A crowd at the city till

We should all be grateful to J. Joseph Clarke ("Developer presses for tax breaks," Aug. 1) for exposing the arrogance of developers who demand tax subsidies.

Mr. Clarke's threat to leave a giant scar in the middle of downtown if he doesn't get a tax exemption is shameless political extortion.

The danger of these so-called PILOTS (payments in lieu of taxes) is that developers have come to regard them as a matter of right anywhere downtown.

Mr. Clarke's project is a classic mixed commercial development -- without even the pretense of being a convention hotel. If he can't get private financing without a gift from the taxpayers, we should wonder how viable a project it is.

And let us hear no more about the tax revenue it might bring in. These calculations assume that such highly desirable development sites wouldn't provide any tax revenues unless they are developed as subsidized hotels.

What we need to hear is how much additional tax revenue they might provide compared with another use.

The extreme to which developers will go to dip into the public treasury is illustrated by another project, HarborView.

Already the recipient of a PILOT, HarborView is now lobbying for another $20 million gift from the state and city to permit construction on an otherwise undevelopable part of it's land.

Behind the camouflage of completing the Inner Harbor promenade, HarborView is seeking public funds to construct a bulkhead on its shoreline that would allow it to develop the pier area next to the apartment tower.

A city government that can't buy books for its children or protect its citizens against the narcotics scourge has no business subsidizing private development projects.

Now that the developers demands are getting more brazen, city residents will realize their tax dollars are lining private pockets.

Candidates for mayor and city council, take note.

James S. Keat, Baltimore

City's 'renewal' plan built on weak foundation

The New York Times' recent front-page article about Baltimore's plans to demolish many of its rowhouses mocks the city leaders misguided policy of attempting to save neighborhoods by destroying them.

The plan to demolish thousands of rowhouses is unconscionable. In most cities, the loss of more than 1,000 buildings would be followed by a plea for federal aid to address such a disaster.

But, apparently, Baltimore officials consider it progress to demolish neighborhoods that could be rehabilitated.

How can the city's so-called leaders rush to tear down historic buildings that define the city's image, heart and soul? It is hard to imagine that anyone, least of all city planners, could believe that acres of vacant land would be an improvement over Baltimore's classic rowhouses.

How can Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke, City Housing Commissioner Daniel P. Henson III and others be so out of step with proven urban renewal efforts that preserve, rehabilitate and recycle the existing building stock?

Under the influence of urban renewal propaganda that promised new and shining neighborhoods and downtowns, many cities demolished their historic buildings in the 1950s and 1960s. Those cities were left with vast areas of vacant blocks that to this day scar the cityscape.

That form of "renewal" was also responsible for the blocks of public housing that, in many cases, have since been demolished as social failures.

It gave us plazas and pedestrian overpasses, eliminated storefront retail and created spaces devoid of vibrant street life.

These too have often been demolished as city planners have called for rebuilding the sort of retail streets that they had earlier destroyed in the name of urban renewal.

Baltimore's redevelopment programs in the 1970s and early 1980s received national acclaim because they focused on rehabilitating buildings and preserving neighborhoods. The city's leaders had a vision of progress that did not destroy Baltimore.

City officials should be creating incentives for rehabilitation and promoting existing ones, such as federal and state tax credits for the rehabilitation of historic buildings, economic development and affordable housing.

Indeed, Congress is considering legislation that would provide tax credits and mortgage assistance for homeowners, as incentives to move into the sort of neighborhoods that the city is rushing to demolish.

Other cities have reclaimed both their neighborhoods and commercial areas through rehabilitation, but Baltimore's officials appear to be operating in a vacuum. They are embracing the self-destructive urban renewal policies that have decimated America's cities.

Instead, Baltimore should be building on the successes of previous administrations whose creative solutions led to the revival, not demolition, of historic, livable neighborhoods.

Barbara Hoff

Natalie W. Shivers, Los Angeles

Ms. Hoff was the executive director of the Commission for Historic and Architectural Preservation from 1974-1980 and has been a preservation consultant. Ms. Shivers, a Baltimore native, is the author of "Those Old Placid Rows: the Aesthetic and Development of the Baltimore Rowhouse."

