Country Club is again not giving its members the courtesy of waiting to hear the outcome of their vote, just as they did not give them the courtesy of notifying them of three other times when offers from their [Roland Park] neighbors were submitted. Board members of the BCC and Keswick were reported to have spent more than an hour presenting downtown. 
 
We need and appreciate your help and support!  We need it now! Many thanks for all you do!

Chuck & Carole Schreck

July 11, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:
 
My story is not very different from many other homeowners living in Roland Park. My husband and I are both Baltimore City born and raised. We purchased our Hawthorn Road home in 1990, before we were married. In 1990, the economy was weak, times were tough and city residents were fleeing the city in droves. We choose to invest our money in the city and purchased a run-down Victorian that had been turned into apartments. Over the years, we renovated our home, bringing it up to code and restoring it to the Victorian glory it so richly deserves. My portrait in my wedding gown, taken on our beautiful front porch, graces the staircase wall and we have raised our two children here.
 
Why have we stayed for 18 years, investing lots of money and sweat equity? Because we love Roland Park, all of Roland Park. We love the fact that we can walk to Eddie’s Market, the library and the bank. We can walk to ball fields and skip stones in the streams. I even walked the steep hill of Club Road, under the cool canopy of mature leafy trees, 8 months pregnant, on hot summer days to a snowball stand that used to be at Falls and Cold Spring.
 
We are appalled that our gentle, green oasis is threatened by the pending sale of BCC property to Keswick. It’s important that you truly understand the scope and size a project of this magnitude and how it will change life in and around Roland Park forever. If this project is allowed to continue, there is no going back and undoing all the wrongs. The added stress on an already over-taxed infrastructure, the noise, the pollution, the trash, the loss of trees and green space. The food service and laundry delivery trucks that will cut through neighborhood streets, even though they’re not supposed to; trash trucks; employees; residents; emergency vehicles; loss of wild life; pollution of the stream; current residents with a new view of the back delivery docks — the list goes on and on.
  
We’re not opposed to assisted living or having older residents within the community, but there has to be a better answer. I believe that if Keswick was nudged to look at the Rotunda Project, which is now stalled due to lack of residential interest, an interesting concept could be realized. [See Sun op-ed here.]
 
I can easily visualize a mixed-use concept at Rotunda, with assisted living and over 55 condos mixed with retail and business enterprises. Think of the ease older residents would have being within walking distance of food services, drug stores, dry cleaners, doctor’s offices. I can even see a pedestrian foot bridge linking the Rotunda to Roland Park Place so older residents can come and go within a wonderful urban complex. The current business owners, who have already signed 5-year leases in anticipation of projected business, would have a better opportunity to serve the community.
 
It is most important that you realize that Roland Park isn’t a now or ever proposition for Keswick. They have options. We in Roland Park, however, don’t. For us, this decision is a “now or never.” Either we preserve the open green space now or, if developed by Keswick or any other developer, we will lose it forever.

Kate Culotta

July 11, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:

I am disappointed but not surprised that BCC members would choose the developers' price for their land. I hope that you continue to support the current R-1 zoning and, therefore, the current single-family residential nature of the neighborhood. Supporting a large development is contrary, not just to the current zoning on the land, but is contrary to the Olmsteds' plan that earned Roland Park a spot on the National Register of Historic Places. As you know, Roland Park residents have offered millions of dollars — fair value under its current zoning — multiple times to the club for their land and haven't even gotten the dignity of a formal response.

Scott McLucas
July 15, 2008

_____

Dear Councilwoman Middleton:

Thank you for supporting the Roland Park community in your opposition to the zoning changes needed for Keswick to proceed with its planned development in Roland Park. Zoning regulations are established to protect neighborhoods, and to prevent development that will destroy the city. Keswick's proposal will benefit only their organizations, and the fortunate few who can afford their care (such as members of the Baltimore Country Club, who have first preference on the units). The city will not benefit from a zoning change on the BCC property, and I support your decision to oppose rezoning the property. Your courage to stand up to the moneyed interests of the BCC is admirable.

Willard C. Everett

July 16, 2008

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

Please support the Roland Park community effort to stop rezoning of the Baltimore Country Club property through a PUD request. As a resident of Baltimore City and Roland Park, I oppose the rezoning. Roland Park is a planned residential community, one community in a city of many diverse neighborhoods. Any development for commercial use is incompatible with its residential character.

