Museum should be true to history

Recent articles in The Sun have highlighted the controversy surrounding the design of the Maryland Museum of African-American History and Culture that was recently presented to the Baltimore City Design Advisory Panel ("On museum front, form vs. function," July 28 and "A first choice that's second best," Aug. 1).

Most of the panel's criticisms were right on target. The aesthetics of the building presented fell far short of expectations.

But the architects for the project are in a difficult position. They must respond to officials who hold opposite positions on the building's design.

Some of them do not feel it is important, relevant or necessary for a museum focusing on African-American history and culture to include any reference to Africa.

Yet the history of African-Americans did not begin in America, but in Africa.

Before the Atlantic holocaust, African societies enjoyed a long continuous history.

The Africans who were brought here and ripped from their place in that history and forced to abandon much of their culture.

Despite heroic efforts, a precious piece of this heritage was lost with each generation.

We have replaced this emptiness with cultural elements from our new home, the United States, and combined them with pieces of our heritage that survived.

So today we have evolved into a unique people, African Americans. We are a branch apart from our distant cousins in Africa, but descendants of the same ancestors and heirs to the same culture.

The establishment of a Maryland museum to showcase the history and culture of its African-American citizens is long overdue.

Historic and institutionalized discrimination have caused much of our story to be hidden from the general population as well as African Americans themselves.

The exhibits and programs of the new museum will undoubtedly provide visitors with a more complete story. However, the building can do more than house exhibits.

It can be an integral part of the whole museum experience, just as enlightening as exposure to our art, music, dance and literature. The architecture of the museum should be a proud expression of African-American culture.

Building abstract allusions to music, textiles or family is not needed.

The best source for inspiration for a culturally reflective building is other buildings. But herein lies the challenge.

African architecture goes way beyond the pyramids. The size, diversity and long history of habitation on the continent have resulted in a wide range of diverse architectural expressions. These expressions are unique to Africa and part of the lost heritage of African-Americans.

I believe that some people involved with the museum project are embarrassed to admit that they know nothing about African architecture and therefore dismiss any attempts to explore its exciting possibilities.

While many culturally expressive disciplines have been rediscovered and integrated back into the African American community, the world of African architecture has been completely ignored. It is one of the last culturally expressive disciplines to be restored to our lives.

As a result, the United States doesn't have a recognizable African-American architectural style. African-American architecture will result from an infusion of African architectural expressions into the architecture of America. We are only beginning to develop this aesthetic.

The Maryland Museum of African-American History and Culture has a unique opportunity to help define this aesthetic and add a new chapter to the history of African-Americans in Maryland.

Paul L. Taylor Jr., Baltimore

The writer is director of capital projects at Johns Hopkins University, assistant professor at the University of Maryland School of Architecture and president-elect of the National Organization of Minority Architects.

State lacks sound dredge plan . . .

As long as Baltimore's harbor is maintained as a deep-water port -- and provides jobs for Marylanders and revenue for the state -- while nature's currents stir, shift and redeposit the bay's sediments, dredging the harbor and its approach channels will be mandatory.

However, both the port of Baltimore and the Chesapeake Bay deserve better than the governor's "Strategic Plan for Dredge Material Disposal," which relies on outdated techniques.

The port deserves a politically stable, economically sound, long-term plan. The bay deserves a consistent state policy for improving water quality.

Both goals can be served if we look at clean dredge material as an asset rather than a liability. Dredged material can be used in many beneficial ways.

Beneficial ways to use dredged material include replenishing and restoring eroding wetlands; filling abandoned mines and quarries; mixing it with other ingredients to make various products (for example, mixing dredge with sand to make material used in roadbeds or housing foundations); or using it to manufacture bricks, roofing tiles or other construction products.

When one considers what the state has spent to clean up the bay, and the income created annually by tariffs and taxes generated by the port (in excess of $560 million), disposal of channel sediment by beneficial methods ap- pears cost-effective and reasonable.

Because of the the diligent efforts of Rep. Wayne T. Gilchrest, Del. Mary Roe Walkup and Citizens Against Open Water Dumping, we have time to look at alternative disposal methods.

The state should initiate a start-up program for beneficial use of dredged material, with a minimal target capacity of handling the wastes from maintenance dredging.

It would certainly be easier to continue the old practice of never-ending open-water dumping of the Baltimore harbor channel dredge spoils than to take on the challenge of beneficial use disposal.

But we have come so far in our efforts to improve the bay that we owe it to the next generation to take the next step.