Transplant policy docks excellence

The Sun's editorial "Playing politics with life-saving transplants" (July 25) correctly outlined the problem that Marylanders waiting for a kidney transplant face under new rules for organ distribution.

Patients waiting for a perfect kidney match at the Johns Hopkins Hospital and the University of Maryland Medical System will go to the bottom of the national list, no matter how long they have already waited for a perfectly matched kidney to give them a second chance at life.

This is the result of an unfortunate change in policy made in June by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), a nonprofit organization which enforces federal organ transplant policy.

In Maryland, the Transplant Resource Center (TRC) is the federally certified nonprofit provider of organs and tissues. TRC provides human organ and tissue recovery services, hospital donor-program development to 43 hospitals and community education in most Maryland counties.

Since 1998, TRC has succeeded in reducing its "kidney debt" -- the number of kidneys it had implanted in excess of those it had distributed to other states -- by 16 percent. It's on the way to a one-third reduction by the end of 1999.

Yet in June, UNOS reneged on a settlement it had reached with TRC to allow Maryland to pay down its kidney debt.

A biologically perfect kidney match becomes available only in about 17 percent of donor deaths. In the past, UNOS mandated that these kidneys be offered to "a perfect recipient match" anywhere in the United States.

In 1998, for example, 50 patients on the Maryland waiting list received a perfectly matched kidney. Under the UNOS rule change, only six of them would have received a perfectly matched kidney.

This year, 18 patients have received a perfectly matched kidney. Under the rule change, only five would have gotten their second chance at a normal life.

Since Johns Hopkins and the University of Maryland Hospitals rank among the top 20 kidney transplant programs in the country, many prospective transplant patients are on the waiting list and have received transplants at those centers, even though they do not live in TRC's territory, which excludes Prince George's, Montgomery and Charles Counties.

UNOS' ruling does not put patients first and it penalizes our excellent transplant centers for doing too good a job in the past.

Now, after Oct. 1, unless this ruling is changed Maryland citizens and those who come to Maryland for their life-saving operation will also be penalized.

In objecting to this change in policy, I recently wrote to Walter Graham, the executive director of UNOS, that "the Senate of Maryland, the government of the state of Maryland and the governor of the state cannot sit idly by and watch a federal government contractor discriminate against its citizens. We will act to protect our constituents rights and interests should you chose to move to violate them."

I pledge the same to the citizens of Maryland.

Paula C. Hollinger, Baltimore

The writer represents the 11th Legislative District in the Maryland Senate, co-chairs the Senate's Committee on Health Care Delivery and Financing and is a board member of the Transplant Resource Center of Maryland.

Reasonable protection for our flag

The continuing debate over "protecting" the flag brings to my mind a different memory from the images suggested by those pushing for a ban on flag burning.

More vivid than the pictures of hippies burning the flag or wearing it sewn to the seat of their jeans is the image of police and construction workers wearing the flag on their shoulders and hard hats, beating the protesters bloody to deprive them of their right to speak.

Their messages were all too clear: "My country right or wrong" and "I'm more American than you."

As a young GI trying to make sense of what I was being called on to support, I was confused and appalled; to this day I can't look at the flag in the same way I did before.

The flag ceased to represent a reasoned and measured response to the pressures of the world, and took on a taint of fear and anger that three decades has not completely removed.

I propose, then, an even-handed approach to flag protection. Ban flag burning and other forms of desecration, but also ban wearing the flag on any article of clothing, headgear, or uniform.

The only exception would be the use of the flag by American military personnel overseas in situations where quick identification by non English-reading persons is essential.

If that is unacceptable to those who want to protect the flag, then perhaps we should let the flag make its own way in the world.

The flag has faltered now and then, but over the past two centuries, I think it has done better for itself than any other symbol.

Jeff Matthews, Conowingo

Substitute's easy 'in'

Permit me to add my comments to those of Prof. Crispin Sartwell ("Why am I not good enough to teach in Md.'s schools, Opinion Commentary, Aug. 2).