Rezoning of this property has the potential for setting a precedent for further rezoning and degradation of the residential character of Roland Park. That would be a loss not only to the area, but also to the city as a whole. I look forward to plans to preserve the open green space permanently for the benefit of the neighborhood, Roland Park, and the city.

I have no doubt that Keswick gives fine care and that it provides a needed service. To frame the argument as 'trees vs. older people' is incorrect. This facility is better suited to an alternate location.

I hope that the matter may get resolved with a win/win resolution: preservation of neighborhood, zoning as well as precious green space and Keswick finding an alternate location for their new facility within the city.

Thank you for your consideration of neighborhood preservation. I hope you will support us.

Paula Hackeling
August 13, 2008

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

I am writing again to voice my strong opposition to the rezoning of 17 acres of Baltimore Country Club (BCC) land from R-1 to planned unit development (PUD) status in order to accommodate Keswick Multi-Care Center’s development. In addition to my concern over the environmental impact, which I outlined in my e-mail of July 30, I’m concerned about the harm this kind of rezoning will do to this historically significant neighborhood.

The current R-1 zoning in Roland Park allows for single-family homes, houses of worship, schools and recreational areas. If Keswick is allowed to rezone 17 acres as a PUD, it will set a frightening precedent for our community. I expect to see other businesses take advantage of this precedent, as many have tried to do in the past. We’ve already lost too many battles and had too much of our neighborhood chipped away to make room for office and apartment buildings, convenience stores, banks, and parking lots.

Some companies are making more sustainable choices, developing on blighted properties rather than rezoning and destroying open space (e.g., Johns Hopkins’ $230 million development on property that used to be home to dilapidated public housing; click here).

In the Baltimore Sun article, Hopkins was praised by Congressman John Sarbanes for building a “bridge” instead of a “moat.” Why won’t Keswick consider doing the same and, instead of taking something away from a beautiful neighborhood and damaging it in the process, give a gift to a neighborhood that is in need (think of Stadium Place)?

The approach being taken by the East Baltimore Development Company (EDBI) and Hopkins is, in the words of Barry Schloss, Weinberg Foundation treasurer and trustee, “a model of how to remake a city.” (The Weinberg Foundation has pledged $15 million to the project). In my opinion, the Keswick development is a model of how to unmake a city.

Similar rezoning battles are being waged across the city, the state and the country. That’s why the New York Times ran an article about Baltimore (see here). People everywhere are standing up and saying, “No more!”

I’m strongly opposed to rezoning anywhere in the city that damages, undermines or destroys a neighborhood, whether it be for an assisted-living facility or a shopping center. No more!

Thank you for your continuing efforts on behalf of our great city and its citizens.

Martha Marani

September 16, 2008

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

I live in Roland Park and strongly oppose the added burden of traffic in our neighborhood. Due to increased enrollment in the neighborhood schools and due to the expansion of business on Cold Spring Lane, “pass-through” traffic has increased on our residential streets. Within the last year, our nextdoor neighbor’s dog was run over and killed, and a neighbor was run over and spent three months hospitalized. Many near accidents have occurred as pass-through vehicles brake for children on bikes and children chasing balls into the street.
 
Hillside Road, flanking the proposed Keswick retirement village, is already a dangerous pass-through thoroughfare due to traffic trying to access the Western/Poly high schools or trying to get to Cross Keys. Since Hillside Road lacks complete sidewalks, people who used to walk their dogs or push their strollers on the blacktop are now trapped between staying at home or venturing on a dangerous outing. Instead of adding a development to that area, the city should put in speed bumps, sidewalks and one-way streets.  
 
Retirement developments, such as the one across from the Rotunda, include a great many elderly people who are ambulatory or who use walkers or wheelchairs. They frequently negotiate their way across 42nd street and shop at the Rotunda. This is a wonderful juxtaposition. In contrast, the placement of a retirement community on the BCC site would be like a prison. There are few safe crossings. The opportunities for negotiating a walker or a wheelchair, without major renovation of the neighborhood sidewalks, are non-existent. My father, visiting Roland Park, found this neighborhood unfriendly to wheelchair-bound people since he frequently had to be rescued from sidewalk cracks and road deformities that toppled his wheelchair.
 
