In a decision that could alter Baltimore City?s approach to condemning property, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled that papers and meetings of the Baltimore Development Corp. must be open to the public.
Baltimore Development Corporation is the nonprofit agency created by the city to handle development in the city.
The corporation has used eminent domain laws to condemn property in the city to make it available for developers.
For example, the city threatened to use eminent domain laws to get abandoned and occupied properties around the Johns Hopkins Hospital area in Baltimore to create large parcels of land that are now available to build new homes and office complexes for a planned research park, according to Steve Anderson, an attorney for the Institute of Justice, a public interest law firm, representing property owners.
Construction has already begun.
The case before the appeals court ? City of Baltimore Development Corporation v. Carmel Realty Associates ? involved condemning property on the city?s west side for redevelopment, according to the Institute for Justice.
The court stated in its verdict: “When one is forced to convey his or her property to a public entity it is in contravention, albeit alleviated by compensation and thus permitted, of a constitutional right and, seemingly, such proceedings should be even more open to public scrutiny especially when the property might ultimately be conveyed to other private parties.”
According to anews release from the Institute of Justice, Baltimore, “property owners within the [west side] area requested documents from the BDC under Maryland?s Public Information Act.”
“The owners also sought information regarding meetings of the BDC?s Board of Directors under Maryland?s Open Meeting Act. The owners also sought information regarding meetings of the BDC?s Board of Directors under Maryland?s Open Meeting Act. The BDC did not comply with either request,” the release states.
A spokesperson for the Baltimore County Development Corporation said president M.J. “Jay” Brodie was not available to comment on the verdict.
The Baltimore City Solicitor?s office, which represented the development corporation in the court case, did not return telephone calls for comment.
William Maurer, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, said the city argued in court that the development corporation was a nonprofit not subject to the state?s open meeting law, often referred to as the sunshine law.
