Final Thoughts

As I complete my semester-long study of the Blackwater Resort Communities debate, I find myself asking a question many students do when they finish up a school course: Did I learn anything? For most classes, the answer is yes, generally. For this independent project, which I consider to be the capstone of my studies at American University, I wholeheartedly agree that I not only learned a ton about the art of communication on an environmental issue, but also about my own personal values about development and the environment.

I began this study with the goal of observing and analyzing the communication efforts of the many players involved with this debate. I kept that theme going during the semester, but it evolved into something a bit different than that. I ended up studying how an environmental organization can have such a huge impact on a debate over an environmental issue--and not always for the better. The messaging, rhetoric and communication techniques were phenomenal to observe and and analyze because of the way people interpreted them based on their personal ideologies. The environment is one of those social issues that is difficult to sway people because of labeling and built-in stereotypes and morals. People who support environmental issues are often liberal, but are called hippies and other things ("Birkenstock knuckleheads," as I saw in this study). You're not going to appeal to a conservative audience with that stereotype.

I was really proud of myself for doing my best in two areas: not letting my personal ideology show through in my analysis, and concentrating on only the communication efforts, rather than the issue. I have been following this proposed development since sometime last summer, and have been strongly opposed to it the whole time. I absolutely love the Cambridge/Blackwater area, and the rural culture of the Eastern Shore. When I found out about this proposed development through a Daily Times article I was so mad that someone could think it would be ok to destroy the pristine scenery of Egypt Road. As I began this study, I knew it would be difficult for me to keep my own bias out of my writing, and also to focus on what other groups were saying rather than what I felt should be done. But I found an outlet in studying communication. It was good to analyze what these environmental groups were doing and saying, because I began to think about messages that I had seen and read from CBF and other environmental groups, and if I had supported them in the past. Things I might have viewed as "awesome" a few months ago, I now look at skeptically and ask myself if I have all of the information to form a good opinion. I never thought when I began in January that I would be so critical of CBF. I found myself agreeing with what the city and county councils were saying. The developer, too, had many good points. After it is all said and done I am still quite opposed to the development; however, I see that the development, and the local politicians, are not as "evil" as I would have thought they were had I not done this study.

I guess the main things I will be able to take with me after I graduate and begin working are to remain completely transparent, to know all sides of an issue before making a decision or a comment, and to know your audience before you jump in to something. It is true when they say, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." I learned so much more about why I was against the development from reading what the developers had to say than CBF. What I read from CBF only pushed me away from their message. I also didn't like how it appeared that they tried to be the heroes of this debate. In my opinion, they should have kept a low profile and acted as background to support the local citizens. Help them organize, make some flyers, teach them about the issue. But the petition rally and all of their other techniques made them look silly and out of place.

I am thoroughly grateful to have been able to study this development this semester. I learned a lot of things about communication, the environment and myself. I still plan to follow this development's progress, but I won't be blogging on it anymore. I hope any readers out there have enjoyed my perspective and can learn something from it as well, no matter what side of the issue you are on.

Posted by Alicia at 11:05 p.m.

There They Are!

CBF is alive!

After a nearly two month absence, the "Don't Build It Blog" has been updated. The post begins, "Although you may think we've been sleeping all this time, we really have been quite awake continuing our opposition to the project." Wow, really?? You've been awake?? You told us to be vigilant and active, and then you let the blog lie dormant for almost two months while negative comments about CBF and your supporters ran rampant in the comments section of the blog. Where has your webmaster Karl been all this time? Couldn't he have at least posted some sort of update? Seriously though, when you build up something as big as this section of their Web site, complete with a blog, you better update it often, even if you don't have anything to say. Your supporters need to know you're alive or else they are going to feel betrayed; the opposition could say you've given up, or found "more important" issues to work on.

CBF explains that they submitted the appeal to Dorchester County last month ("We now sit and await court dates") and sent a letter to the Department of the Interior this week to intervene (read about it from CBF and in the Daily Banner). Dorchester Citizens for Planned Growth is also mentioned, alluding to a possible partnership there.

The end of the posting is interesting because they begin talking about another farm that is up for annexation next month. They give information on the hearing and show that they are planning to get involved with another possible development in Cambridge. This is great news. It shows they care about Cambridge and are going to continue their fight there, but also means they are getting into an issue from the ground up, rather than stepping in far too late like with Blackwater Resort.

Posted by Alicia at 9:49 p.m.

Final Blogosphere Update

I decided to check in with Google blog search one more time to find any other blog postings out there about Blackwater. The first blog entry I found, from March 25, was quite amusing. It came from JoeTrippi.com, which used the "Birkenstock knuckleheads" quote from the Washington Post article. The entry was a blurb from a Baltimore Sun article about the bill to limit development that was voted against in the Maryland senate. The use of the quote from the Post article adds weight to my assumption that both the pro- and anti-development sides both use the same sort of emotional rhetoric to get their point across--and they both criticize the other for it.

Another small mention of the Sun article was found at "wechsler-roches"; the blogger simply posted the lead paragraph from the article with no commentary.

A blogosphere update would not be complete without another CBF petition mention! The latest one comes from Ian Lewis' blog on March 8 (didn't show up on Google in the last blog update posting). This posting is basically another rehashing of the material on the CBF site, but with a bit of a twist: the blogger found out about the development through his friend, who is a resident of the Eastern Shore. This means there is a bit of personal involvement that led him to become interested in opposing the development, rather than just reading content from CBF. It is a little different from the long line of people who get their information strictly from one source.

Posted by Alicia at 11:41 p.m.

Political Candidates and Blackwater

A professor from American University, Allan Lichtman, is running for U.S. Senate in Maryland this fall. I happened to come across his campaign Web site the other day, and there was a huge spread on the home page about his "compact with the Eastern Shore," and specifically mentions Blackwater. On his "Eastern Shore Issues" page, there is the following paragraph about Blackwater under the headline, "Promoting Responsible Economic Growth": "I support the Chesapeake Bay Foundation s strong opposition to the development of the Blackwater Resort Community. The construction of the resort will damage wetlands designated for preservation and infringes on arable land. The development will also exceed estimated sprawl for the region, which could actually hurt the economy in the long run, according to the Foundation."

This find made me curious to see if any other state politicians or political candidates have mentioned Blackwater on their Web sites. The only other candidate I could find with one is Michael Steele, the current lieutenant governor who is running for the open Senate seat. It is a vague mention, but I still consider it to be about Blackwater since it was said at a campaign stop in Cambridge: "Concerning development on the Shore, he acknowledged the concern of many residents that their traditional way of life may be threatened. You don t want to see that spoiled or destroyed,  he said. But certain types of growth can lead to greater prosperity. It s a question of balance,  Lt. Gov. Steele said."

Posted by Alicia at 11:41 p.m.

Hello??

Is there anybody there?

Where are you, CBF??

They haven't posted on the their "Don't Build It Blog" since March 8, a few days before the city council meeting. Aside from the press release on the appeal to Dorchester County, there's been nothing from them in over a month.

So much for staying "vigilant and active."

Posted by Alicia at 11:41 p.m.

Meet the Edgar Family

They live along the Little Blackwater River, just west of the proposed development. Their family has run a farm there for six generations. They, along with a few other local farmers and citizens, are profiled in an excellent Baltimore Sun article published yesterday (which I can't find on their Web site, only reposted on this Newszap forum thread). These are the faces of the citizens who will be most affected by the development.

