Please vote to put Aretha Dorsey on Kent County’s School Board November 8th.

Aretha Dorsey is smart and savvy. She is an excellent communicator, a self-made local business woman of color with strong faith and an amazing work ethic. Aretha Dorsey has identified the need for communication in Kent County Public Schools between students, parents, teachers, administration and community. We cannot blame the students for not meeting standards in reading comprehension, mathematics etcetera. Instead, we must analyze what we are doing as the adults in the
equation.

If you want to see real improvements in the quality of education for the children in Kent County, then vote for Aretha Dorsey who has the good horse sense to know what needs to be done to improve our schools.

Virginia W. Kerr
Retired Teacher
Kent County

The other day my 8 year-old grandson told us what he learned from the active shooter drill his school held. I said, first, he would kick the shooter in the shins and then kick away the gun. He would follow up by holding him at bay with a chair. When we told him he should hide, he responded by saying that the shooter would just hunt him down and shoot him. Now, I’m sure that wasn’t what he was taught at the drill, but he recognized the futility of his position if a shooter got into the classroom. He created his own defense.

Did the founding fathers ever imagine this when they penned the 2nd amendment? Is this where the freedom, as defined by the armed wing of the maga Republican party, has brought us?

I see a lot of political signs saying “It’s YOUR freedom.” For who? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are supposed to be inalienable rights, for everyone.

Is this really the land of the free and the home of the brave? Can anyone feel free when the brave is an 8 year old boy facing an active shooter?

John Ramsey
Chestertown

One of Chestertown’s nastier architectural scabs is being picked at again.

No, I do not refer to the House of Tarps, which emerged from is blue cocoon as an Andalusian privy, nor do I reference that perpetually boarded up section of the five-star dining district known as Plywood on High.

 I speak now of the decaying ruin out on the Quaker Neck Road known to ancients simply as The Armory, which more recent generations take to be Chestertown’s version of Frightland. The Armory is in the public eye again, and a sty in the eye it truly is, caught up in a vertiginous display of public distress, legal fist clenching and finger pointing.

In short, Washington College, the current owner, has, by what some allege to be sneaky means, secured the town’s blessing to have the old dump demolished. In its stead would rise a privately financed hotel and conference center, enabled by land lease from the college.

Well now, say some. “That’s progress.” The town sheds an eyesore and gains a tax-paying attraction and employer. “Who cares if the forbidding old building’s architect was Edgar Allen Poe and the Addams Family once lived there?”

Not so fast, say others. “That’s a piece of history.” These preservationists claim to have gone to The Armory to vote for Warren Harding, or once danced in the great hall to the tunes of Artie Shaw or were distant kin to the brick mason who created the menacing minarets that glower down from the building’s brow. (And these are probably some of the same people who complained when the college tore down their former high school on Washington Ave. only to be shouted down by “progress.”)

It’s true, though. In all its ugliness The Armory stood as a worthy civic center. The Sho’men and random kids kids played hoops there; the hospital staged its popular Christmas Shop fundraiser there; The Armory hosted an annual antiques show. Do we blithely turn our backs on those times? And wait, did not generations of citizen soldiers drill and muster there? Some of them to help save the world on D Day, which, I believe was an actual event not just another Hollywood concoction.

The preservationists claim there was a promise that surely some the old pile could be saved; that the dismal hulk could be restored and repurposed. Never mind waiting for Elon Musk. Call in those “Like it never happened” guys, hang a few pictures and Shazam! Whadda ya got?

Another gym? A jail? Eighteen indoor Pickleball courts? Another empty school? The potential is unlimited.  Just don’t ask me to heat the place.

Meanwhile, the forces of progress seem to have the upper hand.  And yet there are questions. There’s a certain fishiness to how this went down.

The Armory has stood vacant for nearly two decades, its grounds hosting an odd assortment of old boats on rusting trailers and an ever advancing wave of phragmites. Inside: the celebrated Washington College mold incubator. It could have been mistaken for a Nobel-worthy experiment in “Fermentation and Fungi as They Interact With Concrete” except that in reality it was just demolition by neglect.

And now it’s beyond saving, they say. The owner wants a vacant riverfront lot, not some ghastly Leggo domain, no matter how many fancy historic registers it is listed upon.

 So the town caved. And what might we truly expect? Another traffic light to help college punks cross the road? More buildings like those Albert Speer-inspired dorms? A new and improved Food Lab?

Don’t be conned again Chestertown.

