I was told by many of our residents and other attendees of this year’s Crab and Clam bake that, water, and all, ‘this was the best clam bake ever!’ Having grown up in Crisfield, the Crab and Clam Bake has been a staple in our community for a long time. I remember when my father who worked for Alan Tyler, cooked the crabs for the 1st crab and clam bake. The J. Millard Tawes Crab and Clam Bake, named for the former Governor from Crisfield has been a source of tremendous pride for our citizens.

True to its name, it is a political event. A time to gather and network at all levels in a relaxing and intentionally casual and comfortable environment. It IS politics at its best, but like any event, there are portions which are, and should be exclusive. But it is with certainty that I can say that the regular, everyday residents (voters) of Crisfield do not feel excluded. Instead, we feel special. To be the host of such a distinguished and time-honored event has provided a source of exposure and recognition a small town like ours could never have garnished otherwise, and I am sure many other towns would love to have.

It’s economic benefits to the City of Crisfield can’t be overstated. Since its inception, it has proved to be an important economic stimulus for local residents who would otherwise not have an opportunity to make the amount of money they get for helping out in one day, in a week’s worth of labor. Numerous students are also hired and trained on hospitality and get an opportunity to make money, gain experience, and meet influential people, they might otherwise never meet.

This wonderful event is put on every year by our Chamber of Commerce, and they do an absolutely amazing job, but the tent provision for the enormous undertaking which employs so many locals and students for a day and provides impressive accommodations for our Governor and other political representatives and candidates is made possible by someone who is in a position to do so and who has a love for the Crisfield community, Mr. Bruce Bereano. We owe him a debt of gratitude for helping to make this such a memorable and sought after event for our little town.

Make no mistake, our residents (average voters) look forward in anticipation to his tent and the opportunities it brings. Economic opportunities and opportunities to mix and mingle in a way not possible if he did not have such an elaborately, organized and intentional destination for our politicians to come and engage with our citizens (average voters); and as important as it is, it is only one aspect of the networking, comradery, and overall goodwill that this event generates for everyone who attends, inside, outside and around his tent.

People (average voters) come from near and far. This is one of the few times we come together and are not constrained by political affiliation, so yes, without a doubt, the J. Millard Tawes Crab and Clam Bake is ……’Politics at its best’!!

Darlene Taylor is the mayor of Crisfield, Maryland

 

For much of the early part of my life, politics was marked by centrists in both political parties working to craft legislation that would benefit wide swaths of their constituencies. Many individuals considered themselves centrists and, though they affiliated with a particular party, it was not uncommon to vote across party lines in elections. And political discussions among neighbors and coworkers with differing views were not something to be avoided for harmony’s sake, but part of the fabric of American democracy.

The last 20-30 years, however, have been more notable for the rise of the culture wars and the drive to divide. We have seen political parties adopt a win-at-all-costs mentality that encourages American citizens with differing perspectives to not work through differences but instead reject other ways of thinking. Of the many casualties wrought by this divisiveness, civility and engaged citizenship have suffered considerably. More and more, we are tempted to retreat into bubbles of information that feed and reinforce our preconceived notions and beliefs and make us more resistant to listening and understanding.

Early in September we witnessed the result of this shift at Washington College when Princeton Professor Robert George came to our campus to give a lecture. George is a noted legal scholar and political philosopher who often speaks on free expression. He is also known for his outspoken opposition to same-sex marriage and for questioning the legitimacy of transgender people and their rights. During the speech, students gathered outside the venue for a peaceful protest. Unfortunately, a small group of students later chose to disrupt the event, bringing it to an early end. Since then, I have heard from many people, with some praising Washington College for its handling of the situation and others decrying the institution. This event demonstrates the critical nexus between divisiveness and openness that small colleges occupy.

The lecture was announced broadly on campus three days ahead of the event. I quickly received feedback from some community members asking me to cancel the event. I shared a message with campus saying that canceling the event would not be consistent with the core values of liberal learning to which Washington College is dedicated:

“Challenges concerning free expression are not new to college campuses and they raise complicated questions, especially for a campus that values diversity, equity, and inclusion like ours. However, inviting a speaker to campus is not an endorsement of their viewpoint. The very foundation of a Washington College liberal arts education is committed to informed, critical inquiry and the exploration of a wide diversity of perspectives—indeed, we could not be true to our mission to challenge and inspire emerging citizen leaders if we did not uphold this commitment. It is incumbent upon us as a community to create and maintain an environment in which everyone feels safe to share their ideas, even those that may be controversial or offensive. And as a community, we must examine and, when necessary, challenge those ideas, but we cannot insulate ourselves from differing viewpoints.”

Campus leaders also understood that students, faculty and staff members identifying as LGBTQ+ would be experiencing a range of feelings about this particular speaker being on campus, including anger, anxiety and fear. The College proactively facilitated alternate events for concerned students to express their reaction to the speaker’s presence on campus. These included opportunities for peaceful protest and locations for both group and individual conversations with professional and trained staff and students to allow campus community members to express their feelings and concerns and to be cared for appropriately.

At the lecture, about 140 students, faculty, alumni, and friends of the College joined us. Approximately 20 minutes into George’s lecture, a small group of protestors entered the room making noise with music and whistles for about one minute. Thereafter, two protestors were responsible for the remainder of the disruption. Faculty and student affairs staff intervened to try to reason with the protestors, insisting that they must permit the speaker to conclude his talk, after which there would be ample time for questions or rebuttals. Unfortunately, the two students disrupting the speaker—who had both been warned that they would face consequences for violating the student honor code—refused to end their protest and I made the reluctant decision to call an end to the event to prevent further escalation.

