“While we applaud the proposed amendment to County development law as a small step in the right direction, as it is currently drafted it appears that [Bill 24-17] would not apply to the Bethesda African Cemetery because that project already has a pending subdivision application, and this law won’t take effect for months,” said Rev. Dr. Segun Adebayo, Pastor of Macedonia Baptist Church. “On a broader scale, it only addresses unsubdivided land, and given how much land in Montgomery County is already developed, this law has very limited future application,” he said.
The Church also took issue with the role the Planning Department is given by the bill. A church spokesperson said the Macedonia coalition suggests that "oversight of the implementation of cemetery policy be shifted to the Montgomery County Historical Commission, and taken out of the corrupt Planning Department with its cozy relationship with developers."
Based on the public comments of two of the bill's sponsors, it appears the Council is trying to pass "a bill" to be able to "look busy" on the topic, and to later claim they "took action on cemeteries." In reality, the bill doesn't erase the shameful actions and inaction on the Westbard cemetery by the Council and Planning Board, nor the institutional racism that was revealed when cemetery advocates began poking and prodding various parts of the County government on this issue.
There already is a cemetery inventory in the County. Had the inventory and map proposed by this bill been law when the Westbard sector plan process began in 2014, nothing would have happened differently regarding the cemetery. It was not on the inventory, and only would have been added at this point, when the church would have requesting it be considered for addition.
Nothing in the bill would stop development on a cemetery, or prevent relocation of remains to other sites. Importantly, despite much talk by the Council, the bill contains no provisions to address the special issues related to African-American burial grounds in particular, such as neglect and poor official recordkeeping. There's no reason to oppose the bill, but it should be understood that it doesn't help the Westbard situation, and the bill could most certainly be improved.
21 comments:
Ugh, more government oversight and regulation and a crappy mapping and inventory tool that will immediately be out of date and likely clunky and useless.
Where's your usual outrage about Hans Riemer?
Umm, the "Montgomery County Historical Commission" is actually the Montgomery County Historic Preservation Commission. It is housed in the Montgomery County Planning Department and staffed by the Planning Department.
So.. doesn't the church already know where their cemetery is, or that's part of the issue?
If they don't know, isn't it the church's fault for not keeping track of where they buried people?
Here is Dyer's old view on Westbard
http://robertdyer.blogspot.com/2013/12/equity-one-launches-westbard.html
all dyer says is "argle bargle"
I agree that the proposed legislation does not address the development issues surrounding the presumed cemetery at Westbard.
No reason to oppose the legislation, but County residents should know that the bill does not offer a protocol to follow when a cemetery is discovered during development planning, as in this case. In no way is the problem solved.
7:40: The cemetery was owned by an African-American fraternal organization that bought land for burials; the land was not owned by Macedonia Baptist Church. It is unclear how the developer of what is now Westwood Towers gained control of the cemetery land.
The records concerning the development of the cemetery land were destroyed in 2015. Coincidentally or not (and I tend to think not), this was the same year that Montgomery County's historical research on the cemetery came to light.
"The records concerning the development of the cemetery land were destroyed in 2015."
[citation needed]
this whole blog could be titled [citation needed]
The bill is sponsored by Councilmembers Berliner, Leventhal and Rice, all of whom are running for County office in 2018.
I just read the bill and Dyer is correct: it would not have protected the Westbard cemetery and does nothing to prevent such situations in the future. That doesn't inspire confidence in Messrs. Berliner, Leventhal and Rice.
A meaningful bill would require the Planning Department:
- to publicly disclose all information discovered about a possible cemetery site during the land use planning process;
-to publicly inform community members, the Planning Board and, if applicable, the County Council about the possible cemetery in all subsequent public presentations and hearings;
- to have the cemetery site investigated by the landowner, using best practices, before a land use plan could be approved;
-to solicit stakeholder input, including descendant and community views, on the appropriate memorialization or relocation of the cemetery;
- to take the results of the investigation and stakeholder input into account when finalizing the master plan and development plans for the cemetery site.
11:29: The records destruction information came to light in legal discovery for the Westbard lawsuit, from Planning Department internal documents. I believe that a February 2017 Washington Post story also reported that the records had been destroyed.
The Maryland Historical Trust is involved in documenting the existence of cemeteries. Perhaps that is an organization that could implement a cemetery registry.
11: 29 and 11:55-- FWIW, County residents can ask for the Planning Department's internal documents about the cemetery through a freedom of information request. Might be a good story for Dyer to pursue.
11:29 & 11:55-- 11:55 is right about the Washington Post article, which says that the Westbard cemetery development records were shredded in 2015:
Citation: Bill Turque, "Battlefield of Memory," Washington Post, February 23, 2017.
I want to elect Robert Dyer just so he will be subject to the FOIA.
Dodging Dyer = Jailed Dyer!
@11:18 Thanks for the explanation. So why does the church care if the land was never theirs, but rather controlled by another organization?
For example, let's say the Knights of Columbus on Old Georgetown Road had a burial ground for their members, then sold it. Why would the Beth El synagogue just down the same road care at all? Shoulnd't it be the Knights of Columbus members complaining, and do they even have a standing to complain if they willingly sold the land?
6:09: Macedonia never owned the cemetery but members of their congregation were buried in it. The cemetery was created and owned by an African-American fraternal organization, until it was sold for unknown reasons in the late 1950s.
So, the owners of the cemetery sold it? Interesting. If you want to keep property, don't sell it. What a bunch of whiney freeloaders! The people who own this land have every right to do with it what they please. NIMBY's go away!
6:09: The Church cares because a)some of its congregants were buried there and b)because the church's current congregation includes descendants of those buried at Westbard.
It is unclear how and when the cemetery land was transferred to the developer of what is now Westwood Towers, because the relevant records have been destroyed.
@ 7:50-- The people who own this land are subject to local planning requirements and to state laws related to the relocation of cemeteries.
As you know, Westbard has been subject to an extensive planning process which rightly should consider whether the cemetery ought to be memorialized in some way. Sadly, the County did not publicly examine the cemetery issue until *after* the Westbard master plan had been approved. The investigation of the cemetery's boundaries should be done thoroughly and should influence the final layout of the Westbard site. In addition, any human remains still on site should be treated with dignity.
Post a Comment