Rowhouse reprieve is a welcome relief
I am so thankful that the beautiful old brick houses near Mercy Medical Center have acquired at least temporary protection from demolition because of the swift action of Baltimore's preservation board ("Panel votes to protect houses," Dec. 13).
The Sun has reported how Mercy requested that City Council member Keiffer J. Mitchell Jr. add an amendment to a bill to strip the houses of protection.
The Sun also reported that the preservationists claimed that they were given no notice about the amendment, and thus denied a chance to speak up and have voice their opinions ("Houses stripped of protection," Nov. 26).
It seems to me that the way the amendment was handled is questionable, at best.
But I think the real issue here is not whether we need to keep the old houses, which are rich in African-American history and architectural significance.
The question is whether there really is a legitimate need for Mercy to expand.
Consider this: Less than one mile away stands the world-renowned Johns Hopkins Hospital; it is growing rapidly and has been named the best hospital in the country year after year.
Also less than a mile from Mercy is the excellent University of Maryland medical facility, which has many new buildings and is also growing rapidly.
If a patient wants to find a smaller hospital in the city instead, there are many close by, including Harbor Hospital.
In this context, it seems clear that Mercy's efforts to expand should be denied.
If it really wants to grow and expand, and if it truly has a large enough patient base to support this objective, it should move to some other location.
Nicholas Young
Baltimore
The writer is a member of Baltimore Heritage Inc.
Mercy is menacing ancient streetscape
Five years ago, the seven houses in the 300 block of St. Paul Place, which were built in the 1820's, were specifically designated as "notable properties," along with several dozen others in the Central Business District ("Panel votes to protect houses," Dec. 13).
This was done by the City Council in a public process over more than six months.
Mercy Medical Center apparently made no effort to have these houses removed from the notable properties list during that 2000-2001 legislative process.
But six months ago, it persuaded City Councilman Keiffer J. Mitchell Jr. to do just that, quietly and well after the fact ("Rowhouse rider presented in public," letters, Dec. 9).
Former Common Cause president John W. Gardner cautioned us that, "politics is the only game that begins after the spectators have left the stadium."
Baltimore Heritage Inc. and the city's Commission for Historic and Architectural Preservation should have taken this maxim as their credo.
If they had done so, they would have been on red alert to the likelihood of mischief.
And Baltimore Heritage and its preservation cohorts should be continuously working with CHAP, the city's Department of Planning, the City Council and the Baltimore Architectural Foundation to be absolutely certain that all buildings in the city that should be designated as historic are so designated, well before any threat of demolition looms.
Let us hope that the Sisters of Mercy do not destroy these splendid pieces of our history in their eagerness to build a new tower across the street from their present hospital complex.
Saving the rowhouses would preserve what remains of a nearly two-century-old streetscape.
Henry R. Lord
Baltimore
The writer is a member of Baltimore Heritage Inc. and president of the Society to Preserve H.L Mencken's Legacy.
Canton homeowners lost the 'road war'
It was with great interest that I read "Documenting war of the road" (Dec. 16). And I am very interested in viewing the Road Wars movie to see how the subject of stopping the East-West Expressway in "historic" Canton is treated.
But nowhere does the article address the fact that blocks of rowhomes in the Canton area were demolished through eminent domain to make way for the planned road, which was later scrapped.
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski was quoted in the article saying that, "this fight was not about a highway, it was about saving our neighborhoods ... that's why we fought so hard."
But what happened to cause those blocks of homes in Canton to be demolished before the project was scrapped?
How did the fight go for those homeowners? Who was fighting for those people, many of whom were elderly when they were displaced.
As a teenager, I remember watching the homes of my grandparents and relatives be demolished with such sadness and a heavy heart. I remember the anxiety of my elderly relatives trying to figure out what to do and where to go.
And, ironically, the original rowhomes across the street from the one my grandparents owned still stand, now renovated and worth six figures.
They stand across the street from the new townhomes built over the vacant lots where the earlier homes once stood.
I am so happy that Canton is such a thriving and stabilizing force in the city. But I am looking for an explanation for the people who owned the homes that are no longer there.
Does this sort of thing still happen? Just look around.
