For those of you following the saga of Washington College’s efforts to tear down the historic Armory to build a luxury boutique hotel, here’s an update.
After filing its new, 118-page application as required for the December 7 Historic District Commission hearing, Washington College has withdrawn its application to demolish the Armory. I found out when Kees de Mooy emailed me on Thursday, November 30, stating “the College has withdrawn its demolition application pending some additional information that they are gathering. I’ll let you know when they decide to reschedule.”
This sent me looking at the HDC Guidelines. The College’s withdrawal was a unilateral action by the College—the HDC was not consulted; it was told that the College was withdrawing. Therefore, this is not a continuance or a tabling by the HDC, so the HDC has no obligation to act within 45 days of the date of the College’s first or second (now withdrawn) applications.
If the College decides to re-apply, then the process and the clock starts over. It must submit a new, complete application for whatever it is proposing, and if for demolition, do so at least 25 days prior to the regularly scheduled HDC meeting.
There has been no public announcement of this withdrawal, and as of Saturday, December 3, no agenda had been posted on the Town website for the December 7 HDC meeting.
On Thursday, December 1, I received an email from the Assistant Secretary for the Department of General Services (DGS). I had earlier inquired if DGS’s division, the Board of Public Works, which had transferred the Armory to the Town, knew about the College’s plans. Apparently, neither the College or the Town had shared these plans with the State. The Assistant Secretary’s email concluded, “We do not believe the proposed new proposal use conforms with the restrictive covenant in the transfer deed.” The Assistant Secretary also advised DGS would be emailing the Mayor, Town Manager, the College, and the HDC on Friday, December 2, of its conclusion and “…the DSG recommendation that Board of Public Works approval be sought for the proposed new use of the former Armory site.”
So, no demolition and no hotel at this point. It will be interesting to see what the College comes up with in this next round and how it and the Town chose to handle the situation this time. Let’s hope for lessons learned.
Which brings me to my next point. During my advocacy for transparency and honor of process by the College and the Town in their respective roles, I was admonished by a member of the Town Council for pointing out troubling actions of Town employees. This Town Council member pointedly directed me to file an ethics complaint instead. So, I tried to do so.
Guess what? The Town no longer has an Ethics Commission. Check out the website—there are five empty seats. There is a chairman, who I tried to reach by email and phone several times. (It took me almost an hour to track down his contact information on the Internet, by the way.) When I received no response from the chairman, I emailed the Town Manager (and copied the Mayor and Town Council members) on November 21:
”Also, I was shocked to see that the Town Ethics Commission has no members except a chair, Johnnie Johns, Esq. I have tried to reach Mr. Johns several times last week by phone and by email. None of my messages has been returned. Perhaps you can arrange for him to contact me since he has not been responsive to my direct inquiries. How long has the Ethics Commission been essentially defunct? This is a mandated Commission. What plans are in place to have it reinvigorated?”
When the Town Manager did not respond, I politely asked by email again on November 29:
“Also, have you had any luck reaching Johns re the Ethics Commission? I still need to speak with him. Also, what is the status of the Ethics Commission?”
He replied, “I am handling your questions as quickly as my time permits.”
As of Saturday, December 3, I have had no further response from the Town Manager or the Ethics Commission’s chairman. I was able to speak with the Town’s Ethics Counsel, who told me her job was to advise the chairman and the commission so I needed to speak with the chairman. Thus, I am back at Square One. It is very clear is that the Ethics Commission is not a Town priority and even the Town Council (or at least one member) did not know it was defunct. Who is minding the store?
Barbara Jorgenson
Chestertown
Pete Buxtun says
Respectfully, Ms. Jorgenson needs a hobby (besides this one). Her body of commentary on the Spy is akin to the proverbial spoke in the bike wheel; it serves no purpose except to further muddy the waters and halt what could be a project that benefits the town and county.
Perhaps the restrictive covenant does mean that the building must molder and decay for the next 20 years? Would that make Ms. Jorgenson happy? I’m fairly certain the college will invest no money into preserving or renovating a building they’ve got no use for. If everyone is so bent out of shape about demolition, I suggest they put their money where their mouth is and offer to buy and rehab this ugly, inconsequential eyesore themselves.
