I am writing as a Chestertown Historic District citizen, property owner and business owner for the past 40+ years.     

This matter is, as it should be, a classic Chestertown debate based on the past, present and future . . . and no one is right or wrong.  Instead, all opinions are valid and contribute to the discussion.  There should be mutual respect, comity, and civility for the differences of perspective.  Here are mine.

I support the idea for a new Chestertown hotel at the Armory property.     

And among many others, I hope that the original 1931 Armory structure (a National Historic Register property) can be saved, but have no objection to the removal of the post-1931 additions to the structure assuming that the application satisfies its demanding burden of proof.     

Precedent Effect.  For better or worse, your decision will have a significant binding precedent effect on future demolition applications.  So whatever you decide, the clarity of your decision will be a beacon for those decisions.

Penn Station Lesson. In 1910, a beautiful Beaux Arts Penn Station was built in New York City.     In the early 1960’s, arguments emphasizing economic interests resulted in the demolition of the structure.  That decision was soon lamented and fueled an aggressive preservation movement in the city that is vigorous to this day.      

The Chestertown Armory was constructed 95 years ago.  The Chestertown Historic District regulations were first enacted in the 1960’s.  They were initiated, and fueled, to some extent by the Penn Station experience.     

Those regulations repudiate economic interests as a reason for the demolition of structures which have been determined to be contributing to the Chestertown Historic District (which you have already unanimously determined for the Armory).

The Building.  The Armory was a beautiful Art Deco brick structure (with period light fixtures and other details) when built in 1931.    As shown on the attached postcard copy, it was a handsome and dignified edifice.  It was painted white sometime thereafter, perhaps in the 1940’s or ˈ50’s.

But it is now unsightly and unkempt because of more than a decade of neglect.  Perhaps its appearance would be improved by the removal of the two scraggly trees at the entrance, and removal of the white paint, together with a general and meaningful site cleanup.

The Centerville & Easton Armories.   Similar armories were built in those towns during the same period as in Chestertown.  They have been restored with their original unpainted brick façades.  They look great and blend seamlessly into, and contribute to, those communities.

Conditions of Approval.  The Historic District Commission is authorized to impose conditions on its approvals.  In this case, if a partial demolition is approved, it would be reasonable for the applicant to be required to remove the white paint simultaneously with the demolition.

Independent Counsel.  I have known the Mayor & Council attorney Chris Drummond for many years.  He is a good attorney.  But the Historic District Commission is a separate legal entity and should have independent counsel.   That should be done to avoid possible conflicts of interest for him, and to eliminate that as an issue on an appeal of your decision.

[It is common for district governmental bodies to have separate legal counsel.  In Kent County, the County Commissioners, Board of Appeals and Planning Commission all have separate lawyers.  Tom Yeager is the attorney for the County Commissioners and Chris Drummond is the attorney for the Board of Appeals.]

In conclusion, as you know, and after all, your decision is one which is fundamentally a matter of the rule of law, and not of popular opinion or institutional convenience.

Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts.

Phil Hoon
Chestertown

I am writing as a Chestertown Historic District citizen, property owner and business owner for the past 40+ years.     

This matter is, as it should be, a classic Chestertown debate based on the past, present and future . . . and no one is right or wrong.  Instead, all opinions are valid and contribute to the discussion.  There should be mutual respect, comity, and civility for the differences of perspective.  Here are mine.

I support the idea for a new Chestertown hotel at the Armory property.     

And among many others, I hope that the original 1931 Armory structure (a National Historic Register property) can be saved, but have no objection to the removal of the post-1931 additions to the structure assuming that the application satisfies its demanding burden of proof.     

Precedent Effect.  For better or worse, your decision will have a significant binding precedent effect on future demolition applications.  So whatever you decide, the clarity of your decision will be a beacon for those decisions.

Penn Station Lesson. In 1910, a beautiful Beaux Arts Penn Station was built in New York City.     In the early 1960’s, arguments emphasizing economic interests resulted in the demolition of the structure.  That decision was soon lamented and fueled an aggressive preservation movement in the city that is vigorous to this day.      