"Our rural life will soon be gone. They will change our history forever," says father Edgar. I've seen this sentiment echoed throughout the semester in materials I have read. But a comment that really got to me was by the president of the Dorchester County Farm Bureau, who called the development a "betrayal to all those who have made this county what it is today." That is really powerful because it is coming from a county farmer who is representing the other county farmers. Some other effective, telling quotes from the article: "For some people it's all about money. But...it's about our heritage"; "It's like the domino effect--one farm goes, and then another. The next thing you know, all of the agricultural and hunting land is gone"; "There are places to build things, but this is not one of them."

The article ends with more anecdotes from the Edgar family, who gave a tour of their property and told stories of their family to, I assume, people involved with CBF and/or the opposition. His final quote is also very stirring: "Sell all this? No, I'm not tempted to sell. You ever see a pine tree root? It goes deep." This part of the article emphasizes respect to the land, which is directly contrasted with the paragraph about selling farmland to developer ("the Edgars receiving a neon green flyer that says "CASH FOR YOUR LAND").

(The group of farmers profiled in the article is the same that joined CBF yesterday in legal action against Dorchester County.)

The three comments following this article on the Newszap forum are all in opposition to the development. One of them mentions how the poster has heard nothing about the community improvements the developer has built into the plan. This isn't true; the Daily Banner has published the community improvements several times in separate articles, most at the beginning of February. There is also 4dorchester.com, which has a whole page on the community improvements of the proposed development. However, I certainly have not seen anything from the developer emphasizing these community aspects outside of these two sources. Would they be able to garner any more support for the project if they did a little publicity? It's likely that they don't care to bother. Half of the media stories I have read have mentioned that the developer wouldn't comment for the story. They don't need to. It is not up to the citizens to decide on the development, it is up to the county and the city. The only people the developer needs to reach out to are those they want to be living in their homes.

The Edgar family also published an open letter to local politicians in another Newszap forum thread on Blackwater. It is long, but well-argued, with lots of facts and statistics to back up their points. No "comments were running 5 to 1" here.

Posted by Alicia at 9:08 p.m.

Maryland Sierra Club Article on Blackwater Development

The Maryland chapter of the Sierra Club has published a lengthy article in their online newsletter, Chesapeake, about the proposed Blackwater Resort Communities. The first thing I noticed about this article is the title: "Governor Ehrlich Rejects Smart Growth." This is an attention-grabbing headline to get environmentalists to read the article, but is not necessarily fair because this is far more of a local issue. Governor Ehrlich is used as a scapegoat in the headline simply because so many environmentalists (people who would be reading the Sierra Club newsletter) are not in favor of his administration. If they had titled the article using words like "Blackwater," "development," or any of the local Cambridge politicians, the story would not likely jump out at readers as much and draw them in to read.

The article begins with an anecdote about how treasured BNWR is to Marylanders and America as a whole. This is a great beginning because it personalizes the issue, and brings in emotions without using empty statements. However, the Sierra Club has their own rhetoric similar to CBF. "All is not well at Blackwater Refuge...Soon the sounds of cement trucks will grown out the screams of eagles." Yikes. That statement sure makes me pay attention here!

The article uses science from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to back up their concerns. This is a trusted, credible source of information. Also, the scientist quoted is stationed at BNWR, and not affiliated with either the developer or opposition sides. I have not seen U.S. Fish and Wildlife even mentioned in anything since I found that "Friends of BNWR" page during my beginning research.

The Sierra Club goes on to call this project "a failure of Maryland government," and an "ill-advised scheme." "CBF is vowing to fight the project with every tool available," they say, which is certainly a true statement! But this section shows the Sierra Club's support of CBF's work, which lends some outside credibility to it. It is good for CBF to get the support of a major, respected environmental group. I don't see a link to or mention of this article on CBF's Web site though. Why is it that CBF does not show other people/organizations that support their mission? That would be huge for helping heir credibility on this issue, which I think is nowhere near where it could or should be. While I do think they came into this debate far too late, they are still a premiere advocacy group and have raised the bar of this debate and helped a whole lot of people speak their mind in opposition.

This article ends with a similar emotional note: "Will Maryland citizens be allowed to pursue smart growth on their own terms or will politicians--dazzled by wealthy developers--be allowed to violate the public will?" This article was a great find to gain an outside of CBF perspective on opposition to Blackwater, which is generally the same as CBF but uses some other sources of information to add depth to what CBF has been saying these past two months.

Posted by Alicia at 8:20 p.m.

Cambridge Approves Growth Allocation

As many of us predicted, the Cambridge city council last night approved the growth allocation for the Blackwater resort. Today's Daily Banner article shows how communication efforts were received by and influenced the politicians. "I would like to thank the many people who wrote letters and e-mails," one said simply. "The letters I received were almost half and half," said another (busting the much-talked-about CBF 5:1 ratio), who hopes to see every future development brought to the council with the same public discourse.

A great tug-at-your-heartstrings story ends the article. One of the commissioners said he had not made his mind up on how to vote until today, when he received a letter from a nine-year-old child who begged him to stop raising home prices. (I didn't know nine-year-old children knew so much about home prices...do I smell CBF there?) He was the only commissioner to vote against the growth allocation.

Yesterday, the Daily Banner ran a short preview of the meeting, in which one commissioner said, "I am not just looking at who is or who is not in favor of the project, I am looking at it in terms of why." This goes back to the county council, when they discussed how many people were misinformed on the issue. This would have been a good angle for CBF to use. Sure, they got a lot of people to sign a petition and attend the meetings and write e-mails and draw pictures. But very few of them were explaining why they were against it, other than "it will ruin Cambridge" or something similar. They "why" was a lot stronger on the side supporting the project: boost the economy, put Cambridge on the map, etc.

While there has not yet been a "Don't Build It Blog" post in response to the meeting outcome, there is one from March 7 that is chock-full of typical CBF language. "Can you hear the clock ticking? Can you envision thousands of homes on a soybean field, cars clogging local roads, ever more development?" "At the growth allocation hearing last month, comments were running 5 to 1 against the project. How can the commissioners ignore the will of the people who are going to have to live with the impacts of a mega-development?" I kind of can't believe that they even think this type of language is a good idea. But looking back over the past month and a half, it is no different than anything else. This was probably a very effective way to recharge the opposition.

Posted by Alicia at 9:59 p.m.

Another Blogosphere Check-in

Today I did another Google blog search to find if there have been any more blog postings about Blackwater on the Web. I found a few more mentions and analyses on the topic by several new bloggers.

On February 19, the Montgomery County, Md., Green Party posted an excerpt from that day's Washington Post article to their blog. There is no commentary or analysis of the development, just two paragraphs from the article and a link to the article on washingtonpost.com. I wonder if the people of Montgomery County had even heard of Blackwater or the proposed development before it was on the front page of the Post.

John at "A DC Birding Blog" posted on February 21 about Blackwater, urging his readers to sign the CBF petition. But this blog entry does not just spit back the basic arguments of CBF; the blogger shows that he has been following the issue. "The project raises all sorts of questions about how many people the Eastern Shore can realistically support economically, and how much development can be done before the health of the Chesapeake watershed is beyond hope...the development will almost certainly harm one of the major reasons for people to visit lower Dorchester County--the natural resources in and around Blackwater." His knowledge of the issue and personal interpretation, while obviously in opposition of the development, is refreshing to see.

