Adam Meister's Campaign gets Going

Adam Meister is running for City Council in District 11, the district that will be/could be has been vacated by Keiffer Mitchell due to his Mayoral run. I am not in the 11th district, but I am interested in Meister's candidacy because of it's grassroots nature. I would like to see more on the issue/policy side of Meister's site, which is admittedly in it's infancy.

Baltimore City Ban's Smoking in Bars, Restaurants

Finally. As a smoker and sometimes libertarian, I have had many long, unresolved arguments over this legislation, and I am glad to finally see it pass if only to end those arguments. Furthermore, from a public health standpoint, the ban really was necessary, and I support it's passage despite my earlier reservations.

While I will miss my after lunch cigarette at the Charles Village Pub on weekends, I will find some way to cope.

What I did find interesting about the bill was the deadlock over it's passage and the apparent work that Mayor Dixon had to put in to end it.

In addition to the maneuvering, the ban also received an important last-minute push by Dixon. Though she had been publicly supportive of the ban for months, several observers said the new mayor -- who often lists health as a major priority of her administration -- made a series of phone calls to members who had abstained on past votes.

"She definitely demonstrated her power," said Frank D. Boston, a lobbyist for the Baltimore Licensed Beverage Association, who said he believed early Monday that he still had a chance of killing the measure. "Before today, I had the votes."

For a Mayor who has such a short tenure before facing an election battle, Dixon made a good move flexing her muscle here. I am still ambivalent about the candidates in the upcoming Mayor's race (besides than my profound distaste for Councilman Mitchell) but Sheila Dixon just scored some points.

While Hundreds Crowd Homeless Shelters, Baltimore City Demolishes a Block of Houses

Faced with a snowy weekend and an untimely BGE turnoff notice, I was extremely moved by a recent story in the Hamilton Spectator about the Code Blue Bus in Baltimore City. Code Blue is a non-profit organization who provides warmth, shelter, and resources for the homeless of Baltimore City. When the temperature dips into deadly territory, Code Blue picks up street dwellers and gives them somewhere safe and warm to stay for the night.

What is heartbreaking about the article is what is heartbreaking about every contact one might have with a homeless person, the realization that "that could be me". Its a realization that flies in the face of conventional wisdom about the homeless, that they are mostly drug addicts or alcoholics, schizophrenics or Alzheimer's sufferers, or are "just lazy". Even worse is the conventional wisdom that not only takes such statements to be true, but then supposes that for those reasons, the homeless are undeserving of, or beyond help.

Two stories jumped out at me:

Some people grumble about the food and the condition of the bathrooms and the lack of showering facilities.

Others, such as Michelle Holley, a 23-year-old single mother, are grateful.

Holley spends the days at her grandmother's and the nights here with her daughter, 3, and son, 1. She shares a room with several other women. Tonight, her children watch television as she relaxes on the cot.

"It's not the right way to live, for real. But it's OK. I'm trying to get my own place," she says.

"I'm grateful. A lot of people should feel blessed to have someplace to stay until they get themselves together."

The shelter helps the Health Department identify families that should be placed in emergency housing and put in contact with social-service agencies.

On a recent night, Stacey Mouzon, a 26-year-old mother of six, enters the shelter visibly scared.

Tears are streaming down her face as her children's backpacks are opened and examined.

Around her stand five of her children, ranging from a 2-year-old to a 13-year-old.

The Glover-Beys immediately find her a private room and special care.

Settled in later, still shaken, Mouzon says she came to the shelter because she was forced out of her apartment in November 2006 and since then has been moving around among family members and friends.

When the electricity at her aunt's place was cut off, she knew she had to find another place to stay, and so she walked to the shelter.

"I didn't know what it was going to be like," says Mouzon, still crying.

"I don't know where we'll go tomorrow morning"

The next day, Mouzon and her family are placed in emergency housing at a hotel, and they're assigned a case manager with the city's housing program.

This is where my stretch of a headline and stretch of a point come in. As many may already know, Baltimore demolished a whole block of historic row houses on Saturday.

Now, I am sure if the houses remained, they would not have priority for low income housing or any sort of program to place the newly homeless in affordable housing. Still, the City Council's extremely overzealous actions on behalf of the Developer to get these houses removed ASAP deserves some attention. Now, the recent articles about the matter simply say this about the Council's complicity in subverting the will of the public in favor of helping out a big developers:

The city granted Mercy a permit to demolish the homes in December after the City Council removed the structures from a list of notable properties in the central business district - a move that allowed the hospital to raze the buildings without a one-year deliberation process.

Indeed, Councilman Keiffer Mitchell was the one who wrote the amendment to de-list the buildings, and he is the one who slipped it into legislation so it wouldn't be questioned or even noticed.

Mercy and the preservation community faced off last fall when City Councilman Keiffer J. Mitchell Jr., at Mercy's request, pushed an amendment to an otherwise innocuous bill that removed the houses from a list of "notable" properties -- a designation that required a one-year waiting period before demolition.