The Keswick development will be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

 
Maria Salvato
September 18, 2008

_____

Dear Council President Rawlings-Blake:

As a Roland Park resident, I would like to voice my strong opposition to the Baltimore Country Club's request for a zoning change for its property. This property is zoned R-1 in a residential neighborhood, and it should remain that way. The scale of the Keswick Multi-Care Center is totally out of proportion for the neighborhood, and the negative impact on the neighborhood would be enormous.

The streets are already very narrow and unable to handle two-way traffic in most places without one car pulling over to allow another to pass (e.g., Harvest, Deepdene, Beechdale, St. Johns, Elmwood, etc.). The six schools within a 2-3 mile radius of this site already overload the tiny streets, and I cannot imagine what it would be like to add 3 shifts of workers, 323 family units of drivers, food and supply deliveries, plus visitors to these small neighborhood streets.

Keswick has stated that there will be only 158 employees, but if you look at the staffing of the three nursing/CCC facilities in Roland Park, you will find that this is underestimated. Keswick's projected figure would average to 53 employees per shift to serve 323 nursing beds, assisted living units, and independent living apartments. I think the numbers speak for themselves. It is inconceivable that the
Keswick traffic study took this into account these figures when it concluded that there would be "no effect" on traffic in the neighborhood.

In addition, the storm water drains/pipes/culverts and the sewer pipes are already unable to handle the community's needs without blocking up or overflowing in both rain storms and dry weather; so the addition of more impervious land cover would produce more flooding and sewage overflow in the streets and in our basements. If you want to verify this, check your 311 call records. One example is the intersection of Club Road and Valley Lane which has raw sewage spout out or push up the drain cover periodically. Neighbors have basements that flood with sewage on a regular basis, not all due to tree roots on their properties, etc. The infrastructure of Roland Park is not able to handle a 30 percent increase in population, as proposed by Keswick.

There are multiple other reasons to keep the BCC site zoned R-1, and I know you have heard them all! In particular, we need to keep green space in the city. Other neighborhoods have requested to be considered for this project, neighborhoods that would benefit greatly by the addition of Keswick. It seems that it would be beneficial to everyone to pursue one of these locations rather than changing the BCC property's zoning in the face of the Roland Park Community's strong opposition to the BCC site. Let's find land that is already commercial or black-topped, not a site with century-old trees and green fields.

Roland Park has offered to buy this land in the past at fair market value, and it is offering now to buy it at fair market value. Roland Park has exciting ideas for ways to use the land that would keep the space open and green, the focal point of an historic community. We have proven that we can raise money, as we did with our magnificent library, and we know that we can do it again. But first you must make a clear stand as our city council president in opposition to the PUD and in support of keeping the BCC property zoned R-1.

Cynthia C. Maier
September 22, 2008

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

Of the choices we make in life, some are irrevocable. In making these choices, we must first ask ourselves what the consequences may be, and whether we, and perhaps our descendants, can live with them. The Roland Park/BCC PUD-zoning issue that now confronts you is such a choice. In making this choice, you are answerable to every Roland Park resident present and future, and to every mayor following in your footsteps. Because it is such a critical choice, I would like to draw a comparison with another city now living with and compromised by the unfortunate choices made by past generations of civic and business leaders.

I am presently commuting to Nashville, where I recently took on the CEO role to effect a turnaround of a small, promising biotechnology company, Asklepion Pharmaceuticals. It is my intent to move the company in a year’s time or so, and Baltimore is certainly my leading choice. Because of the nurturing respect that Baltimore has shown over the years for its neighborhoods, I anticipate no problems in attracting our key personnel to move to Baltimore. Because of the city’s and state’s wisdom in providing support for the biotechnology industry, I likewise anticipate no problems in finding and hiring highly skilled personnel to replace those who might remain in Nashville, and to meet the needs of company growth.

Nashville is a mirror into which you must look in making an informed choice about Roland Park. Simply put, there are no urban neighborhoods on a par with the architecturally and culturally diverse panoply that is Baltimore. Instead, one finds clusters of 10 to 50 homes surrounded and criss-crossed by thoughtless development. Germantown might have had much in common with Bolton Hill or Charles Village had it not been reduced to a small cluster of charming homes surrounded by strip malls, little-used four- to six-lane roads, and so forth. Instead of investing in the city, the more well-to-do have deserted the city proper for adjacent colonies of McMansions with all the warmth and charm that is Towson. One can walk the streets and read the architecture like tree rings. Just as tree rings will reveal a calamity that befell a region, so too will architecture tell a story. In each case, the earliest insult seems to have been a modest one that may, at the time, looked to some to have been aligned with community needs. Yet, these seemingly innocuous architectural and land use infections eventually took root and killed their host neighborhoods as surely as any urban disease.

