As a concerned citizen increasingly dismayed by the rapidity with which the Port Covington tax incremental financing proposal is moving ahead, I was hopeful when I saw that a highly regarded group civic and religious leaders had written an op-ed on the subject ("Embrace Port Covington, don't chase it away," July 6).
But disappointment quickly set in.
The piece laid out in very general terms strong support for the Port Covington project while adopting a high tone of reprimand for those who have been raising, in my view, very important questions about the specific terms and actual benefits to communities that would justify such a large commitment of public funds.
The op-ed claims that "redeveloping Port Covington will create a thriving hub of opportunity from an area that currently lays fallow and is awash in garbage."
But it is fair to ask: Opportunity for whom? To take but one issue — Baltimore City's desperate need for more affordable housing — The Sun has already pointed out that while Sagamore Development has agreed to make 10 percent of its residential units affordable for people who earn less than 80 percent of the regional median income, that doesn't mean much since it translates to an income 65 percent higher than the city's median.
The devil is in the details, and it is interesting to compare Sagamore's commitments, vaguely outlined in the master plan, to the contractual requirements of a very large redevelopment project currently under way along District of Columbia waterfront.
The Wharf is a $2 billion mixed-use waterfront development stretching across 24 acres of land and 29 acres of waterfront. Requirements for inclusion of affordable housing in this development are at 30 percent, 60 percent, 100 percent and 120 percent of median. It also requires that 35 percent of goods and services must be procured from DC firms, 51 percent of new employees in construction must be DC residents and 51 percent of apprentices must be DC residents.
I am far from confident that these are the kind of detailed negotiations that are being hammered out as the Port Covington TIF is pushed ahead. And while I strongly agree that the project can represent very exciting opportunity and jobs, I hope that those serious issues will not be summarily dismissed as they are in your op-ed.
Jane Harrison