We have been asked why we did not forcibly remove the protestors. I understand that some may disagree, but as a private institution of higher learning, we must take responsibility to handle student issues individually and with discretion. Washington College is a place for students to learn, experiment, fail, and grow. We have guidelines and rules that are intentional in encouraging growth and learning in all our students—including when they make mistakes. It is through this approach that we foster a strong teaching environment and emphasize the value of citizenship. Our campus cannot become a bubble intended to shield students from differing viewpoints, but rather a place where they can be free to learn from mistakes and grow into responsible citizen leaders. We strive to instill in our students the ability for reasoned disagreement, and I am proud that so many of our students attended the lecture prepared to listen to the speaker, ask questions and even challenge his views.

As with any incident, it is a moment for the College to reflect and learn how to improve our processes. But the value of a small college is our ability to act with nuance in the best interests of fulfilling our mission. Washington College and other top liberal arts colleges sit in a unique and ever more difficult position—we are committed to creating engaged citizen leaders who are open to different perspectives and have both the passion and compassion to care for their communities, and we must do all of this within a larger cultural environment that is trying harder than ever to force them to choose sides. Now, more than ever, colleges and universities must maintain space where civil discourse can thrive, even when it concerns topics of existential import. If we fail to do this, no less than the values of citizenship and democracy will be at stake.

Mike Sosulski, Ph.D.
President, Washington College

Like all generation-defining moments, people of a certain age can remember exactly where they were on 9/11/2001 when the first planes hit the World Trade Center in New York…and later the Pentagon and the field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. I was teaching at the University of Delaware. It was the second week of class. Amid my own existential fears as the 9/11 attacks unfolded, I had to prepare for the next day’s class—an introductory level class with many first-year students in it. How were they feeling? What were they thinking? What should I say?  How could I be the “adult in the room” when I felt like the world I knew could be coming to an end? 

After the first plane struck, faculty were coming out of their 9 o’clock classes and reporting that some students were running from classrooms and crying. Because it was only the second week of the semester, many students were away from home for the first time. Most University of Delaware students came from Delaware, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC. Many were desperate to reach family and friends in the affected areas. 

Like many Americans, I was gravely concerned about what would happen next. Would more attacks follow? Was I safe? The eerie quiet on the afternoon of 9/11 only added to my unease. Like many, I stayed glued to the televised news throughout the afternoon and evening of 9/11. My usual nervousness about commanding the attention of over 150 young people paled in comparison to my worry about how to teach the next morning. 

The next day attendance in class was high, but the usual din and chatter as students entered the classroom and took their seats was eerily absent. I asked students to take a moment of silence to remember those lost and honor those still missing. I then asked them to write a brief statement about what they were thinking, how they felt, and any questions they had. More than two decades later, those papers are a quaint reminder of the days before laptops and cellphones in the classroom and they are, most importantly,  poignant reminders of the immediate impact of 9/11 for those young people. 

Foremost on student’s minds on the morning after 9/11 were great fears of war—of possibly being drafted into military service or seeing family members or loved ones drafted. Students wanted answers to who, what, why…and they were deeply concerned whether this lead to nuclear extinction. “Being a military dependent, I have worried all my life about going to war and losing my dad. Now I am more concerned than ever about the use of nuclear weapons,” wrote one student .Another wrote: “I am most concerned about the decisions that will be made by a president and government in the days to come. Will going to war and killing foreign civilians bring back the dead?” 

Many wrote that they were very scared for their parents and relatives—many of whom worked in New York City. Some had relatives who worked for the New York City Fire Department. One wrote, “Forefront in my mind is the fact that my best friend lives in Manhattan and has not yet been accounted for.” Many students had grown up frequently visiting New York City and they worried they might never be able to do that again. 

In their brief reflections, students expressed deep empathy for the many victims of 9/11. It is difficult to convey the raw emotion found by reading the actual reflections. A few expressed concerns for the fate of Muslim Americans after the attack. One wrote, “I pray that who did this is not a Muslim because I’m a Muslim and who did this is not a Muslim because Islam does not say to kill. And I feel as if people are staring at me, thinking all Muslims are like this, I pray and hope that, if it is a Muslim who did this people should realize that not everyone or a group is the same.” 

One of the strongest themes I found in these reflections is that students just could not understand why this had happened to the United States. “I never thought that someone would be able to hurt our country—which is the most powerful in the world.” Just as frequently, they worried about what this would mean for their personal freedom—to get on airplanes, to travel to cities, to go to school: “I feel threatened in many places that I have never felt threatened in before. I am scared to go to school thinking that maybe terrorists will decide to destroy the future of our country by bombing universities.” Or, “I cannot ever imagine feeling safe in my own home again.” Their innocence was shattered: “I was aware that terrorism existed around the world, but not in the United States. Our home instantly was no longer safe. A level of innocence and idealist optimism left me that day.” Another simply said, “I feel as if everything I have ever known is slipping away.”

And now? 

Much has happened since 9/11, but I wonder how this tragedy has influenced the 9/11 generation of young people. The students who wrote those thoughts in my 2001 September class are now in or approaching their forties. What do they say now? Luckily, with the aid of social media—Facebook and LinkedIn, in particular—I have located a substantial number of those students. Many have established marriages, borne children, and grown into careers. Has 9/11 been a defining moment for this generation of young people and how have their thoughts developed since?

