Veterans Suffer During Fort Howard Housing Project Standoff - by Diane Carliner - Ashley Scarborough, Federal Development's representative at Fort Howard Happy smiles were everywhere on November 20, 2006. One of them belonged to Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger who, with a long-handled shovel, was turning the earth for a groundbreaking ceremony. A beaming Senator Barbara Mikulski was nearby. Veterans Affairs Secretary James Nicholson was at the podium making welcoming remarks. The occasion was the announcement of a one-of-a-kind community for senior veterans and their spouses, and possibly some citizen seniors. Federal Development, LLC, a private company headquartered in the nation's capital, had been selected to build 1,300 units of affordable housing for those in their twilight years who had served their country honorably. Surrounded by the Chesapeake Bay and the Patapsco River, Bayside at Fort Howard offered a variety of condominiums and a choice of lifestyles, including independent living, assisted living and nursing care. A clinic, gym, swimming pool and reception room were planned for the more than 100-acre facility, along with a movie theater and marina. According to John Reutemann of Federal Development, “Over 1,200 veterans signed on and many chose to pay the application fee so that they could be assured of senior housing when Bayside started delivering residential units.” Then suddenly - nothing. On March 14, 2007, the Baltimore County Administration wrote to Federal Development asking them to file a concept plan for a Planned Unit Development. The county demanded that county government approve any and all development on this  U.S government property.  Reutemann said Federal Development declined their demands, based on their interpretation of a federal law and legal counsel. “Our contention is simply that Baltimore County and the State of Maryland cannot trump federal government (Veterans Administration) jurisdiction for this federal government-owned property.” Reutemann continued, “The county demands were contrary to prior agreements with the Veterans Administration and the county. Most importantly, if county demands were met, the project would be delayed for at least two years and the necessary rental rates would have to increase by at least 40 percent. I have met many of the future residents. They cannot wait that long. They deserve to be treated better.” The next step was the opening of the Fort Howard Veterans Museum and the Federal Development on-site sales office on October 15, 2007. Following that, Timothy Kotroco, Baltimore County Director of Permits and Development Management, wrote to Federal on Oct. 25 asking them to immediately cease all development-related activities at Fort Howard. Following that, Edward Bradley III, Designated Veterans Administration Representative, wrote to Federal On December 12, 2007, “Your letter [to the county] reflects only your opinion that the applicability of state and local approval is not required. VA disagrees with that opinion.” County government concurred. “There is absolutely no question that this development is subject to county and state approvals including important environmental protections, public safety considerations and other means of ensuring quality and safe housing for the veterans and others who will live there,”  said Ellen Kobler, spokesperson. Fast-forwarding a bit, the Federal Development Project Coordinator created a form letter which she requested the veterans sign to show their support. The letter was dated Feb. 25, 2008 and directed to local elected officials, including county executive Jim Smith. It stated in part, “We served our Country without hesitation and risked our lives so Baltimore County residents could live in freedom.” Some veterans wrote notes at the end of it. H. Eugene John mentioned that he is a WW II veteran whose Navy ship sunk going into Normandy on D+ 1 Day. Josephine Petrie, a Vietnam era nurse, wrote, “I can't believe you can turn your backs to us…You should be ashamed of yourself. It really is a disgrace the way you treat us Vets.” A William of zip code 21244, whose last name is illegible, wrote on March 7, 2008, “I am 82 years of age & fought & [was] wounded in WWII. Please give us veterans your consideration in providing a last home for many of us.” Elizabeth Allred added a note at the bottom of the letter saying her husband is 100 percent disabled with advanced Parkinson's, dementia, colon cancer, loss of hearing, balance problems and that they are in financial difficulties. She continued, “He spent his career as an Army man serving in both WW II and the Korean War. Now he is a forgotten soldier. The individuals who are now in the position to keep him and all veterans are turning their back by placing obstacles such as that mentioned in the above letter.” Ashley Scarborough, Federal Development's representative at Fort Howard, where Federal has taken on a 65- year lease with a renewal clause, noted he gets five to ten calls a week from veterans who are wondering what to do. “They are old, they are sick. If they are renting, they don't know whether or not to renew the lease. Some are staying with relatives, and the relatives want them to move out, but they don't know where to go. If they own a home, they don't know whether or not they should sell.”Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger blames Federal Development for the deadlock. He met with representatives Claude Hutchison and Edward Bradley III from the Department of Veterans Affairs a few weeks ago and was told the VA would not give Federal Development a waiver from meeting with local government. Ruppersberger opined, “I think it is disgraceful the way Federal Development is using veterans as a pawn to get sympathy. They sat at table with local officials in Durham, North Carolina, in a similar situation and were able to negotiate an agreeable plan. I can't understand why they can't negotiate with Jimmy Smith.” Reutemann of Federal responded, “We disagree with the current position of the Veterans Administration. We do not think this is a question of a waiver. We think this is a simple application of existing federal law.” Concerning Ruppersberger's comment that Federal is using the veterans as pawns, Reutemann stated, “The real disgrace is the lack of support from the federal government. Our company is putting in a lot of time and effort to build this facility. We are trying to help the veterans move into Fort Howard retirement housing sooner rather than later. We asked for veterans' support and received 1,200 signatures. We are working on a project in the Durham, North Carolina municipality. We have not previously encountered approval difficulties of the type we are experiencing with Baltimore County.” Officials from Anne Arundel and Harford Counties agreed to go on record describing their involvement or lack of it with Fort Meade and Aberdeen Proving Ground. Erik Robey, Assistant to the Chief Administrative Officer of Anne Arundel County, said the same type of enhanced use lease is on federal land at Fort Meade for an office park, “But our only involvement is to get the developer to pay for some infrastructure, especially roads. Lease holders of federal land do not pay taxes, so we think it is only fair that we get funding for infrastructure to balance owners of local office parks who pay taxes. Concerning construction, building or development management, we never get involved. This is federal land.” Jim Richardson, Director of Economic Development, concluded Harford County never gets involved in an enhanced use lease between a private developer and the Army at Aberdeen Proving Ground. “That is federal land,” he said. Delegate Pat McDonough, R-7, disagrees with Ruppersberger that the developer is at fault. McDonough serves on the Veterans Committee in the Maryland General Assembly and sponsors legislation for veterans. “The bottom line should be who the project benefits. The veterans seemed concerned about prices. While the project is being held up, costs may increase,” he said. John Miklos served on the War Memorial Commission of Maryland for 20 years and hopes for a peaceable solution to this contentious issue. “It is a tragedy that this excellent plan is not on its way to completion. Jim Smith has been a good county executive overall. He has continually said he wants to help veterans. Here is an opportunity for him to be a leader and see this project to completion in an amicable and affordable way for those who have given so much to our country. “Al Clasing, a decorated combat veteran who champions veterans' rights, observed that we need someone appointed as a liaison for veterans' affairs. I know of no other county in Maryland that does not have a veterans liaison. It would be beneficial for county authorities to meet with Al Clasing, who is active in local veterans' affairs.” Clasing responded, “The ball is now in the county's court. They have to make sure that all veterans are treated the way they should be. I hope the delay doesn't make this project so expensive that only the rich will be able to live at Fort Howard. I was hoping to move there with my wife so that if anything happens to me, she will have a safe place to stay.”