Our latest report on the ongoing saga of Keswick Multi-Care's proposal to build a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) on green space owned by the Baltimore Country Club in Roland Park continues today with an interview with Keswick CEO Libby Bowerman (pictured standing next to the space in question).

We initally reported on the meeting, two weeks ago today, at Roland Park Elementary School, where Keswick presented it's plan and faced strong opposition from the Roland Park Civic League, which hosted the meeting, and its hundreds of supporters in attendence. Soon thereafter, we posted an interview with Civic League president Phil Spevak.

In today's installment, Ms. Bowerman says she considers the Civic League meeting a total failure in terms of dialogue, and suggests the due process demanded by the Mayor and city government to consider the Keswick proposal has not yet begun. She says that despite promises from Councilwomen Sharon Green Middleton and Mary Pat Clarke not to introduce a Planned Unit Development to the Council—as would be required for development to move forward—other Council members have suggested they would introduce it. Further, she says she's heard from many members of the community who support the Keswick plan and that at least one neighborhood association has invited the Keswick to present it under less hostile conditions. The plan, she insists, is far from dead.

BM: What was your reaction to the Roland Park Civic League-sponsored meeting?

LB: My initial reaction was, as I said at the meeting, real disappointment that there wasn’t any attempt at dialogue. There were dueling Powerpoint presentations. We presented our Powerpoint, there was no time for discussion after that, no time for questions and answers after that, which is the ideal time, if anybody had any questions, to ask them. Then, the Civic League presented their presentation. We understood the meeting was about our—was mainly about us. We didn’t realize that the meeting was going to be predominantly about what the Civic League wanted to present.

BM: What are your thoughts going forward? What are the next steps?

LB: Well, as I said that evening and as I still fully believe, the Mayor and city officials are supporting us to go through a due process, and that due process is not dueling Powerpoints or eye candy, as I think one of the land committee members said. It really is sitting down at a table or sitting in a large hall—however many, it doesn’t matter—and talking about the real details of how we go forward and work together, both with the Civic League, the full Roland Park neighborhood, and more importantly than that, with the city of Baltimore, because this is really a city project.

BM: Among the people at the meeting, the overwhelming sentiment seemed to be that they weren’t interested in this plan. Does that make you think twice about the plan or consider any changes?

LB: I’m still anticipating that we will go through a very long and detailed process. I don’t think that’s begun yet. I still—going back to the dueling Powerpoints—don’t think that we have had a real open exchange process yet and until that happens, I’m very optimistic because that’s what we need to have happen, that’s what the city is expecting, that’s what the Mayor actually requested of both Keswick and the Civic League, that we sit down and talk about the project, not that we present Powerpoints. In my mind, that hasn’t happened yet.

BM: What did you think about the message, which Dr. Spevak read, from the mayor’s representative, who attended the meeting but had to leave early, saying it was clear to him that what needed to take place for due process had taken place? Did you feel like that was not an accurate reflection of what the mayor was thinking?

LB: It’s not an accurate reflection from my conversations with the Mayor, no, because she has been very succinct in stating that discussions needed to take place about the merits of the project. And that didn’t happen.

BM: It seemed to me that people did listen to the Keswick presentation, but just dismissed it, out of hand. They weren’t interested so much in the details—this was a proposal that people were not willing to consider. What details would you like people to consider that weren’t considered that night?

LB: They have yet to tell us anything that they would like to have. Their whole position is that nothing will work on this land. They want nothing.

BM: They want a park.

LB: Well, I don’t know that they want a park. I’m sure the Baltimore City government would be thrilled to put a city park and a city public swimming pool on that property, because it would serve a lot of people in that part of the city and there’s not a public park or a public swimming pool, but I don’t know that that’s what they want. They just say they don’t want anything.

BM: It seemed to me pretty clear that they were saying they want to purchase the land themselves and turn it into a public-use park. That’s what I heard at the meeting. You had a different impression?