This is actually his third posting about Blackwater. On February 14 he posted a short blurb letting readers know about the public comment period by the Cambridge City Council, and on February 15 he posted another short entry about the bill to limit development that was considered by the Maryland legislature. Again, these entries show that the blogger has been following the issue and analyzing the information to draw his own conclusions. This is very different from most blogs I have found, which are either regurgitations of CBF material, or very anti-CBF.

Posted by Alicia at 11:41 p.m.

Words from the Citizens

I have been monitoring both the comments section of the "Don't Build It Blog" and the Cambridge/Dorchester County Newszap forum to get an idea of what the citizens of Cambridge and Dorchester County think about this debate and to gauge public perception and support. The good thing about these forums is that people tend to speak their minds and not hold back their real opinions on things. However, this can also be a bad thing, because many threads turn into arguments between a few people and get away from the actual issues.

Since there are dozens of pages of comments altogether, I will not spend time going over each one here. I just wanted to note that I am looking at public opinion on the issue, not just news articles, Web sites and CBF materials. By observing these comments I am learning a lot about what people think about the issue, how much false information is out there and how the emotional language of CBF has an effect on people. It is very enlightening!

Posted by Alicia at 11:44 p.m.

Support for Blackwater Resorts

The "Don't Build It Blog" and Daily Banner articles have cooled down a bit due to the time lapse before the city council meeting on the 13th. At the grassroots organizing meeting I attended last month, a woman had mentioned that there is a page on the Internet with testimonials for the project. After a Google search it didn't take long to find 4dorchester.com, a Web site devoted to supporting the development. I find the URL to be an interesting contrast with CBF's blog URL: "4dorchester" versus "saveblackwaterrefuge."

The home page lists all the ways in which supporters can get in touch with politicians to voice their opinion. This is similar to what CBF has put out there, but obviously with a very different intention. There are e-mails, phone numbers and addresses here, along with dates of meetings and hearings.

The next page, background, offers a very interesting point of view on the development. "Blackwater Resort Communities is an exciting resort projectwhich will significantly add to Cambridge's recent emergence as the desination of choice for tourists and homeowners looking to enjoy the beauty, charm and personality of the Eastern Shore." Sounds quite a bit like a corporate mission statement. The page goes on to list the "many positive economic impacts" of the development. Some choice ones include: "Protect the endangered Delmarva fox squirrel," "Embrace the culture and history of Cambridge," and "Respect our neighbors." Clearly, whoever designed this page is directly refuting claims of CBF and the rest of the opposition. But I'm not sure how a brand new 3,200 unit "resort community" will embrace the rural farming culture and history of watermen of Cambridge. It's just sort of put there on the page as a feature without being backed up at all.

The next page I was happy to find because it discusses the community benefits of the development, which CBF has said the developer has never made clear what they would be. Well, here they are. The development would create a walking/biking path to BNWR, public access to the Little Blackwater River, and a nonprofit foundation to restore housing in the city of Cambridge. I had not heard that the developer was going to create this nonprofit foundation. Very, very interesting.

There is also a page on this site with misconceptions about the development. Several points are listed: "this project is moving too fast," "Cambridge and Dorchester County infrastructure cannot handle the growth," "project will hurt our existing businesses and downtown area," and "this project is bad for the environment." Each point has several bullet points underneath it, which use pretty legit data to back up their claims. However, many of these points I have seen refuted by CBF in their materials as well.

The bottom line is, I don't even know what to think anymore. I have been following this stuff for about a month now and my brain is tired from the bickering, rhetoric and back-and-forth. I can only imagine how the local politicians feel, being bombarded with it every day. While public debate is a great thing, I wish something a little more productive was being done to get these issues solved.

Posted by Alicia at 8:11 p.m.

Focusing on the City Council

The power of grassroots organizing is apparent once again in CBF's latest blog entry, which focuses on reaching out to the city council before they meet on March 13 to vote on the growth allocation. "If you have called the city commissioners, ask your mother to call. If you have written a letter to the editor, ask your neighbor to send one in." Word-of-mouth support is how CBF began this campaign, and they are smart to be taking a low-profile and going back to this technique after the county council meeting. Again, they stress civility, which is obviously an effect of the county council's mention tat the opposition has sometimes acted disorderly and strong-willed in their stance.

The entry also mentions that the Easton newspaper is running an online poll "that has us losing in the court of public opinion." While this isn't scientific, it is still "a small soap box" for development proponents. "So let's see if we can't even out the numbers a bit."

One part of this entry I found to be funny is at the beginning, where they write, "Because our efforts have targeted the county council, the commissioners may not have heard all the ruckus." What?? I am quite sure that the city council knows exactly what is going on and had heard well and clear the many arguments on this issue. It is natural to want to focus on reaching out to them this time, but to think that they "have not heard" anything about it is ridiculous!

Posted by Alicia at 3:30 p.m.

Growth Allocation Granted By County; CBF Called Out At Meeting

Well, this looks like it was an interesting meeting. First thing's first: The Dorchester County council voted 3-2 Tuesday night to approve the growth allocation for the Blackwater Resort Communities development. They listed several caveats, including making the golf course public, or else it was to be left to grow back into natural habitat; running an environmental study; and not allowing any residential units of any size in the critical area. This is a pretty decent victory for the opposition. With the help of CBF, the side against the development mobilized and made their voices heard, which influenced the county council to develop these changes.

However, not everything the council heard from citizens was good. The council mentioned something I brought up in a previous blog posting, about how people were relying on the misinformation coming from all sides. One councilman talked about how many e-mail he had gotten from citizens pleading for them not to build a development on the refuge. I can definitely see how someone with limited knowledge of the development would think it is being proposed to be built on the development, because of the "Save Blackwater" rhetoric being used. "They just don't want it," the councilman says of the opposition. "Their mind has already been made up, which is what this board has been accused of." "Some very nasty comments came out about this project, for and against," said another councilman. Another councilman came out and said that many citizens do not have the right information. "Some have no idea why they are there" getting involved with the issue, he said. I definitely think these points are valid, and that the council is doing a great job of staying transparent and allowing people to voice their opinions through meetings. However, could they do even more? Perhaps set something up on their Web site with their progress on the issue? One thing they (and the developer) have kept alluding to in all of the meetings is that the citizens don't know what has gone on behind the scenes, that the plans have been in the works for so long. Open that stuff up to the public, and then see if CBF's claims are still valid.

The best part of this article is the section where Councilman Bramble addresses CBF about their involvement with this and other Eastern Shore issues. He mentions how CBF "all but put out of business" Dorchester County watermen several years ago when they wanted to bring their concerns to the state capital. Also, during a "pfesteria problem," CBF "did everything they could do to put the farmers out. They weren't satisfied with that. Then they went to the poultry farmers," claiming that chicken manure was what was harming the bay. After Bramble finished, there was applause from the audience. Why do I cll this the best part of the article? Because CBF got called out. This is what I, and many others, have been saying all along: Why did CBF get involved now, and why did they get involved to begin with? Their track record with Eastern Shore issues is very spotty--for the most part, it seems as though they don't even know it is there. And with the farming thing...CBF materials come out all the time about how farm runoff is such a big problem for the bay. And now they want this land to stay a farm? There is a disconnect. They're not trusted because they're outsiders, and then people who know anything about their history and who haven't just been swept into the "tsunami" of the issue don't trust them because of their history on these issues.