At this point, I can only speculate about how 9/11 has defined this generation. But in 2001, as 

I prepared for my class during the evening of 9/11, I felt I had to provide a sociological perspective for what was happening. I hastily drafted a list of “Lessons Learned from Sociology in the Aftermath of a Disaster,” included below. These pieces of sociological wisdom resonated then with my students. I find them still meaningful today as we encounter other disasters—environmental ones, political ones, and local emergencies. 

• Even under tragic conditions, human beings form meaningful relationships with each other.
• All religions have produced fanatical extremists. One should not generalize to all people of a given faith, even if the behavior of some is reprehensible.
• Prejudice is a negative attitude toward a social group and toward individuals who are members of that group who are then perceived to have the presumed negative characteristics associated with the group. Prejudice results in many false depictions of otherwise good people.
• Ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s group (or culture) is superior to all others. It can distort one’s objective view of events.
• In situations of social conflict, people and groups tend to demonize perceived enemies, based on group prejudice. Individuals (and groups) can be held responsible for their actions without condemning all members of the stereotyped group.
• Don’t jump to conclusions in the absence of empirical evidence.
• People’s biographical experience is situated in given historical moments. One of the founders of sociological thinking, C. Wright Mills wrote, “the sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two in society.” Your biographies have been forever altered by these events and will shape your lives for years to come.
• Technological change had made us highly depend on devices like cell phones, the internet, television, and so forth. These new technologies are profoundly shaping our social relationships. 
• Social order is usually something we can take for granted. When it is disrupted, people work to re-establish social norms (thereby recreating social order).
• In the aftermath of a disaster, people search for information to make sense of what they have experienced. Rumors abound in such a context.
• In a disaster, people tend not to panic, but engage in social behavior by trying to help others, connect with others.
• There will be many individual acts of heroism, tragedy, and triumph over the next few days, but remember that there are hundreds of thousands of people whose labor is an essential part of meeting people’s needs. These workers are diverse in age, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, and other social factors, though their work often remains invisible, unacknowledged, and undervalued.
• The United States is a highly diverse society, including citizens of different races, genders, nationalities, sexual orientation, religious faith, ethnicity, and other sources of diversity. Although these are factors that often divide us, we can work to create positive intergroup relationships and we can unite across these differences.
• There are few “degrees of separation” between any two random people in the United States. Be aware of this in your interaction and comments over the next few days since it is highly likely that someone near you will have lost a loved friend or family member.

Dr. Margaret Andersen is the Edward F. and Elizabeth Goodman Rosenberg Professor Emerita at the University of Delaware

 

It’s great to see Spy readers up in arms about the development at Lakeside, but this is nothing new. There have always been plenty of naysayers, bystanders, and active opponents of this huge development folly ( all bristling with outrage and fury).

For the many of us that have hung in there, we donated thousands of volunteer hours given to steer this tawdry unimaginative, out-of-character development to a better place, to no avail. Talbot County Planning and Zoning, through its three different Planning directors, all caught in the project crossfire, all horrified by the County Council’s behavior and then ultimately resigned, showing the pressure and disrespect for planners in the process.

The Council was always ending in the corner, protecting the profit motive of the landholders and the developers, which would profit from development, and denied any power to the controlling document that was the Comprehensive Plan. For the most part, The Talbot Council has been hugely unresponsive, unhelpful, caught like a deer in the headlights, indecisive between pro and anti-development forces, and by and large, very unaccommodating to low-end development despite the best intentions of the Comp plan, it was easily to route the interests of the people in favor of the almighty dollar.

And so this goes deeper into the question about who is in control, why land owners’ rights are more important than democratic plans adopted by elected officials, and why elected officials who vote against the documents and citizenry they have pledged to protect can so easily avoid legal accountability. 

I, for one, as a dedicated urbanist and local architect who has tried to practice good design, amplify the character of the Chesapeake, always promote historic preservation, and sell history as a draw for local business, have fought this dreaded development. It is located in my own neighborhood, no far from where I live, and it’s a reminder of what unregulated profit-hungry developers do when lawyers yield the power, not planners, that should be in control and refuse these kinds of projects. 

My neighbors have endeavored since the project’s original inception in 2006 and have tried to steer it in a better direction, never saying no, just saying give us a better product, now for almost twenty years. I have to admit that, sadly, we have lost. But as a lesson in bad land management, this debacle should not go unheeded, it should stand as a lesson to be learned; we could rise from these ashes and do better. Can we all agree it has been a horrible mistake? I can think of only one person that thinks it isn’t and many that have profited greatly from the mistake. 

Constructive efforts to shape development in Maryland have always failed precisely because the zoning and land ceding system in an “Annexation” request in Maryland is so terribly flawed against the County in favor of the Towns and Cities. 

The origins of this planning problem go way back to Britain and the land grant process, where the original land grants, many of them from Lord Calvert, gave counties most of the control. In open rebellion after much bad history with Britain and its merchant class, later as colonial cities that sprang up on the Eastern Shore were Chartered (or incorporated), Towns and cities were hoping not to repeat the mistakes of the past. 

Unfortunately, this was also an overcorrection and an equally bad mistake. With the Cities now having more power to grow larger than the Counties to control them, the Counties were powerless to resist growth. This condition still exists to this day; the Maryland Municipal League fights tooth and nail Maryland leadership and is dead set on keeping things that way. The cities will always win the conflict in an Annexation. This has dreadful consequences and did so in Trappe. 