The Chestertown Armory was constructed 95 years ago.  The Chestertown Historic District regulations were first enacted in the 1960’s.  They were initiated, and fueled, to some extent by the Penn Station experience.     

Those regulations repudiate economic interests as a reason for the demolition of structures which have been determined to be contributing to the Chestertown Historic District (which you have already unanimously determined for the Armory).

The Building.  The Armory was a beautiful Art Deco brick structure (with period light fixtures and other details) when built in 1931.    As shown on the attached postcard copy, it was a handsome and dignified edifice.  It was painted white sometime thereafter, perhaps in the 1940’s or ˈ50’s.

But it is now unsightly and unkempt because of more than a decade of neglect.  Perhaps its appearance would be improved by the removal of the two scraggly trees at the entrance, and removal of the white paint, together with a general and meaningful site cleanup.

The Centerville & Easton Armories.   Similar armories were built in those towns during the same period as in Chestertown.  They have been restored with their original unpainted brick façades.  They look great and blend seamlessly into, and contribute to, those communities.

Conditions of Approval.  The Historic District Commission is authorized to impose conditions on its approvals.  In this case, if a partial demolition is approved, it would be reasonable for the applicant to be required to remove the white paint simultaneously with the demolition.

Independent Counsel.  I have known the Mayor & Council attorney Chris Drummond for many years.  He is a good attorney.  But the Historic District Commission is a separate legal entity and should have independent counsel.   That should be done to avoid possible conflicts of interest for him, and to eliminate that as an issue on an appeal of your decision.

[It is common for district governmental bodies to have separate legal counsel.  In Kent County, the County Commissioners, Board of Appeals and Planning Commission all have separate lawyers.  Tom Yeager is the attorney for the County Commissioners and Chris Drummond is the attorney for the Board of Appeals.]

In conclusion, as you know, and after all, your decision is one which is fundamentally a matter of the rule of law, and not of popular opinion or institutional convenience.

Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts.

Phil Hoon
Chestertown

Or maybe more to the point, Dr. Sosulski – what frightens YOU? There must be something that you don’t want us to discover with the mold issue at the Armory since you denied my request to have an independent, third-party assessment of the mold situation in the Armory.

For the rest of you just tuning in, Washington College would like to tear down the Armory due to their perception that mold found in the Armory cannot be successfully removed. Incidentally, the mold issue was caused by the college’s lack of maintenance of the building over the last ten years. I and colleagues with extensive facility management experience believe the building can be remediated and saved. Even the college’s own experts suggest that a mold remediation study should be conducted.

I hand-delivered a letter to you asking politely if we could have access to the Armory for four hours on a Friday to conduct our own mold remediation survey that I plan to pay for myself. This would be using a nationally-recognized, unbiased expert in the field for this study. I plan to share the results of this report with all interested parties regardless of the results.

I received a letter back from you that not only denied my request and went on to insinuate that I would be prosecuted for trespassing if I or others attempted to go into the building. My letter to you was to request access to the building and in no way did I ever plan on trespassing in the building. [Both letters are posted on savethearmory.org and the Facebook page “Repurpose the Chestertown Armory.”]

I can only assume that Washington College does not want the truth to come out, which is that the mold contamination found in the Armory can be remediated. If this is true, then the whole argument for tearing down a building on the National Register of Historic Places falls to pieces – obviously something the College doesn’t want.

I urge you and the Historic District Commission to reconsider your decision to exclude others from seeking the truth about what really lurks behind the walls of the Armory. I believe the decision to tear down the Armory is one that should be based on as many data points as possible – especially if it is not going to cost the College or the HDC anything. The HDC can then use these data points to make an informed decision about the future of the Armory. Or do you just want your agenda to be the only one considered by the HDC? I would urge you to reconsider excluding others from seeking the truth.

Steven R. Mitchell
Chestertown

Congratulations, Maryland! We now hold the title for longest ER wait times in the U.S.! Whoo-hoo!

When are the State, Talbot County and its towns going to put the new Maryland University Regional Hospital Center at the top of their priority list?

Attention to this essential infrastructure is long overdue.

