Many residents do not to return after initial removal from E. Baltimore
A controversial development project sponsored by the University has started construction on another 57 acres of housing in East Baltimore, while a majority of the 800 residents displaced during the first phase of construction will not be returning to the neighborhood they once called home.
East Baltimore Development, Inc. (EBDI) - a consortium of financial sponsors that includes Hopkins, the office of the mayor and the Historic East Baltimore Community Action Coalition - has been clearing neighborhoods to make room for a $1.8 billion biotechnology park, which the group says will help revitalize the historically-impoverished area.
According to EDBI President and CEO Jack Shannon, 396 of these residents who were displaced by the first wave of construction are now living in different neighborhoods. Of these residents, only 30 own their new homes.
The new housing units built under the first phase of demolition and construction are just now opening back up to residents, said Chris Shea, chief real estate officer for EBDI. "Park View at Ashland Terrace is opening next week. It contains 74 units which are all affordable rentals for seniors," he said.
According to Shea, around 40 of the 58 leases were signed by returning East Baltimore residents, and the monthly rent will range between $335 to $680. Ashland Commons, the next series of residential housing, will not open until December, where removed tenants have currently signed 29 of 45 leases. EBDI has designated these units for working families and has stated that monthly rent will range from $616 to $950.
The first phase of construction occurred in a 30-acre area immediately adjacent to the Johns Hopkins Medical Center. Now in the second phase of a three-part process, 86 owners and 171 renters who will be affected by upcoming demolition are hoping to avoid what they see were failures by EBDI during the first construction period.
Those perceived failures were the topics of discussion at a meeting Tuesday night. Leaders of EBDI met with community members for a Relocation and Housing Committee Meeting at the EBDI Community Resource Center, a community gathering space housed in the former Luther Craven Mitchell Primary School in the center of the redevelopment area.
As the meeting began in the brightly lit white cinder block room, about 50 residents sat ready to listen to and question EBDI representatives. What started as a simple PowerPoint presentation became a passionate debate as residents asked questions and made cutting accusations.
One issue that arose was the Emergency Relocation Program offered by EBDI, which allows residents to move up in the queue for being relocated to a new home.
"I applied for an emergency relocation, but I didn't get it," said one older resident who will be relocated in a subsequent phase of the project. "I have a note from my doctor. It says I have a breathing problem. I can't breathe. How come you people rejected me?"
"What counts as an emergency in some people's eyes may not be in another person's eyes," said Doug Nelson, president of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, a non-profit that has been responsible for the relocation of residents to alternative housing during demolition.
According to a July 2003 edition of the Environmental Health Perspective Journal, housing demolition in East Baltimore has been a source of "lead in ambient dust."
At Tuesday's meeting, EBDI officials claimed that all items contaminated with lead paint were removed prior to demolition. Special attention was placed on the careful removal of contaminated debris in order to keep the lead dust levels down.
One resident was not satisfied with EBDI's efforts.
"I have dust piling up outside my door. And when they finally came to clean it up, he just blew it all with his big blower, and it just got worse," she said
Nia Redmond, one of two community representatives on the EBDI board of directors, passionately called upon EBDI to meet the demands of not only the residents but also the homeless living among the vacant homes.
"We all know some squatters. They are all somebody's children. We have to help these people," she said.
After EBDI removed all of the residents of the 20 acres under Phase One, many homeless broke into the recently vacated properties and moved in, only to be forcibly removed from the houses marked for demolition.
"All these people are being forced out of the neighborhoods, but they have no place to go. They are all being squeezed," Redmond said.
As phase two of the urban renewal program begins, EBDI has a new set of challenges before them. The area to be renovated under the second phase is 57 acres, nearly twice the size of the first development.
In addition the second phase includes a different approach to renovation. Instead of razing all structures within the zone, EBDI will be sparing certain sections of streets as "preservation blocks." These blocks of homes will be spared the wrecking block and will instead be refurbished.
According to Shea, residents of these homes will be "awarded 10 year grants [and] forgiven 10 percent per year over 10 years or when the owner turns 62."
Shea reported to the committee that after a survey of 18 occupied homes in the preservation blocks, most homes will need about $35,000 for cosmetic improvements such as the replacement or addition of windows, doors, insulation and smoke detectors. Other houses will need $75,000 for structural improvements such as electrical repairs, increasing the size of bathrooms and stairwells and roof framing replacement.
Construction is not the only hurdle facing EBDI. According to a recently published memo, EBDI needs to acquire additional funding from both public and private resources in order to support the physical redevelopment efforts and the social services that are being provided as part of the project.
The memo also stated that the end goal is to "promote the development of early childhood programs, a community school campus, construction and biotechnology training opportunities and enhance access for minority, women and local business enterprises to contracting and procurement opportunities in East Baltimore."
In the 2006 legislative session, a bill was introduced that would ban the use of eminent domain for economic development. However, the legislation stalled and the Maryland General Assembly adjourned without passing any reform.
Shannon repeated his assertion that the use of eminent domain by EBDI and the City of Baltimore was "fair and equitable" for all parties involved, despite the objections of residents and community leaders.
"The use of eminent domain for commercial purposes is a definite misuse of the powers of eminent domain," said Nathan Sooy, executive director of the Save Middle East Action Committee, Inc. (SMEAC).
Sooy has made it his primary to goal to battle for the rights of the residents of the Middle East Baltimore neighborhoods. SMEAC was formed in 2001 to "aggressively represent the folks who have lived in the community for decades" and is "trying to get the best deal for the residents," Sooy said.
A lack of funding means that SMEAC will not be taking their fight to the courts. "We are an organization with limited resources. If we had unlimited resources we might have fought [in the courts], but we just don't," Sooy said.
According to Sooy, SMEAC relies on donations and volunteer work for funding. "We have received a lot of help from other organizations including the faculty and staff from Morgan State University, from the Community Development Law Clinic from the University of Baltimore Law School and Catholic church organizations," he said.
Though Hopkins has currently contributed five million dollars to support relocation of families, Sooy feels SMEAC has not received enough support from the Hopkins community.
"Johns Hopkins University as an institution really hasn't done anything for SMEAC.
Although development by EBDI will help Johns Hopkins, they aren't involved in helping the residents," Sooy said.
Helen Szablya, director of Communications at EBDI, believes that SMEAC plays an important role in the development process. "There is always a need for a community organization to be active and strong and to fight for what they need," she said.
Shannon echoed Szablya's feelings, stating that SMEAC has done a "noble job of bringing their constituents' concerns to the table so that EBDI could do a better job of meeting the needs of all the residents affected by the redevelopment program."
Other members of EBDI present at the Tuesday meeting included CFO Cindy Swisher and Director of Family Advocacy and Supportive Services Karen Johnson.