I (as is the town manager, clearly) am tired of hearing from people who offer no solutions and only ugly criticism.
JJ says
Amen!
Carla Massoni says
Thank you. This project would benefit Chestertown and Kent County. But if Barbara keeps making the hurdles higher it will not be in my lifetime – what a waste. Please buy the building and restore it…perhaps you can invite the troops to return.
Jenn Baker says
I am following the saga of watching opportunity being washed down the drain. We’ve an opportunity to support growth and development in Chestertown at a time when our schools are under-funded, our citizens need enhanced job opportunities, and our small businesses are still struggling post-COVID. You have stated that your opposition to the hotel is not the hotel itself, but purely procedural. Watching this, one cannot help but feel like the saga is actually a drama of resistance to progress.
As an attorney, surely you appreciate that time has value – and through the vast amount of time and effort you are dedicating to stalling and stopping this effort, you are costing the developer of this hotel both time and money. In doing so, you risk the opportunity for our community to take a step toward stabilizing and preparing itself to stay vibrant and viable in the future.
Our workers need jobs. Jobs that can lead to a career. Our tradespeople need projects. Our downtown restaurants, galleries, and stores need guests. Our town and county need tax dollars – tax dollars desperately needed to fund our schools.
So I would ask – what is your plan for growth? How would keeping this building help support all of these much needed aspects of our small town rural life? To what end are you pushing for ethics committees and public information requests? Are you upset that the Historical Society wasn’t asked? Do you have a growth plant that includes this property? What is the end game?
As a business owner I am incredibly invested in this growth. As someone who lives on Quaker Neck, I pass this shell of a building on my drive to and from my small business. I receive letter after letter from very deserving non-profits asking for donations and sponsorships – that we must turn down, because we can only do so much. I see people looking for jobs that will allow them to live with dignity in our rural community. I understand how hard it is to grow your business in a 5k person town with limited opportunity for tourism. I hear folks say, “I would love to visit there, but…” I understand exactly why stores are closed on Monday, and see fairly empty streets on a Sunday. I talk to my business neighbors who are all experiencing the same.
And if you are in tune with various community groups online, you see our everyday citizens struggle – with jobs, housing and schools.
We cannot put these needs on the backs of the businesses today. We must grow and change.
The developer of this property is not a corporation from far far away – they are “our” (big collective our) neighbors with a home here in Kent County. They are exceptionally well regarded hotel owners with properties in Annapolis, and Philadelphia, and all over the country. But they have investors too – and investors do not wait while we burn their capital. They have an invested interest in our community. This is an incredibly awesome opportunity to breath new life into our waterfront while creating much needed jobs and generating much needed revenue for our town and county.
Sincerely,
Jenn Baker
Chester River Wine & Cheese
Brian Schatzinger says
Thanks for your comments, Jenn. These are my thoughts exactly and, I’m sure many residents of Chestertown would love to hear from Ms. Jorgenson who will, hopefully, be as thorough in explaining her reasons for singularly blocking this development as she has been of her lawyerly analysis of how the “process” was so badly violated. Perhaps she does have a plan that helps rather than hurts our community.
I’m anxious to hear a contrary opinion from ANYONE who opposes a high-quality waterfront hotel in Chestertown. God forbid we might compete with St. Michaels for boaters and tourists. We no longer have a waterfront restaurant, and our primary hotel offering is a Red Roof Inn overlooking the back of a mostly vacant strip shopping center. Why would anyone choose Chestertown for a long weekend stay on the Eastern Shore? That’s why they don’t.
However, we will still have an abandoned and uninhabitable historic Armory occupying prime waterfront property. It will inevitably remain as such for another 40 years until it collapses all on its own.
My suspicion (although I hope I am wrong) is that the investors and the hotel developer have moved on as the College has withdrawn their application for demolition. Businessmen understand when they are not welcome. Why invest in a community that doesn’t want your product?
I hope that ALL those that have been so vocal about saving the Armory are happy. I’m sure most of their neighbors are not. As a 20-year property owner in the Historic District, I am very disappointed. I’m afraid we will see our small town of 5,000 residents continue to decline and businesses will continue to struggle. Very disappointing indeed, to watch a few spoil this opportunity for so many.