We’ve reached a critical point regarding our lack of health care and health care professionals — and now hold the title of having the longest ER wait times in the nation. Sadly, and unfortunately, no surprise to many in our community. And having listened to testimony at many County Council and Town of Easton Planning Commission and Council meetings regarding the Matthewstown, Lakeside, Poplar Hill, MHC and other land developments during the past few years, the breaking-point strain on our current health care providers and community is obvious, unbearable — for our first responder medical and emergency professionals, in particular.

When are our Talbot County Council and the mayors and town councils of Easton, St. Michaels, Oxford, Trappe, etc. going to emphasize and take action on these critical community services? When are they going to consolidate their efforts to address our health care needs?

When are Governor Moore, Congressman Andy Harris, Senator Chris Van Hollen, and Senator Ben Cardin going to make this a front-and-center issue?

https://news.yahoo.com/maryland-hospital-emergency-room-wait-160051413.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

https://www.wypr.org/wypr-news/2023-10-31/maryland-er-wait-times-continue-to-disappoint-in-new-data-drop

https://hscrc.maryland.gov/Documents/October%202023%20HSCRC%20Post-Meeting%20Materials%20-%20FINAL.pdf

Clara Kelly
Easton

As Washington College’s application to tear down the historic Chestertown Armory wends its way through the Chestertown Historic District Commission, the duties and responsibilities of the Town to the HDC have come to light.

As a “Certified Local Government,” the Town of Chestertown has an affirmative duty to provide educational training to its Historic District Commission annually.  The CLG program was federally mandated by an amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and is administered by the National Park Service.  This training can be arranged through the Maryland Association of Historic District Commissions at a modest cost, which can be covered by grant funding.  Training starts with a free online tutorial and manual which can be downloaded.  Training continues with workshops guided by instructors who have been certified by MAHDC as experts in the various subject matters and who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards.

So, it’s required by federal law, it’s online and downloadable, and it can be paid for with grants, but the Town of Chestertown has not provided any training to its HDCs since 2009! 

All that is about to end thanks to new Town Manager Larry DiRe.  When the lack of HDC training was brought to DiRe’s attention by a knowledgeable member of the public, he immediately put the wheels in motion to get the HDC the training it needs and deserved.  A thumbs up to Mr. DiRe.

Now for the thumbs down.

The Town of Chestertown also has an affirmative obligation to protect the historic structures within its Historic District.  This requirement is set out in the Town Ordinances at Chapter 93:  Historic Area Zoning.  The obligation is clear: “Neither the owner nor the person in charge of property which is within the Historic District…shall permit the structure to fall into a state of disrepair which may result in the deterioration of any exterior appurtenance or architectural feature so as to produce or tend to produce, in the judgment of the Town Building Official after consultation with the Historic Commission, a detrimental effect upon …the structure in question.”  Among the detrimental effects cited in the Ordinance are deterioration of exterior walls, roofs, crumbling plaster or mortar; ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, and foundations; and broken windows or doors.

These effects are known as demolition by neglect, which is prohibited under Town Ordinances and the Historic District Guidelines.

And the Historic District Commission “is authorized to prevent such situations and has done so in the past,” read the HDC Guidelines.

There’s even a specific penalty for the owner who permits such deterioration: “…shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be liable for fine of not more than $500.  Each day that the violation shall be permitted to exist shall constitute a separate offense.” (Emphasis added.)

By its own admission Washington College has permitted the historic Armory to fall into a state of disrepair resulting in in the deterioration of its exterior.  Just read the applications to demolish the historic Armory Washington College submitted last year and again this year. (The current application is on the Town website, as are public comments about it.)

More than a year ago, local preservation architect Tom Kocubinski toured the Armory and noted a hole in its roof, broken and open windows, flaking exterior plaster, lack of floodproofing at riverside doors—all of which permitted water intrusion to the interior and the growth of mold of which Washington College so bitterly complains now and cites as justification to tear down the historic building. (Kocubinski took the photos which accompany this letter. His findings were published in local media at the time.)

The question is how did the Town allow this to happen?  Where was the “Town Building Official” responsible for bringing these problems to the attention of the HDC?

According to the Ordinance, “It shall be the duty of all officers and employees of the town to assist the enforcing officer by reporting to him or her any seeming violation….”  (Emphasis added.) The Town sent members of its maintenance crew into the Armory within the last year. Why?  To whom did they report what they saw?  Was the HDC informed?  