Roland Park’s leadership, and many others, have explained to you how granting the Keswick/BCC request for a PUD will effect a material change in circumstances that will leave our treasured community vulnerable to every future proposer of inappropriate development. It will start Roland Park down the same road that once lay before Nashville’s civic leaders. In making your choice, you must ask yourself what you wish future Baltimoreans to remember about your heretofore splendid administration. Do you wish them to applaud you as a mayor whose stewardship served to preserve the integrity of our communities for future generations? Or do you wish to be remembered as the mayor who started some previously charming neighborhood down the road to Potterville.

Benjamin Disraeli once wrote that doing nothing is seldom wrong and often brilliant. I urge you to make that choice as an affirmative act of stewardship for Roland Park, for Baltimore, and for yourself as a fellow citizen.

Gary Pasternack

September 24, 2008

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

One week ago, Tuesday, October 14, was a historical night in Roland Park. 

The greatest number of Roland Park neighbors ever assembled came together for one purpose: saying no (and loudly) to the BCC/Keswick proposal and saying yes (very loudly) to the health and continuing vitality of Roland Park, to the preservation of green urban space and to the power of neighborhoods in Baltimore City.

As a community leader, hearing comments from friends and neighbors like “Tuesday night was powerful,” “never have I felt prouder to live in Roland Park,” and “what else can I do to help?” is unbelievably gratifying. There is no question our residents were very moved by what they saw and heard, and absolutely clear about where the neighborhood stands on the Keswick issue.

We were thrilled to see so many elected officials from Baltimore City and Annapolis, among them your three representatives Mr. Andrew Frank, Ms. Elaine Garven and Ms. Kristy Taylor. Their presence made a significant statement about how much neighborhoods matter! Thank you for suggesting they attend our meeting. I also join other community leaders in Roland Park in expressing our gratitude for the unified support of the City Council.

Mayor Dixon, I appreciate all the careful consideration you have given this important issue. I know that you have spent a lot of time in Roland Park, and in meetings with our community leaders, learning about our point of view. We are clear and unified in our opposition to the BCC/Keswick proposal and in our support of your initiative for a cleaner, greener Baltimore.

Thank you so much for your commitment to the people and neighborhoods of your city!

Anne C. Stuzin

Roland Park Community Foundation

Co-editor, Roland Park News

October 14, 2008

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

I am writing to express my concern regarding the sale and zoning change of Baltimore Country Club land for development by the Keswick Multi-Care Center. Last evening, I and about 400 concerned residents in my neighborhood listened to the presentation of the plan by the Keswick group. I wish you could have heard the passionate pleas from our community leaders contrasting the determined resolve of the developers.

When I came to Baltimore to work at Johns Hopkins Hospital, I knew immediately that I wanted to raise my family in Roland Park. It is truly a gem and attracts young families to put down roots in the City of Baltimore. While many old things do not merit preservation for the sake of age, I hope that you understand that our neighborhood exists today, virtually unchanged in over 100 years, because of careful planning and land use covenants which have been translated into the current zoning laws.

Certainly, development of this land would lead to more jobs (158 according to the developer) and possibly more tax revenue ($0.5 million, according to the developer, but much less than the $4.4 million tax break they will receive as a non-profit). However, this would come at the cost of reduced neighboring property values and probable increased flight to the suburbs. In addition, it is hard to believe that this complex of 323 living units would not require additional infrastructure in terms of improving existing sewage and roads to service the development. The Falls Road/Northern Parkway intersection, which will service 60 percent of the traffic heading into the new development, is already the busiest and one of the most dangerous intersections in the city. Unfortunately, the traffic analysis for the development did not include this intersection. So, the net benefit to the city may not be as much or even positive, especially if the development is not as successful as planned.

Baltimore County Club owns the land and has the right to sell it to whomever they please. We have entrusted you and your office to protect the land within the city by upholding the zoning laws. The Roland Park Civic League has a plan and has made several offers in the past several years to purchase this exact same land from the Baltimore Country Club. I am not privy to the discussions surrounding this sale but mediating such efforts and finding an alternative site already zoned for development might be the best solution to all of our problems.