Trappe is actually an incorporated town, which means it has its own planning and zoning, its own city administration, and its own world that it can manipulate as it likes. In the 2006 annexation of some 900 acres, the County was again caught flat-footed in this transfer, made the transfer because it had to, but then revised its comp plans ( too late) to correct its mistakes. So while the developer took the decade off and more or less vanished between 2008 and 2017, where we all thought he had gone elsewhere, but no, he came back! He contested he had been given approval for a wastewater system when he had not, claimed he had approval for the whole 2501 units when he did not, and with skillful misdirections from lawyers, bluffed his way back into the game of project approval, all catching poor Talbot county off guard. This ruse should have been stopped right then and there, but no, it actually worked! 

While this detail might all seem trivial, it is not. In an annexation request made by a city to the County, the County has very little power to resist the request. It must cede the property, but it leaves a gaping hole open to interpretation. The Annexation must follow the comprehensive plan and must comply with the comprehensive sewer and water plan the County is legally bound to create. Herein lies the problem, Talbot had not updated their wastewater “tier plan,” so there was confusion in the application process and, ultimately, a train wreck of sorts. 

In this case, Talbot updated their overall comprehensive plan but not their comprehensive sewer and water plan, and why not, you’d ask? Because it provided a loophole. Here the developer was allowed to slip between dimensions to say he had the rights to develop when clearly the main comp plan said he did not. So it was a well-orchestrated wreck. I suspect this; I don’t know this. 

In summary, all this extraordinary effort to arrest or redefine the development was pretty much undone by the sloppy administering of the comprehensive sewer and water plan by the County Engineer. One has to ask that if this one small loophole ( an unforced error) allowed such a repugnant development to occur, there has to be something very wrong with the process. And that is proven true; Comprehensive plans are no match for skillful or devious developers and clandestine lawyers. A better system is badly needed, but take heart, not all is lost; we are only forty years behind the times in the planning world; some consolation. 

We tried our Darndest to fight Trappe’s Levittown

We need to tell the story through chapters of this fateful episode of Government dysfunction. 

Chapter One: In the beginning, our neighborhood came together to form a community organization called “Friends of Trappe” in the early days of 2006, later known as “The Downstream Alliance” 2018, trying to slow and make the County rethink the Trappe development. People with strong legal standing and adjacent historic properties, after exhaustive testimony, opinions were overridden and executed with disregard by the County County. Early on, our local neighborhood team and the “friends of Trappe” tried desperately to solicit a local vote via an internal town voter referendum ( a way for townspeople to weigh in on just one topic, the Lakeside project) to slow the progress. This effort failed because the developer and his attorneys promised local grocery stores to be built; the only reason locals were in favor of the project ( people were tired of driving to Easton for necessities). Later, his developer offer was rescinded. Another feigned promise was broken by a developer, not that surprising actually, but a fatal mistake for a small, unsophisticated town, trusting a developer’s word. 

Chapter Two: After many, many meetings with MDE ( Maryland Department of Environment) where our group, backed by local environmental groups, presented evidence to MDE that the spray irrigation septic system was bound to fail ( we actually cited places where MDE violated their own policy) we cited evidence of failed system design, as many in the County were already doing ( In Wye, St Michaels, all were doomed to a very short and polluted lifespan).

Despite evidence that spray irrigation systems were underperforming, the MDE ( in their infinite wisdom) increased the capacity requirements of these spray systems and literally doomed the systems to failure. Their caution actually caused the failure, showing that their expertise needed to be questioned. This was the case in Wye, a system that the County had to bail out the developer who had long since departed. We tried to convince the developer to export Lakeside effluent to Easton or Cambridge, but none were publicly acknowledged despite the fact that the Town of Easton had plant capacity.

Chapter Three: Then, We tried through the Talbot County Public Works advisory committee to reject the permit application; this professional Advisory Board all voted unanimously to block the Lakeside application but was later overruled by the Council that refused to take their own Committee’s professional advice. You can’t make this stuff up! Dysfunctional government is nothing new, but the County just attained new heights. Nothing we tried worked. 

Chapter Four: Then the Talbot Integrity Project ( TIP) emerged, a strong and very experienced leader, and we thought we had a stand against the developer, but when all was balanced on the campaign for Council and their respective pro or con votes, once elected candidates now Councilmen reversed course, dooming the Lakeside resistance. TIP sued in Circuit Court, and amazingly the decision was thrown out; local judges in Circuit Court rejected our citizen pleas. Lakeside has proven to be unbeatable and unstoppable by normal channels. 

Lessons learned: The state MDE administrators for wastewater never saw a development they could not approve. And the comprehensive plan that was lovingly created to deal with this threat of unrestrained growth that developments like Lakeside posed proved to be no match for legal maneuvering. And what exactly did we learn? We learned our approach using normal channels in zoning ordinance wasn’t working; the Town and County had no tools to do the job to guide development. We all learned ( cynically) that planning is not an imaginative exercise for lawyers; it is fraught with problems, does not understand in the least about community character, and ultimately is a way for lawyers to bill by the hour and have little care for the results, sometimes laugh at the stupidity of its citizens for being so easily conned. Can we at least earn not to trust lawyers to do the business of planning or zoning? Can we leave that to planners, please?

