Let’s stay committed to welfare of disadvantaged women
In 1886, Hester Chase Ridout established a trust for her property at 22 Maryland Ave., setting forth the creation of The Chase Home, a company controlled by a Board of Trustees with the mission of providing housing for women facing life’s challenges.
By 1889, The Chase Home was founded, and for more than 130 years, this 501(c)(3) non-profit organization has provided a boarding house for aged, needy and infirm women at the historic Chase-Lloyd House, serving hundreds of women in need. However, today, the Chase Home no longer operates as an independent living facility for women.
Despite this change, the organization remains committed to its mission, albeit through different means. But this transition has left the Chase-Lloyd House vacant, raising critical questions about its future use and how best to honor Hester Chase Ridout’s legacy.
Recently, I attended a presentation by representatives presenting the property as part of a workforce housing initiative. While perhaps well-intentioned, this approach overlooks the pressing reality: The Chase-Lloyd House stands empty, its purpose unfulfilled.
This situation demands a re-evaluation of our strategies and a return to the core mission of the Chase Home — providing safe, affordable housing for women in need.
We know there are developers capable of transforming the Chase-Lloyd House into affordable residential units that align with the original will’s intent. Whether through nonprofit initiatives or partnerships with responsible developers, we must harness the historical and architectural value of the Chase-Lloyd House to benefit the community tangibly.
This effort is not just about preserving a building; it’s about protecting a mission and a commitment to the welfare of disadvantaged women. I urge everyone who cares about this building to write letters to local leaders and stakeholders, including the bishop:
The Rev. Christine L. McCloud, Canon to the Ordinary for Administration, The Episcopal Diocese of Maryland, 4 East University Pkwy, Baltimore, MD 21218 cmccloud@episcopalmaryland.org
By embracing innovative solutions and staying true to Hester Chase Ridout’s vision, we can create a new chapter for the Chase Home — one that honors its rich history while addressing the urgent needs of today. Let’s seize this moment to make a lasting impact, proving that the spirit of the Chase Home is alive and capable of evolving to meet modern challenges.
Elly Tierney, Annapolis
Tierney, a Democrat, represents Ward 1 on the City Council
Changing the way I think about LGBTQ
I have been a well-behaved Evangelical all my life, and I think it is time we reconsider our position on LGBTQ people. I always thought that people choose to turn against God and then as a consequence choose to live a hom*osexual life.
However, I have read stories of Christian gay people who grew up in the church and got saved and loved Jesus and who desperately tried to change their sexual orientation to no avail, and some have even committed suicide.
Additionally, the largest gay change ministries have folded due to a lack of positive long-term results. If God creates us for His glory in his image, did He make a mistake with the gays? Or did He make them that way to show His power to heal, but why hasn’t He done so consistently? Did He make them that way so they would grow through suffering? That doesn’t sound very loving. There is just no easy solution.
I have known many rotten sinners in the church, including myself. Yet they and I never faced the same condemnation from the church as LGBTQ people. It seems that if we exclude people from membership or service opportunities for being gay we should also exclude the arrogant, boastful, envious and gossipers.
I have never known a Christian without sin in their life. We will all die as sinners. If somehow it was proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that being gay is sinful, gays would just be sinners like me. We might have different sins, but we would be the same people who can’t always get it right and need Jesus’ grace badly.
Tom Boyer, Gambrills
Immigrant problem doesn’t matter to our politicians
What is wrong with our supposed county and legal leaders? We put them in positions to do what is in our best interest to include keeping us safe but that is not happening!
Millions of immigrants are in our country straining our medical, educational and housing resources to a breaking point. Immigrants are allegedly stealing from our stores, assaulting police officers and even committing other crimes, but that does not seem to matter to our politicians.
If that is not enough state and local politicians do not want to work with ICE to assist with keeping the immigrants who are charged with crimes out of our community citing it may violate their constitutional rights! ARE you kidding me?
Only American citizens are given constitutional rights and any county executive or attorney general who does not want to work with ICE needs to get a “backbone” and tell CASA, ACLU or any other special interest group “see you in court!” instead of worrying about politics and personal agendas.
With thousands of immigrants from every country around the world daily it will only be a matter of time before a major event that will make Jan. 6 look like spring break happens and we have no one to blame but ourselves. That’s because we keep putting people in office who are only concerned about votes and their personal agenda.
SPEAK up and be heard before it is too late!!
Gary Hornbaker, Severn
Pittman just one Democrat supporting another Democrat
The opinion piece penned by County Executive Steuart Pittman attempts to justify the “project at City Dock” because it shows that a “small city can adapt.” In fact, his letter is an expression of political support from one Democrat to another in an attempt to brush aside concerns expressed by residents regarding the project in its totality.
Pittman’s piece is nothing more than an example of county and city Democrats in lockstep in attempts to obfuscate their continuous “tax and spend” policies.
In the first sentence of his puff piece, he writes that City Dock will be a place where families can gather “at no cost.” Oh, there is a cost, Steuart. The problem is, no one from the city has articulated exactly what the cost of this undertaking will be, nor can they state with 100% certainty where the funds are coming from.
Pittman even writes that “most of the money is committed.” So, how much? What’s the timeline? Most importantly, what is the total cost of this folly?
Pittman claims Gavin Buckley was elected “to create this vision.” Actually, he was elected to administer Annapolis in a fiscally responsible way and insure the welfare and safety of residents. That responsibility would include flood mitigation that should cost a fraction of the total, as yet undetermined cost of the proposed project.
Contrary to Pittman’s claim about critics of this project, I do not “fear change.” What I do fear is that he and other rubber-stamp supporters have no understanding of what this project entails or what the subsequent impact on Annapolis will be.
One example, the parking lot isn’t going to be “raised” as he put it, it’s going to be razed. Destroyed. Permanently. So, the domino effect forces parkers to the Hillman Garage. And when the garage is full? Pittman says there will be “multimodal transportation.” Where is that cost identified?
Have “planners” taken into account the opinions of downtown merchants? How do they feel about the prospect of soaking wet children and “fountain frolickers” walking into their premises?
Finally, I resent Pittman’s characterization of critics, such as myself, as “looking for cracks … to drive wedges.” These are not cracks, they are canyons of gaps in this plan. So, please, fix the flooding. And have the integrity to admit that being able to “eat ice cream” or “do cartwheels on the grass” doesn’t justify spending money on anything other than flood mitigation.
Rob Scanlon
Eastport