We have reasonable alternatives to this development and hope to keep our green space as long as possible but I am afraid that others might view development of any kind as "progress" and that our neighborhood will eventually get paved over. I sincerely hope you will use the power of your office to help us keep our neighborhood green and work with the developer to satisfy their needs as well. In the strongest terms, I urge you to not only oppose this proposal but also to help the community and the Baltimore Country Club come together so that we can preserve our neighborhood.

Howard Ying

October 15, 2008

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

First of all, I wish to thank you and the members of the City Council who have listened to our concerns about protecting the open space that the Baltimore Country Club wishes to sell on their Roland Park property.

I just wanted you to read the article I wrote to the Baltimore Messenger because it expresses my feelings as a resident of Roland Park since 1952. I have lived in the same house all this time and I do not ever plan to move to a retirement home in Roland Park or anywhere else. Furthermore, I think we need to preserve whatever open space we can. It is so important.

I am sure Keswick can find another location in the city where there is an existing building or paved roadways — and not open green areas in an historic location. We don’t need a large number of “Monopoly style” houses sitting in neat little rows, either.

I think that you, too, are concerned about preserving “green space” and I hope you will work with the residents of Roland Park.

Sally Foster

October 17, 2008

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

Though I am aware you have received many letters and e-mails to date regarding the Keswick Development proposal on the BCC in-town site off of Falls Road, I am writing for the first time to voice my ardent opposition to this plan.

Until the last meeting I attended, with Keswick and John Daue (BCC's president), my husband and I both supported the proposed development. Several years ago, I sold my business, Deerfield Senior Day Care. I operated 14 centers in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. In fact, Keswick was one of our clients. I think senior services are vital and can be a wonderful addition to a community. I very much support the new assisted-living and Alzheimer center proposed on University Parkway, just south of Cold Spring Lane. My husband is a commercial and residential developer. He is often in the position of working with communities to achieve harmony between his large scale developments and the existing neighborhoods. 

I offer this background so you know that we have considered both sides wholly and we both generally tend to favor development, but the proposal Keswick and BCC have offered up is not only inadequate, but destructive to the fiber of the very community it is claiming to serve. 

First and foremost, there is no great tax advantage to the city, given Keswick’s not-for-profit status (which seems like a clever circumvention of sales tax and other revenue streams due the city anyway), and the jobs they hold up as so valuable would still be available if the building were located anywhere else in the city. There is no pent-up demand for senior housing in the Roland Park area: we have more than most communities already, and several much better proposals in the wings. So the great “service” they claim they are providing is really nothing but smoke and mirrors.

BCC needs the money and Keswick was the only buyer cash-flush enough to offer a purchase price of roughly double what the land is worth to any residential developer. There is no greater cause here. Money is the only reason they are trying to make this work, even at the expense of neighbor comfort, green space, infrastructure wear and tear, destructive new traffic patterns —the list goes on and on. I am all for personal freedoms and capitalism, but not at the expense of others. The laws currently on the books, which prohibit the use they are proposing, exist precisely to avoid a bully with big pockets undermining the rights of others who are less powerful. In this case, the “others” are several hundred possibly thousands of (very high bracket) tax-paying citizens, all of whom vehemently oppose this development.

As one of them, I am disturbed that after such a strong show of neighborhood solidarity, the Keswick measure still even has a pulse. I understand completely that BCC is a private seller; I do not think of BCC as our neighborhood “park.” But they have a responsibility, under the law, to adhere to certain uses and they are completely unwilling to compromise, listen, or work with the community around which they were built. Roland Park is a unique and historic neighborhood. The care and planning with which it was conceived are what continue to attract educated, invested citizens. If we start to let bulging pocketbooks override the law and set new policy, what kind of precedent does that set?

On another note, the way in which the BCC and Keswick management teams have behaved is simply appalling. I lived on Blythewood Road for 15 years. When Loyola developed their new student building, the difference in their behavior, compared to that of BCC’s, is stunning. There were only 15-20 neighbors who even cared, but Loyola met with us regularly, worked hard to eliminate concerns, and spent liberally to address any and all sticky issues. They really didn’t even have to do it. They had every right under the law to do whatever they wanted. But appreciating how a civilized, cooperative society works, they chose to be good neighbors.

By contrast, BCC’s threatening ultimatums and steamrolling approach show no respect or consideration for the neighborhood association leadership, the neighbors, city officials, or the history and law to which they are bound. In all my years as a business person, and my husband’s as a developer, neither of us have ever witnessed such unbridled arrogance and unwillingness to listen or engage in a meaningful dialogue. Forget goodwill, their voracious steadfastness in spite of the law and the swell of dissent they have created should not be rewarded. They need to play by the same rules as everyone else.