Failure of Imagination: 

The question we pose here and now is this; why make a big deal out of crafting skillful comprehensive plans ( wordsmithing ad nausea) if they simply don’t work to control and regulate growth, and if developers can literally drive a truck through the regulations, can find ways to taint the Council and to overrule public opinion, why do we insist that this is all we have to shape development? It’s not! Much of the problem is that we are stuck with a system that doesn’t work, but most are afraid to try another that would require learning how to use it! 

Besides, Is it right to leave the magnitude of the decision up for the Town or City Council to decide? Does anyone in Council have any academic background in Planning? Do they think they can solve problems with local expertise, namely lawyers? Do they know how other areas have solved their growth problems? Are they interested enough to even look? Do they listen to their planners more than they listen to their constituents? Should we be leaving these decisions to planners in our area who haven’t been schooled in modern development warfare? 

Answers, answers ….yes, despite a huge majority percent of community pushback, opinions are all against the large unbounded development; Lakeside still survives, if not legally, through sheer persistence. The tools to shape good development are not currently in our grasp. So why do we bother with bolstering a failed system? We don’t want to recognize this because we don’t have other tools to replace the ones that aren’t working.  

Is this not a failure of imagination? Is it really a fight to the death at the end after all the big decisions about where, when, how big, and how much has already been made? Are we getting the order of this all wrong? Shouldn’t this big a problem be solved on the front end, not the back end, when it’s too late to make a difference, when money and effort have been expended, and heels are dug in? This sounds e bit like good national diplomacy that could avert warfare; we know this works or can work in skillful diplomatic hands. The unequivocal answer is yes, it can and should be solved at the beginning, not in the end, and developers go way too far and way too fast before people know what they are doing. The community needs better design guardrails upfront. 

Pattern Books as a solution:

The same developer, Rauch Corp, came in and tried the same shenanigans in Denton, Maryland, but they underestimated a very sharp shrewd town planner who, after seeing the plan for the Ruach project, applied for twin grants and hired a nationally prominent planning firm “Urban Design Associates” from Pittsburgh, to do a better development plan. Wisely the Planner in Denton did not fight the project but struggled mightily to reshape it. And this is exactly what needs to happen in Lakeside and in all developments in the region. We have to recognize growth is coming to the shore; we simply have to have the smarts to shape it, not stop it, and if we set the development bar high enough, a lot of the mediocre shlock will go elsewhere. 

It’s a proven fact; stepping up the regulations in the front end means you have fewer battles to wage in the back end. The funny thing is, something you wouldn’t expect, that developers actually want these regulations; they know what to expect, and they don’t have to fight for every inch because it’s spelled out for them what they can do if they follow the guidelines. People want this because they can reasonably safeguard their property within the towns they love. One added advantage is that these new three-dimensionally regulated planning guidelines, or form-based zoning regulations, are legally enforceable; they are not optional; they are law. No way to dodge them. This works for developers and for citizens; it’s no longer a game of who you know that you can bend to your will. 

The project that emerged from the Denton Experience was “the Denton Pattern Book,” which was a blueprint or “template” for how Eastern Shore towns should grow and how they can retain their character without fighting without confrontation. The beauty of these Pattern books is they lay down the law that lawyers, with only pretend experience in planning, have no idea how to write and are clueless about new form-based zoning regulations. In a way, Denton walked into the next millennium by hiring real Urban design professionals ( yes, we have urban spaces in towns) and left behind a strong template for the growth of any city or town to use free of charge. 

My point is that the failure of imagination, the failure to grasp the idea that there are other ways, other planning tools to get what your town wants and needs are out there, just look around, and don’t for a minute assume that you have no options. You have one that is free right in your own backyard that is working in Denton. One problem is new systems require learning how to use them, but the stakes are high here and now; getting better form-based zoning planning tools is the future. 

And… If you don’t care enough to research this, to look for other answers, to encourage your county and city planners to adopt these codes, then you deserve the ugly conundrum you will face when developers turn this into a stark profit-driven landscape; remember, New Jersey used to be beautiful too. The goose that laid the golden egg sometimes never realizes it’s gold. 

BTW: Urban Design Associates designed Easton Village, which you will have to admit is another universe distant from Lakeside. 

LINKS: and required research: Urban Design Associates, Denton Pattern Book ….This is the town website; you’ll have to claw through to find the Denton pattern book reference. 

This is for the Urban Design Associates website and the host of successful pattern books they have published and areas they have saved. 

Jay Corvan is a Talbot County architect who specializes in historic work and commercial work, imaginative infill buildings that play on local architectural patterns.

 

For the first time, Maryland is giving small-scale farmers a similar financial boost for cover crops that larger-scale farmers have enjoyed for years. Starting this year, Maryland Department of Agriculture’s (MDA) Small Acreage Cover Crop Program allows farmers who plant less than five acres of cover crops to receive a reimbursement of up to $1,500 per year for the purchase of cover crop seed. 

At the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF), we applaud MDA for establishing the new program and see it as a model for other states in the Bay watershed. Cover crops are typically cereal grains planted between growing seasons that help improve Bay water quality by trapping pollutants such as nitrogen, improving soil health, and preventing erosion. 

Previously, cover crop benefits were only available to farmers who plant five acres or more of cover crops. The state’s expansion of this benefit highlights an effort to increase equity between small and large farms.  

