DOCSLIB.ORG

Seeding the Vision: Creative Baltimore

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Seeding the Vision: Creative Baltimore Authors: Dr. Zoltan Acs, McCurdy Distinguished Professor of Entrepreneurship at the Merrick School of Business, University of Baltimore Monika Megyesi, graduate student at the University of Baltimore Research Assistant: Annabel Acs, undergraduate student at Boston University Graphic Design: Brandy Zhang, graduate student at the University of Baltimore Inquiries regarding this publication can be directed to: Richard Clinch Program Director Jacob France Institute University of Baltimore 1420 N. Charles St. Baltimore, MD 21201 410-837-4988 [email protected] This report was made possible through partial support from the Office of the Provost, University of Baltimore. The authors are extending their special thanks to the Merrick School of Business and many other individuals who actively contributed to the creation and promotion of Seeding the Vision: Creative Baltimore. Introduction The concept of creative class, as a plausible paradigm unique aspects of traditionally industrial regions. Industrial for contemporary economic growth, awakened significant regions have had a difficult time emerging as creative hubs. interest among academics and the civic leadership community. Nevertheless, among metropolitan areas with populations of In his book, The Rise of the Creative Class1, Richard Florida one million or more, Baltimore ranks 17th in percentage of correlates a region’s economic development with its share of Creative Class population and is the first industrial city to creative talent, tolerance towards diversity, capacity to invent begin a turnaround. or improve technology, and richness of public amenities. While Baltimore does well when compared to its In a nutshell, amenity-rich communities with a high peer cities, it does exceptionally well when combined as degree of diversity attract young, educated, and creative part of the Washington—Baltimore megalopolis. In a sense, people who contribute directly to economic growth. Members then, part of Baltimore’s true strength and potential lays in of the creative class—including scientists, engineers, archi- its proximity to Washington, DC. This unique positioning tects, designers, educators, artists, musicians, entertainers, provides Baltimore with a competitive advantage, since etc.—stimulate a region’s economy by introducing new ideas, Washington, DC is a truly modern, creative and high-tech new technology, and new creative content. Knowledge and epicenter. professional workers who engage in complex problem solving As an integrated part of the greater Washington that involves a great deal of independent judgment also belong metro, in the overall Creativity Index, Baltimore helps to this category. outrank the three largest consolidated metropolitan areas In total, the creative sector of the American economy (CMSAs): New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, employs more than 30% of the workforce and accounts for Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, and Chicago-Gary- nearly 50% of all wages and salaries earned in the U.S. This Kenosha (Table 1). The Washington-Baltimore Megalopolis ratio becomes increasingly important considering that lack of is also nationally ranked No. 1 on its percentage of creative diversity, tolerance, and a knowledge-based economy leads to talent in the region. The tremendous importance of this an out-migration of creative people, or brain-drain, to other ranking is understood as Baltimore’s immediate access to regions. the most significant economic force of our age: creativity. Creativity, as a major economic force, changes An analysis similar to this report2 but focusing on the way companies, cities and countries compete. Across Arlington County, VA, was published by Arlington Economic the U.S., creative metropolises have begun basing their Development (AED) in January of 2005. It claims that economic development strategies, at least partly, on building Arlington, despite its commonly perceived suburban profile, communities attractive to the creative class worker. fares well on several creativity measures, and is already There are countless examples of such transformations a “diverse and inclusive world-class urban community,” among high-tech regions from Silicon Valley to Seattle to attracting top talent from the Washington, DC region. Boston’s Route 128 area, and so on. Baltimore has an even greater potential to attract creative What has received less attention is how traditional talent, thanks to its greater openness to diversity3, a more industrial cities in the old industrial parallelogram – bordered established technology base, and more appealing territorial by Green Bay, WI; St. Louis, MO; Baltimore, MD; and amenities. Portland, ME – have fared as creative centers. Baltimore, as This research