Councilman Mitchell should be ashamed of himself, though I am sure the donations will help him during his run for Mayor. If justice was guaranteed, Mr. Mitchell would lose his bid for Mayor and hopefully his Council seat. His amendment and failure to change the name to reflect the policy within is a direct attempt to mislead the citizens of this city, and he has the balls to think about running for Mayor.

So why do I think these stories are related, beyond the facile observation that we are destroying homes when there is a homeless problem? They are connected because they show who our City Council is working for, and in a lot of cases, it ain't us. Keiffer Mitchell will step up and work hard behind the scenes for his buddies at Mercy Medical so they can get their new center. I want to know who in our City government is working hard behind the scenes to help Stacey Mouzon and her six children? It is disheartening that some Council members would break the law to help a big developer screw over the people. I want to know who is willing to break the law to try to help the poor in this city?

Councilwoman Clarke Declares her Support for "Strong" Affordable Housing Bill

I have gotten word by email that Baltimore City Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke is both a co-sponsor and big supporter of the "strong" version of the recently discussed Affordable Housing Bill.

Good to know my Councilwoman is on the ball!

By they way, here is another article about the housing bill. It makes it seem like the bill has a good chance of passing. I only hope that its the "strong" version that passes and not the watered down, developer friendly, "weak" version.

Community Supported Affordable Housing Bill Faces Challenges

Someone is undercutting the public interest as it relates to an affordable housing bill in the city.

The leaders of some city agencies are pushing to significantly restrict legislation that would require developers to include affordable units in all Baltimore residential projects, but the City Council sponsors of the bill are sticking by their original plan.

The bill, in its original form, the form community advocates refer to as the "strong" bill, is a progressive piece of legislation.

The bill - formally introduced last night - would require residential developers who get major subsidies or who benefit from significant rezoning to reserve as much as 20 percent of the units in a project for low- or moderate-income people. Developers working without subsidies or rezoning would have to offer 10 percent of their project for affordable use.

The legislation would also create a funding stream for an inclusionary housing trust that voters endorsed on the Nov. 7 ballot. Twenty percent of the city's transfer taxes and recordation fees could fill the fund with $10 million or more a year.

The bill also would set up an inclusionary housing board to consider exceptions to the law and measure its effectiveness.

I like this bill because it gives the city a stronger hand when it comes to development deals. If the city is going to go out of its way to give a developer subsidies and the luxury of relaxed zoning rules, that developer needs to be compelled to give something back. 20% of their units seems appropriate, if not a little low.

Its also nice to see the will of the voters expressed with the "inclusionary housing trust".

None of this will matter however, if several city departements have their way.

Late last week, the agencies drafted a substitute ordinance that, among other things, eliminated the funding for the trust fund and the housing board. It also would let developers who do not get subsidies or rezonings off the hook for affordable units.

First, why even have a ballot initiative if the policy behind that initiative is going to be eliminated? I don't even know how to address that.

When it comes to letting "independent" developers off the hook, I am ambivalent. It would be nice to require all new development in the city to provide affordable housing. I am not sure the difference between the amount of subsidized and unsubsidized development in the city. If most development is subsidized, then we shouldn't worry about getting the unsubsidized developers to include affordable units. However, if the majority of development is unsubsidized, it will be necessary to require these developers to include affordable housing.

Advocates of the original "strong" bill will accept nothing less than a bill that targets all development.

"There are too many people working in this city who cannot afford to live in this city, and that injustice cannot continue," he said. "This bill is justice."

The crowd insisted that not just any bill would do. Only a "strong" one.

And by that, said the Rev. Karen Brau, pastor of Amazing Grace in East Baltimore, they mean a bill that includes both a trust fund and a board and targets all residential development.

Supporters of the "strong" bill have been emailing their council members. You can do the same.

City Council may Cap Parking Ticket Late Fees

Capping the $16 a month late fee sounds good to me, though it may be too late to affect my several overdue parking tickets.

There are a few plans in the works.

This is the best one, from Councilman Jack Young:

Young's bill originally capped the penalties at three times the face value of the ticket, a cap that was initially opposed by the both the city finance department and the police department. The finance department argued that parking scofflaws were primarily not city residents, and that limiting the fines would be a disincentive for violators to pay.

However, I seriously doubt the city would give up such a large amount of revenue, so most likely the cap won't really be a cap at all, but simply a reduction of the amount of the monthly late fee.

As Councilman Robert Curran notes:

Curran said a compromise was necessary to get backing from the finance department, though he still thinks the monthly late penalty is too high. "I would have liked to have reduced the penalty rate from $16 a month to $12. I think $16 is usury," he said.

So what is $12, usury-lite? If the city is serious about this, they should go with Young's plan or at least include something to eventually stop the fees from piling up. Often, parking tickets stuffed under windshield wipers in Fells Point end up in the Bay, victims of the high wind. The same can be said for cars parked anywhere in the city. Either way, the late fees are out of control, and I know firsthand. Lets hope Councilman Young's bill makes it into law.