If you notice, the things being discussed by the Baltimore City Council and pro-Port Covington development adherents have to do with jobs and a bright but unproven future that isn't supported by any factual evidence ("Young urges Sagamore to cut deals with unions, BUILD on Port Covington TIF," Aug. 4). Here are just a few of the things that we Baltimoreans should raise with our elected officials:
No one seems to notice the flood zone surrounding the entire Port Covington area. Even though the area is supposedly 16 feet above sea level, development of Port Covington has a caveat that you need to raise the land level to avoid catastrophic flooding from the Patapsco River — not an unheard of scenario since the Inner Harbor flooded during a hurricane in the last 20 years. But even with higher land, when you cover a land area with cement or other impervious material that doesn't allow rain water to drain away, you could end up with a scene like the recent Ellicott City flooding. In that instance, Howard County's elected officials, in their quest for tax dollars, approved zoning in that area for multiple housing developments. With their eye only on the bottom line, they allowed the decimation of trees and ground cover. In the past few days, we've witnessed the results of their "bottom line" thinking.
But that isn't all I wonder about this project. How deep can you dig into soil to accommodate gas pipes, water mains, sewer pipes, underground electrical cables, or underground cables for computers before you hit water? Can the land along the Patapsco accommodate the massive underground infrastructure needed? And I wonder, on this very concentrated piece of land how the streets are going to be set up to accommodate the thousands of people who will work, play and live in that area. They talk about recreational parks. I can't imagine where visitors would park, and you can bet there would be resentment from residents when "out-of-neighborhood" people are using "their" parks.
Speaking of "residents," what really baffles me is where you're going to house them. Are we talking rowhouses like most of Baltimore or are those high-rises (that look like some Stonehenge anomaly) going to house Baltimoreans? I sure hope not since we already know what happens when you put families in high rises — they were called "the projects" and we tore them down because when they rose, so did crime.
Over a 25-year period (the proposed amount of time to make this fantasy a reality), much can happen. With climate change, Under Armour could very well be "Under Water." I hope somebody with some savvy is looking beyond jobs and Kevin Plank's pie-in-the-sky fantasy. The bottom line could very well bottom out.
Phyllis Gunkel