seeds a daring vision for Creative a southeast anchor of this parallelogram, incorporates many Baltimore: to be the first industrial metropolis establishing 1 Table 1 Creativity Index Ranking Within Size for Benchmarked CMSAs (Rank Ordered List by the Creativity Measure) Within Size Within Size Within Size Within Size Target Statistical Area Creativity Technology Tolerance Talent Rank Rank Rank Rank Washington--Baltimore, DC--MD--VA--WV CMSA 8 15 1 16 New York--Northern New Jersey--Long Island, NY--NJ--CT--PA CMSA 13 23 10 14 Los Angeles--Riverside--Orange County, CA CMSA 18 19 31 10 Chicago--Gary--Kenosha, IL--IN--WI CMSA 23 29 18 30 Source: Kevin Stolarick, PhD - Carnegie Mellon University Attracting Creative Talent itself as an inclusive, diverse, and creative economy. This Human creativity, the driving force in modern report also intends to educate community and civic authorities urban development and economic growth, is a consequence on the viability of this vision, and to mobilize them towards its of nurturing and stimulating environments. Talented implementation. Baltimore, more than any other city in the people are highly mobile and attracted to regions that region, has the opportunity to capitalize on the regional and offer not only economic opportunities, but also amenities global creative economy. for a variety of lifestyles. Key to understanding the new The feasibility of this claim is demonstrated in economic geography of creativity and its effects on the following pages, starting with a short description of the economic outcomes are the 3Ts of economic development: theory on creativity. An analysis of Baltimore’s performance Talent: or creative share of the workforce, based largely on dimensions of Talent, Tolerance, Technology, and on demographic, educational, and occupational Territory follows. This report analyses Baltimore both as characteristics. a metropolitan area generally and as a counterpart to other Tolerance: or diversity, based on indexes related to traditional industrial cities. It concludes with a short summary immigration, integration, sexual orientation and of findings. bohemian culture. Technology: or innovation, measured by patent activity and the high technology share of the economic base. Each T is a necessary—but by itself insufficient—condition to attract creative people, develop the creativity of the in- NOTE: digenous population base, generate innovation, and stimu- 1. Florida, Richard, The Rise of the Creative Class. Basis Books, New York, NY. 2002. All references to the “Creative Class” are derived from late economic growth. Richard Florida combines the 3 T’s this text unless otherwise noted. into a Creativity Index, in order to rank the creative poten- 2. The report titled “Benchmarking the Creative Class in Arlington, VA” (by Terry Holzheimer and Lauren Hodgin) is available on the Arling- tial of metropolitan regions. Additionally, this report ex- ton Economic Development website at http:// www.arlingtonvirginiausa.com/docs/creativeclass.pdf. pands on a fourth T—Territory—to account for Baltimore’s 3. The Arlington report measures diversity purely based on the region’s rich territorial and communal amenities. Based on rele- share of foreign-born population. It does not consider measures like the Gay Index and Bohemian Index. vance and availability of data, the 3 T’s (Talent, Tolerance, Technology) and the 4 T’s (Talent, Tolerance, Technology, Territory) are used interchangeably, as context dictates. 2 CreativityTable 2 Index Ranking for All Statistical Areas Creativity Index Ranking for All Statistical Areas (Rank Ordered List by Creativity Index) Target Statistical Area Creativity Index Talent Index Tolerance Index Technology Index Austin TX 0.991 0.956 0.790 0.848 San Francisco CA 0.988 0.957 0.939 0.844 San Jose CA 0.985 0.990 0.863 0.896 Raleigh-Durham NC 0.982 0.976 0.646 0.809 Seattle WA 0.979 0.956 0.789 0.808 Oakland CA 0.976 0.920 0.900 0.795 Boston MA-NH 0.970 0.967 0.671 0.677 Sacramento CA 0.967 0.802 0.778 0.703 Washington DC-MD-VA-WV 0.964 0.986 0.824 0.694 Atlanta GA 0.961 0.824 0.720 0.743 Portland OR-WA 0.955 0.838 0.714 0.829 Dallas TX 0.946 0.849 0.793 0.765 San Diego CA 0.940 0.820 0.839 0.778 New York NY 0.927 0.886 0.866 0.545 Phoenix AZ 0.909 0.659 0.739 0.779 Minneapolis MN-WI 0.906 0.890 0.613 0.676 Baltimore MD 0.903 0.874 0.671 0.497 Los Angeles CA 0.888 0.727 0.902 0.484 San Antonio TX 0.870 0.621 0.634 0.708 Philadelphia NJ-PA 0.867 0.812 0.595 0.619 Denver CO 0.861 0.887 0.763 0.557 Chicago IL 0.855 0.811 0.724 0.616 Source: Kevin Stolarick, PhD - Carnegie Mellon University Kevin Stolarick, PhD Information Systems Program Porter Hall 100A Carnegie Mellon Software Center Table 3 Creativity Index Ranking for Benchmarked Statistical Areas (Rank Ordered
Recommended publications
  • Upper Cenozoic Deposits of the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware

    Upper Cenozoic Deposits of the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware

    Upper Ceoozoic Deposits GEOLOGICAL SXJEVilY FRQfEBSIONAL lAPEE Upper Cenozoic Deposits of the Central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware By JAMES P. OWENS and CHARLES S. DENNY SURFACE AND SHALLOW SUBSURFACE GEOLOGIC STUDIES IN THE EMERGED COASTAL PLAIN OF THE MIDDLE ATLANTIC STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1067-A Upper Tertiary deltaic and shallow-water marine deposits form the backbone of the peninsula. The oldest marine deposits of Pleistocene age reach a maximum altitude of 15 meters (50 feet) and have been dated radiometrically at about 100,000 years UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1979 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY H. William Menard, Director Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Owens, James Patrick, 1924- Upper Cenozoic deposits of the central Delmarva Peninsula, Maryland and Delaware. (Surface and shallow subsurface geologic studies in the emerged coastal plain of the Middle Atlantic States) (Geological Survey professional paper ; 1067-A) Bibliography: p. Includes index. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.16:1067-A 1. Geology, Stratigraphic Cenozoic. 2. Geology Delmarva Peninsula. I. Denny, Charles Storrow, 1911- joint author. II. Title. III. Series. IV. Series: United States. Geological Survey. Professional paper ; 1067-A. QE690.093 551.7'8 77-608325 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock Number 024-001-03191-4 CONTENTS Abstract._____________________________________________________________
  • 2012-AG-Environmental-Audit.Pdf

    2012-AG-Environmental-Audit.Pdf

    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER ONE: YOUGHIOGHENY RIVER AND DEEP CREEK LAKE .................. 4 I. Background .......................................................................................................... 4 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ........................................................... 9 III. The Youghiogheny River/Deep Creek Lake Audit, May 16, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned............................................................................................. 12 CHAPTER TWO: COASTAL BAYS ............................................................................. 15 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 15 II. Active Enforcement Efforts and Pending Matters ............................................. 17 III. The Coastal Bays Audit, July 12, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned .. 20 CHAPTER THREE: WYE RIVER ................................................................................. 24 I. Background ........................................................................................................ 24 II. Active Enforcement and Pending Matters ......................................................... 26 III. The Wye River Audit, October 10, 2012: What the Attorney General Learned 27 CHAPTER FOUR: POTOMAC RIVER NORTH BRANCH AND SAVAGE RIVER 31 I. Background .......................................................................................................
  • Shoreline Management in Chesapeake Bay C

    Shoreline Management in Chesapeake Bay C

    Shoreline Management In Chesapeake Bay C. S. Hardaway, Jr. and R. J. Byrne Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William and Mary 1 Cover Photo: Drummond Field, Installed 1985, James River, James City County, Virginia. This publication is available for $10.00 from: Sea Grant Communications Virginia Institute of Marine Science P. O. Box 1346 Gloucester Point, VA 23062 Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering Number 356 Virginia Sea Grant Publication VSG-99-11 October 1999 Funding and support for this report were provided by... Virginia Institute of Marine Science Virginia Sea Grant College Program Sea Grant Contract # NA56RG0141 Virginia Coastal Resource Management Program NA470Z0287 WILLIAM& MARY Shoreline Management In Chesapeake Bay By C. Scott Hardaway, Jr. and Robert J. Byrne Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William and Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062 1999 4 Table of Contents Preface......................................................................................7 Shoreline Evolution ................................................................8 Shoreline Processes ..............................................................16 Wave Climate .......................................................................16 Shoreline Erosion .................................................................20 Reach Assessment ................................................................23 Shoreline Management Strategies ......................................24 Bulkheads and Seawalls
  • 19-1189 BP PLC V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

    19-1189 BP PLC V. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus BP P. L. C. ET AL. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1189. Argued January 19, 2021—Decided May 17, 2021 Baltimore’s Mayor and City Council (collectively City) sued various en- ergy companies in Maryland state court alleging that the companies concealed the environmental impacts of the fossil fuels they promoted. The defendant companies removed the case to federal court invoking a number of grounds for federal jurisdiction, including the federal officer removal statute, 28 U. S. C. §1442. The City argued that none of the defendants’ various grounds for removal justified retaining federal ju- risdiction, and the district court agreed, issuing an order remanding the case back to state court. Although an order remanding a case to state court is ordinarily unreviewable on appeal, Congress has deter- mined that appellate review is available for those orders “remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed pursuant to section 1442 or 1443 of [Title 28].” §1447(d). The Fourth Circuit read this provision to authorize appellate review only for the part of a remand order deciding the §1442 or §1443 removal ground.
  • Report on the Early History of the Alexandria, Virginia Sewerage System

