An Op-Ed on Mt. Vernon Place Park and the Conservancy

– This is the full text of a letter to The Brew from Art Kutcher, a Mount Vernon Place resident, and Hugh C. Ronalds, an organizer of Save the Trees Alliance

Baltimore City’s leaders will soon determine the future of its most famous and iconic public space: The Mt. Vernon Place Park. The grand idea is that the City, financially unable to maintain the Park, is about to benefit from the generosity, good taste and judgment of a group of wealthy, influential and civic-minded citizens who have volunteered to restore the Park to its former glory after years of neglect. Sadly this idea is a myth. The reality? Under the proposed Public/Private Partnership Agreement the financially stressed City, unable to find the $350k per year needed to maintain the Park will nevertheless give both the Park and $500k per year to a private self-selected group of individuals that calls itself the “Mt. Vernon Place Conservancy”. What does this self-styled “Conservancy” offer in return? Regrettably, not much since it –
1. Refuses to commit any of its own funds.
2. Fails to say what it is going to do with the $500k per year given to it.
3. Promises to destroy the Park’s most treasured living feature – its healthy trees and
4. Plans to spend millions of dollars of public/taxpayers’ money replacing the current much beloved landscape with one that is neither necessary nor desirable.

Why does the “Conservancy” want to replace the landscape and destroy the trees? 1.They claim that the trees’ poor health warrants their destruction and replacement and 2. They claim that restoration to a previous landscape plan would honor the Park with an historic and aesthetically more pleasing design. Unfortunately, both claims have turned out to be false. All the independent arborists (including the former Baltimore Supt. of Parks have agreed the trees are healthy and do not warrant removal. As for the “restoration” – the “Hastings Plan” (named for Thomas Hastings 1860-1929) which the “Conservancy” claims to be restoring bears no resemblance to the “Conservancy’s” design: a classic unhealthy “military” lineup of identical trees. Instead the “Hastings Plan” looks quite like the flowing natural landscape of ecologically balanced, mixed trees we have today!

We fully admit to a love for nature and a particular love for these trees that have taken so many years to grow to their present majesty, providing a beautiful, natural and rich canopy protecting us and admiring visitors from around the world from our hot summer sun. But for those indifferent to nature there are equal if not even greater concerns. The wholesale replacement of the current landscape comes with huge costs: 1. Financial ($10 million of the total $12 million project cost) and 2. Disruption (to the Park and its neighborhood). Why such a large expenditure? The new (smaller) trees the “Conservancy” plans to install will be vulnerable for years to come until they establish root systems approaching those of the large mature trees we have today. Accordingly, the Conservancy plans to dig up the Park and install large cisterns (huge metal water holding tanks) along with an elaborate plumbing system to supply the great amount of water these fragile trees will need. This is a massive construction project which the “Conservancy” admits will disrupt the Park (and the neighborhood) for years to come.

The “Conservancy’s” landscape plan promises great harm to the City, the Park, the neighborhood, and the taxpayers. Indeed, only the “Conservancy’s” private contractors (including its out-of-state design firm which came up with this plan) stand to benefit from its adoption. While the “Conservancy’s” plan is more than sufficient to reject the proposed Public/Private Partnership Agreement, the Agreement itself contains equal if not greater reasons to reject it. The record of Public/Private partnerships in other cities is indeed mixed. Those succeeding are matched if not exceeded by those that have failed, sometimes spectacularly. This Agreement, unfortunately, models the failures with its complete lack of safeguards to protect the public, most significantly, the absence of any meaningful public participation in the “Conservancy’s” board membership, and the Agreement’s failure to provide for any meaningful review and accountability for the “Conservancy’s” actions and performance. On these grounds alone the Agreement deserves to be soundly rejected.

While approving the Agreement would yield devastating consequences, rejecting it offers the possibility of a truly favorable outcome. We hope and believe that there may be some among the “Conservancy’s” board who really do wish to make a positive contribution and, if so, they need merely reject the costly and destructive landscape portion of their consultant’s plan and instead focus their energy, attention and resources on the much needed repairs to the Monument and Balustrades which have universal support. With the relatively modest funds required ($2 million) and the public’s opposition turning to enthusiastic support we believe that it is not at all unreasonable to think that this project could be carried out solely with private contributions thus avoiding the diversion of public funds from far more critical public needs. At the same time we would propose that the City retain the $500k per year offered to the “Conservancy” under the proposed Agreement and instead use it and the City’s considerable expertise to tending to the maintenance of the Park’s landscape. After all, the Agreement specifies that the City retains responsibility for the existing trees. Certainly the funds required should not be given to an entity that refuses the responsibility! And while they may be successful in other fields the “Conservancy’s” Board members certainly lack the credentials for such management as well as the experience as proven by the disappointing results of their pilot Park projects, while, in sharp contrast, just a few blocks South, the City’s expertise is on display in St. Paul Place Park with its magnificent display of well tended grounds.

By rejecting the proposed Agreement and refocusing the “Conservancy” and the Parks Department, the City’s leaders have the opportunity to finally end the long controversy, bring the community together and immediately begin the long delayed restoration of the Park to its former glory. Accordingly, we strongly urge that the Mayor and her fellow Board of Estimates’ members seize this unique and historic opportunity, reject the proposed Public/Private Partnership Agreement and open the door to a true and productive partnership between the City, the Conservancy and the Public.