In a rebuff to city economic development officials, Baltimore's Planning Commission has refused to approve creation of an urban renewal district in the West Covington area of South Baltimore, saying redevelopment plans should go forward but condemnation should not be used to forcibly displace thriving businesses and occupied homes.
Panel members voted, 7-1, late Thursday not to recommend an urban renewal bill that would enable the city to use its power of eminent domain to acquire the mostly industrial property on 50 acres along the eastern shore of the Middle Branch and offer it for a privately developed mixed-use project. Members questioned whether the city should be condemning nonblighted properties whose owners were united in opposition.
The renewal ordinance will move next to the City Council, which is not bound by the commission's vote, according to City Solicitor George Nilson.
The rejection comes at a time when the city and its economic development agency, the Baltimore Development Corp., have faced successful challenges to its efforts to take property. Last year, the state's highest court dealt the city back-to-back blows in rulings that said its use of speeded-up "quick take" condemnations was not justified.
In rejecting the West Covington plan, the commissioners said the area, bounded by Interstate 95 on the north, Hanover Street on the east and the Middle Branch of the Patapsco River on the west, offers a rare opportunity to assemble and remake a large tract of waterfront land near downtown.
But the BDC plan "seemed to be fraught with some difficulties," Peter Auchincloss, commission chairman, said in an interview yesterday. "We've dealt with eminent domain issues before which are challenging - the west side [in the traditional downtown retail district] and EBDI [a large area near the Johns Hopkins medical campus] come to mind. Both were difficult but contributed a greater good to the city. This plan would contribute to the greater good to the city, too, but there are existing, reasonably thriving businesses contributing to economic development ... and the tax base."
He noted that the three large industrial businesses that would be displaced all wanted to stay in what they considered a strategic business location, and that one of the property owners already had a deal to sell land to a developer with plans for mixed-use office and residential project.
Yesterday M.J. "Jay" Brodie, president of the Baltimore Development Corp., declined to comment on the planning commission vote.
"I said everything I had to say last [Thursday] night," Brodie said.
The planning commission first considered the proposed urban renewal district last month, but scheduled a second hearing for Thursday to give the city and property owners time to resolve differences.
Thursday's decision surprised the area's property owners, who had been preparing for a drawn-out battle.
Businesses in the proposed renewal district include Allied Waste Services, Schuster Concrete and Atlantic Forest Products, which has a pending contract to sell its 13-acre site to Ruppert Homes, a developer planning an office and residential development. Seven homes, including five that are owner-occupied, are also included in the proposed district.
"We all felt that we want to make sure our rights were protected, and none of us wanted to move," said Douglas Silber, an attorney representing Schuster. "The urban renewal ordinance ... was there to address blight. These are viable, active, productive and profitable businesses generating tax dollars, generating jobs. And for two of them - Allied and Schuster - these properties are critical to their operations.
Ruppert Homes had been talking with sports apparel maker Under Armour Inc., which expects to outgrow its headquarters in Baltimore's Tide Point in about five years, about developing a corporate campus for Under Armor on the 13-acre site, said D. Dusky Holman, an attorney with Gildea & Schmidt representing Ruppert.
But Under Armor broke off talks with Ruppert, and soon after, the city proposed the urban renewal ordinance targeting the property to be acquired by Ruppert, Holman said.
Holman told the panel that Under Armour representatives said the company wanted a million square feet of office campus where three buildings of up to eight stories each and athletic fields could be built over five to 10 years.
Brodie had said last month that Under Armour was eyeing West Covington along with several other city sites as a possible home for a future corporate headquarters.
A spokesman for Under Armour yesterday said executives had no comment on West Covington.
Nilson, the city solicitor, said urban renewal ordinances normally include the power of condemnation.
lorraine.mirabella@baltsun.com