 Surely you can cut a better deal. How about insisting that the demolition permit include a provision that the college-owned pickle factory be turned into a WaWa? Before it needs an upscale hotel, Chestertown needs a decent hoagie.

 Meanwhile, there is some good news for preservationists.  Now comes word from one of the insiders that the demolished building and the guardsmen who served there will be “memorialized in a tasteful way.”

I’m for that. Except those parameters probably rule out my wish that the new hotel include a bar named “The Arsenal” where the featured vodka cocktail will be the “General Patton.”

J. Taylor Buckley
Broad Neck

At Wednesday’s Historic District Commission meeting, two important things happened.  A new chair, one with the backbone to stand up to Town staff, was elected.  Also, under the deft leadership of the new chair, the Commission voted to rescind its October 5 approval of the demolition of the Armory.  This vote puts the demolition back on the Commission’s agenda for its next meeting on December 7.  

Local resident Steve Mitchell speaking from the public audience asked that all the documents to be submitted by HDC applicants be posted on the Town website.  Our Town secretary objected:  Too much work, she lamented.  Nevertheless, the Commission instructed her that all documents related to the re-hearing of Washington College’s demolition application be posted timely on the Town website for the public to review. At least three sitting commissioners also complained that the information they had received about the Armory had not been provided in sufficient time for thoughtful consideration. 

The timeliness issue was also raised but dodged by Town staff.  The new chair noted that information from news sources (i.e., a letter to the editor of The Chestertown Spy from Washington College employee John Seidel) admitted that a waiver of the 25-day rule had been requested and approved.  The chair asked who asked for the waiver and who approved it.  Town staff was silent, although it is absolutely clear that Kees de Mooy, who was present at Wednesday’s meeting, knew the answer.  Further, it is clear from an email written by Kees that he was strategizing with a single Commissioner (who had expressed interest in becoming chair but was not elected) about how to handle what Kees called “a procedural error in the Armory demolition application whereby the 25-day requirement was not followed….” Kees’s email and Seidel’s admission raise these questions: Who did what and why? The answers may be perfectly innocent, but the refusal to respond does not create confidence in the system or its actors. 

Another issue raised by the public at the Wednesday meeting was the trouble the audience had hearing the Commissioners.  There are no microphones at the Commissioners’ table.  When audience members complained, Town staff dismissed the complaints.  One laughed out loud and said the public can listen to the tape online—clearly missing the point.  The other quipped “Move up closer.” The new chair asked her fellow Commissioners to speak louder.  Regardless, there is no apparent reason the Commissioners’ table cannot have microphones so the audience can hear in real time.

So where are we now?  To be clear, this is a re-do of the first of two meetings required for a demolition.  Washington College has tried to suggest that it is permitted to skip the first meeting because, according to John Seidel, “Washington College has never contested the significance of the building…Because (Washington College) was not contesting significance, there was really nothing to submit prior to this first hearing of the HDC.” Poppycock!

The Historic District Guidelines direct otherwise.  There are 11 mandatory criteria for consideration at this first hearing.  It is the responsibility of the applicant to supply information responsive to these criteria.  (In the interest of brevity, please go to the Town website and look the Historic District Guidelines at “Section VI.2.2 Hearing” for a complete listing of these criteria.)

Instead, Seidel stated “As to the adequacy of the application, there is indeed a long list of requirements for a demolition application.  But as anyone who has served on a commission knows, not all are necessarily relevant or in every case necessary.  Because (the Armory) was listed on the National Register back in the 1980’s, much of the information is already in the hands of the Town and HDC.”

Statement of fact:  None, repeat none, of the current Commission members even lived in Chestertown in the 1980’s—or even when the Armory issue first arose more than a decade ago.  Nor were they offered any of this trove of information prior to the October 5 meeting by Washington College or by the Town staff who have reason to know what is in Town and HDC files. Further, despite Seidel’s statement, it is Washington College’s job to furnish all the information required, not to pick and choose what it deems “relevant” or “necessary.” It is the Commission’s job to decide relevance and necessity—and the job of the Town staff to make sure that each application is complete when it is filed.  

Here’s hoping Washington College and the Town staff do a better job before the December 7 hearing.  My hunch is that the new chair will make sure everyone reads the Guidelines and does what is supposed to be done.

Meanwhile, today is the day the Town is supposed to reply to my Maryland Freedom of Information Act request.  I’ll let you know what I get.