Ms. Jorgenson?
Cl Ra says
Thank you for your tenacity and willingness to stick your neck out to keep those in positions of responsibility honest. This work, and those who do it, fends off the possible encroachment of corruption.
Brandt Troup says
It is likelier that one might get a response if one were to contact Johnnie *Jones*?
J. Jenkin says
What is the end goal of your campaign against the process for the armory?
It can’t be what you’ve claimed, exposing the missteps taken by the Historic Commission, Town Council and College. If that was your goal then you would have been successful five letters ago and many people would have been on your side. All parties involved should have taken the necessary and correct steps with this process and I appreciate you identifying and alerting the public that those steps were not taken. What I’m extremely disappointed in, is the approach you continue to take.
After reading this most recent letter to the editor, it seems that there must be an ulterior motive beyond the original. Are you set on killing this opportunity for the town, on a mission to ruin individual town employees and Town Council members; or is it related to your tenure on Historic Commission years ago?
As demonstrated by the many comments on your letters in the Spy and conversations around town, many residents are not only in disagreement with your constant attacks, but they are incredibly embarrassed by the approach you continue to take. There continues to be increased concern that your aggressive, consistent commentary will have a negative impact on this community for years and scare away future town investments. I sincerely hope that my fellow residents continue to share their concerns about Mrs. Jorgenson’s letters because, as many of us have expressed face to face, these letters to the editor are not only disappointing, but incredibly frustrating!
Ben Tilghman says
This is such a misguided campaign for so many reasons. But to the specific point about the “educational use” covenant: construction of a hotel is consistent with such a use. Colleges need all kinds of facilities beyond classrooms and dorms, including places for visitors to stay. As a result, dozens if not hundreds of colleges have on-campus hotels to serve guest lecturers and performers, prospective students and parents, candidates for faculty and staff positions, families of graduating students, and other types of visitors (there’s a good NYTimes article on the subject, if you care to look it up). As has been noted, the proposed hotel would also have event spaces for academic conferences and public speakers. Perhaps that doesn’t fit your ideal of an “educational use,” but it would still be one.
Full disclosure: I teach at the college but am in no way connected to this project, and as tenured faculty I’m under no obligation to parrot any party line. I write as someone who cares about Chestertown and wants to see it thrive. I have yet to see any of the self-appointed defenders of the Armory propose any plans for it that would benefit the town in any way.
Karen Mack says
Thank you for pointing out that a hotel can serve the mission of education in a variety of ways. This fact seems to be missing in the endless rants regarding process and the “treasure” that is the Armory. I echo the desire to see something constructive for the site. The building is on its last legs and is an eyesore for those who pass it several times a day. So, instead of the constant gripes how about a recommendation for an appropriate use that will generate some revenue for the community, as well as jobs. Sadly, I do not believe that this is part of the game plan. The attacks will continue. The eyesore will remain.
Gerry levin says
Thank you Ms. Jorgensen. You are right on target!
matthew Weir says
Ms. Jorgenson,
Congratulations! Your desire for process has now set Chestertown and Kent County back 50 years. I remember when I was at Washington College and a member of the Chestertown Volunteer Fire Department. Most of the other young and avaailable firefighters had to drive 1 to 2 hours to work. There were no jobs in Chestertown. Nonetheless, on their days off, they would give of their time (and risk their lives) to help their community. Now, very few live in the area because there is limited economic opportunity. This is such a loss for the area, it’s citizens and the economic vitality of Chestertown and Kent County. What a shame.
Beryl Smith says
So if Ms. Jorgensen gets her way the Armory will return to moldering away and no foreseeable entity will contemplate battle with her to help the college and Kent County. Her one-woman crusade to try to get the college to spend ever more money on upgrading this derelict of a building instead of educating students seems so out of line that it is impossible to contemplate that she has any sense at all of what she is doing. Perhaps it is time for the college to just wash their hands of the whole thing–give the building back to the state and let it sit and sit and sit forever until it crumbles all by itself.b
Walter Palmer says
Dear Chestertown, Don’t tear the Armory down. The building is an asset not an eyesore. Repurpose the structure and let it add to the collective fabric of the town. The allure of development may seem positive but coming from a town filled with empty lots of torn down buildings and vacant stores due to high rents from developers my comment is just hold on, bank the asset and wait for a good use of an historic structure.