LB: I did not hear the public park part. That may be what they said. Yes, they did want to purchase the property, I did hear them say that. Certainly we have a legally-binding contract to purchase the property. It is private property. We have two and a half years, or longer if we need it, in order to fill the contingency of the contract. And, again, I still anticipate that one of these days, we’re going to start this due process. We are trying to follow the request made to us of city government and particularly the Mayor.

BM: What do you think the steps would be of that due process?

LB: First of all, it would require that the Civic League begin to share with us some ideas that they might have that we could consider—modifications, changes to, or uses of some of the property. One of the things about a Planned Unit Devlopment (PUD) is that it gives a great deal of protection to property for a very long time, if not for the entire existence of the property, so to speak. And so the neighborhood and the Civic League have a tremendous opportunity to really get some concessions from us around this property and around this use that will be written right into legislation in the PUD. I’m amazed that they’re not—I’m really quite amazed, in fact— that they’re not actually recognizing that and taking advantage of that.

BM: I think the Civic League is under the impression that, hearing from Councilwoman Sharon Green Middleton and others on the Council, who have said that they will not present a PUD for consideration by the Council, that they don’t need to consider alternatives within the plan. That as long as that PUD is not presented, then this plan cannot go forward at all. Is that an accurate way of thinking about it?

LB: The PUD does have to be introduced by legislation, that is correct. And it is correct that Councilwoman Middleton and, I believe, Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke have said they will not introduce the PUD, however, our own interviews and discussions with other members of the City Council show that there is not that tremendous support against this project. And so, therefore, we are confident that, in time, we will prevail with getting the PUD legislation introduced.

BM: Does it have any bearing that the two Councilwomen who represent this area [Middleton and Clarke] are so strong in their opposition? Councilwoman Middleton said that had received something like 515 emails opposed to the plan and 19 supporting it.

LB: Well, unfortunately, all of the people who have spoken to me haven’t sent 500 emails to any Councilwoman or Councilman, however I have gotten overwhelming positive support and response to the project. There are probably equally as many people who have expressed excitement, enthusiasm, and support of the project, as from the Civic League. For example, the Baltimore Country Club members, 90 percent of those voted to approve the sale of this property, based on the project, not just the sale. And several hundred of those live in Roland Park. Although perhaps they’ve been the more silent majority, they have made themselves known to Keswick.

BM: Why do you think they’ve been more silent?

LB: I think they’re waiting for us to get into a due process that provides them the opportunity to speak in a neutral forum, or in a more balanced forum than perhaps the real emotional one of the Civic League meetings. And, as you know, there were people at that meeting who did come forward and speak in favor of the project, that’s been true in every meeting that we’ve been to. So it’s not that this project is without support.

BM: What kind of forum do you think would be more neutral?

LB: I think a forum that could be sponsored by some senior groups, could be sponsored by some church, perhaps sponsored by our hospital association, our [continuing care retirement community] (CCRC) groups—sponsors that are not the Civic League and are also not Keswick, but that would present an opportunity for us to really talk about the issues. Also, when you talk about a more neutral setting, I think some place that’s maybe more in the city and not that’s either in Keswick’s neighborhood or Roland Park’s neighborhood, some other place where we can have an open discussion.

BM: You’ve mentioned several times taking the discussion more city-wide. Do you think you’d find more support taking the project city-wide?

LB: Any kind of project that is going to provide housing for seniors—and we certainly know, in today’s economic world, that’s going to be an even bigger issue than we had imagined, with baby boomers aging—any kind of project like this located anywhere, but most especially in Baltimore City, is really going to draw from, not only the state of Maryland, but also probably from the east coast region. I’ve worked in a CCRC before. Many people move there to be close to their children, that would be true of this CCRC as well. Yes, it will draw from the immediate neighborhood, yes it will draw from around the city, but it’s not unlike the Lyric or one of the symphony halls because people come there from all over the state and even as visitors. And that would be the same thing as a CCRC. That makes it a very unique kind of program. It attracts not just locally, but also from a broader base.

BM: One of the things that people at the meeting seemed to have the most trouble with was the square footage of development, comparing it to the Legg Mason tower or Mondawmin Mall. What do you say to explain that?