Small farmers can grow a lot of vegetables on a couple acres of land and the majority of these farmers market directly to local consumers. These smaller farms typically provide local vegetables to communities while implementing Bay-friendly farming practices, including the use of cover crops, no tillage, and organic fertilizers, which assists with Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts. 

The widespread adoption of regenerative practices among small-scale and urban farms shows how this sector can help to promote environmentally responsible agriculture. 

The new program will also help to address the historical imbalance between small and large farms. Government farm programs are often biased in favor of larger operations, leaving small-scale and urban farms excluded due to eligibility requirements, such as farm size. As a result, more money has gone to supporting large-scale corn and soybean production, which is used mostly as livestock feed, with a small fraction of benefits left to support the smaller vegetable farmers. 

Supporting smaller farms is also an investment in the health of our communities. These farms produce fresh, healthy food near where people live, and reach consumers who may struggle to access fresh food. By increasing local food production, smaller farms can reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated by transporting food. According to a study conducted by the Johns Hopkins Center For A Livable Future, close to 90% of the vegetables eaten in Maryland come from out of state. By supporting local growers, we can reduce this percentage and the carbon footprint of Maryland’s food system.   

CBF encourages farmers who operate small farms to apply for this funding program to improve soil health, farm productivity, and increase their economic bottom line. Small farms help build strong communities, and we commend MDA for their support of this critical program.  

By Isabella Bruno is Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Maryland Agriculture Equity Project Coordinator 

There’s a discussion going on in Congress about the next Farm Bill that could help Maryland farmers. It concerns expanding U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs that encourage farmers to adopt conservation practices. Based on my experience with USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, I think this is an excellent idea.

I grow organic feed and food-grade grains on 420 acres near Salisbury, on the farm where I grew up. I knew that I wanted to farm since I was a teenager. I worked on my family’s conventional grain farm, but it wasn’t possible for me to make it a full-time job. So I farmed a few acres in my off hours and worked in the University of Maryland’s wheat and barley breeding program.

I started transitioning two acres of the farm to organic vegetable production in 2007, when I was still at my day job. I decided to farm organically because I knew it would allow me to earn more money per acre so I could switch to farming full time. Focusing on grain allowed me to eventually take over the rest of the family farm from my dad.

Transitioning from conventional to organic farming can be difficult and costly, especially in the beginning. I was able to make that transition successfully and start farming full time in 2017 with help from the federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP.

Like other federal farm conservation programs, EQIP is entirely voluntary. EQIP provides technical and financial assistance to farmers who to want to adopt conservation practices that promote clean air and water, healthier soil, more resilient land, and better wildlife habitat—and improve their agricultural operations at the same time.

Farming without using pesticides and other chemicals doesn’t just allow me to charge a premium for the organic grain I grow and the organic animal feed I make from it. It is also good for the Chesapeake Bay.

We have a tidal creek running through the farm that goes to the Wicomico River, and ultimately the Bay. I see that water every day and I know that what I do on the farm impacts it directly. I don’t like the thought of nutrients from my farm leaching into that water. Honestly, no farmer wants that.

These days I’m using EQIP to create seven acres of pollinator habitat on marginal land on my farm. I’d also like to use it for a cover crop project that would improve my soil, keep nutrients out of the water, and save money on fertilizer.

I want to interplant a cover crop in my corn fields in mid-August, a month before I harvest the corn. The soil is warm through mid-October so there are lots of microbes actively breaking down nutrients. Instead of letting valuable nutrients like nitrogen and potassium go to waste, planting the cover crop early would allow it to take up more nutrients as it grows and return them to the soil when it dies.

I would end up with healthier soil for my cash crop. I’d also save about $150 to $200 an acre on fertilizer I don’t have to apply. And the cover crop would prevent the soil from eroding and ending up in the creek, the Wicomico River, and the Chesapeake Bay for two more months.

But seeding a cover crop into rows of standing corn requires specialized equipment I can’t afford on my own. And there’s no guarantee that I can secure EQIP funding either. Farm Bill conservation programs are so popular they reject more applications than they accept, according to USDA figures.

Here in Maryland, farmers submitted 790 EQIP applications in 2020. But only 266, or 34 percent, got contracts. The 47 percent average acceptance rate from 2005 to 2020 is more encouraging. But that still means USDA turned away more than half of applications for projects that could have helped Maryland farmers improve their operations and reduce pollution in Maryland waterways and the Bay.

EQIP and other voluntary USDA conservation programs are a win-win proposition for Maryland farmers and the Chesapeake Bay. Many of us have ideas for conservation projects that would do a lot of good. We just can’t always afford to pursue them on our own.

Leaving those projects on the drawing board doesn’t help anyone. Instead of missing out on their benefits, Congress should increase funding for these programs in the Farm Bill it is considering so more farmers can put their conservation ideas into practice.

Aaron Cooper owns and operates Cutfresh Organics farm in Eden, MD.

Imagine, if you will, the following scenario:

You’ve had a long, frustrating day at work. Your kid’s lacrosse practice ran long, and traffic is at a standstill because of…who knows!

All of which means you have neither the time nor inclination to cook tonight. You just want to call your friendly corner pizzeria and pick up a large pepperoni and a side of wings.

When you call in and place your order, however, you are told that before you can pick up your food and take it home, you must sign a legally binding contract that confirms your acknowledgment of the terms and conditions of the transaction.

For a pizza. That YOU called and ordered.

Sounds too bizarre to be true, right? Even for Maryland, which seems to pride itself at times for its silly laws and regulations that make the easy things so difficult?