The promise of development bringing jobs and people and customers is false. What it will bring is transitory low wage jobs for construction. Afterwords a bunch of minimum wage jobs for who? Im sure the developer won’t be paying propper benefits and prevailing wages for highly skilled trades people for construction. They will look to the lowest bidder. Im sure to finance the new construction they will have to charge higher rent that only national chains and banks can afford. In the end you will have a box on the water that will look like any box that people could go anywhere to see.
Build on your assets, create something people will want to see. The Armory is a distinctive structure that has a history and a future. Tearing it down for some “boutique hotel” that will last until the next recession is not a long term addition to a wonderful town. Call it what it is. A financial benefit for a few at the cost to a community.
If someone wants to build a hotel on the water renovate the armory or find another vacant lot.
Heck there is a burnt up restaurant on the water right now. There are plenty of spots for new projects. Why pick on a community asset?
Richard Keaveney says
Wow. The short-sightedness contained within Mr. Palmers reply is unfortunate. Construction and hotel jobs are limited, I agree. But a hotel within walking distance of our “metropolis” means 25, 50, or 100 plus people spending the night during the middle of the week, spending dollars at our bars, restaurants, gift shops, galleries. Tax revenue will benefit our infrastructure. Even our hospital may have more of an opportunity to grow in service scope. This is a WIN WIN WIN.
Walter Palmer says
I am not against the development of a “boutique” hotel in the metropolis of Chestertown. I do personally think it’s not a good idea, but if someone wants to put money into the idea go for it. I am against destroying a historic asset for a short term gain. Why didn’t the developer want to incorporate the armory in the design. I have stayed in an armory in Portland Maine over some marriott and i have been back several times. I chose the old quirky building rather than the slick cookie cutter box.
As for your thought of people coming to chestertown and spending money like st michaels or Annapolis, I just don’t see it. Both have good proximity to the bay. Chestertown is a powerboat destination at best. They will most likely stay on there boats not in $300 a night hotels. Sailboats wont make the journey up the chester river, it’s just too far under power. People coming to chestertown to walk around, dine and shop will stay anywhere and Chestertown has plenty of spots open for development that are actually in town. A planning commission would direct development for the betterment of all not just the few.
Richard Keaveney says
It now occurs to me that when Barbara and I served on the board of Main Street Chestertown … the organization responsible for bringing the college and potential hotel developer together (I was there!) Barbara seemed always focused more on Main Street By-Laws and procedures and less on collaborating and creating exciting programs and activities for our towns economic rebirth.
Sad. I suppose everyone has their “gifts”.
How awesome it would be if the vocal esquires would HELP the cause for economic vitality and HOSPITALITY by providing the defensive posture of the college cause … as all attorneys seem capable of doing depending on what side they represent.
thankfully the right side way way outnumbers the wrong side of this issue.
Anne Singer says
Well, for the record, I appreciate what Barbara has taken the time and energy to bring to light. Thank you!
Carol Mylander says
First ,I would like to thank Barbara for bringing awareness for the need of filling seats on the Ethics Committee. When I was on the Recreation Commission we were told we had to attend an Ethics workshop..
Second, Washington College leave our historic buildings alone. And people what are you thinking that your opinion of what is beautiful to you should be saved and not a building that is important to the town?
Three, citizens of Chestertown if you would like a hotel in town there are plenty of spaces for it.
Fourth, Washington College I don’t trust you anymore. We give and give to you in this town and it is never enough. I am tired of secrets and contracts with developers to benefit the college financially with no consideration to our lovely town. You declined to be in the Historic District after all. And now you are cluttering our waterfront with huge buildings reminiscent of the warehouses and garages of the past. What happened to your concern abut the rising tide?
Ben Ford says
Carol, one of those cluttered looking “warehouses” is built on a remediated brownfield site and generates at least 105% of the energy it consumes. Before remediation, the property was heavily contaminated with agricultural and petroleum waste. Another of those new buildings expands access to the waterfront and river for WC undergraduates (a good thing, I hope). Both properties are open and available for public use and enjoyment. What’s the problem?