Home | BaltimoreBrew.com

The Future of Baltimore's Harborplace

Politicsby Fern Shen9:01 amOct 10, 20240

Supreme Court of Maryland hears arguments in Harborplace charter amendment challenge

Lawyers for Baltimore and the state accuse petitioners of waiting too long to object, while their lawyer suggests delayed public release of the Question F language was a tactic to keep voters in the dark

Above: The Supreme Court of Maryland hears arguments in the city and state’s appeal in the Harborplace charter amendment case. (courts.state.md.us)

One of the most consequential matters to possibly come before Baltimore voters on November 5 still hangs in the balance as the Supreme Court of Maryland weighs arguments made yesterday in Annapolis about the Harborplace charter amendment.

With the general election taking place in less than a month and mail-in voting already underway, a decision is expected soon.

Lawyers for the city and the State Board of Elections made their case for reversing a lower court’s ruling last month that the wording of Question F on the ballot – permitting residences and off-street parking at the city’s Inner Harbor Park – was not “proper charter material” under the Maryland Constitution and was confusingly worded.

Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Cathleen M. Vitale, responding to a citizen lawsuit, declared that Question F was nullified and was not to be counted, even though it would appear on the already-printed ballots.

Her ruling would “erode trust” in the system, the lawyer representing the election board said, addressing the seven judges.

“When a voter opens up their ballot, they need to be confident of their vote – that what they’re going to do with that ballot means something,” argued assistant attorney general Daniel M. Kobrin. “Litigation this late in the election season simply erodes that confidence.”

The lawyer for the city also argued that the challenge by 20 citizens came too late, saying Question F’s “language is clear,” and that even if it isn’t, “there are lesser remedies to address the clarity issue.”

“Signage could be put up in polling places,” said Michael Redmond, director of the city’s appellate practice group.

“Simply posting something on the city or the state boards or the election board’s website would probably do the trick, as almost everyone has phones these days that can that can Google that in just a matter of seconds,” Redmond asserted.

Representatives from MCB Real Estate were present in the courtroom but did not address the proceedings.

The company, which purchased the Harborplace pavilions out of receivership, plans to knock down the structures and replace them with towers accommodating 900-1,000 apartment units together with a retail and commercial structure and a midrise office building.

Unsuccessful MPIA Requests

Much of the hearing was taken up with technical arguments on the issue of timing, with the city and state charging that the citizens group could have brought their challenge much sooner, stating that Baltimore’s city solicitor “drafted and certified the language of Ballot Question F on August 2.”

Representing the 20 individuals who filed the Question F lawsuit, attorney Thiru Vignarajah maintained that the city withheld public release of the referendum language until early September as a tactic to keep voters in the dark until the last minute.

Vignarajah explained why citizens had reason to believe the language would be released on September 2 and that as soon as “they saw it, they read it and within two days they found concerns, found a lawyer and filed a petition.”

Questioned repeatedly on this point by two of the judges, Vignarajah pushed back.

“I don’t think we brought it at a time when the General Assembly might have thought it was late,” he said, arguing that ballot challenges are “routinely brought in mid-September, early October” and in some cases after an election.

He also noted that throughout August, individuals – including members of the media – sought to obtain the language of the charter amendment through Maryland Public Information Act (MPIA) requests that were never granted.

The Baltimore Business Journal attempted unsuccessfully to get a copy of Question F four times in August, including filing an information request with the city law department on August 28, according to BBJ reporter Melody Simmons.

“The law department denied the request on August 30 in an email that said the law department was ‘not the custodian of the record you seek,’” Simmons reported.

Vignarajah also underlined one of the conclusions that Vitale reached in her ruling last month – that the proposed charter amendment is essentially a zoning change, which is the province of city agencies and lawmakers, not the city’s foundational charter.

This left citizens who objected to the MCB project “with only one tool, which [was] to go and amend the city charter . . . to reverse what would ordinarily be reversed by a zoning regulation,” he claimed.

Most Popular