There is no mention of these comments toward CBF in the "Don't Build It Blog" entry about the meeting. Instead, the headline reads, "It Ain't a Done Deal! You Made History!" The entry is very positive and upbeat, and describes the "tremendous achievement" the opposition gained with the stipulations put in place by the county council. This is probably a good move on CBF's part, rather than writing about how bad the council and the developers are because they passed the allocation. "We will use this column to keep you informed. It may take a while for this to unfold so we must stay vigilant and active." Here, CBF has declared their intent to remain with this issue throughout its duration. Are they trying to build trust in their readers after Bramble's meeting comments? "Let's keep it up, but let's be civil." This can only be in here because of Bramble.

There have already been three comments to this blog entry. Surprisingly, two of them are anti-CBF. Althese Nimbys says, "When are you going to stop snowballing these poor lost sheep of yours with hollow statements like 'You made history' and 'It ain't a done deal.'...Everyday they believe in you, is another dollar." Mark says, "I understand that you are in charge of the CBF's grassroots propaganda machine, but let us take a reality check with 'You made history.' The goal of the CBF was to stop this development in total. That has not, and will not happen...CBF is always looking for a 'cause celeb' to foster donations." The "hollow statements" part is something I picked up on from the very beginning. These statements are used to tap in to people's emotions, but they really don't mean anything. These two entries show that there are other people who have noticed the same thing and are being vocal about it.

Posted by Alicia at 9:51 p.m.

CBF Poll Says Dorchester County Against Development

CBF has posted a press release on their Web site announcing the results of a survey on the Blackwater development. According to this survey, there is very strong opposition to the development, and development in general, in Dorchester County. This isn't really surprising. The poll was conducted by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, and it asked 625 registered Dorchester County residents from each of the county's five districts, so it looks legit enough. However, it doesn't explain why the survey took place to begin with. Was it sponsored by CBF? I'd also be interested in seeing a list of questions that were asked to respondents, the order they were asked in, etc. Those biases that are built into all phone surveys can make a huge difference in how people answer the questions.

Other aspects of this press release I found to be interesting: they mention the February 9 city council meeting, where "opposition speakers outnumbered project proponents five to one." They used this same ratio in their "Don't Built It Blog" entry from February 11. Unless someone was in the back of the room with a pen and paper tallying all of the comments, I don't know how well I believe this number. There could very well have been an overwhelming majority present at the meeting who were against the project, which is likely (you're more likely to show up for something you oppose than are ok with). However, this 5:1 ratio is unrealistic because it was mentioned fairly casually in the blog entry, like it was someone's estimate; in the press release, it is mentioned as if it were an actual proven statistic. Also in this press release, a representative from Dorchester Citizens for Planned Growth (CBF got their name right this time!) is quoted. Glad to see they have made a reappearance in CBF's materials. You would think that, if there were a group made up of local citizens fighting for this cause, CBF would jump on them and use them at every single opportunity. So far, in their communications materials, I have seen very little of Dorchester Citizens for Planned Growth.

To compare with this poll, and to gain some insight into actual public opinion on this issue, I visited the Newszap forum for Cambridge/Dorchester County, part of the Daily Banner's online presence. There I found a thread called "Blackwater Resort Community Poll," which began on February 14. Apparently a radio station out of Easton, Md., had a poll running on their Web site about support of Blackwater. The results were posted twice, with the final result on February 16 being 62.75% of voters for the development, and 29.41% against the development. One poster today wrote about the CBF poll, noting the very different results of each but also mentioning that the radio station is not located in Dorchester County. This is probably a large influence in the varying results, since Talbot County has seen a lot of development in the past few years and their tax base has grown quite large because of it. "Let's take a look at how Talbot County has grown. Most of the growth has been positive. Talbot County is thriving. I just wish the people of Dorchester County would accept chance and embrace it. More people--more tax base." Similar sentiments were found in other posts: "I have seen a recent opinion that we are growing too fast. Come on now. We can not stay in the dark ages forever." However, there are also a few posts from the opposition: "What is considered by some to be good for Dorchester may be the death knell for BNWR and its marshes and wildlife"; "Easton cannot handle the load at the sewage plant and has been bringing truck loads to Cambridge for us to process...The taxpayers of Dorchester would be the ones the cost would fall back on if the infrastructure in place now cannot handle this much growth at once. And I personally don't believe it can"; and, quite simply, "More traffic, more crime, my family and friends totally oppose it!"

Posted by Alicia at 9:27 p.m.

Front Page of the Post!

The Blackwater Resort conflict has made the front page of the Washington Post, in an extremely informative and well-written article that brings up good points about both sides of the issue.

The article represents every group involved with this conflict: Cambridge politicians, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and environmentalists, the Chesapeake Bay Program and scientists, Dorchester County watermen and citizens, and developers. Here I am going to pull out the main messages of each group.

Cambridge politicians: The personified "city of Cambridge" (meaning its leaders) wants to "have its way" and get the Blackwater Resort approved. Cambridge is a "hard-luck" area whose population has shrunk from 12,600 in 1960 to less than 11,000 in 2000. The development would bring 10,000 residents to town, doubling its population and boosting "needed" tax revenue by as much as $1 billion. "Now, how do you know that you've got too much growth?" the mayor of Cambridge was quoted after listing the population decrease statistics.

CBF: Conversely, CBF says that "we may already be at the place where the bay can't take too many more people." This project is a test of the Maryland smart growth laws, and not passing it will show that the state is serious about helping farmers, says the foundation president. "It's going to be open season on the Eastern Shore" if the Blackwater Resort is built. The most reasonable quote I have seen from CBF is at the end of the article, where a director says, "It might be one of those things you can make less worse--maybe not perfect or very good. But with 100,000 people moving in every year, I feel as if we have to do something."

Developer: Clearly in opposition to this statement, the developer's attorney refers to CBF as "Birkenstock knuckleheads" (and, while we're on brand names, the article mentions that he drives a Jaguar). "If the Chesapeake Bay Foundation had participated in nearly three years of design hearings and approvals,, perhaps they would share our conviction that this is a well-designed project that will be terrific for Cambridge and which in no way will adversely affect the bay."

Scientists: It's hard to say what impact the development would have on the bay without further studies, scientists from the Chesapeake Bay Program say in this article. Bay communities need "a collective vision that everyone buys into, that has both growth and environmental protection aspects."

Perhaps this collective vision can begin with compromise. The article mentions that CBF, the developer and local politicians sat down to talk a few weeks ago for the first time ever. However, it doesn't seem that much good came out of it. I never even saw a mention of that in any of CBF's materials. This article lays out each side's arguments perfectly (except for CBF's perhaps, but only because CBF has used about a dozen different arguments as to why the development is bad), and intertwines them to show just how complex this issue is.

Posted by Alicia at 9:36 p.m.

"Kids Against Blackwater Resort" on CBF Web Site

CBF has added an interesting feature to the Blackwater Web site. The "Kids Against Blackwater Resort Project" features drawings by, I am assuming, Cambridge area elementary school students. What a tool to tug at people's emotions! Picture it--these young kids pleading to stop the development to save the bald eagle. (And when did the bald eagle become a part of this debate? I thought they were talking about the bay.) These are typical kid drawings, with misspellings ("Save the balled eagels") and crossouts, and many with the kid's first name on top. All I have to say is wow...what a way to try and get people to care.

Posted by Alicia at 11:02 p.m.