Think again. The scenario I just described is on the verge of becoming the law of the land.

At the heart of all this is an important consumer protection law named the Maryland Telephone Solicitations Act. It was adopted years ago to protect Marylanders from being defrauded by predatory telemarketers, who prey largely upon senior citizens and low-to-moderate income consumers. The law, as clearly written and enforced for years, states that that all telephone-based sales must be accompanied by a signed contract when the call is initiated by the seller to the buyer.

This makes sense. It safeguards the consumer from the smooth, fast-talking huckster on the line who serving up that term life insurance deal, or that home security system package, that sounds almost too good to be true. It provides the buyer with one final opportunity to read the fine print before entering into a costly financial obligation.

Enter the Public Service Commission, which regulates our state’s public utilities and retail energy providers. In a case involving an electricity retailer, the PSC unilaterally determined that this law applies in both directions – even when the customer initiated the call.

This radical interpretation of longstanding law would effect not only the energy sector, but every merchant that conducts business over the telephone in the State of Maryland.

The corner pizza parlor. The pharmacy. The auto parts and bicycle repair shops. The independent bookstore. Each of these would now have to invest the time, cost and personnel necessary to execute a signed contract – even in situations when the customer knew the product they wanted and knew exactly where and when to order it.

In a recent court brief, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce and the Maryland Retailers Association foresaw the consequences of such an illogical abuse of law:

“…driving up business expenses, making it more difficult to transact business in Maryland, and creating negative and frustrating customer experiences. It also creates grave uncertainty by calling into question every telephone transaction throughout the years that began with the customer calling the merchant.”

As a local restaurant owner who will celebrate 30 years in business next summer, I can say with absolute certainty that this would have an immediate and devastating effect on my business.

During our three decades on the Cambridge Waterfront, we have fought tooth and nail to survive the 2008 financial crisis, a constant stream of tax hikes, the COVID pandemic, severe worker shortages and disruptions in the national supply chain. Must we also have to contend with the latest harebrained legal theories of an agency that has absolutely nothing to do with my industry in the first place?

There are days when I literally believe it is the goal of certain policymakers to drive every last local business out of our state, taking with them the jobs, business-to-business investment, tax revenue and charitable activity for which they are responsible.

Enough is enough. If this bizarre reading of the Maryland Telephone Solicitations Act becomes the new, accepted law of the land, it will be incumbent upon Governor Moore and the Maryland General Assembly to pass a new, better law that honors its original intent.

Our consumers must be protected from harm. So, too, must our local and independent businesses. These are complementary goals, and our elected leaders may soon have the opportunity to accomplish both by fixing the mess the PSC has created.

Laura Sydnor is the founder and owner of Snapper’s Waterfront Café in Cambridge.

Frederick Douglass is by far Talbot County’s most famous native, and with good reason.  But there’s another Talbot native who survived slavery and went on to make significant and lasting contributions to the citizens of the county that still have impact today.

The name Nathaniel “Nace” Hopkins might not be as familiar as Douglass’s, but he is a Talbot County legend.  His story has been told occasionally through the decades — but it can never be told enough.  What Frederick Douglass was for the Nation, Hopkins was for Talbot County.  He was a well-respected, well liked man of his time who helped the county move forward in the post-Civil War era.  

Nace Hopkins was born an enslaved person near Bellevue and enlisted in the Union Army on November 20, 1863, to serve in the newly formed United States Colored Troops (USCT).  Whether he was still enslaved or a freeman at the time of his enlistment has remained uncertain.  During that period, it was common to free enslaved persons in their early to mid-30’s.  This may not be as altruistic as it seems, since Maryland law required slave owners to care for enslaved persons for the rest of their lives once they reached age 45 or at any earlier age if they became disabled or infirmed.  This led to many emancipations while they were in their early 30’s and still able bodied and was a contributing reason why nearly half of Talbot County’s black population was free at the start of the Civil War.  

Past written accounts of Nathaniel Hopkins record his birth year between 1830 and 1834.  Reviewing Nace’s death certificate and tombstone however, place his date of birth as January 18, 1834.  Additional research and consultation with local historian James Dawson leads to the belief that Nace was most likely enslaved at the time of his enlistment and was probably recruited when the Union was actively recruiting free and enslaved black men on the Eastern Shore. 

Nace’s military career was short.  He was released on furlough on January 4, 1864, for sickness and “varicose veins.”  But sometime things happen for a reason, as the saying goes, and history had other plans for Nace.  Those plans were soon to be revealed. 

Although Nace was illiterate, he was a natural leader and orator.  He was known for being a man of his word and his descendants described Nace as always trying to help people — black and white.  Family members who knew him were quoted as saying, “He accomplished whatever he had to do for his people” and he “planted his feet solidly on the ground and walked tall and strait with a look of determination.”  

His natural leadership abilities, along with the respect of Talbot County citizens that he received, can be seen in the retelling of a story about the arrangements Nace made with a local farmer.  Seeing a large pile of corn in a farmer’s barn, Nace made an agreement that he and some men would husk that corn in exchange for a feast of ham, cakes, and some hard cider.  The farmer agreed to have “Aunt Ruth” cook the ham and provide the meal and cider.  Nace arrived early on the appointed date to begin husking corn but the men he invited never appeared.  Later that evening he heard sounds of revelry across the creek in the direction of Aunt Ruth’s.  Upon investigating, Nace found his invited guests making merry instead of fulfilling their commitment.  After some choice words, he marched them over to the corn pile and kept them at it until the wee hours of the morning and the last ear was husked. 

