Other Brief Considerations

Inner Harbor 2.1 – Other Brief Considerations

 

    The Inner Harbor 2.0 plan suggests a consolidated ticketing facility for all commercial boats integrated into the finger piers on Light Street.  New buildings should not be placed between the promenade and waterfront – a prime aspect of the Inner Harbor is full public access to the waterfront and preservation of harbor views.

     

     A comprehensive assessment of all Inner Harbor artwork, monuments, engraved brick paving etc. should be undertaken.  If art work is to be moved, all efforts should be made to find a proper relocation -  the Inner Harbor 2.0 plan shows new improvements of the site of the Pride of Baltimore I monument,  recycled “dolphin” fountain/sculpture at Pier 4, and sculpture east of the World Trade Center with no mention of what will happen to them.

 

    

    Projection art from light fixtures can provide a festive  appearance at the Inner Harbor and potential revenue source from sponsors. 

     All illuminated signs placed more than 45 feet above the ground on buildings and visible from the promenade should be considered billboards and subjected to a special tax based upon square footage of the sign.  Historic signs (Domino Sugars) would be exempt from such a tax.  The revenue generated  from this tax would  go towards improving and maintaining the promenade.  These signs are not for identification purposes, but as general advertising.  The number of these signs have increased exponentially in recent years and are often for corporate entities that can well afford to pay for such advertising.

     

     Much of the land and buildings directly along the waterfront is owned by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore and leased to a variety of developers.  Instead of generating property tax revenue, payment in lieu of tax agreements govern many of these sites.  A comprehensive review of these lease and tax agreements should be conducted in order to determine if they are equitable and if the City of Baltimore is properly compensated for providing infrastructure and other services at these locations.

     Most of the stake holders involved with the Inner Harbor 2.0 plan were business entities rather than neighborhood residents and Baltimore citizens that use the Inner Harbor on a regular basis.  An improved effort should be made to solicit the opinions and ideas of the general public prior to amending the current master plan for the Inner Harbor.  A series of town hall meetings are needed before deciding the future of Baltimore’s most valuable resource.  A first step is to decide upon a series of principles to guide future development of the Inner Harbor.  These principles should include:  maintain complete public access to the waterfront, the Inner Harbor should be for people not cars (eliminate to every extent possible parking directly on the waterfront) and every effort should be made to encourage local business development at the Inner Harbor, not just national chains.  Once these principles are established, it should be relatively easy to  decide on whether to build a physical Inner Harbor Crossing or continue beach volley ball  on Rash Field, etc.