County Council Postpones Their Vote

Yesterday the Dorchester County Council decided to postpone their final decision on the Blackwater development until next week. As usual, both the Daily Banner and the "Don't Build It Blog" covered this event. "This is a solid victory for the opposition," CBF writes in the blog. "We are very pleased that the county has recognized there is a need for much more information, but we are concerned about how that information will be gathered." Again, they allude to a biased environmental study if done by the developer. "Will the developer be responsible for conducting the studies or will the county hire independent contractors to do the studies?" The fear that the developer may slant the results of the study in his favor could be valid, but it is just making me really confused. There seems to be misinformation flying all over the place (from information that is coming from CBF, the developer and the councils) and no one seems to quite know what they are talking about, even though they think they do.

Except for the county council. Their words at the meeting last night, as recorded by the Daily Banner were incredibly fair, and incorporated all points of view. They decided to postpone their vote on the growth allocation for the development because of "legitimate concerns" about the development's possible effects on wildlife and the environment. This is coming from Glenn Bramble, the same councilman who wrote the half-page editorial endorsing the development. Some choice quotes from this article: "We do want to protect the Bay. We do want to make sure that the quality of life we currently enjoy will continue"; "There's a lot of anxiety here in this county about this project, as it should be"; "There's some things I have heard in the public that 'we don't have a say.' Well, you're getting a say right now, that is for sure"; "We've had to look at this issue from two sides, while you may only have had your own vested interest that you had to look at"; "Some people just don't have a clue what is involved in this project and, I hate to say it, some people don't really want to know"; "It's a tough decision. I'm not going to vote whichever way the wind blows."

Posted by Alicia at 10:19 p.m.

Other Bloggers "Speak" Out About Blackwater

Today's Google search brought up this blog, owned by someone named Woody. I do not know his location; he seems to post about kayaking and nature news from around the U.S. He asks his readers to take a moment to sign the CBF Blackwater petition, to protect "one of the east coast's largest migratory wildfowl populations."

This find made me curious to see if any other bloggers out there have mentioned Blackwater. I have been following CBF's "Don't Build It Blog," of course, but I wanted to find if the issue had stirred anyone else enough to blog about it. I did another search, this time on Google's blog search engine, and found several other mentions on the Web:

Bluesky of "Where is La Plata," a blog that seems to be about the preservation of La Plata, Md., posted an article on February 4 from the Baltimore Sun (which I could not find on the Web for the life of me) that mentions Blackwater: "Critics point to Cambridge's annexation of farmland to build a 3,300-home resort near Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge as an abuse of the Smart Growth law." While the article is not solely about Blackwater, it does point to the project and similar developments throughout the state. This entry (and many of the other entries at this blog) show that people are definitely talking about development in Maryland, and feel so compelled by the issue that they have created their own outlets to express their opinion and try to reach concerned audiences.

Geren of "Blather de la Semaine" posted a short blurb about Blackwater on February 3. While he did link to the Fish and Wildlife Service site on Blackwater for some general information, the information for the rest of the blog entry came from CBF. In fact, the language is taken verbatim from the CBF website. This blogger, just like Woody, encourages his readers to sign the CBF petition.

Another plea for readers to sign the CBF petition was found at "The Southern Fly Fisher." In a January 27 posting titled "Say NO! to the Blackwater Resort Project," Scott Leon pastes an entire e-mail written by CBF encouraging people to show their opposition to the development by signing the petition. The letter has multiple links to the CBF site, in a format that reminds me of campaign e-mails I received during the 2004 election season. I find many parts of the letter to be very vague: from the salutation ("Dear Friend of the Bay") to the statistics ("In recent decades Maryland has lost 50% of its farmland") to the language and mataphors ("It's time to draw a line in the sand"). I am assuming this e-mail was sent to people who had chosen to receive news from CBF, which puts them in the "environmentalist" or "concerned citizen" categories. I think this e-mail was probably very effective in getting these groups to act. This blog posting is evidence of that; the blogger's profile indicates that he is from Orlando, Fla., miles away from Maryland and Blackwater. Yet he felt compelled to post the letter to his blog to do his part to protect a body of water that others might fly fish in.

From these last two postings and other articles, etc., I have seen, it appears that CBF is the primary information source for citizens to learn about Blackwater. This is probably a good thing for the environmental community, because CBF's message is being widely spread, but what does it mean for people who want factual, unbiased information? The local Cambridge politicians, for example. Even if CBF is the primary source of information about Blackwater for the general public, I don't think the city council is going to pay much attention to what they have to say because of the highly emotional language and imagery the foundation uses. So who are these local leaders going to go to for their information? Likely, the developers, who have a more conservative, clean-cut image that is appealing to local politicians. It's like in the 2004 election, when many people who voted for Bush said they didn't vote for Kerry because they didn't feel like they could "hang out and have a beer with him." People are drawn to those who are just like themselves. I can tie this back to the grassroots organizing meeting, when CBF said they were going to provide the residents with signs to hold outside of the city council meeting. The residents flat-out opposed that idea, because they knew the city council would write them off as radical environmentalists. From what I have seen so far, CBF doesn't seem to be "fitting in" with the Cambridge crowd, the city leaders who will actually make the decision on the development. They have definitely developed the "radical liberal environmentalist" label, and I don't think they have much credibility with the local politicians.

The final blog entry I found was a bit different from the previous simple mentions and links to CBF. Michael at "Monoblogue," a blog about happenings on the Eastern Shore with a conservative view, wrote about a February 8 letter to the editor in the Salisbury Daily Times. I find it interesting to read the viewpoints of citizens who are for the development, since up to this point I have encountered so many that are against it. This blog entry sums up the majority of the pro-development arguments I have seen: "We're not going to turn into the I-95 corridor overnight"; "The BNWR will remain regardless of this development"; "This development may be somewhat better for the environment since who knows what kind of runoff occurs from the farmland that's there now." The language he uses when writing about those against the development is fascinating to me, because, as I said, I haven't yet seen much from the pro-development side. "Sadly, the Democrats in Maryland, with their fringe environmentalist allies in this case, are throwing up more roadblocks to progress than is good for the people of this area."

This blog entry also mentions a campaign stop in Denton, Md., by Baltimore Mayor and gubernatorial candidate Martin O'Malley, who spoke out against the development, saying that local jurisdictions are reaching out to developers to make up for cuts in state aid. The blogger writes, "Putting local governments in a position to depend on handouts from the state rather than trying to prosper through growth results in the same thing that always happens when there's too much dependence on government: stagnation."

Overall I was very glad to find so many blog postings mentioning Blackwater. It shows that people are talking about the issue, from local Eastern Shore writers to outdoorsman bloggers from places far away from Maryland. I plan to check in with Google blog search a few more times this semester to see if people continue blogging about Blackwater as the issue heats up.

Posted by Alicia at 10:08 p.m.

Blackwater Hearing in Cambridge

Four articles have been published in the Daily Banner the past four days, leading up to and recapping the Cambridge City Council town hall meeting/hearing about the proposed Blackwater Resort Communities project. A preview of the meeting ran on Wednesday, detailing the number of people who have signed the CBF petition and quoting a communications officer from CBF. "We plan to turn out large numbers to testify and to rally outside," she says. In fact, the city council decided to change their meeting place in anticipation of a large turnout.