Don Franks, Grasonville

The writer is a former member of the Maryland House of Delegates.

. . . politics, paranoia rule dissent

It was a relief to read in John Wolflin's letter ("Added thoughts on dredge Site 104," July 10), that no adversarial relationship exists between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers.

Their cooperative efforts to reach the best possible solution are what all taxpayers expect.

Their honest disagreement on certain issues related to dredge dumping at Site 104 is to be expected, but political pressure and paranoia cannot be allowed to overrule scientific fact.

If scientific fact continues to support its use, the millions of dollars saved by using Site 104 can be better used in continuing our clean up of the bay.

Unnecessary delay of maintenance dredging of the channels only exacerbates the problem.

Every ship that goes through the bay without adequate clearance beneath its hull stirs up a cloud of sediments and nutrients that is spread by natural currents.

Every change of the tide rearranges 500 times the amount of sediment and nutrients that the deposit of spoil in Site 104 through a pipeline would create.

After all, what we are considering is removing sediments from one area of our bay bottom and redepositing it in another.

This is clean sediment that will be constantly monitored -- not sediments from the Baltimore harbor or any contaminated source.

Any contaminated sediment must be put into an enclosure such as Hart-Miller Island.

Remaining capacity there must be reserved for such use.

Open-water depositing of dredge spoil has been used for many years and is still being done off Poole's Island in the upper bay. Site 104 was used for many years.

Depositing clean spoil through a pipeline to the bottom of what amounts to a sump or deep depression in the bottom of the bay would minimize the spread of sediment.

Not to dredge is not an option, and suggesting the use of "alternative sites" -- mentioned but inadequately explained -- is a cop out. "Alternative uses" for dredged material have been studied to death and are prohibitively expensive or unacceptable.

Since taxpayer money should be spent properly, cost is a primary concern.

If the economy of our harbor and state are hurt by decisions made from "politics and paranoia," where will we ever get the funds we need to keep improving our environment?

Michael H. Weir, Baltimore

The writer represents the 6th Legislative District in the Maryland House of Delegates and is vice chairman of its Environmental Matters Committee.

Baltimore's power is far from faded

While it is true that Baltimore City's population and tax base have declined over the past 30 years, I do not share the opinion that the city's power has declined significantly ("Baltimore mayor's power base shrinking," July 25).

Baltimore remains Maryland's largest city by far and is the center of the state's economic development and cultural activity. The state has a strong stake in the future and success of Baltimore.

Given the state's interest in Baltimore, city legislators have, inevitably, gained power in Annapolis and have worked diligently and effectively for Baltimore.

Testament to Baltimore's power in Annapolis is the state's significant financial contributions to the city. In fiscal year 2000, the state is contributing more than $906 million in direct and indirect operating aid to Baltimore, including funds for education, public safety, transportation, health and social services.

Maryland's contribution is about 38 percent of the city's $2.3 billion operating budget. The state is providing 66 percent of the funding for the Baltimore City Public Schools -- $550 million of the total $831 million budget. Baltimore is also receiving more than than $25 million in school construction funds from the state this year, the most it has received in 20 years.

I take strong exception to the continued rhetoric of a purported "state takeover" of Baltimore's schools. It's a smoke screen proffered by those who preferred a status quo that was failing our children or who want to divert Baltimore's voters from the real issues facing the city.

City schools are run by a school board of city citizens appointed by the mayor and the governor. In other counties with appointed school boards, the governor alone does the appointing.

The Baltimore City-state partnership is an arrangement that gives Baltimore's mayor greater authority over the schools than leaders in other jurisdictions.

Under the original plan, the state was to provide the city $254 million in additional state support for the public schools over five years. But, because of the advocacy of Baltimore City legislators, the city will actually receive $313 million for its public schools.

The partnership has allowed Baltimore's schools to make progress in several key areas. Baltimore is now above the state average in expenditure per student, ranking sixth at $6,924. Just a few years ago, Baltimore City was well below the state average.

In another critical area, this year Baltimore City is giving teachers the highest percentage increases in the state: 10.8 percent for beginning teachers and 13.4 percent for mid-level teachers.

Maximum salaries for teachers in Baltimore City and Baltimore County are on par for the first time in years, and the gap has closed between city and county teachers at other levels.

Given the importance of the state to the city's future success, it is critical that Baltimore's next mayor maintain the strong working relationship that Baltimore legislators and Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke have enjoyed for the past 12 years.

Although we have had our differences, Mr. Schmoke was always highly respected by Baltimore's legislators in Annapolis for his integrity and ability to garner support for his initiatives.