Where were they all—Town officials, Town employees, the HDC–as the Armory was allowed to be compromised?

The Town and the HDC need to take immediate action to cite Washington College for its deliberate failure to maintain the Armory, direct Washington College to fix the problems and stabilize the Armory, give Washington College a deadline for these fixes, and fine Washington College $500 per day until the problems are fixed.  (In truth, Washington College should be fined retroactive to the date it filed its demolition application last year when it first admitted its neglect.)

With a new Town Manager, proper enforcement of the Town’s Ordinances and the Historic District Guidelines might now be possible. So, thumbs down for the Town for now, but fingers crossed for the future. 

Barbara Jorgenson
Chestertown

As a resident of Chestertown, I appreciate your commitment to protect and promote our architectural heritage which creates the sense of place we enjoy and proudly call home. As a former consultant to historic review boards and contributor to historic design standards, with also a stint on a prestigious historic commission, I know your job is not an easy one. As a design professional tasked to preserve, restore, rehab and repurpose historic structures I have also experienced the rewards of preserving built history for future generations. It is a noble mission we share.

As a realist, I have also faced the decision to recommend removal of a historic resource from the rolls. That has only happened twice in my career and in both cases I was required to produce significant justification beyond the pale. So, I too have wrestled with the fate of a historic building placed in my hands.

I firmly believe that every opportunity must be examined and taken to protect a historic resource from demolition. Additionally, your by-laws require it. Further, certain proofs must be met in order to approve such irrevocable action, for once a building of stature is gone, the townscape will never be the same.  

I present the following for consideration regarding the applicant’s request to demolish the Chestertown Newnam Armory, circa 1931, as designed by Baltimore architect William Gordon Beecher. The opinions are based on my experience, training and education as an architect involved with numerous historic projects, including  those with Landmark status.

First and foremost, I support applicant Washington College’s proposal for a boutique hotel at the armory site, acknowledge the added benefit to local businesses, our citizens and community, but firmly believe that integration of the historic and distinguished armory is the most responsive and authentic approach to preserve its history, enrich the historic townscape, celebrate the stories and honor those having served in times of peace and conflict.

For background, armories have been successfully repurposed for boutique hotels with many fine examples across the nation. Their large drill halls and robust construction with distinctive architectural styling makes them ideal candidates for repurposing. The Chestertown armory is no exception and Washington College previously considered repurposing the armory for a hotel.

To understand the potential of repurposing the armory, I reference Exhibit J of Washington College’s application. There you will find a 2017 design study for repurposing the 1931 portion of the armory for a boutique hotel. The drill hall is reused for the upfront perfunctory guest services, featuring a 2-story atrium, while the hotel room addition is located on the easterly end overlooking the Chester River. The layout utilizes the armory and site wisely and illustrates how old and new can be successfully integrated. There are other important benefits as well, including building cost savings, delivery time to market savings and significant reduction of embodied carbon emissions by repurposing.

The hotel industry has acknowledged these benefits and further heralds the reuse of historic properties as providing the unique hotel experience that travelers seek. It is a hot hotel trend resulting in many exciting and financially successful projects and we can have such a unique hotel in town. It is a win-win proposition across the matrix of business, historic and environmental indices. I need not stress that we have a cutting edge opportunity to further brand Chestertown as a unique destination and a good steward of its historic properties by repurposing the armory. The 2017 design study as a model can get us there and the concept has my full support.

The Guidelines

Referencing the Historic District Guidelines for Chestertown, I note the following for consideration relating to the application before you.

Demolition by Neglect

As cited under Section II of the Guidelines, a property owner must protect a historic structure in stasis to prevent deterioration or the potential loss of important elements. Water intrusion is a noted example of a threat. Based on my walkthrough of the building during late December 2022, conditions were observed that allowed for water intrusion and these conditions remain uncorrected to date. This situation is prohibited by Chestertown’s Historic Area Zoning ordinance. Further referencing the Guidelines, the HDC is authorized to prevent such situations. The failure of both the Applicant and the HDC to correct water intrusion has exacerbated deterioration and development of mold at the armory. 