The two articles recapping the meeting ("City holds hearing on development," February 10, and "Comments still being received on Blackwater," February 11) do not mention how many people attended the meeting; however, today's "Don't Build It Blog" entry notes that "close to 400 people, mostly opposed to the Blackwater Resort Development, attended the meeting." From reading the Daily Banner articles it seems that only representatives from the developer and CBF were able to speak during the meeting. Citizens who attended were told that these representatives got to speak first, which made them mad because they are city taxpayers. The CBF blog entry, on the other hand, notes that "comments were running 5:1 against the development." Either this 5:1 observation took place during this beginning time described in the article, or the Daily Banner chose not to run anything about so many citizens being opposed to the development. Both the articles and the blog entry mention that the public comment period for the development will run until February 24. CBF urges citizens to write letters, rather than writing e-mails, which "can easily be deleted," to the councilmen.

The most interesting article from this time period ran on Thursday, the day of the meeting. It is interesting because of the angle the Daily Banner chose to take in an article that ran the same day as the meeting--an in-depth interview with the developer's attorney that sheds light on some of the development's benefits to the community. I was surprised to find out that the developer has agreed to several community benefits, including development of two school sites, park upgrades, environmental studies and other fees. "If something would happen that this project would not go through, which it will go through, what are they [CBF] going to do for the community?" With this point of view, you can see where the contention in this debate lies. The developer is looking at this project from the viewpoint that it will build and improve the community. "Nobody likes to talk about benefits because they think you are doing it to mask environmental issues...My sense is that the CBF is trying to frame the debate very narrowly." This is true, simply because of the nature of the organization--CBF is an environmental advocacy organization, and so it will always focus on environmental impacts. In the grassroots meeting I attended last week the citizens there were concerned about the authenticity of the watershed study that the developer has agreed to fund, because, if the developer is funding it then it will be biased. I may be wrong but I think it is common practice for a developer to fund any environmental studies related to his project. If this is true then it isn't fair of CBF to be using that as one of their talking points, because the developer is thinking of possible environmental impacts in his plan. It just isn't his primary focus, as the developer's attorney alludes to in this article. This article kind of "humanizes" the developer's point of view, which seems monstrous when shown through CBF's eyes.

Posted by Alicia at 4:54 p.m.

Update on "Don't Build It" Blog Entries

There has been a little bit of activity on CBF's blog the past two days so I thought I would post an update. Yesterday they published quite the emotional and get-to-the-heart entry, using stories from real people who are against the development to illustrate the point of view of the concerned citizens against the development. They have received about 10,000 signatures to the petition, which is a really great accomplishment in such a short time. CBF goes on to list the names of people who are "out there pounding the pavement for signatures," which makes the issue more personal, showing that people are getting involved because of their passion to stop the development. It invoked a sort of "patriotism," if you will, in me; like, "Wow, these people are making change happen and it makes me feel so good! I can do this too!" It is a very effective technique.

The post goes on to reprint a letter written to them from a Dorchester County resident who is against the project. She talks about her involvement with getting the word out against the development, and has several choice words for the developers, local politicians and citizens who are for the development. "We don't need a slanted and biased comprehensive study done to tell us what is the best use of our land"; "CBF is noted for having its faults like any other non-profit agency, but we must admit they know what they are talking about because their expertise lies in the subject of protecting the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries." Obviously, this is addressing many of the concerns and criticisms that CBF has been facing over the past few weeks. While this letter is a great testimony of a Dorchester County resident who is against the development, it is clear that the letter was published in the blog entry as a show of support for CBF and because it echoes many of CBF's main talking points on the development.

The post continues with testimonials from outside of Maryland, from people who have visited the Blackwater/Chesapeake area. The most effective part of the entry comes after this, with a story about a 70-year-old woman Dorchester county woman "who [had] never gotten involved in a political issue in [her] life." She told the blogger (Karl, the CBF webmaster--webmaster?? What happened to Terry and Will??) how she grew up by the bay and has seen its deteriorating state, and how she took the petition to church with her to garner support. It's a great story because it shows how all types of people, not just the stereotypical young environmentalists, are against the development. Overall this is a great blog entry to boost morale and passions, and rally together opponents of the development to act.

Today's entry, on the other hand, is quite different. It begins, "That high-pitched noise you hear is my suspension of belief about to snap. There it went." The blogger (Karl again) is writing in response to a blog comment left by a Blackwater Resort supporter. This entry is interesting because it breaks out from the emotional language and messaging of CBF as a whole to the emotional language of a single person writing his opinion on the issue. It is like Karl stopped thinking about writing for CBF and instead put into the page everything he was thinking, and all his knowledge of the environment, that made him decide this development is bad. He is speaking directly to the commenter, rather than addressing the general public visiting the website. It's sort of neat because there are true feelings behind this post, rather than the previous crafted posts. It is honest and refreshing to read.

Posted by Alicia at 9:02 p.m.

Glenn Bramble's Daily Banner Editorial

Yesterday in Cambridge I picked up a copy of the Daily Banner to read Councilman Glenn Bramble's editorial in support of the proposed development. From first glance, the editorial appears to be a comeback to the prepared statement CBF released at the petition kickoff rally in January. Bramble writes that he wants to "clear up several misunderstandings" about the project. He first lets readers know that all city council meetings are public, and lets them know where in the paper to look for announcements. He then explained the advertisement for the meeting discussing Blackwater: "The county planning staff made sure the ad ran for nearly three weeks, sized it to grab attention, [and] provided detailed descriptions of who was asking for what." From this description it sounds like the advertisement for city council meetings discussing Blackwater hit upon all of the qualities that make an advertisement noticeable and informative.

Bramble mentions that CBF contacted his office "to request numerous, complex documents be faxed to him immediately, and irately refused to complete a simple FOIA request form." His language here shows that he does not seem to approve of the way CBF is involving itself in the Blackwater development. Another comment by the councilman, "Despite the county planner's explanation of the detailed materials that were available, and encouragement to review them in person, no CBF staff member has visited the County Planning office to make use of this information," is a trigger for me. The councilman does not seem to have much faith in CBF, since they have gotten themselves involved with this issue so recently and full-force.

Bramble goes on to refute several other arguments of the environmentalists, including water management and development of critical areas. He ends the editorial on a sentimental note with a section about the "next generation" needing housing. "When our children are grown, they need to live somewhere. Hopefully, they will settle nearby. They deserve the opportunity to pursue homes made from good construction in areas that are convenient to their work places. They deserve a serene setting to come home to after a long workday." This statement is definitely appealing to families with young children in Cambridge, who want to see their children grow and be successful, but remain close to home. Bramble's hope of retaining the city's population is admirable, and it shows that both he and the environmentalists have the same goal--revitalizing Cambridge and keeping a high quality of life. However, their idea of what is the best way to make this happen is quite different.

Posted by Alicia at 11:26 a.m.

Photos of Egypt Road

After the CBF meeting, I decided to drive to Egypt Road, the site of the proposed development. I had brought my camera along to document what the area looked like, to get a better idea of the actual impact that this development would have on the area. To view these photos in a popup window, please click here.

I was glad that it had rained that day, because I got to see that the area really is very low-lying and flood-prone. Now, I am not sure how much it rained there that day (it had been downpouring all the way from Washington to the bridge but cleared to a drizzle when I got to the shore) so I can't tell just how much rain caused the flooding I saw. It didn't seem as bad as some of the pictures I'd seen from CBF. But, like I said, I don't know how much it had rained there that day, so the flooding might have been very bad for the amount of rain they received.

At the top of the road there are two schools, an elementary school and Cambridge-South Dorchester High School. I wondered how the addition of 3,200 homes (many of which would be single-family with scores of children) would affect these schools, and any other schools in the city.