Joan Trush
Kingsville
Hustlers exploit ground rent rules
The unusual institution of ground rents was initially a win-win situation. It made home ownership more affordable for working people and provided investors a means of making a modest return ("Clerk of courts reviews suits on ground rent," Dec. 19).
Now a handful of hustlers has found a technique for legalistic theft.
They are not going after deadbeats but people who are typically heirs to a family home who never were aware that a modest fee was due.
Decent people are losing homes to some shysters who pervert the spirit of the law.
Perpetrators of this scam are little better than the criminals in prison cells. But they hide behind the letter of the law while ignoring basic decency.
How wonderful it might be if some of the finer legal minds in the state would collaborate to find some way to right this ongoing wrong.
Arthur W. Downs
Camden-Wyoming, Del.
Exploitation reveals absence of empathy
Thank you to The Sun for the article on the lack of health benefits for state university system lecturers ( "Perks denied to USM staff," Dec. 17) and the expose on ground rent abuses ("On Shaky Ground," Dec. 10-Dec. 12).
There is a common theme in these different articles.
Many well-educated administrators in the state education system were aware of the exploitation of these lecturers.
They were aware that these lecturers did not have the power to win benefits for themselves. But they did not choose to speak up for the justice of the less powerful.
In the case of the ground rent abuses, I am sure many educated professionals were aware of the plight of the poor. But where were their voices?
In this society, it seems that many people lack empathy for others.
But administrators in the higher education system, as well as all private businessmanagers, should be aware of the basic needs of their workers, especially for health care coverage.
Are we a country of Ebenezer Scrooge vs. Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim?
Yes we are, but this needs to change.
We are our brothers' keepers.
If we can start caring for each other and protecting each other, maybe we can all have a merry Christmas.
Ellen Koehler
Catonsville
No need to reclaim Christmas holiday
I partly agree with the headline on the column by Scott Korb and Leon Morris that, "Christmas belongs to Christians" (Opinion
Commentary, Dec. 17). However, I think the authors miss the point about winter solstice celebrations.
In the United States, many people with no religious affiliation, or various affiliations, celebrate American Christmas.
It is a social and commercial festival; it starts after Thanksgiving, requires decorations, parties and gifts and a very large ornamented tree and shuts down with a thud at the end of the day on Dec. 25.
Many people with religious customs of their own celebrate American Christmas as part of our culture.
It can take some effort to conduct one's own religious events in the midst of all the activity. And I contend that the situation is worst for those of us (i.e. Christians) whose genuine religious imagery and music are often co-opted for use in the secular celebration.
In my mainline church (Episcopal), the season starting four Sundays before Dec. 25 is the penitential season of Advent. At this time it's appropriate to prepare for Christmas, including shopping for and preparing gifts, but not to celebrate Christmas.
On Christmas Day, the 12-day celebration begins.
Although as Mr. Korb and Mr. Morris point out, the major Jewish holidays occur in the autumn, little Hanukkah comes along to brighten up the longest dark nights, and it is a holiday many Jews treasure.
I'm also acquainted with the solstice celebrations of the Wiccans, thanks to my niece who has described some of the ceremony and story to me.
And during my years in New Mexico I learned which Navajo ceremonies are for winter only, and was privileged to participate in the great winter Shalako dance at Zuni Pueblo.
Some Christians seem to want to claim the big American social and commercial Christmas as their own religious celebration.
I prefer, as Mr. Korb and Mr. Morris suggest, to "admire the unique beauty and pageantry" of this and other celebrations, devote Advent to study and prayer and celebrate Christmas for 12 days beginning with services in my own congregation or one of my children's.
But my church has no need to "reclaim" the secular holiday.
Edna E Heatherington
Baltimore
Anne Arundel needs to add a new trail
After reading Candus Thomson's excellent article about the opening of the Allegheny Highlands Trail, which runs from Cumberland to Pennsylvania, I couldn't help but be excited about the recognition these scenic railroad rights-of-way are getting as more and more of them are converted to multiuse recreational facilities ("Trail's opening eyed as path to prosperity," Dec. 13).
I hope this article was also read and appreciated by our newly elected officials in Anne Arundel County. We have a similar opportunity here.
The South Shore Line of the old Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis railroad connects Odenton with neighborhoods, schools and athletic fields around Millersville, Gambrills and Crownsville.