LB: It’s difficult to visualize three-dimensionally what a structure such as your home, my home really looks like if it has three stories and so many square feet, it’s difficult to visualize that kind of a structure versus a commercial one. What we’re proposing is not remotely commercial, it’s very residential. That’s comparing apples and oranges in my mind. It’s hard to compare a very institutional mall with eight houses or ten houses or buildings that have multiple occupancy, like a very small condominium-type structure that has, say, three or four residents in one building. That’s what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about a high-rise or a Mondawmin Mall.

BM: So for now, what’s next? In a holding pattern?

LB: I’m never in a holding pattern because that doesn’t exactly describe my personality or the way I do my job. We currently are looking at a number of opportunities to talk about the project—I never stop talking about it any place that I am—there are a number of opportunities that are making their presence known to us now. I’ve had a direct contact from another neighborhood association who was very upset about the process and has offered to allow us to come and present our project because they would like to talk about supporting it. We still need to get into the due process with the city officials and with the neighborhoods.

On an unseasonably warm October evening, under the harsh fluorescent glare of the Roland Park Elementary School auditorium, hundreds of local residents sat, stood, and sweat last night as they heard Keswick Multi-Care’s proposal to build a continuing care retirement community (CCRC) on land purchased from Baltimore Country Club (BCC). The scene was a bit like the Roman spectacles in which captives were allowed to spar in the Coliseum before being mercilessly fed to the lions. After Roland Park residents were finished with it, the Keswick plan, which needs a Planned Use Development permit (PUD) and the approval of the Mayor and Baltimore City Council to go forward, appeared to be dead in the water, and even the BCC president seemed to be open to alternatives.

After last night, there can be no doubt: Roland Park is nearly unanimous—and fairly rabid—in its opposition to Keswick’s plan. Outside the school, giant banners with slogans like “Kids Like It Green” and “Our History Deserves a Future” filled nearly every square inch of public space as locals filed into the school, almost all of them wearing neon yellow t-shirts—to match the lights?—reading “Neighborhoods Matter!”

Libby Bowerman, chief executive officer of Keswick, started her presentation by introducing Baltimore Country Club president John Daue, who would remain a focal point for much of the evening. He declared that BCC was committed to Roland Park and suggested that 90 percent of BCC's members had voted in favor of the Keswick plan precisely because it left so much green space, it was designed to fill a need for senior housing in the community and it fit in architecturally with its surroundings. He aroused the first boos of the night with his submission that BCC's decision to sell to Keswick “wasn’t about the money.” He suggested, as many on the Keswick side did throughout the night, that BCC could build single-family homes on the 17-acre plot of land without City Council approval. “Not to threaten, but we have other alternatives,” he said. More boos and a shout of “Build the houses!” Indeed, it became clear that the community would prefer more single-family housing to Keswick's plan to build an institution. He dismissed the community’s suggestion that the property be turned into a park—“It’s not going to happen,” he said—but his opposition seemed to wilt by the end of the evening.

Next, the architect who was hired to design the Keswick facility stood up to explain their plans. Likely wondering what the hell he’d gotten himself into, his shaky red laser pointer outlined the planned facility, noting that the planners had taken care to leave as much green space as possible: Of the 17-acre plot, 5 would be developed as the CCRC, 5 more would be landscaped gardens, and 7 would be left completely untouched. Bucolic renderings of the buildings and surroundings showed that, as Mr. Daue suggested, the plans were be consistent with Roland Park’s architecture and leafy environs. Next up, a traffic study was presented that showed little adverse affects from the development, and Bowerman returned to reel off the benefits to the community and city from the Keswick plan: 500 jobs during construction, 158 permanent jobs upon completion, a $500,000 per year payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to the city (since, as a non-profit, Keswick is not required to pay taxes on its health services), and $1.18 million in property taxes beginning in 2015. And with that, Keswick was rushed away from the podium, held close to a 30-minute time limit.