In establishing the Baltimore City-state partnership, Mayor Schmoke exhibited the kind of leadership and courage that Baltimore needs in the future, putting the needs of Baltimore's children for a quality education ahead of any petty political considerations.

Baltimore's future success depends on electing a mayor with the leadership, determination, and cooperative spirit to work with key stakeholders and the community to build on the city's existing power base.

Del. Howard P. Rawlings, Baltimore

The writer is chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates.

Improving reading in day care

A first reaction to the article "Reading reform hampered by decentralization" (Aug. 2) could be that it was just another case of the education establishment citing statistical data to extract more money (and power and control) from the taxpayers.

However, among the ideas offered for solving the "reading problem" in state schools was offering day-care providers incentives for providing reading instruction to 2- and 3-year-olds.

This makes sense to me because it is generally recognized that most children who read well come from homes where books are valued and where adults read to and with them.

Many parents may themselves be poor readers, either because they did not themselves read as children or because they are products of the failed experimental reading programs of past decades.

Also, many children come from single or two-parent families where the struggle to survive is all-consuming. Given the stress of their daily life, those families have little time for reading of any kind.

However, I would go farther than merely offering financial incentives to day-care providers.

If reading to kids is as important as state schools Superintendent Nancy Grasmick says it is, perhaps licensing of day-care providers should include the requirement that someone read to and with the children for 30 to 60 minutes per day -- with the reading material used subject to parental approval.

Unlike Dr. Grasmick, I would not, however, require that the person doing the reading be an "educator" -- most parents and older siblings who read to kids at home, after all, would not qualify as "educators."

Such a stipulation would only enable the state's educational establishment to get involved in the day-care industry -- where many centers are run by religious organizations -- and the power to mold children in ways contrary to their parents' preferences.

John D. Schiavone, Kingsville

Daily Bread plans aren't 'scrubbed'

The Sun's editorial "What's in store for soup kitchen" (Aug. 10) may have created a misconception about the relocation of Catholic Charities' Our Daily Bread soup kitchen.

Our plans have not been "scrubbed," as the editorial stated. They are on track, and we are optimistic about prospects for success.

As The Sun noted, when we announced our proposal in April we stressed the importance of an open, six-month dialogue to ensure community and government support.

This ongoing process is extremely complicated. It involves winning sufficient funding and necessary government approvals and finding a location convenient for our guests and volunteers -- in addition to gaining neighborhood support.

We have followed through on our commitment to dialogue with potential neighbors by listening to the concerns of neighborhood stakeholders and then deciding to seek a different location for Our Daily Bread and its programs for the homeless, largely because of neighborhood concerns.

The site of Our Daily Bread is critical for the people who eat there every day, the volunteers who serve them and the neighbors who will adjoin it.

We will continue to bring people together to discuss this important project.

We are confident that we will find an appropriate site responsive to the needs of each of these constituencies. We are also confident that community support exists to fund the relocation and program expansion outlined in our proposal.

Our recently completed fund-raising feasibility study interviewed 71 business, community and political leaders. Nearly 90 percent of them believed that Catholic Charities should move forward with this project -- confirming our view that it is financially feasible.

Unfortunately, the strong economy has not produced great blessings for the poor and homeless who come to Our Daily Bread. In fact, the number of people the soup kitchen serves has remained remarkably consistent over the past few years.

What does make a difference in the lives of the people we serve are programs like our Christopher Place Employment Academy.

Last Sunday, 26 men graduated from the academy's six-month program.

Each of these previously homeless men -- many of whom are battling addictions -- have graduated into full employment and independent living.

The Our Daily Bread expansion will allow Catholic Charities to double the number of men served by Christopher Place and help many more people move from the soup kitchen to employment.

Successfully addressing the problems of homelessness and addictions is a critical challenge for our community. It demands our full cooperation and resolve.

Harold A. Smith, Baltimore

The writer is executive director of Catholic Charities.

QUESTION OF THE MONTH

No doubt, Maryland's parched. The "water police" are out in force looking for rule breakers. Is this a good use of officers' time? Are you sticking to the restrictions, or sneaking out at midnight with your sprinker? What do you do when you see people breaking the rules? Have the rules changed what you do? Tell us about it.

We are looking for 300 words or less about how the drought is affecting you. Your letter will be edited. The deadline is Aug. 23. They should include your name and address, along with a day and evening telephone number. Write us: Letters to the Editor, The, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore 21278-0001; fax us: 410-332-6977; e-mail us: letters@baltsun.com.