It could be converted into a linear park for recreation, exercise and alternative transportation from West County to Annapolis.
This would be an excellent addition to the recreation and open space facilities available to meet the needs of a rapidly growing community.
And like the new trail in Western Maryland, it is part of a large network of rail lines and is eligible for federal funds to convert it to recreational use.
There is a lot of history and Anne Arundel County heritage along that old line, and it could be just as important to our quality of life in the 21st century as it was for transportation in the early 20th century.
Christina Aist
Annapolis
The writer is a member of the city of Annapolis' Recreation and Parks Advisory Board.
Garrett's generosity built medical school
In response to Laura Vozzella's amusing column about the difficulties so many people have with the correct spelling of "Johns Hopkins" ("It's Johns Hopkins. Johns. Say it again. Johns," Dec. 8) a recent letter-writer admonishes that Ms. Vozzella was remiss in not making more explicit mention of Johns Hopkins' many philanthropic contributions ("Founder of Hopkins merits more respect," letters, Dec. 16).
However, the name of another Baltimore native must also be included when considering the founding of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
The essential financial support for founding the school came from a single donation from Mary Elizabeth Garrett who, as an heiress of the Garrett railroad fortune, was one of the wealthiest women in America at the time.
It was her unprecedented stipulation that a college degree was required for admission to the school of medicine that set the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Hospital on the path to the preeminence in academic medicine that it still enjoys today.
And it was her requirement that women also be admitted as students and faculty to the school that made academic medicine accessible to women as well as men.
Dr. Nancy L. Craig
Baltimore
The writer is a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
Stocking stuffers that stifle dissent
Thomas Sowell's advice to give books that advocate radical conservative stances is fine ("Stuff those stockings with good books," Opinion
Commentary, Dec. 21). If he wants to encourage his family and followers to adhere to a belief system that sees conspiracy and chaos behind every effort to promote diplomacy and international accord, well, that's consistent with Mr. Sowell's editorial stance.
I do, however, find his advocacy of a book which "outs" the most liberal professors at America's leading (and often not-so-leading colleges and universities) frightening.
If Mr. Sowell is keeping his finger on the pulse of the world, he might note that effective protest against Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is being spearheaded by students at Iran's more liberal universities.
Does Mr. Sowell want to squelch dissent in America in order to allow only one viewpoint to stand?
To do so is much more dangerous than to allow universities and colleges to tilt, in their pursuit of new ideas, in a slightly liberal way.
Barbara M. Simon
Catonsville
The writer teaches writing at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County.
A 'Marshall Plan' for Mideast peace
Here's a layman's idea about how to move toward Middle East peace.
Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders. A sort of "Marshall Plan" funded by Israel, the United States and other countries and administered by the United Nations would then build a 21st-century Palestinian infrastructure.
Within Palestine, a state-of-the-art physical corridor would be created to link the West Bank and Gaza.
Jerusalem would become a nonmilitarized, nonpoliticized "World-City" enclave, managed by a tri-part Israeli, Palestinian and U.N. administration.
The Palestinian right of return would be eliminated, in exchange for individual compensation for lost property, where applicable, and ongoing Israeli technical and financial assistance to Palestine.
If Israel feels it needs a wall, it must be built on its own land.
If a percentage of Palestinians will not be satisfied unless Israel is "driven into the sea," that radical fringe needs to be marginalized within Palestine by peers who wish simply to live in peace, prosperity and dignity.
This is only one layman's idea, and it's not gospel.
And what's more important is that we need to discuss these issues openly and honestly, without fear of intimidation, moving beyond the point where any critical analysis of our Israeli brothers and sisters is seen as anti-Semitism.
Finally, the United States should actively and honestly seek to broker peace in light of our own national interests - factoring in the legitimate concerns of our ally Israel while working to create a new ally in Palestine.
John Kelly
Baltimore
How system failed one slain youth
After reading The Sun's article about the murder of Jason Sanders ("Boy, 15, charged in brother's killing," Dec. 3), I felt compelled to write.
As a volunteer for the Court Appointed Special Advocates of Baltimore, I work in the foster care system in Baltimore. It was in my work with CASA that my relationship with Mr. Sanders began.
He was a troubled young man who was involved in the foster care system most of his life.