As difficult as it is to become a full-time teacher in Baltimore County, it is as easy to become a substitute teacher. I paid my $47. They took my fingerprints. I showed them my Bachelor of Arts diploma. They gave me a card which says I've been fingerprinted.

Now, any school in Baltimore County which is in need of a teacher for a day, a week or longer -- but not permanently -- may now hire me, no other questions asked.

How can it be this easy to teach part-time in Baltimore County and so difficult to get a regular teaching job in these same schools? We are both teaching the same children.

I served in the U.S. Navy for 23 years, commanded two ships and served with highly educated officers and enlisted personnel. On several occasions, I taught in military schools.

After retirement, I worked for a major university in Maryland as a defense contractor and again taught engineers and client personnel.

Not only do I have a bachelor's degree, I have a masters in education and am an ABD (All But Dissertation) Ph.D.

And still, I am not employable as a full-time teacher in the county's schools.

Isn't it about time we took into account the rich backgrounds of some of our citizens, who are well-qualified academically, and allowed them to enter the teaching system without the boilerplate certification process that often insults their adult training?

Mentoring and apprenticeship for such qualified people would be a better way to ease our teacher shortage than requiring a set of courses whose ability to identify skilled teachers is highly suspect.

Good teachers can recognize other good (and bad) teachers. If we know that, and we do, then perhaps it's time to put it into practice to quickly ease the teaching shortage.

Jon C. Woodyard, Catonsville

Mentors show the way for inexperienced teachers

The focus of recent efforts to improve Baltimore City's public schools has been recruiting and retaining quality teachers. Mentoring is the buzz word of the day.

Ironically, the city already has one of the nation's best mentoring programs -- the Resident Teacher Program (RTP) -- and it constantly faces extinction.

I know how good the RTP is, because it brought me to Baltimore three years ago and provided me the support I needed to become a competent, enthusiastic teacher.

RTP is an alternative certification program that allows people to teach as they earn certification. Because this option is very attractive to established professionals ready to make a career change, RTP serves as a magnet for the very people schools are desperate to attract.

But it does much more, sustaining teachers through their first two years in the classroom and remaining a source of support and community throughout their career with the Baltimore city schools.

Resident Teachers are routinely considered the best teachers in their Baltimore schools and are often given extensive responsibilities even before they are certified.

Despite its low cost and tremendous success rate at producing quality, committed teachers, the existence of the Resident Teacher Program is annually threatened by funding cuts.

As Baltimore looks for ways to recruit, mentor and retain new teachers, I hope it won't make the mistake of turning its back on the RTP program.

Amy Cohen, Maplewood, N.J.

Confederate kin source of pride

Like Warren Buckler, I have an ancestor, my great-grandfather, who fought on the Confederate side during the Civil War ("Confederates in my family tree," July 23).

Unlike Mr. Buckler, I have not bought into a politically correct, anti-Southern history concerning the war's causes and the legitimacy of the Southern cause.

Slavery and race relations in the old South are complex matters that should not be oversimplified and used to reproach the cause of the Confederacy. The vast majority of Southerners owned no slaves and would not have fought a war to save the system of slavery.

Race relations in the old South were better than is widely believed, especially in the North.

Also, slavery would certainly have died a natural death in the South had the Confederacy survived; it would not have been perpetuated and expanded, as Mr. Buckler contends.

The North did not invade the South to end slavery, as can be seen from Lincoln's own words. The main reasons for the war were economic, and the unwillingness of the North to simply leave the South alone.

Contrary to Mr. Buckler's opinion, Southern soldiers were not deluded. Confederate soldiers knew quite well what they were fighting for -- liberty, state sovereignty, self-determination.

They were fighting against invaders of their land against a federal government they felt had grown too large and powerful.

I am proud of my Confederate ancestor and the others in the Confederate army. Southern soldiers and civilians showed defiance, bravery, and the willingness to continue to fight against overwhelming odds.

The Confederacy represents principles of which many Maryland residents, including me, are justifiably proud.

Alan Sutherland, Baltimore

The writer is a member of the Maryland Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.

Pub Date: 8/07/99