The writer was fired from Essex Community College in 1993.
Charles Village Benefits District
I must take issue with Grenville Whitman's contention (letter, Oct. 4) that the proposal to create a benefits district in Charles Village "is dividing the Charles Village community and threatens to sever Charles Village from the rest of Baltimore."
The division is not as great as Mr. Whitman would have us believe, nor would the adoption of this proposal result in the ominously predicted severance of Charles Village from the rest of Baltimore.
. . . Almost all residents and business owners desire the same end: to improve the quality of life by making Charles Village a safer, cleaner, stabler (economically and socially) place to live.
The real focus of this debate then is (or at least ought to be) the means to that end. Unfortunately, that focus has been in some measure blurred by the introduction of a secondary debate -- not expressly stated, but implied -- about ideology and class warfare.
The proponents of the benefits district believe that the revenue generated by the surtax, along with money and in-kind services from Johns Hopkins University and Union Memorial Hospital, will enable the community to make demonstrable improvements in the safety, cleanliness and economic stability of the neighborhood.
Will these improvements turn Charles Village into the City of God? Of course not. But we believe it will cause a turn for the better. What is more certain is that to do nothing will cause a turn for the worse.
The opponents of the benefits district object on a number of scores, some legitimate, some not so:
First, there are those who are simply (and always) opposed to any new tax, no matter what benefits might accrue to them . . . They cannot be appealed to because, presumably, they fail to see how their own good is inextricably bound up with the greater good of the community . . .
Second, there are those who merely assert, "It won't work." (Mr. Whitman is at least careful enough to assert, "It probably won't work.")
One of the common themes in this argument is that there is not enough money to make a difference. Putting a half-dozen security people on the streets will make no difference whatever in the crime rate. But this attitude shows an ignorance of present police coverage.
Charles Village falls in one of three sectors that make up the Northern Police District. This sector is divided into six "posts" or assigned areas of patrol.
Of these, only one falls entirely within Charles Village. Three others have assigned areas that include small parts of the neighborhood, but which for the most part fall well outside the area, extending, in two cases, as far east as Loch Raven Blvd.
The reality is the police are overtaxed. They must frequently respond to calls outside of Charles Village, leaving our streets unpatrolled. Given this reality, there is a reasonable basis for believing that augmenting the sparse coverage we have now with security people (who would not be called out of the area) will make a difference.
Likewise, in regard to sanitation services and Charles Village real estate, it is reasonable to suppose that an effort thoughtfully directed at specific problems can produce results.
Last, there is that small group whose opposition is ideologically- or philosophically-based.
Most members of this group are not opposed to the tax per se but rather on the unfounded assumption that this proposal is "inherently elitist," that it, as Mr. Whitman claims, "encourages a 'we-they' attitude" and that it will "Guilfordize" Charles Village.
Leaving aside the question of whether Mr. Whitman believes that our more affluent neighbor to the north, Guilford, is, by reason of that affluence, by definition, bad, Charles Village never has been and never will be like Guilford. To say that the proposal will turn Charles Village into "an elitist little Guilford" is a red herring and, quite simply, silly.
LTC Mr. Whitman took great care to note, quite correctly, that Charles Village is made up of numerous interests. Its residents and business people are not a homogeneous group, socially, culturally or economically.
However, these differences among people do not preclude them from coming together to achieve a common and limited goal. They desire the same thing: safer, cleaner streets and a more stable neighborhood. To suggest otherwise is to create a division where none exists. It stresses the differences over the shared goal of the common good . . .
Joseph F. Sweeney
The Differences Between City and Private Schools
Marilyn McCraven's column, "In the Shadow of the Pen," Oct. 15, is exactly the wrong approach in discussing education in Baltimore. This is another example of The Sun's ineffective attitude toward the problem.
Ms. McCraven apparently just discovered the inadequacies of Baltimore schools. Where has she been for the last 30 years?