While I was snooping around for my most recent post, I discovered CleanerGreenerBaltimore.com, a local government initiavive to make the city more beautiful and sustainable.
Among the many neat resources here, (including promotion of an 'urban forest', which is just cool.) is a guide for turning vacant lots into community gardens (pdf).
I was reminded of a previous post here about a very large empty lot in the heart of my neighborhood owned by a commercial developer.
As of today, it appears that the lot, called the olmstead, is owned by Johns Hopkins.
It would be a benefit to the entire community if the University would allow the community to farm the Olmsted while development plans are still in limbo.
The area, of about 1.75 acres, could provide mini-lots to the many students and professionals that live in nearby apartments (pictured above).
Putting the land to a farming use would eliminate the need for mowing, as well as reduce local weed pollen (weeds also pictured above).
Could a temporary urban farm be next for the long-vacant Olmstead?
How sustainable is Baltimore? I stumbled across the chart below while surfing Wikipedia, and couldn't help but wonder where we stand among our peers in the shameful amorphous 'us cities' blob.
Impressions
Thinking about Baltimore in purely unscientific terms, it doesn't at first give one the impression of being particularly 'green':
Derives it's electricity from coal and nuclear, both unsustainable long-term polluters.
Miserable/non-existent bike lanes and crumbling roads dangerous to bikers.
Sprawling suburbs contrasting with blocks and blocks of empty urban structures.
Many treeless streets and spaces.
Multiple limited, oddly-placed public transportation options which are not very well 'knit together'.
A geographic location requiring extensive summer AC and winter heating.
On the other hand, it does enjoy some notable green/sustainable amenities:
Several farmers markets offering local produce.
Many mixed-use neighborhoods.
Large numbers of vacant structures represent a capacity that can be 'reused' if the city grows (as opposed to new materials having to be used).
Single stream recycling.
Strong youth/artist subculture which promotes sustainability.
In many of these points Baltimore does not differ much from how one might imagine an average historic American city.
What's happening with the proposed Charles Street corridor trolley in Baltimore? The last press (via JHU) on their website (dated September 08') made it sound like funding issues and mixed community sentiment were slowing things down.
The project funding proposal seems to hinge upon Johns Hopkins University's willingness to voluntarily pay 50$ tax for each $100,000 assessed value of their property in the area, which probably comes to an enormous sum. Obviously, the current economic climate may make this voluntary payment unlikely to happen.
Secondly, the use of city funds to build a trolley serving an allegedly homogeneous population has been called into question: (from the above press link)
Ed Hayes, a resident of Remington and an opponent of the trolley, put his concerns about the trolley in stark terms. He believes that it would be a "gated transportation system" which would only serve to connect the "all white Charles Village to the all white Inner Harbor."
The three primary districts in question, Inner Harbor, Mount Vernon and Charles village/JHU homewood are unquestionably neighborhoods that are 'whiter' than average in Baltimore.
But shouldn't one also note that are neighborhoods with great historical and architectural significance, house multiple city cultural institutions (museums, schools, etc) and serve as a city business corridor?
(Postcard depicting street trams in Richmond, VA--1920's. Public Domain)
~ Just a Tourist Trap?
Some opponents of the Trolley, on a website here(Trolleytrouble), take issue with the cost (they quote 300 million, the JHU article quotes 150 million) compared to busing. They also argue that the trolley wont provide reliable transport and in fact, may cause congestion.
One thing I noticed however, is that in fact nowhere do trolley supporters suggest that the project would ease congestion or provide convenient transportation. They carefully use words like 'calming' or 'connectivity' when describing befits--never efficient or economical.
The official page here suggests that increased tourism, "image" and retail visibility are the concrete primary goals of the project--and frankly, I think that a trolley probably would help meet these.
~ Fair?
And so, the question seems to be: "Is it fair to use some public (special tax district, state and federal) funds to build a private tourist amenity for the benefit of a culturally and historically significant yet possibly elite 'minority*' enclave."
My personal answer would be "Not unless the people who are paying for it, or their representatives, approve the project by democratic process." Its currently unclear to me if this has really happened yet. When and if it does however, I hope neighborhoods not impacted by the Trolley will allow it to proceed.
Under current plans, the Private, not-for-profit 'Baltimore Development Corporation' plans to use 71 million dollars of "state and federal" [funds] for building the line.
If and when elected state officials find the project worth funding, I believe one must consider it the same as a majority of it's citizens democratically doing so as well.
The remainder 85 million would be raised by a 'special tax zone' 1/4 miles on either side of Charles Street.
~ The Future
I like the idea of a Trolley in Baltimore. It would be fun to ride and increase ease of transportation for some--but I don't think I can support the proposal until it is either approved democratically by the citizens of the communities that will pay for it,-- or payed for entirely by private voluntary revenue.