To start the presentation by the Roland Park Civic League—who have organized the community in opposition to the Keswick proposal—RPCL president Dr. Phil Spevak introduced a lawyer from the community. He got the night’s first standing ovation, stating that, unlike other communities, Roland Park wasn’t looking to develop: “Basically, we want to continue on the trust that’s been carried on for the last 100 years," he said.

Spevak then presented a video called “Roland Park: The Keswick Issue” (DVD copies of which were distributed to all attendees at the close of the evening—these people are nothing if not organized). The video opens with kids running across verdant fields with prosaic music in the background. The music continues as residents sound off on the unique character of Roland Park, designed by Edward Bouton and Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr. to be a green oasis within the city.

Next up was a red-meat presentation by Ken Rice, chairman of the Roland Park Community Foundation. He elicited gasps when comparing Keswick’s planned 466,000 square feet of developed space to the Legg Mason tower downtown, which, he suggested, uses only slightly more space, and the Mondawmin Mall, which uses less. He discounted many of Keswick’s claims, suggesting the traffic study was incomplete and that the green space left over after development would be minimal (the manicured gardens would fenced in and only visible to residents “via helicopter”). To drive home his point, he showed a map with a to-scale version of M&T Bank Stadium in place of the Keswick development, insisting it would only take up slightly more space (“and includes a manicured garden right in the middle,” he poked, pointing to the football field.) He further worked the crowd, suggesting that the space could draw $4.4 million in real estate taxes, that the $650,000 entry fee for the CCRC would price out most local seniors, and that if a PUD was granted, the land could be used to build anything, including office buildings or industrial towers.

With the crowd sufficiently frenzied in opposition, the Alternative Land-Use Chair suggested that the community was willing to buy the property and turn it into a public park. Tufaro returned and got a standing ovation when he spoke directly to the Baltimore Country Club: “If you’re willing to sell it to home buyers, who would pay fair market value, sell it to us—we’re prepared to pay fair-market value.” He then showed a proposed funding plan that would include $1.25 to $3 million raised from the community, $4 to $9 million from foundations and land trusts, and $0.5 to $2 million in public funds, that could equal Keswick offer of $12.5 million.

Such an alternative seemed more likely after Councilwoman Sharon Green Middleton, who represents Roland Park, stepped to the podium (receiving another standing ovation) and made absolutely clear that the Baltimore City Council would not approve a Planned Use Development permit (PUD) for Keswick. Wearing a “Keep the Park in Roland Park” t-shirt, she declared “I will not introduce any re-zoning or PUD legislation for this project,” and mentioned that she had received 515 e-mails opposing the plan and just 19 supporting it (including 10 suspiciously received the day before the meeting). “My colleagues 100 percent respect my decision and that includes the president of the City Council.” With no chance of Council approval, the Keswick proposal, it seemed to everyone present, was essentially dead

Spevak read a letter from Councilwoman Mary Pat Clark, who couldn’t attend the meeting, in which she said “I support Councilwoman Middleton in her pledge,” and a message from deputy mayor Andrew Frank, who attended most of the meeting, suggesting “everything that was necessary for due process has occurred” and “the Mayor has all the info she needs” to make a decision.

Once the question and answer session started, community members zeroed in on BCC president John Daue. The first questioner asked why his group would not consider a public park proposal from the community. He initially responded that he was committed to the proposal from Keswick, which whom BCC had a contract, and that 90 percent of the membership approved because they thought it was best for the community. When pressed, he suggested “Our members feel that a public park is not compatible with a private country club.” The candid if somewhat vague explanation echoed the sentiment in a letter Daue sent to the RPCL that was circulated at the meeting: “With it’s uncontrolled access and potential for intensive recreational activities, the Club would not consider a sale for [a public park],” he wrote.

Questioner after questioner pushed Daue on his opposition to the community’s interest in buying the land for a public park, and he continually stated BCC’s commitment to Keswick, which whom they had signed a contract. After Councilwoman Middleton's speech, the failure of Keswick’s proposal seemed inevitable, and community members’ attention turned to alternative uses for the land. When Keswick CEO Bowerman made it to the microphone, she looked utterly defeated. “I am woefully and sorrowfully disappointed in this meeting tonight,” she said, suggesting that the community did not seem willing to consider their plan. Keswick had brought engineers, traffic experts, architects and others with insight into the plan, in hopes that the company could persuade the assembled that they had the best interests of the community in mind, but it seems, she said, “you aren’t interested in talking.”