Barbara Jorgenson
Chestertown

In a world made progressively less human by special interest, propaganda, and digital machines, I went to Downrigging on Friday night and it was sublime. I’m sure it was a little sweeter because of the recent isolation, but other credit is due. The organizers, staff volunteers and most of all the attendees produced an evening not to be matched.

What a especially, lovely and curious space we share.

Thanks!

Michael Johnson
Chestertown

President Biden and his spokesfolks have done their best to blame our runaway inflation on factors outside their aegis such as the pandemic, Putin’s War and the supply chain snafu. And, to a point, they are correct that those events are at least partly to blame in sparking the onset of the problem. What they fail to admit is that their relentless advocacy of high-priced, often misdirected “relief” programs in the midst of the worst inflation in forty years has seriously exacerbated an already deteriorating situation.

Most puzzling of these programs is his executive order mandating student debt relief; one man, our President, has decided to throw several billion dollars at mostly young, mostly self-sufficient former student borrowers. Does he actually have the authority to authorize this level of spending? Shouldn’t Congress weigh in? Can this President, elected by just a little more than half of his constituency and whose performance is approved by less than half of them behave as though he has carte blanche…..Apparently. But his action in this matter is so wrong in so many ways.

First, it suggests to young, often first-time borrowers, that loan contracts are meaningless and that debt is not an obligation to be taken seriously. How many of these people will eventually have to learn the hard way that in the real world of car loans, credit cards and mortgages that there is no amnesty and that credit scores matter.

Second, it violates a moral precept and sets a terrible precedent by painting those borrowers who have diligently paid off their loans as “suckers”. And it encourages future student borrowers to game the system, expecting their debt to be eventually forgiven by  presidential fiat or some other beneficent magic.

Third, most of the benefits will go to people of means who need no help making payments; 65% of student debt is owed by those earning more than the national average income; only 12% of the debt is owed by the lowest quartile of earners and, for those who struggle to make payments, there is already a program in place to relieve their obligations. It’s called the Income Driven Repayment Plan (IDR). There are more plan details than can be described here but, basically, it forgives all future interest if the borrower can’t keep up with scheduled payments so the balance never increases. Any remaining loan balance is completely forgiven after 20 years; 10 years if the balance is $12,000 or below. Of course, borrowers must apply for the benefit….how cruel! Does it seem reasonable that a family of two borrowers earning $250,000 annually should get this $20,000 taxpayer largesse; $40,000 if they were both on Pell grants? Whose crazy idea was that?

Fourth, and clearly the greatest threat to the US economy, is the inflationary impact of a sudden windfall in the pockets of borrower/consumers without a corresponding increase in the supply of stuff to buy. This, of course is the same fault found in all the President’s aggressive giveaway programs. His tone-deafness to the serious consequences of his inflationary actions suggests that he never understood Econ 101 or, more likely, that he is simply pandering to voters in advance of the mid-terms; everyone loves free stuff.

At the bottom of this issue is the steady, lethal rise in tuition and board faced by students at nearly every college and university in the country. That rise has propelled concern over student debt to the front of the line and no doubt instigated the president’s executive order. Perhaps Congress should consider a non-partisan  examination of those secondary education institutions that receive taxpayer money in any form to understand the architecture that causes costs  to rise so much more sharply than consumer prices. I’m not sure that a solution would arise from such a study but it would be useful to know where the pathogens are.

A single court has ruled against implementation of the President’s order; not very comforting. Electing a Republican House now will slow the liberal rush to enact even more poorly-conceived give-away legislation. But I’m deeply concerned that regardless of the outcome of November elections, we’re in for at two more years of economic chaos as this president continues to polish his “legacy” with even more clumsy executive actions.

Bill Barron
Worton

Washington College’s application for a demolition permit for the Chestertown Armory has generated a lot of comment. That’s a good thing, demonstrating yet again how much this community cares about its historic resources. As someone who has spent his career in dealing with various areas of historic preservation, including research, teaching, service on the Chestertown Historic Commission, the Maryland Historical Trust, and a variety of other boards and commissions, I understand the concerns when the demolition of an historic structure is proposed. But our reactions have to be rational, free of emotion, and based on facts. I therefore want to address some misconceptions and unfounded suggestions that have emerged in this recent debate. To be clear, I am doing so as a private citizen, NOT as a representative of Washington College.

