Moxley refuses to save Arden

Tell councilman community wants Bloede House to stay

Letter to Editor of the Catonsville Times published: August 20, 2008

Councilman Sam Moxley decided to allow the demolition of the Victor Bloede house on Forest Avenue.

His four reasons for not placing the house on the County Landmarks list are quoted below from his e-mail to me and others. Following each one is my response.

"I based this decision on several factors. First, this property was considered for landmark nomination in 2006. At the time, the Landmark Preservation Commission did not move forward because staff determined the existing house was not historic and the application was withdrawn."

Reply: Staff did a hasty drive-by, and did not know the historic significance of Mr. Bloede, which is the reason his house was nominated to the landmarks list. In January, the Landmarks Preservation Commission voted 7-3 to put the house on the Preliminary Landmarks List, which makes any earlier considerations irrelevant.

"Also, the LPC staff review of this recent third party request did not support landmark status. In fact, the county staff did not believe the house is 'a distinctive example of a particular architectural style or period' and that 'the house Mr. Bloede lived in while he was notable burned down.'"

Reply: The house was not nominated for its architecture; it was nominated -- and approved by the LPC -- because of its association with Mr. Bloede. It's true that the original house burned, but the new house occupies the footprint of the old one, and Mr. Bloede lived on the site for 40 years.

While Albert Einstein lived in Princeton, his productive days were behind him. Should Einstein's house in Princeton be demolished for a new subdivision?

"Additionally, the LPC's own technical committee recommended that the property not be listed: that it be torn down instead."

Reply: The full LPC disagreed and overwhelmingly voted to put the house on the Preliminary Landmarks List.

"Lastly, the property owner did not apply for this status. While I am very supportive of historic preservation, it is important to me to have the property owner's support. When someone else applies for the status, I expect there to be absolutely no question as to the validity of the request. With the reports I received from county staff, the LPC, and residents and interested persons, that did not happen here."

Reply: The property owner does not live in the United States. He is an absentee landlord. The push for demolition comes from a developer, who does not live in the area and does not even own the property yet.

Under these circumstances, I don't see why their desires should outweigh those of the community, especially since all the new houses can fit on the site without having to demolish the Bloede House.

The law and the facts overwhelmingly support the landmarking of the Bloede House. Its demolition in the face of community opposition can only be construed as a handout to a developer.

How do we know?

Because there is one question Mr. Moxley did not address: How does Catonsville benefit from the destruction of the Bloede House?

It's not too late. The County Council will meet Aug. 26 at 2 p.m. to discuss the landmarks bill.

Please contact Councilman Moxley and ask him to add the Bloede House to the landmarks list.

Daniel Rosen
Catonsville