In my view, the disregard and neglect, whether intentional or not, which has caused conditions as a basis for requesting demolition should not be rewarded by approval, particularly when the structure is also an important community historic resource. On the contrary, every reasonable and accepted practice of the industry should be required to save the 1931 portion. I believe it is within your purview to request the Applicant to prepare and implement an emergency stabilization and action plan for this section of the structure in lieu of approving its demolition. This course of action will allow the project to proceed and afford protection of the 1931 structure for repurposing.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation

The HDC has adopted the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and in doing so has paved the way for rehabbing the armory for a repurposed use. The scope will guide the continued use of the armory while setting forth parameters for any additions. Item number 3 which states that ’Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use’ is important to keep in mind. During my discussions in the community regarding reuse of the armory, I hear remarks such as ‘I think the building is ugly’. My respectful response is that it doesn’t enter into the equation. The Armory reflects the mood of the nation post-depression and a nation shifting to a wartime footing. That is the intrinsic value of the façade in the district – it tells the story of its time. The Historic Preservation Act acknowledges the contribution of all historic buildings within the Historic District, despite the style or era. It is not a matter of picking winners and losers based on personal preferences.

Contributing or Non-contributing Structure

The established ‘Period of Significance’ for the Chestertown Historic District is 1709 to 1939. Due to the armory being built in 1931, the structure qualifies as a contributing resource according to the National Register criteria. 

Additionally, referencing Section VI of the Guidelines, specifically paragraph VI.2.2, the criteria for evaluating the buildings significance is provided for further consideration as a contributing resource.  To be considered a contributing structure, the armory must meet one or more of the listed criteria. Based on my knowledge of the armory, it resoundingly qualifies by virtue of providing the following items of significance, by referencing the list.

• Have character, interest or value and contribute to the Town’s heritage
• Be associated with the life of an outstanding historical person 
• Represent one or more periods or styles of architecture, building or construction with significant character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage or culture of Chestertown
• Demonstrate characteristics that make it a recognizable entity, the preservation of which is essential  to the integrity of the Historic District
• Provide historic or scenic value that is significant to the area
• Contribute information of historical, cultural or social importance relating to the heritage of the community

Disapproval of Demolition

Referencing Paragraph VI.2.3 of the Guidelines, a second hearing will be held to approve or disapprove demolition if the structure is determined to be a contributing resource. I believe the armory qualifies so there should be a second hearing on the matter of demolition. Evaluation will consider impact to the integrity of the Historic District if demolished, and the impacts to public welfare and substantial hardships to the applicant if not demolished. 

Regarding the impact to the historic district, the content of this letter should serve to underscore the validity of significant impacts with irrevocable loss and damage with demolition. 

Regarding the detriment to the public welfare by disapproval, this letter serves to underscore that the enterprise, a boutique hotel, can in fact be fulfilled by repurposing the armory. 

Regarding hardships to the applicant, the content of this letter and testaments from the hotel industry at large, serve to underscore that the armory can be put to reasonable benefit for the applicant.

This leaves evaluation for substantial economic hardship to the applicant, and there are relevant items to consider that would favor, rather than harm, the applicant. For example,  mold remediation is more cost effective compared to demolition, by approximately $500,000 per the estimates.

Next, repurposing of the 1931 portion of the armory will realize savings compared to new construction, as explained below. You should also consider another benefit afforded to the applicant which is bringing the project to market quicker, thereby realizing profits in a much shorter timeframe.

The most significant financial advantage available by repurposing the armory is construction cost savings.

During the first quarter of 2023, the square foot cost of constructing a new 4 star hotel in our region was estimated at $410 per square foot. Accordingly, replacing the current building area of the 1931 portion with new construction is $7.6 mil plus demolition or $8.2 mil. The comparative cost for rehabbing the armory is estimated at $5.8 mil, including the cost of remediation. Therefore, the savings for repurposing over building new is estimated at $2.4 mil.

The forgoing serves to illustrate that repurposing not only benefits the historic district, but also proves beneficial to the applicant, if savvy and experienced enough to capitalize on the opportunities afforded by rehabbing existing buildings. It is being done throughout the nation and for the first time ever, the architectural fees for rehabilitation has exceeded new construction in the marketplace. Finally, the applicant’s financial bottom line is further enhanced by the availability of grants and tax credits.