Concerns have been raised about the process being followed. For anyone who wasn’t present in the two meetings where this application was heard, I understand why there might be questions. So let’s look at the process. Demolition requests in the Historic District  typically – but not always – follow a two-hearing process. At the first hearing, only the issue of significance usually is considered. At the second hearing, the HDC takes formal action to approve or decline the application.

Washington College has never contested the significance of the building. It is on the National Register. The only question is whether or not it can be adequately remediated and then renovated. The College anticipated going through the prescribed two-hearing process and was fully prepared to do so. Because it was not contesting significance, there really was nothing bearing on significance to submit prior to this first hearing of the HDC, held on October 5. That being the case – maybe one of the few instances in which significance is not being contested – a waiver of the 25-day rule for the first hearing was requested and granted. It was anticipated that a full package of materials supporting the demolition permit would be submitted to the HDC at this first hearing, thereby exceeding the 25-day submission requirement for the second hearing on the actual demolition request. I do not believe for a second that there was any intent whatsoever to circumvent the rules on notice and pre-submission.

In the October 5 hearing, the Commission heard that significance was not contested, but also was given the background to the issues and the conclusions of the recent study that prompted the demo request. The Commissioners were thoughtful and asked good questions. At the end of the presentation and discussion, the Historic District Commission seemed satisfied with the presentation and materials submitted and a vote to approve demolition was called for and unanimously approved. This was a bit unexpected, but it is by no means unique – it has happened before.

Somewhere in the various comments on this issue, someone indicated that a Commissioner said that the HDC was “told to vote” then and there, with no opportunity for reflection. I was present, and no-one was “told to vote.” That’s not how the process works. A vote was called for, but any commissioner could have objected, slowed the process down, or asked for a second hearing or other change to the process. I’ve seen it happen countless times, and I don’t believe for a second that any of the Commissioners would have simply acquiesced to a vote when they were not comfortable. In my experience, having served on the Commission for over a decade and having watched it for 25 years, the commissioners take their role seriously, ask hard questions, and are independent and not easily swayed by emotion or any form of pressure. To suggest otherwise is insulting and undermines their efforts.  I personally believe that their decision was based on the obvious – if there can be no guarantee of successful remediation, it is hard to imagine anyone investing in the building. If no-one will invest, then its fate is sealed no matter what the HDC does. The Historic District Guidelines call on the Commission to determine “whether the building can be put to reasonable beneficial use without the approval of demolition.” The answer in this case is clearly “no.”

As to the adequacy of the application, there is indeed a long list of requirements for a demolition application. But as anyone who has served on such a commission knows, not all are necessarily relevant or in every case necessary. Because this structure was listed on the National Register back in the 1980s, much of the information required in an application is already in the hands of the Town and HDC. For example, there are extensive descriptions, drawings, and photographs of the building in the nomination. The files of the Town contain various graphics of the site and building prepared by STAY back in 2007-2011, when they valiantly but unsuccessfully sought a viable use for the building. And Washington College submitted additional photo documentation and a site plan in its package. A variety of alternative uses, which the Guidelines ask for, have been considered over the years, and many are a matter of public record. Others were presented by College representatives verbally. There are more examples of materials that are considered in such a request, but the Commission may use its discretion in deciding what is relevant and what is required in any given case.

Lurking in some of the letters to the editor and comments is the suggestion of some conspiracy or nefarious plot between the College and … who, exactly? Members of the HDC? The Mayor? The Town Council? To what end? What would these public servants gain from conspiring to ram through a decision that might turn out to be controversial? The premise is frankly absurd, but I guess conspiracy theories are part of the times that we live in. I submit that instead, everyone here has been acting in good faith and trying to do the right thing.

 I’ll also note that the hotel group was actually far more excited than I dreamed they would be about the original plan of utilizing the historic core of the Armory. Personally, it seemed to me a stretch that it could be used for their purposes. But they worked very hard and with enthusiasm on plans that incorporated the whole 1930s structure – until the environmental report came back. And to be clear, it is not the lead or asbestos that scares anyone. That’s a red herring. It is the mold problem that is at the root of this and that is the game-changer.

Lest anyone question the College’s commitment to environmental remediation, I’ll point to the way in which it handled at the two Brown Field sites on which Semans-Griswold Environmental Hall is now located. One of these parcels had been contaminated by petroleum products over the course of a century. The other had a legacy of agrichemical pollution that went back to the 1890s. Both parcels were purchased by the College and remediated to residential standards at a cost of several million dollars. As a result, the site was cleaned for construction and we no longer have to worry about these contaminants reaching the Chester River and our ground water. Washington College has clearly demonstrated its commitment to undertaking difficult remediation projects when it makes sense to do so.