I was driving on the road for about 15 minutes total; I encountered three cars on the road with me the whole time. It truly is a rural area. There would have to be major construction to widen that road (which is currently two lanes, lined on each side by deep ditches full of water).

Posted by Alicia at 9:52 p.m.

Trip to Cambridge

I went to Cambridge today for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's grassroots organizing meeting. The meeting was held at a local bank, in a room on the second floor of the building. There were small CBF event signs with an arrow to let people know that they were in the right place. The meeting began at 2 p.m. but I was late, because of bad weather and the drive from Washington. I made it in around 3 p.m. and the meeting was still going strong. I counted about 35-40 people in the room. The meeting was being led by Terry Cummings and Margaret Vivian of CBF.

When I got into the room, they were talking about how to get the word out to the community about the development. CBF has established a number of electronic resources on the topic, including an e-mail listserv to send out updates to CBF members and those who sign up. They urged the people in attendance to forward the CBF e-mails they receive to their friends, neighbors, and members of civic/church groups and other organizations they belong to. CBF then passed out a bunch of copies of a flyer they had created. The flyer is yellow, and it has a picture of a bunch of cars stuck in traffic, with the headline "What's your vision for Cambridge?" The rest of the text reads, "Imagine 7,000 new cars clogging Cambridge streets. How long will it take to get to the market or hospital? Say NO to the Blackwater Resort Development. It's not too late. Make your voice heard at city council meetings." The dates, times and location of the meetings, as well as contact information for CBF, are listed at the bottom. CBF handed out dozens of flyers to everybody there so they could post them in public places around the city. I think that the message on these flyers is really effective. It plays into the emotions of residents, who do not want more traffic in their city, like many of the surrounding communities have seen with increased development.

CBF then talked about how important it is for citizens to write letters to the editor to their local newspapers. Apparently one of the city councilmen wrote an op-ed in today's Daily Banner (the Cambridge paper, which I later picked up a copy to read--will post comments later) in support of the development. CBF provided everyone with the e-mail address to send responses to the letter. They said it was "key" to write letters to the editor. One of the citizens in the audience mentioned that there was a Web site out there with testimonials supporting the development, which I would like to find.

CBF said they were going to provide signs to hold up at the city council meetings, and a debate ensued about whether or not that was a good idea. Some citizens said they didn't think they would have a good chance of getting into the meeting if they had signs. The main point they all agreed on was that the citizens need to be vocal and a part of local government.

The group was concerned about a watershed study (or lack thereof). People said that the developer has paid a company $25,000 to do a watershed study, which is needed in this area. They are unsure of the authenticity of the company doing the study and feel that it will not likely be a very objective study. Based on these comments I think the developers would have a lot of success if they made their watershed study a transparent process, using communications tactics to show people that the watershed and environmental studies they do are accurate and authentic.

One woman brought up that the residents should be "dogging" the politicians about this issue. She said that if the city councilmen vote for the development, she will "dog" them every time she sees them; if she encounters them in a public place (such as a grocery store) she will tell them how she feels about them for voting for the development. I think that, in local politics, this would be a very effective idea. CBF turned this idea around and told the residents that they should write thank-you letters to those city councilmen who voted against the development in the past, and also to write letters to the editor to publicly thank them. CBF also stressed to residents that they are allowed to make appointments with the city councilmen to talk with them about the issue. It seemed as though several people in the room had already done so, as they were explaining what some of the councilmen had said to them when they talked about this issue.

CBF got someone from the group to act as a local storage place for petitions, posters and other materials. They then passed out petitions for people to have signed by local residents. They talked about setting up a time to sit somewhere in public to get people to sign the petition. They had tried this before but couldn't get a high-traffic place that was willing to let them sit with the petition. "Food Lion doesn't want to go on record as being against growth," someone said. They discussed using the public library, which allows any group to use its facilities. CBF said they would e-mail their Blackwater list on this topic in the coming week.

CBF also encouraged people to take a trip to Annapolis this week to be present for a vote on a bill that would outlaw building within 1,000 feet of wetlands (or something similar, did not catch the specific thing), which would kill the development. He gave them the information on the bill and where to go. He also offered his contact info so that they could meet up if residents chose to go. I thought this was a nice gesture, and that it showed that he truly cared about each and every person who would make an effort to go to the state capital for this bill.

One thing the citizens in attendance were adament about was proper representation at the city council meetings. CBF said that, at the last meeting, the proponents of the development were able to get on the agenda last, and had the last hour of the meeting to speak. Because of the order of the speakers, it appeared to the city council as though everyone present was in favor of the project. While I did not attend this meeting to see this firsthand, I can understand how the order of the speakers at the meeting would create a lasting impact on the city councilmen.

One person in the meeting mentioned that Easton is suffering from higher taxes because of the massive development the city is undergoing. The woman said that residents should clip articles about this subject and send them to the city councilmen or forward them on to friends to gain support against the development in Cambridge. According to the citizens in the meeting, the councilmen (specifically one named Bramble, the one who wrote the editorial in today's Daily Banner) believe the project is economically good for Cambridge.

Finally, CBF said they would soon be making bumper stickers and lawn signs in opposition of the development. They closed off the meeting and many people hung around to discuss the issues and make plans with their neighbors. Overall I found this to be a very positive and effective grassroots organizing meeting. CBF has identified a dedicated group of citizens who want to fight this development; togther, CBF and the residents have the power to make their opinions heard.

Posted by Alicia at 8:12 p.m.

"Don't Build It Blog" Entries Versus Daily Banner Articles

I want to compare the January entries in CBF's "Don't Build It Blog" with articles from the local Cambridge newspaper, the Daily Banner, to get a perspective about the methods of communication that CBF has been using to get the word out about Blackwater, and how effective these methods have been.

The first "Don't Build It Blog" entry was written on January 24. It begins with a link to sign the petition to "STOP THIS" development. This entry also invites readers to contribute their ideas to "this young dialogue," which I found to be an interesting word choice, considering that this development has been in the works for a few years now and is not "young" by any means. However, they might mean that the dialogue within CBF is young. Either way, they are asking readers to get involved here, to ask what they can do and what CBF should do about the development, which is very important. The rest of the entry features much of the same emotional language intended to get people to feel a certain way (anti-development) and to get them to act. There is a picture of the planned development, about which CBF writes: "It tells a story--about a plan drawn with little apparent consideration of its immediate and downstream impact...The land has a long memory--it still wants to be marsh." By personifying the land and making it "want" something, CBF makes the idea of placing a development on it seem heinous and inhumane.

So far there have been 35 responses to the entry. While I am not going to spend the time to comment on all of them, I did an unofficial tally of the comments and found three that were for the development, 29 that were against and three I considered to be miscellaneous. I figured there would be a majority anti-development, since most people visiting the CBF website are going to be against the development to some degree.

The first Daily Banner article I could find about CBF and Blackwater was from January 25, a story about a CBF petition kick-off held on Egypt Road, the site of the proposed development. This story mentions partnerships with two groups, Dorchester Citizens for Planned Growth and Dorchester County Seafood Harvester's Association. (I couldn't find any mentions of either of these two groups on the CBF website.) "Citizens of the city of Cambridge...have been fighting this development for years, but government has not listened," said CBF in a press release.