BCC threatens to pursue alternate uses, which are allowed under the current law — like single family homes. Hurray! The rewards for that scenario are better for everyone except BCC, who can’t get as much money for the land under that proposal. But the city and the neighborhood would be much better off: more highly educated, tax paying, consumers in the neighborhood.

I certainly hope the mayor will realize the obvious balance of power should lie with the citizens of Roland Park, who rarely ask for anything, but provide a hugely disproportionate per-capita tax revenue to the city. Roland Park and its surrounding area is a beacon of organic growth and stability. Please do not sacrifice the ongoing long-term desirability of this area, and the housing prices that accompany that, for one ill conceived project.

Julia and Michael Keelty

March 4, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

The community letter from Dr. Phil Spevak, March 3, 2009 is of interest to the RP residents and government officials alike.

First, is it realistic that a community can thoughtfully review and discuss this proposal in the next two weeks? Is there a particular reason for the March 15th deadline or can it be easily extended?

Also, a decision should never be made by anyone, government or resident on a conceptual plan. It means nothing. There is no adequate-facilities study, no engineer’s drawing to scale. One might just as well have asked Mrs. Miniver to paint a watercolor of her garden in the 1940s. A picture of roses, lawn, trees, and buildings as seen through a misty prism. Charming but not realistic.

Only engineering plans to scale which take into consideration all the problems of the site, a traffic study, a water and sewer plan, storm water run off, environmental constraints, noise factor, actual open space, parking, and architectural drawings, lot coverage, density, height, setbacks, impervious surfaces, aesthetics, pedestrian and bicycle accessibility, “green” components, all should be considered in an engineer’s plan.

Even though a proposal may fall within the zoning framework (can one take development rights off land held by another entity, BBC, or would this be precedent setting?) it may still have an adverse impact on the community (health, welfare and safety analysis needed) and, therefore, should not be approved.

Otherwise if government officials pass a conceptual plan they leave themselves vulnerable and perhaps open to legal action.

Jane Pumphrey Nes

March 4, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

I hope you remember me. I stood up at one of your meetings and described the many “Believe” signs I see about Baltimore, in reference to Keswick’s proposed purchase of the green space in Roland Park. I stated that if you wanted us to believe in Baltimore, that you also needed to believe in us, the community.

It is clear that Keswick is using every trick they have at their disposal to cut the community of Roland Park out of the decision-making process with their eleventh-hour proposal.

Once again, I urge you to side with the community. There are valid alternatives for further development by Keswick which do not entail developing the green space which was meant to be community space by the Olmsted Brothers.

John Held

March 4, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

The Roland Park community has just received a copy of Keswick’s revised plans that you requested in November. With only two weeks until your deadline, it seems that Keswick is hoping to use time in its effort to push through a zoning change in Roland Park to accommodate its new multi-care facility. Although the new plans reduce the number of units and square footage of impermeable ground cover, much more detail is needed on the proposed changes. 

The impact of Keswick’s plan extends far beyond the number of units or square footage of the buildings, and the community needs to have access to the fully revised plan with enough time to review it in detail. Unless the number of employees and residents is drastically reduced, there will still be a major impact on the small neighborhood streets that will be used by employees, deliveries, residents, and their guests to access the facility. The infrastructure of the site will still be an issue since the water and sewer lines were not built to handle a facility of this size. In fact, there are problems with the existing infrastructure throughout Roland Park already!

The Roland Park Civic League has made many overtures to Keswick this winter to try to get a copy of their revisions, and now that the revised plan has finally been shared with the community, it seems that the main issue still remains: the Baltimore Country Club is zoned as a residential R-1 piece of land, and it should remain with that zoning designation. Roland Park has offered to buy the land to make it a park, and even R-1 housing would be preferable to the Keswick proposal. 

We appreciate your support and that of our city and state representatives in our efforts to maintain this zoning status. There are other sites in Baltimore that would benefit tremendously from a facility like Keswick’s, so it seems ludicrous that Keswick continues to pursue the BCC site which is so unwelcome in the community. Let’s keep the BCC site with its current R-1 zoning!