I’m disappointed that people for whom I have great respect so quickly jumped on the opposition bandwagon, apparently without contacting anyone at the College or asking for clarification before leaping to the attack. David Turner conflates two separate preservation issues in an attempt to generate opposition to what he sees as the “coming of ugly” – these are the future development of Stepne Manor and the Armory demolition. Stepne Manor has long been designated by the Town as its next growth outlet, over more than a decade of planning, charettes, and public input. Whatever the Planning Commission may have done more recently, the underlying purpose has been consistent and in any event is separate and distinct from the Armory. To conflate the two is to play on emotion rather than logic.

Barbara Jorgenson has raised the issues of procedure and supposed back-room dealing addressed above. She also notes that I made a presentation on behalf of the College, and I have heard some rumbles that perhaps my employer pushed me in a specific direction. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Just in case that’s in anyone’s mind, I’ll point out that back when I served on the HDC, I spearheaded the expansion of the Historic District to include the wonderful Victorians up Washington Avenue, some of the buildings around the Washington College campus, and elsewhere in town. That, too, saw public opposition, and the College’s President at that time, John Toll, asked me to stand down the effort, or to at least exclude any of the buildings associated with the College. I declined. I was then asked to recuse myself since I was an employee of the College. My position was that since I actually was opposing the interests of my employer, rather than following them, no recusal was necessary. Dr. Toll then graciously said that we would simply agree to disagree and I should follow my conscience. I was untenured at the time, and vulnerable, so my point is that I do follow my conscience and my professional judgment and experience in these issues.

 Drawing on that experience, I do not believe that any alternative use for this structure will be forthcoming, after the last 16 years and many failed attempts. I know first-hand the dangers posed by mold and its incredibly serious health consequences. Contrary to some opinions expressed in these pages, remediation is anything but easy. The last two decades also have shown us how difficult it has been to find an owner and a use for the Armory. Why does anyone think that will now change? As to the important consideration of public good, what is proposed will be a huge shot in the arm for Chestertown’s economy. But I do not believe for a minute that any investor group will be willing to put up money for a restoration of a compromised building if there is a chance that their investment will be nullified by a recurring mold problem, with the threat of illness, litigation, and a loss of their investment. If others are willing to pony up the funds, or have a viable alternative use in mind, I say get your check book out. I suspect it will be a very different story if you are the one who has to put your capital at risk.

John L. Seidel
Chestertown

The architecturally distinctive, art deco Armory Building on Quaker Neck Road stands as one of the rough jewels of Chestertown’s four entryways. Sadly, the Historic District Commission and town council — at the behest of owner Washington College — claim it should be torn down for a new building.

What else ugly is coming from that direction? How about three-story, cheaply constructed apartments and townhouses to be built across the street from the old Armory? They would be erected on the historic/cultural setting (open-space) surrounding Stepney Manor. And not only is that field the original farm built in Chestertown, it has survived during five centuries. The field is the location of a historic racetrack visited by George Washington, and the longtime site of the Kent County Fair. Both the Armory and Stepney Manor face the open waters of the Chester River.

Why all the ugly coming this way? Why are town fathers demolishing a grand building and historic setting that amazingly still survives? Apparently, they made these decisions in ways that this town long ago decided should not be used.

Barbara Jorgensen, Historical Society of Kent County, and major-buildings engineer Stephen Mitchell point the finger at some of these mistakes in letters to the editor. I have heard from a Historic District Commissioner that at their October meeting, commissioners were presented with an inches-thick report on the Armory Site, and told to vote immediately. Regarding Stepney Manor, the town planning panel voted to increase density on the farm site minus input from the general public. No public notice or debate were raised in Kent County News or Chestertown Spy. That’s not the Chestertown way, and the results are not Chestertown goals.

As a former county Preservation Commission Chair in Prince George’s, and a member of the Maryland Historic Trust I speak on the ascetics of these bad, hopefully temporary decisions. They are genuinely unfortunate. No matter Dixon’s and Washington College’s importance as key interests, no matter the trust we had placed in civic leaders like archaeologist John Seidel and town official Kees de Mooy, all of it smells bad. Undo these decisions. Save the Armory now, and let’s give the general public a look at Stepney Manor’s future.

David A. Turner
Chestertown