Maryland's Supreme Court yesterday agreed to hear the appeal of the Bethesda African Cemetery Coalition to overturn a state appellate court ruling regarding the sale of property that includes a major portion of Moses African Cemetery in Bethesda. The June ruling itself overturned an injunction by Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge Karla Smith, that froze the impending sale of Westwood Tower at 5401 Westbard Avenue to Charger Ventures. Charger Ventures withdrew its purchase offer following Smith's ruling, but Westwood Tower owner Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County appealed to the higher court and won.
The Supreme Court's ultimate ruling in this case will have local and national implications for Black cemeteries, many of which are today in states of desecration and disrepair, hidden, or under threat from development. Moses African Cemetery is in all three categories.
Smith ruled that HOC had entered a sale agreement without notifying the descendants of those buried in the cemetery, and without giving them a chance to weigh in on the sale, as required under Maryland law. Inexplicably, the appellate court found that following the law was not necessary.
This is a common occurrance when citizens challenge developers and powerful real estate interests in any Montgomery County or Maryland court. BACC noted yesterday that the Maryland Supreme Court only accepts about 15% of the certiorari petitions filed. But residents win over developers in our courts at an even lower rate than that, with judges blatantly ignoring statutory requirements on developers and planning authorities, as in the Westbard case. Smith, a relatively recent appointee to the Circuit Court in 2015, was a rare exception in ruling that the laws actually do apply to developers in Montgomery County.
Photo courtesy Bethesda African Cemetery Coalition
4 comments:
No comment necessary.
"Inexplicably, the appellate court found that following the law was not necessary"
What a ridiculous sentence for a "news" article... This is why journalists need editors. The appellate court gave an extremely thorough and well-reasoned explanation.
5:50: If the law isn't going to be enforced, and it clearly wasn't here, it should be removed from the books. We can't have one system of law for the average citizen, and another for developers.
The appeals court did enforce the law as written. If the legislature wants to change the wording of the law from "may" to "shall," they have the power to do so.
I recommend reading the written opinion of the appeals court. It's quite informative. That is, for anyone who is capable of considering facts and reaching independent judgement. As opposed to folks who have made up their mind beforehand.
Post a Comment