Cynthia C. Maier

March 4, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

Please intervene in this dishonest attempt to force Keswick’s expansion on the Roland Park community. This is political dirtiness at its finest. I used to live in Sparks and saw the exact same thong happen when UPS wanted to put its facility there. Hard as the Sparks/Glencoe Association fought, when the right money hit the right pocket the thing went up. By the way, it was always described as a “warehouse,” not a “trucking facility.” Ever been up there at 9 a.m. to see the parade of 30-40 trucks forcing their way into York Road traffic?

Please, do the right thing and stop this deceitful delay the builder is using to get his way.

Chris Gross

March 4, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

Please do not let Keswick or anyone else build on the BCC property on Hillside and Falls roads.

As a lifelong resident (either physically or in spirit) of Roland Park (and Homeland) I admit that the proposed facility might be in a perfect location for me if I ever needed such a place, but I am unwilling to promote the evaporation of any more of the openness that is left in Roland Park. I am also a lifetime member of the Baltimore Country Club and would like the revenue but am still not willing to give up any more openness in Roland Park.

Please vote against any and all building plans for that property in Roland Park.

Susan macDCG Andrews

March 4, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

We have seen the revised Keswick plans and are surprised that Keswick took a full three months to produce those vague revisions. Their vague drawings, plus a few figures about square footage, are useless for the “compromise” you propose be worked out by March 15.

A compromise presupposes that both sides in a dispute are fully informed about every detail of a project, so that each side can yield and/or modify his demands — that is “compromise” for the common good. 

Not until Keswick presents detailed architectural drawings of both floorplans and elevations can the city expect the residents of Roland Park to participate in and approve a “compromise.” For the city to make any decision on the basis of the vague plans made available to Roland Park residents cannot be called compromise. It would be a fiat imposed from above upon taxpayers who love their neighborhood and want detailed evidence upon which to make their judgments.

Orest and Patricia Ranum

March 4, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

As a resident of Roland Park with students both in Roland Park Elementary/Middle and Poly, I urge you to allow the Roland Park community time to review the revised Keswick land-use proposal. For whatever reason, the Keswick group has chosen to submit the revisions with approximately two weeks left before the decision deadline expires. This allows only minimal time to permit community review of the proposed changes.

As a city resident who chose to remain a city resident as others moved to the surrounding counties, I also ask that you support the Roland Park residents who wish to preserve what the original developers intended: a balanced neighborhood of residential, commercial and recreational space with a diverse population with arts, cultural and business expertise that embodies exactly what Baltimore City needs to retain and attract the young professional and both young and established families.

This expansive proposal in an already congested area would do nothing to support the goals or needs of the surrounding neighborhood. There are numerous other sites which would be suitable for such a large project, and would welcome the influx of jobs and non-residential land use.

Joseph E. Debes

March 4, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

I am writing to add my voice as a lifelong city resident and current Roland Park resident in unequivocal opposition to the proposed development of the Baltimore Country Club site by Keswick. The preservation of the exquisite green space that exists is paramount to preserve the quality of life in this corner of the city, and to demonstrate to the larger population the city’s advocacy for such spaces throughout its jurisdiction. The opportunity for an immense positive impact is here; should the city choose to ignore or to act neutrally sends a devastating and disheartening message to those of us who have fought so hard and for so long to preserve what we love about city living.

In spite of prohibitive property taxes, greater crime rates than our county neighbors and urban issues that we address every day, we choose to persevere and commit to living in and loving this wonderful, historic place. 

One of the reasons my family moved from further downtown to Roland Park four years ago was for the undisturbed natural vistas, breathing space, hillsides and trees like the Baltimore Country Club site affords. We were committed to staying in the city limits, and we value the diversity of urban, even quasi-urban, life. This city is rich with a sense of permanence, of history, of tradition, while embracing forward-thinking initiatives. Preserving this green space celebrates both of those qualities: respecting the past, championing greener living for the future. Please join us in opposing this development.

Lynn Chambers

March 4, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

I am writing to request that you allow the Roland Park Civic League an extension to review the revised proposal by Keswick retirement community. The new proposal was finally received at almost the last minute by the Roland Park Civic League.

As a resident of North Roland Park, I am concerned about the lack of green space in our city. As everyone becomes more environmentally aware, development should become more carefully scrutinized and planned. You are becoming well-known for considering such environmental issues.

The country club members most likely went along with this development plan so that they could avoid an assessment; they have their other part of the club in the county. The members are not as invested in our city neighborhoods as the residents are. I was surprised to read that Cross Keys used to be the club’s golf course. As nice as Cross Keys is, it would be better as a golf course.