Other Issues within the Application:

Mold

The Applicant  has made  two important assertions regarding the presence of mold which in large part was caused by their neglect as noted above. First, ‘remediation will be extraordinarily expensive’ and has no assurance of success. Second, no one will invest in a project that could ‘ultimately be unusable’.

At a public information meeting held on September 27th, two mold experts were invited to address the mold situation. The Applicant’s two mold reports were provided in advance for their review. David Myrick of Valor Mold opined that the mold could be successfully remediated and Craig Minetola of AEG Environmental opined that the use of environmentally safe dry-ice blasting delivered at -100 degrees would kill mold on contact. Ohio State University has found this technique to be 99.9% effective.

Both experts opined that as long as the relative humidity within the building is kept below 60%, mold will not colonize. Mold does not differentiate between old and new buildings. If the building’s HVAC system is improperly controlled, mold will develop in either.

Regarding remediation being an extraordinary expense, AEG provided an estimated cost of $275,000 for dry-ice blasting. Comparatively, under Exhibit N, the Applicant’s 2022 cost for demolition was $615,000. Factoring for inflation and adding missing costs, I believe the total cost is closer to $850,000. In the final analysis, demolition is the extraordinary expense, not mold remediation.

Regarding the lack of investors due to mold, apparently the investment group is not knowledgeable of effective dry-ice blasting and the need to properly operate a building’s HVAC system. If properly remediated with proper mechanical system operation, mold should not be a deterrent to investment.

Flooding

The application cites flooding as a reoccurring problem and as further justification for demolition. Although the ground floor level is within the floodplain BFE (Base Flood Elevation) by approximately 2 feet, the building is permitted to remain as an historic structure per FEMA’s guidelines. To do so, doors and window openings are required to be protected with flood barrier devices.  Another option is to raise the floor level to the required elevation. Both are common practices allowing for the continued use of historic structures in floodplains. The NFIP (National Flood Insurance Program) will provide subsidized insurance for historic buildings in compliance. Opening protective devices should have been installed by the College over their years of ownership. They were not, thus contributing to moisture intrusion.

Structural Condition

Under Exhibit O, an appraisal report is available. It notes, ‘no structural problems are evident in the building’ and ‘solid construction’. Based on observations during my walkthrough, I concur. The absence of serious structural problems is a testament to the quality of construction. Minor to moderate issues were found as expected in a building of its age, being both stabilized and repairable. There is no documentation from the College relating to any major structural problems. In my experience, costly structural issues drive justification for demolition, not the presence of hazmats and mold.

Application Section – ‘Responding to the Community’

This all-important section which supposedly addresses community concerns is fraught with unverified statements and completely lacks reference to source documents and reports, identity of individuals making statements and their professional qualifications to do so, and further, transmits false and misleading messaging. For example, it is reported that an unidentified expert found the use of concrete masonry block in the 1931 building basement which could be infiltrated with mold, yet the content fails to include that the block, per my field visit, has been coated with layers of impervious epoxy paint which mold cannot penetrate. It further states that the exterior walls of the original building use a type of brick know as cinder block. As an authority in the field, I can adamantly state that no such brick exists. We are supposed to accept the offered content as justification to demolish a structure listed on the National Historic Register. This is completely unacceptable.

Additional Items for Consideration:

Embodied Carbon Emissions

I request your attention to my current article in the Spy, ‘ Repurposing the Chestertown Armory is Also Good for the Planet’ for a deep dive into this important topic. Renovation and rehab projects emit 50% to 75% less embodied carbon compared to new construction. The American Institute of Architects and other industry voices have acknowledged that the best way to reduce carbon is by recycling buildings. By repurposing the armory, up to 40% of emissions can be saved.

 Impact to  the Town’s Sewer System

There is no design feasibility study within the application. I presume one would have been done to reach a point of requesting approval to demolish the armory. My concern is impact of the town’s downtown sewer system, primarily the serviceability of the existing components. It appears inevitable that certain components will need upgrading or replacement, including underground sewer lines, manholes and  pump or lift stations. The stations are the most costly to upgrade or replace due to the size of pumps and electrical requirements. Large waterproof underground vaults are required to house the equipment and both are expensive.