    Report on the Early History of the Alexandria, Virginia Sewerage System

    Report on the Early History of the Alexandria, Virginia Sewerage System Jason Tercha January 16, 2017 In 1952, the Alexandria City Council created the first sanitation authority in Virginia. Four years later, the City of Alexandria Sewer Authority opened a water-treatment facility near the mouth of Hooff’s Run. Since 1956, the water treatment facility has treated the city’s sewerage discharge, purifying the sanitary water of the city and discharging clean water back into the environment. In response to more stringent environmental standards and renewed efforts to restore the health of the Chesapeake Bay, the Alexandria Sewer Authority upgraded the facility during the late 1990s and through the 2000s. Now known as Alexandria Renew Enterprises after a 2012 rebrand, the sewerage facility remains a crucial component of the city of Alexandria’s efforts to maintain the health and prosperity of its citizens and environment. This brief overview of the city of Alexandria’s twentieth and twenty-first century efforts to manage and treat its sewerage is well documented in city records, newspapers, and the annual reports of the Alexandria Sewer Authority.1 However, as much as these recent efforts to manage waste- and stormwater are known, the city’s earlier struggles to accomplish these goals have largely remained a mystery. The obscurity of Alexandria’s early sewerage control efforts might mistakenly suggest a dearth of water management efforts in the nineteenth century. As this report demonstrates, since the city’s founding Alexandrians exerted immense efforts to manage the excess stormwater and to dispose of the human and animal wastes by incorporating new technologies and practices to respond to evolving knowledge of human health and the environment of a growing regional entrepôt.
  • Understanding Divided Baltimore

    Understanding Divided Baltimore

    UNDERSTANDING DIVIDED BALTIMORE How Data, Especially Mapped Data, Informed the Course WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO • Divided Baltimore was a UB response to the events of April 2015. • We wanted to share information widely with students and with interested community members with hope that we could catalyze interest in learning how Baltimore became so divided. • Presentations built around a community forum • Graduate, undergraduate, and dual enrollment high school students were enrolled in sections of the course with their own instructor. THE NEW YORK TIMES CAPTURED HOW WE ORGANIZED THE COMMUNITY FORUM http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000003 973175/uniting-a-divided-baltimore.html October 20, 2015 - By A.J. CHAVAR - U.S. - Print Headline: "Uniting a Divided Baltimore“ USING DATA AND MAPS IN THE COURSE • Today, we want to report on how we relied on the good work of BNIA and many of you in compiling data and maps that help immeasurably in comprehending the issues we face in Baltimore in achieving a fair society. HISTORICAL DATA AND MAPS— BETSY NIX • UB History Professor Betsy Nix developed a lecture on the history of segregation in Baltimore that she has now presented to a range of agencies and groups from Annie E. Casey to OSI to the last round of Baltimore City Police recruits. 1860 212,418 residents 25,500 or 12% free people of color from Freedom’s Port 1937 Redlining Map The Baltimore Chop The Baltimore Chop Map from Study for East-West Expressway, 1957. Johns Hopkins University, Sheridan Libraries. Baltimore Neighborhood Indicators Alliance,
  • Shoreline Evolution Chesapeake Bay Shoreline City of Norfolk, Virginia

    Shoreline Evolution Chesapeake Bay Shoreline City of Norfolk, Virginia

    Shoreline Evolution Chesapeake Bay Shoreline City of Norfolk, Virginia Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 2005 Shoreline Evolution Chesapeake Bay Shoreline City of Norfolk, VA C. Scott Hardaway, Jr. 1 Donna A. Milligan 1 Lyle M. Varnell 2 Christine Wilcox 1 George R. Thomas 1 Travis R. Comer 1 Shoreline Studies Program 1 Department of Physical Sciences and Wetlands Program 2 Center for Coastal Resources Management Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William & Mary Gloucester Point, Virginia 2005 This project was funded by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality’s Coastal Resources Management Program through Grant #NA17OZ2355 of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOAA or any of its subagencies or DEQ. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the City of Norfolk within the Chesapeake Bay estuarine system...................2 Figure 2. Location of localities in the Dune Act with jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional localities noted. ...2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Figure 3. Geological map of the City of Norfolk (from Mixon et al., 1989). ...........................3 Figure 4. Index of shoreline plates.............................................................4 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................. i Figure 5. Variability of dune and beach profiles within the City of Norfolk ............................7 Figure 6. Typical profile of a Chesapeake Bay dune system. ........................................7 LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................... i Figure 7. Photo of the Norfolk shoreline showing dune site NF3.. ...................................9 Figure 8.
  • Garrett County