His family's problems ran the gamut of those which beset so many Baltimoreans - namely addictions, poverty, loss of family unit, etc.
When I met him at age 12, he was in a group placement - his third placement in two months.
I came to know a sweet young man who repeatedly related to me the pressures of living in his situation.
He keenly felt the need to prove his toughness, often relating that if he wasn't tough he would never survive. And he must have told me 20 times that all he wanted was a dog that belonged to him, because nothing ever really did.
Jason began acting out on impulses, breaking the law and became an impossible case for placement.
He spent almost six months in the Cheltenham Youth Facility (a facility that wasn't fit to house any child) and spent more than one year in a pretty good placement in Rockville. But because of his actions no group home was willing to accept him.
A placement in Virginia was arranged to meet his specific needs (because we couldn't find in-state programs which would meet his needs).
When I visited him there, I found that he was progressing. But then he ran away from that program. And this ended my official involvement with Jason.
The next time I heard his name was when I read The Sun's article.
I write this letter to put a face on this victim - not only of this horrible stabbing incident but of a system that routinely dropped the ball for him.
Jason Sanders was a young man who hugged me every time we visited, who wanted a dog, who said he wanted to get married and have three kids, who loved his momma and often talked about taking care of her.
A young man who was bounced from placement to placement, who couldn't have his needs filled by his family, who received in effect no real education for several years.
A young man who exhibited and acted out on impulses beyond his control but couldn't be treated in Maryland.
When will we as a society wake up and realize what is going on: Children are being lost - lives are being wasted.
I do not write this to point fingers.
The social workers in the Department of Social Services are overworked and underpaid.
The system is overburdened and budgets are tight. The juvenile justice system was not organized to deal with juvenile crime as it exists in 2006.
How many murders do we need to realize something new needs to happen?
I know this runs the risk of sounding like a cliche. But our children are our future.
I hope this letter serves as a eulogy for my friend Jason, who in many ways was just another child.
And let's not drop the ball again. Let's find a way to help our future.
Debbie Bertram
Parkville
Moms in military choose to serve
Before Kathleen Parker accuses the Army of being heartless orphan-makers, she needs to understand the ways of the military ("The tragedy of military moms," Opinion
Commentary, Dec. 15).
First, most of the time, be coming a single parent is a choice. Nobody held a gun to a person's head and said, "Have sex, get pregnant or I'll shoot."
Joining the military is also a choice. Women choose to walk in the recruiter's office and to sit down and take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test.
No one is required to take the test or talk to a recruiter.
Women know what the mili tary is all about and what they are getting into before they sign the enlistment papers, just as every man does.
And if they choose a career field that is subject to deploy ment, they know that in ad vance, too.
Also, when women in the mil itary become pregnant, they have the choice to separate themselves from the military, if that's what they feel is best for their family.
They receive no disciplinary action for this; it is a choice the military allows women.
The Army also offers a hard ship discharge for single par ents who can no longer per form their duties - and such a discharge does not reflect nega tively on anyone.
What it all boils down to is that joining the military is a choice.
Women choose to join the military. They chose to fight for equal rights.
Is Ms. Parker now trying to compromise those rights by criticizing the military for doing its jobs by recruiting men and women?
Leigh Anne Dixon
Pasadena
The writer is a senior airman in the U.S. Air Force.
Although I have great sympathy and respect for sin gle parents (men and women), I find Kathleen Parker's con cerns naive and misdirected.
The blame for this problem does not lie with the military sending women to battle or off to multiple deployments.
And shouldn't the real ques tion be: Why do women or men who are single parents join the military in the first place?
And what other options do these parents have available to them?
As Ms. Parker noted, soldiers volunteer for duty. It is their choice and a commitment that they agree to fulfill.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone who signs a con tract and takes an oath to serve the military thinks that he or she has no chance to go to war, even if that person joined the military in peacetime.
Recognizing specific situa tions that may develop after en listment (birth, divorce or death of a spouse), allowing a single-parent soldier the right to depart the military at the end of his or her contract or even when his or her unit is de ployed or faces a "stop loss" or der would probably help.
But Ms. Parker should not blame the government for an individual's personal situation - one which was brought about by that person's own choices.
P. O'Donnell
Fayettville, N.C.
The writer is a former military mother and a retired member of the U.S. Army Reserve.