In any case, I hope that you and your administration will delay this decision and that you will be very conservative on any development throughout our city. Our little city children need to see green, and even better, to have access to the green.

[Name Withheld]

March 4, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

What does it take for the people on the boards of Keswick and the Baltimore Country Club to realize that the residents of Roland Park do not want to see Keswick's Retirement Community or Nursing Home in any size, shape or form. The original concept of Roland Park as a residential neighborhood with planned housing and open green spaces should be maintained as closely as possible — even more so in this period of creeping development spreading into any open space available.

One can only wonder why Keswick waited until the last minute to present its "revised" proposal — which seems to differ only minutely from the original. Even if they had pared it down further, it would still be unacceptable to the majority of Roland Park residents.
It is true that the land belongs to the Baltimore Country Club but one can only ask why are they so unwilling to sell it to the Roland Park Community at a fair market price, so the land can be preserved for everyone — the Roland Park residents and members of the Baltimore Country Club — to contiune to enjoy.

Sally Foster

March 3, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

It is with sincere appreciation that I write to thank you for your continued support of Roland Park during this trying time. As a resident of Roland Park for almost 30 years I find it difficult to put into words what Roland Park means to my family and me. It goes without saying that the planned development (both the original design and revised plan) by Keswick (via the proposed sale by Baltimore Country Club) would fly in the face of the vision and values of Roland Park's original designer, Frederick Olmsted Jr., and what the neighborhood has come to mean to the City of Baltimore over the last 111 years.

The community of Roland Park has done everything you have asked of us. We have been patience, forthright, and respectful of the process. Unfortunately, Keswick has not shown the residents of Roland Park, the City of Baltimore, and the overall process the same respect. Their tardiness, lack of responsiveness, and overall disconnected attitude has not been helpful in bringing any sort of resolution to this issue.

I do respect BCC's ownership of the land and its right to sell that land for fair market value, if it wishes to do so. All I ask is that the historic and current land use designation be upheld.

As a steadfast supporter of Baltimore City, a life long resident, and consistent Democratic voter (and supporter), I want to thank you for your unwavering support. It is greatly appreciated and will not be forgotten.

Mark Kelly

March 9, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

I wanted to write again to express our opposition to the proposed Keswick development. Once again, Keswick has shown its continued desire to limit the involvement of the community with their submission of a revised plan late in the day with minimal changes in the size of the project. What is interesting to note, however, is how the cut-backs in use were outlined:

• 40% reduction in skilled nursing beds
• 31% reduction in assisted living
• 12.2% reduction in independent living

This suggests that this development is really an apartment complex for wealthy senior citizens (almost no cut back in independent living). I would have thought the mix would have changed on a prorata basis given the expected feed through of the independent population into assisted and skilled living situations. The independent segment of the population also represents the segment of the proposed population that would create the greatest negative impact on the community as the result of additional traffic, etc.

The density of this project and its overall character (extremely large apartment complex) will forever change and greatly damage the character of Roland Park. Of course, I would rather see the Baltimore Country Club negotiate with the neighborhood for a sale of the property, but I fully support the right of Baltimore Country Club to develop houses on the site under current R-1 zoning rules if that is what they would like to do.

Please support us in stopping this project and preserving a neighborhood in Baltimore City that is working well.

Dave Dunn

March 9, 2009

_____

Dear Mayor Dixon:

There is little doubt that once any organization develops a piece land, the die has been cast and future development is not a matter of “if” but “when.”

Representatives of the KeswickMulti-CareCentermay make minor concessions now, yet more than likely possess an unspoken intent to fully build out at a later point in time. I am sure that those who now live in the neighborhood where I grew up [Roland Park] are savvy enough to realize this.

I encourage all who live in Roland Park to settle for nothing less than maintaining the BaltimoreCountry Club green space. You are the caretakers of this neighborhood for the many generations to come; this space should remain for them to enjoy just as you currently do.

I encourage the membership of the Baltimore County Club to remember that the developers of Roland Park provided this land at a discount to the founding fathers of the club. Perhaps it is time to return that largess to the community.

John Hammond
Mt.Washington

March 11, 2009

Just $67,690, that was BCC purchase price from the Roland Park Company for the parcels of land making up most of the current property, 1902-1906, about 25 acres (this is $1.54 million in inflation-adjusted, present-day dollars) — Ed.

_____