Another very interesting, in-depth article ran on January 27, this one covering both sides of the debate. The developer's attorney, who attended the CBF petition rally, was quoted as saying about CBF: "They think it's appropriate to tell Dorchester County what they should or shouldn't do, because they know better than we do of course, because they drove here," and, "What you would know if you had spent the same three years working on the project rather than the last 10 days..." These two comments address something I think will be a problem with CBF getting involved here, which is a lack of trust because they are outsiders. They have just gotten involved with this development, and have basically thrown themselves in head first. What will the citizens of Cambridge think about an environmental organization from the western shore "swooping in" and taking this project on, when the issue has been ongoing for a few years without any help? I find it very interesting that CBF has chosen to get involved at this point in the game, when the development has been in the works for so long.

The next blog entry is an introduction by CBF president Will Baker. The language he uses here makes me feel like he is trying to convince us of CBF's genuineness. "Believe me, CBF did not get into this without a lot of thought and study. And with a recognition that our position will result in our spending a lot of dollars--much more than we would ever raise by our involvement." Saying "believe me" only makes the reader suspect him, or wonder why we shouldn't believe him anyway. I also don't understand why he brought up money here. It's like he is saying, "Believe me, we're going to spend a lot of money here so that means we really care about this issue." Based on what I have read outside of CBF material, I am beginning to become skeptical of their reasons for getting involved with Blackwater, simply because they seem to have jumped in to this issue so suddenly.

On January 31, a Cambridge town hall meeting about the Blackwater development was covered by both the Daily Banner and the "Don't Build It Blog." The first blog entry from January 31 called the meeting "a huge success." According to the blog, approximately 350 people attended the event, where city councilmen, a CBF representative, and others involved with the development spoke with the crowd. (One of the groups listed here is "Dorchester County for Smart Growth--I thought it was Dorchester Citizens for Planned Growth? Yikes. Always get the name of your partners right!!) "But the real stars were the citizens--most of them lifelong residents of Dorchester County and the Eastern Shore." The second blog entry from that day exclaims, "We are smokin'!" and calls the rally turnout "phenomenal." It also details the next opportunities for citizens to show up and voice their opposition to the development. Overall I think these two blog entries were really positive, and not as emotional as previous items I have seen from CBF.

The picture of this event was somewhat different through the eyes of the Daily Banner. The paper ran an article on February 1, for which they interviewed a city councilman who was at the town hall meeting. "I went there to learn. I went there to be educated," he said. He mentions that he thinks about 70 percent of the attendees were against the project. While that is a lot, it is not as many as the CBF blog makes it seem. (From that entry I got the impression that all 350 people there were CBF supporters/anti-development.) He adds that he wonders how many people who were at the meeting were actually from Dorchester County, saying, "I think a lot of them were from out of town." How likely is the city council to take in to consideration CBF's message if they believe that the majority of the people opposing the project are from outside of the county? A communications coordinator from CBF said about their petition, "We had 130 Dorchester County signatures online," and that there would likely be over 200 Dorchester County signatures once paper petitions were collected. Back at the "Don't Build It Blog," CBF is touting "over 5,000 signatures" on the petition. 200something signatures out of over 10,000 county residents will likely be inconsequential to the Cambridge city council. The article also questions the reliability of the CBF petition, using outside sources to dispute whether signatures on paper and electronic petitions could be faked. This whole part of the article has a critical tone, which made even myself wonder if signing a petition would really "do anything" to stop the development.

Posted by Alicia at 10:26 p.m.

Beginning My Research

I am beginning my Web research on the Blackwater development, using the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's site devoted to the topic as my starting point. The site features a main page with the latest updates on the project, including dates of upcoming CBF and Cambridge city council meetings so people are informed of how they can get involved. The standout feature of this main page is the red sidebar urging visitors to sign the CBF petition against the development. The next page on the side is "The Case Against Blackwater," which features a picture of the proposed development and several paragraphs of background information about the development. Bold text is uses to emphasize certain points, which is a very useful technique in web writing. I do find some of the language used in this background section to be rather emotional, which I imagine is characteristic of an environmental organization's information. Sentences like, "Maryland is losing farmland twice as fast as it is able to preserve it," and, "It all comes down to this" employ emotions to get people to feel a certain way, and to act in opposition to the development. This section of the site also features explanations of the four concerns CBF has with this development: farmland protection, stormwater pollution, environmental impacts and inconsistencies with state and local policies, as well as a question and answer section from CBF members. Overall I think this page is a great source of information for concerned citizens to learn more about the potential impacts of the development.

The area of this site that interested me most is the "Don't Build It Blog," where CBF members post updates about their progress with the development. Today's blog entry was written by Will Baker, the president of CBF. His entry reminds me of some sort of rally cry, like a high school sports rally or a religious speaker. He emphasizes the number of people who have voices their opposition to the development, and that CBF has "done nothing but facilitate the most basic democratic right to shape what government does." He ends on a modest note: "People have been thanking us, but I always thank them." He then lists the names and contact information for all of the city and county councilmen so people can voice their opinions on the development. There are entries prior to this, which I will write about in a separate entry. It seems from this whole site, especially the blog, that CBF is really involved with the development and that they are committed to being there to help the citizens of Cambridge stop this development. I will definitely be following this blog throughout the semester to see how well CBF communicates with members and concerned citizens through this online medium.

I next did a Google search for "Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge," just to see what other information I could find on the Web. The first relevant link I found was "Friends of Blackwater NWR," which is described as "a nonprofit citizens support group founded in 1987, assisting BNWR...to carry out their educational, interpretive, and public use missions." The group is made up of "over 800 individuals, companies, organizations, and agencies." Very interesting! Clearly BNWR is a valued place in the area, as there are so many people who are working to protect it on their own time. On the main page there is a link to a single page on the proposed development. This page is very different from the CBF site on Blackwater: the overall tone of the writing is more subdued, and there isn't any emphasis with bolded text or language that appeals to emotions. It explains the history of the development; the arguments of the local politicians versus the environmentalists; and the suggestions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including actual testimony and a letter of concern from FWS and Blackwater staff. This is really great information that I have not seen or heard of up to this point. But it leaves me wondering...why isn't CBF using this testimony? Why aren't CBF and Friends of BNWR partnering against the development? While there is nothing on this page that actually says that Friends of BNWR is against the development, I am assuming that they are, due to the nature of the organization. At the top of this page the Friends of BNWR mention that CBF will be working on the case. I went back to the CBF site but found no mention of Friends of BNWR. Hmmm...

Could CBF be trying to be the "champion" of this project? Wouldn't their case be stronger if they partnered with more established citizen groups that work for the bay? Perhaps they want to do it (or think they can do it) all on their own. Just an observation.

Posted by Alicia at 8:19 p.m.

Introduction

I have decided to focus my independent study on the Blackwater Resort Communities, a proposed development in Cambridge, Md., a few miles from the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge. I have been following this issue for several months and I find it very interesting. The purpose of this project is to examine the communication efforts of the many players in this debate, from environmentalists to developers to government. I want to find out how word is getting out on this issue. What forms of communication are these groups using to gain support for their position? Community meetings, advertisements, op-eds? I'd also like to get a chance to talk with residents of the area to get their take on the issue...what they have heard from the different sides and how it has shaped their opinion of the project.

The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has a section of their Web site devoted to the topic, and since I am in the beginning stages of my research, I am using it as my preliminary reference point.

Tonight I will do some additional Web research on the topic and post what I find! And tomorrow I am headed out to Cambridge to attend a grassroots organizing meeting being hosted by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. I'm very excited to begin this project!

Posted by Alicia at 9:53 a.m.