    Garrett County

    Appendix D- Recreation Inventory County Acres Private/ quasi-public State/Federal Acres Courts Fields Trails (Miles) Campsites Basketball Basketball Baseball Multi Swimming XC Golf Public Beach Public Boat Site Recreation Resource Recreation Resource Recreation Resource Classification Ownership Comments/Amenities Indoor Outdoor Tennis Other Gymnasium Softball Soccer Purpose Pools Skiing Hiking Biking ORV Snowmobile Total Public Pvt Courses (ft.) Launch Areas Accident Community Park East 4.1 Neighborhood Park Town of Accident Ball field, walking trail, horseshoe pits 1 1 1 0.25 0.25 Accident Community Park West 12.5 Neighborhood Park Town of Accident Pavilions, volleyball Accident Elementary School 9.6 School Recreation Park Board of Education Basketball court, playground 1 1 1 1 Accident Community Pond 2.4 Community Park Town of Accident Fishing pond Aquatic Center 1.0 Marine Private Private marina 1 ASCI -Adventure Sports Center Int'l. 17.0 Special Use Area ASCI Man-made whitewater course Avilton Community Center 2.0 Special Use Area Avilton Community Assoc. Playground, basketball court, pavilion 1 Bear Creek Hatchery Fish Mgmt. Area 113.0 Natural Resource Area State of MD Fish management area Big Run State Park 300.0 State Park State of MD Camping, fishing, Savage River Reservoir access 29 1 Bill's Outdoor Center 1.0 Marine Private Lake access, shoreline Bills Marine Service, Inc. 1.0 Marine Private Marina, boat rentals 1 Bloomington Fire Co. Town Park 3.0 Community Park Bloomington Fire Co. Basketball court, walking trail, pavilion
  • The Recreation the Delmarva Peninsula by David

    The Recreation the Delmarva Peninsula by David

    THE RECREATION POTENTIAL OF THE DELMARVA PENINSULA BY DAVID LEE RUBIN S.B., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1965) SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOT THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN CITY PLANNING at the MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY June, 1966 Signature of Author.,.-.-,.*....... .. .*.0 .. .. ...... .. ...... ... Department of City and Regional Planning May 23, 1966 Certified by.... ....... .- -*s.e- Super....... Thesis Supervisor Accepted by... ... ...tire r'*n.-..0 *10iy.- .. 0....................0 Chairman, Departmental Committee on Graduate Students 038 The Recreation Potential of the Delmarva Peninsula By David Lee Rubin Submitted to the Department of City and Regional Planning on 23 May, 1966 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in City Planning. rhis thesis is a plan for the development of Lne recreation potential of the Delmarva Peninsyla, the lower counties of Delaware and the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Virginia, to meet the needs of the Megalopolitan population. Before 1952, the Delmarva Peninsula was isolated, and no development of any kind occurred. The population was stable, with no in migration, and the attitudes were rural. The economy was sagging. Then a bridge was built across the Chesapeake Bay, and the peninsula became a recreation resource for the Baltimore and Washington areas. Ocean City and Rehoboth, the major resorts, have grown rapidly since then. In 1964, the opening of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel further accellerated growth. There are presently plans for the development of a National Seashore on Assateague Island, home of the Chincoteague ponies, as well as state parks along the Chesapeake Bay, and such facilities as a causeway through the ocean and a residential complex in the Indian River Bay.
  • Mayor and City Council of Baltimore V. Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company, 65 A. 353, 104 Md. 485 (Dec

    Mayor and City Council of Baltimore V. Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company, 65 A. 353, 104 Md. 485 (Dec

    Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company, 65 A. 353, 104 Md. 485 (Dec. 19, 1906) Russell K. George I. INTRODUCTION Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company1 concerns the condemnation by the City of Baltimore of properties owned by the Baltimore and Philadelphia Steamboat Company ("BPSC"). After the Great Fire of 1904, which destroyed most of the Baltimore business district, the City embarked on an effort to make various urban improvements. Among other things, the City endeavored to widen Pratt Street fifty feet to the south by condemning wharves at the corner of Light and Pratt Streets that were owned and leased by the Steamboat Company.2 The Burnt District Commission awarded the Company minimal damages for the property that was condemned, and instead assessed benefits against the Company for the widening of Pratt Street.3 The Company appealed to the Baltimore City Circuit Court, where Judge Henry Stockbridge essentially reversed the Commission awards, giving the Company much more compensation than it initially received. Both the City and the Company cross- appealed. The Maryland Court of Appeals rendered its decision on December 19, 1906, affirming Stockbridge's awards. The case represents a microcosm of the improvement efforts in Baltimore following the fire. The litigation pursued by the Steamboat Company shows how property owners posed an obstacle to urban improvements. Christine Rosen discusses this in The Limits of Power: Great Fires and the Process of City Growth in America, 1 65 A. 353 (1906). 2 See Diagram, attached. 1 concluding that the progressive nature of Baltimore, which had developed prior to the fire,4 helped the City to overcome various obstacles to change, including private property ownership and political deadlock.5 In addition, the case presents issues concerning the condemnation value of waterfront property, particularly the value of certain riparian rights and the question of whether they are to be included in the fair market value of the property.
  • Arlington County Code Chapter 61

    Arlington County Code Chapter 61

    ARLINGTON COUNTY CODE ARLINGTON COUNTY CODE Chapter 61 CHESAPEAKE BAY PRESERVATION ORDINANCE* __________ * Editors Note: Ord. No. 03-1, adopted Feb. 8, 2003, amended Ch. 61, in its entirety, to read as herein set out in §§ 61-1-61-19. __________ § 61-1. Title § 61-2. Purpose and Intent § 61-3. Definitions § 61-4. Administration. § 61-5. Areas of Applicability. § 61-6. Use Regulations. § 61-7. Allowable Development, Modifications, and Encroachments in RPAs. § 61-8. Minimum Lot Size. § 61-9. Interpretation of RPA Boundaries. § 61-10. General Performance Standards for Development in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. § 61-11. Reserved. § 61-12. Water Quality Impact Assessment. § 61-13. Plan of Development Process in Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas. § 61-14. Nonconforming Uses and Structures. § 61-15. Exemptions. § 61-16. Exceptions. § 61-17. Enforcement. § 61-18. Penalties. § 61-19. Severability. § 61-1. Title This chapter shall be known and referenced as the "Chesapeake Bay Preservation Ordinance" of Arlington County. (Ord. No. 03-1, 2-8-03) § 61-2. Purpose and Intent A. This chapter is enacted to implement the requirements of § 62.1-44.15:67 et seq., of the Code of Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Designation and Management Regulations (9VAC25-830-10 et. seq.) The intent of the County Board and the purpose of the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Area Overlay District created herein is to: 1. Protect existing high quality state waters; 2. Restore all other state waters to a condition or quality that will permit all reasonable public uses and will support the propagation and growth of all aquatic life, which might reasonably be expected to inhabit them; 3.
  • COMMUNITY SCHOOLS Case Studies of What Works

    COMMUNITY SCHOOLS Case Studies of What Works

    COMMUNITY SCHOOLS Case studies of what works Baltimore 03 Maryland 03 BALTIMORE CITY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS Community schools, out-of-school-time programs (learning opportunities that take place outside the typical school day), and wraparound services have long existed, separately, in order to meet the needs of Baltimore youth and families. In the early 2000s, these various efforts were uncoordinated, which limited their impact. In 2012, the mayor’s office and Baltimore City Public Schools (BCPS) adopted the Family League of Baltimore’s Community and School Engagement strategy to align the resources and goals of the schools and community. The strategy engaged community-based organizations, such as Elev8 Baltimore and the Y in Central Maryland, to coordinate community school and out-of-school-time efforts. Today, BCPS has approximately 50 community schools engaging with a variety of community partners. The Family League (http:// familyleague.org/), a Baltimore-based nonprofit organization, currently manages funding, partnerships and development, as well as convenes the community school initiative coordinating community partners at the city level. Marietta English, president of the Baltimore Teachers Union (BTU) (http://www.baltimoreteachers.org/), and her members play a key role at school sites as well as at the district and city levels, helping serve the whole child and helping achieve the city’s community school vision. Baltimore’s public school needs achieving this, because each Education Roundtable that included and assets are as diverse as their school tailors its strategy to the community school staff, families population of 82,000 students, specific needs of the school. and students, as well as politicians, creating a rich set of opportunities local community leaders, and and challenges.