Nathanial Hopkins is credited for helping to establish the Talbot County school system’s first black school in Trappe in 1878.  Specifically, he’s been noted for his assistance in procuring the land for the school.  Nace was also instrumental in building another school in the black community of Barber, originally called the Manassas School, to which he received a nomination as trustee. 

Hopkins was one of the original members to incorporate the Ashbury Methodist Episcopal Church with the cornerstone laid for the new building in 1869.  The church is now the Scotts United Methodist Church in Trappe and is named for the Rev. Levi Scott, who was the presiding Bishop for the area.  

After the Civil War, many black communities were established throughout Talbot, and Nathanial Hopkins did his part.  He helped procure 23 acres approximately four miles southeast of Trappe to establish the community of Eastfield and worked with the county to establish a proper road to the new town.  In 1888, Hopkins, along with three other black men — Daniel Joshua, James Nixon, and Robinson Sewell, were appointed Road Supervisors for the Trappe district by the Talbot County Commissioners. Nace and these men were essential to maintaining and upgrading the road system in the Trappe area. 

Hopkins also contributed to Talbot County politics.  Although he never ran for political office, Nace put his oratory and organizational skills to good use.   Along with his friend Joe Gray (also a former enslaved person), he worked diligently to “get out the black vote.”  Nace and Joe gave numerous speeches nearing election day and they are greatly credited for getting many Republicans elected to local positions during that period.

One of Nathanial Hopkins’s most celebrated accomplishments has had a lasting impact upon all Talbot citizens to this day.  In the summer of 1867, Nace, along with friends Jeremiah Thomas and Morris Trippe, decided to celebrate the Emancipation of Maryland’s enslaved persons, which occurred on November 1, 1864, by organizing a parade and official celebration.  Nace worked diligently towards the endeavor by training local boys and girls to drill with music provided from a drum, flute, accordion, and tambourine, borrowed from neighbors.  He traveled throughout Talbot asking for and securing assistance. 

The citizens of Talbot, both black and white, pitched in providing many needed items and money.  Nace secured permission from the County Commissioners to use the streets of Trappe for his planned parade and celebration.  November 1, 1867 was the designated day for the first celebration. That day, wagons with stoves and food arrived at sunrise.  Some of Trappe’s town folks had placed kitchen stoves in their front yards to prepare meals for the visitors attending the celebration.  The day began with a prayer service and an 11 o’clock church service. 

The parade was led by Nathaniel Hopkins himself, with his Aunt Audy Nixon by his side carrying her bible.  Nace was dressed in his Union uniform with gold epaulettes and sash, a Lincoln styled top hat and a sword from the Knights of Columbus.  Behind Nace and Aunt Audy came the young drill team marching to the beat of the music played by Nace’s sons, Charles and Alexander and the sons of George Brummell playing the borrowed instruments.  Next in line were men in uniform, men on horses, and finally colorfully decorated wagons.  After the parade the celebrants gathered at the church to listen to speeches from many orators, including Nace.  Then the fun began, with games and events for the kids, horse racing and, of course, good Eastern Shore cooking featuring the region’s bounty of food.  

The celebration was so successful it became an annual tradition. Nathaniel Hopkins continued to plan and lead the parade with his Aunt Audy by his side until his death thirty-three years later.  Eventually, the parade became known as the “Nace’s Day” parade and grew with bands and marchers coming from not just the Eastern Shore, but Baltimore, Delaware and New Jersey as well.  The church services, good food and entertainment continued.  After Nace’s death the celebration started including a prayer service at Nace’s gravesite and the playing of taps over his marker.  

The parade and celebration continued every year until it was interrupted by World War I.  The Maryland Emancipation celebration has, however, been held many times since, with the latest in 2019.  Former members of The St Michaels High School Band recall marching in the Nace’s Day parades of the 1980’s.  The 1976 celebration included the unveiling of a roadside marker on Route 50 commemorating Nathaniel Hopkins that reads: “Nathaniel (Nace) Hopkins, Leader of his People Who was Born a Slave circa 1830; Fought for Union in Civil War; Originated Annual Trappe Emancipation Day Celebration, 1867 and Headed it until his Death in 1900.  One of the Founders of Scott’s Methodist Church.  Helped Establish First “Colored Schools” at Trappe and Barber.  Buried in Old Paradise Cemetery on this Site.  

This celebration of Emancipation Day was considered the first and only in the State of Maryland, and one of the first in the United States.  It was an incredible accomplishment for the time.  The history of the citizens of Talbot, both black and white, coming together to organize and celebrate Emancipation Day, is something we all can be proud of. 

I look forward to the next fall day where we again can come together in celebration of Maryland’s Emancipation Day and to celebrate our incredible Talbot ancestor who contributed so much during his life – and to enjoy more of that great Eastern Shore food!

Paul Callahan is a Talbot native, a graduate of Saints Peter & Paul High School and the Catholic University of America and served as an Officer in the United States Marine Corp. 

Sources for this article include “Irregularities in Abundance – An Anecdotal History of Trappe District in Talbot Co Md” by James Dawson which incorporates various other sources, numerous past newspaper accounts to include Easton’s Star Democrat, The Baltimore Sun and The Times Daily (Salisbury Md)

Illustrations by John Raschka