Based on discussions, research and experience, I anticipate the hotel’s  impact on the  sewer system will drive significant improvements with correspondingly significant costs. This will be an extraordinary expense that could be offset by the savings realized from repurposing the armory.

My concern with the potential demolition of the armory is that subsequent cancellation of the project could occur due to the sewer system upgrade price tag. Myself and many others do not want to see the useful historic building gone, only to be left with an empty lot. It has happened before. This issue should be included in your purview before a vote to remove the armory. 

Finally, the Applicant’s view of the armory can be found within the application. It reads, ‘The Chestertown Armory is not a one-of-a-kind structure’. I do not agree with the College’s sentiment and I am not alone. I was recently contacted by the editorial staff of Preservation Magazine, the publication of the National Trust for Historic Preservation regarding possible inclusion of the Chestertown Armory in their Winter 2023/2024 issue. Their question was where would they place it – as a feature or under the ‘threatened and gone’ section. I know my preference, but await yours to pass along to the Trust.

In closing, I appreciate your interest and anticipated consideration to safeguard the architectural heritage of Chestertown by denying the application for complete demolition of the Chestertown Armory. Selective demolition with repurposing of the 1931 portion is my recommendation to satisfy the interests of all parties and to provide a unique hotel deserving of Chestertown. 

Feel free to contact me for questions, clarifications or supplemental information.

Thomas Kocubinski, RA
Chestertown
[email protected]

This politico-legal observer feels like a proverbial sports fan who’s tracking multiple games on TV in a sports bar.

One set is tuned into the Fani Willis vs. Trump et al pre-trial warm-up in Georgia (the ex-president’s purported role in the RICO operation in Fulton County).

Another presents the Letisha James vs. Trump & Sons contest in New York (business frauds).

And a third TV carries the Jack Smith vs. Trump match in Washington, D.C. (how Trump allegedly conspired to foment his cultists’ Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol).

Other big screens are flashing the Smith vs. Trump tussle over that stash of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the steamy Stormy Daniels payoff scuffle, and The Donald’s second round in center court for assaulting and libeling E. Jean Carroll.  

Odds are against anyone fighting off 91 felony counts, and Trump’s no exception. Despite spending millions of other peoples’ dollars, he’s the underdog by a mile, and a shoo-in as loser in every one of these events!

Grenville Whitman
Rock Hall

I am writing in response to David Reel’s opinion piece in the September 25th Spy.  I understand that appropriately the Spy leaves the content of the writer’s byline to the writer. It would be helpful if David Reel would not be so shy about his Republican Party bona fides as the past Chairman of the Talbot County Republican Central Committee.

This OpEd is characteristic of what I call the post 2016 American Enterprise sandwich.  The American Enterprise Institute is the longtime conservative redoubt that has employed the likes of Newt Gingrich and Dinesh D’Souza. 

In off year elections, the party not in the White House characteristically does very, very well.  In 2016, the Republican Party let their extreme Donald Trump flag fly with disappointing results including the continuing speaker of the house fiasco and legislative stalemate because of the Republican Party’s slimmest of majorities. 

The American Enterprise sandwich is a way for the conservative fringe to further itself with the veneer of non-combative moderation.  The sandwich opens with a seemingly nonpartisan theme, in this case challenges and opportunities for Democrats and Republicans in addressing the African American electorate.  

The meat follows with opinion and statistics which are negative for the Democratic Party. The final section contains platitudes about listening to the electorate.

Any piece dealing with how the Republican Party relates to the African American electorate that does not include the nationwide voter suppression efforts targeting that community cannot be taken seriously.

In the case of David Reel’s OpEd, it is not only in the style of the American Enterprise sandwich, but all the opinion is from American Enterprise staff and all the data is from American Enterprise surveys.

Be on the look out for this type of opinion piece and remember that Donald Trump is overwhelmingly favored to be the presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 2024.  Donald Trump is an existential threat to our democracy and any attempts to distract from that reality should be ignored.

Holly Wright
Talbot County