Dr. Spevak responded that, after months of reviewing Keswick’s documents and plans, “We’ve come to the conclusion that there isn’t any more talking to do [with Keswick].” Two speakers from the audience did responded favorably to Keswick, one who suggested the community openly consider their plan, with the alternatives in mind, and another, who folks in the crowd identified as a BCC member, who angrily suggested the assembled were “abandoning the elderly” in the community.

Mostly, the questions returned to Daue, who seemed to hold the key to the community’s efforts to turn the property into a public park. They continually acknowledged that it was private property and they wanted to pay fair-market value, to make it financially smart for BCC to sell them the property.

Finally, at the clock approached 10 p.m.—three hours after the meeting opened—a questioner asked Mr. Daue point-blank: “If you cannot go forward with Keswick, will you extend an invitation to Dr. Spevak [to hear RPCL’s proposal for a public park].” Exasperated, Daue stood and said simply “Yes.” He relished one of his few rounds of applause for the night, sat down and said, “Now I’m going home.”

Stay tuned for a Q and A with Roland Park Civic League president Dr. Spevak on next steps. Please suggest questions for him in the comments section....

For Jews, the ten days that start with Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, and end on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, are the most solemn of the year. Called the Ten Days of Repentance, it is a time for Jews to examine their lives, repent for the sins they have committed over the past year and to seek forgiveness from those they wronged.

For residents of Pikesville—and all of Baltimore’s Jewish community—the Ten Days of Repentance this year were even more fraught than usual. Around 3 a.m. last Sunday, three days after Rosh Hashanah, vandals spray painted a swastika and the word “Nazis” on the signs of Baltimore Hebrew Congregation on Park Heights Avenue and Beth T’filoh Congregation on Old Court Road. For two days, community members wondered who committed the heinous acts, and on Tuesday, as the Congregations prepared for Yom Kippur, the ugly answer came to light.

Baltimore County police arrested three Jewish teenagers for the crimes, including one, 19-year-old Matthew Saunders, whose family worships at Baltimore Hebrew. The other vandals were Daniel Diaz, 19, and a 17-year-old whose name was not released. Police have since decided not to classify the incident as a hate crime, stating that they still don’t know the motive for the crime. So, community members are left to ask: Why?

“The incidents need to be probed to see what it heaven’s name would lead people to do what they did,” says Art Abramson, executive director of the Baltimore Jewish Council, who suggests that sensitivity training, possibly including a trip to the Holocaust Museum, be part of the vandals’ sentence. “If the three are Jewish, not to know what a swastika means and talking about Nazis, there are no excuses.”

According to Facebook, Saunders and Daniel Diaz were 2007 graduates of Pikesville High School and both had several friends in Israel. Some have suggested the trio are self-hating Jews, who so loathe their traditions that they were moved to act in league with the most vicious anti-Semites. Others believe that the kids committed the acts on a dare, or as a prank, possibly related to some kind of gang initiation. My guess is that they were—in the dubious tradition of teenagers everywhere—trying to shock their elders, rebel against their traditions, and, if possible, impress their peers. They did so by committing an incredibly stupid crime, likely without realizing the hurt they would cause or the serious repercussions to their futures.

For many members of the Jewish community it comes as strange relief that the perpetrators were Jews, however deviant, as opposed to Neo-Nazis, skinheads, white supremacists or some other variety of organized hate group. “My guess is, it was one o’clock, two o’clock in the morning on a Saturday night, they may have been drunk, who knows,” says Abramson. “It doesn’t make an excuse, but it certainly makes it less problematic for me vis a vis what it could have been.”

No one really knows what they were thinking except the kids themselves. Abramson has some advice for them: “Especially at this particular time, repentance is a good idea,” he says. “We’ll see how they do it.”

What do you think?