Frustration over City Councilman Ryan Dorsey’s handling of divisive Baltimore zoning legislation has escalated, with multiple complaints now filed with the state of Maryland about last week’s committee hearing where Dorsey, sitting as chairman, decreed that no virtual public testimony would be taken.

“I felt truly disgusted,” said West Baltimore resident Mary Hughes, one of those who had hoped to testify.

His action was the last straw for Hughes and others opposed to Bill 25-0066 and, more generally, Mayor Brandon Scott’s package of density-promoting up-zoning legislation.

As City Hall’s most passionate promoter of the measures, Dorsey was already a lightning rod for the opposition, including Black community leaders who have bristled at his framing of the bills as promoting racial equity.

At the December 1 hearing, Dorsey reluctantly backed down after a standing-room-only crowd in Council Chambers reacted – with a chorus of boos and jeers – to the news that they would not be allowed to testify.

But he never permitted virtual testimony, leaving people like Hughes who wanted to testify from home watching in frustration.

“He denied my right to be heard on something that’s very important to me, my community and the city,” said Hughes, who lives in the Panway neighborhood.

Believing the councilman had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by discriminating against those who were unable to make their way downtown to attend the hearing, Hughes filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Maryland Office of the Attorney General.

“Because of my limited mobility and health challenges, I as well as others could not appear in person,” Hughes wrote, in a complaint the agency has agreed to review.

“So what is the point of having a hearing if no one is being heard?”  – A person in the chat reacting to virtual testimony being disallowed last week.

Another person who had hoped to testify virtually and has filed complaints with the state is Reservoir Hill’s Keondra Prier, who said the councilman’s actions may have violated Maryland’s Open Meetings Act as well as “being really unfair to disabled people.”

She was referring to residents like Deb O’Neill, whose fruitless efforts to testify were witnessed by the more than 80 people following the meeting online.

“I’d pre-registered,” the 73-year-old told The Brew this week. “When I sent a note to confirm they’d received my registration and was told no testimony would be taken, I couldn’t believe it.”

“I kept putting stuff in the chat. I told them, ‘I’m handicapped. I am pretty severely mobility-impaired with arthritis,’” recalled O’Neill, a community leader in her North Ridgely’s Delight neighborhood.

[Council President Cohen and Councilman Ryan Dorsey have not responded to a request for comment on this story.]

A transcript of the chat obtained by The Brew shows O’Neill was one of scores of residents complaining there was no meeting audio and wondering why they were not being allowed to testify.

“Hello Mrs. O’Neill – there is no testimony at this hearing this morning,” legislative analyst Anthony Leva can be seen replying to O’Neill’s query, setting off a hornet’s nest of protest as others realized they too were shut down.

“So what is the point of having a hearing if no one is being heard?” a person in the chat complains. “Everything about this hearing, including its timing on a Monday morning after a holiday when everyone is either at work or traveling home, seems designed to curtail public comment.”

Councilman Speaks Out

The hearing was the most recent procedural misstep in the rollout of Scott’s sweeping “Housing Options and Opportunities” zoning legislation.

At last Thursday’s Council meeting, Councilman James Torrence stunned the chamber into silence by asking Council President Zeke Cohen to move all zoning bills – beginning with 25-0066 – out of Dorsey’s committee and transfer them to the Housing and Economic Development Committee that he chairs.

Torrence began by referencing the disallowed virtual testimony issue.

“My residents have serious concerns about fairness and equity in terms of hearing their voices as well as being able to testify,” said Torrence, who represents West Baltimore’s 7th District, also noting that residents are asking for fairness “before they actually pursue actions against us in court.”

“People are starting not to trust the system of the legislative process”  – Councilman James Torrence, Dec. 4 remarks before the City Council.

But he went on to flag general concerns about the process as the bills have advanced, saying, “I would rather for us to have procedurally correct hearings and postings to provide our residents the opportunity of a fair and impartial process.” (He has vocally opposed other bills in the administration’s package, saying they will drive Black residents out of the city and hurt those who remain.)

Speaking with The Brew, Torrence said he made his request to Cohen on behalf of constituents “who feel they’re not being heard.”

“People are starting not to trust the system of the legislative process,” he added.

• Read The Brew’s detailed coverage of Scott’s zoning bills 

At issue is Bill 25-0066, which eliminates the single-family zoning requirement in residential districts and allows single-family houses and rowhouses to be replaced with up to four units without Zoning Board review or approval.

Other bills in the package, already approved by the Council, allow structures to be built close to – and in some cases right up to – the property line, and relax the requirements for developers to provide off-street parking and dual staircases for certain kinds of apartment buildings.

Process Problems

Supporters of the legislation say the allegations about a fast-tracked process are overblown.

“It’s not rushed. It’s efficiency,” former Zoning Board executive director Rebecca Witt, an enthusiastic supporter of the zoning measures, said at the Dec.1 committee hearing.

“I would rather have the council we have here today that sees a problem and tries to fix it,” Witt said. “It shouldn’t take a decade to change the law.”

But overwhelmingly in these public hearings the sentiment has been the opposite – with critics saying the legislation is not overdue, but undercooked.

A common refrain, echoed by several Council members last week, is that constituents feel they haven’t been properly informed. They worry the legislation is moving ahead without any data about impacts and potential neighborhood destabilization, and without the requisite equity study.

“You could do this right, but you’re ramming this down our throats,” Ashburton resident Michael Scott declared at last week’s committee hearing.

Another concern is that the bills were introduced as “text amendments” rather than as comprehensive rezoning, which by law require extensive public notice and community review.

Was this a means to hide or fast-track controversial changes by skipping mandated public engagement?

In the case of Bill 25-0066, Scott’s own law department observed that the text amendment approach makes the legislation vulnerable to legal challenge.

There have been other process issues.

In September, two of the bills that had been approved in Dorsey’s committee were brought back to be re-approved. It turned out that required reports from the Transportation Department and Zoning Board were never submitted.

And on November 20, Dorsey was told by tech support that people following on WebX or watching on Charm TV couldn’t hear anything.

He nevertheless allowed the committee to hear and vote on six routine bills. (For the last item on the agenda, Bill 25-0066, Dorsey moved the committee to the Board of Estimates room where there was working audio.)

“You’re supposed to be able to hear all those items under the Open Meetings Act. But he just soldiered on through and only fixed the issue for that one bill,” said Remington resident Joan Floyd, who contends Dorsey and other bill supporters are misrepresenting basic facts about the bill.

“There’s a lot of Trumpian energy coming out of City Hall these days”  – Remington resident Joan Floyd.

State requirements having to do with how zoning is changed, how things are posted, how much notice is given, she says, are being ignored.

“He’s sending out these l’etat, c’est moi vibes,” she remarked. “There’s a lot of Trumpian energy coming out of City Hall these days.”

Reservoir Hill community leader Prier agrees. While Council chairs have wide latitude in running their committees, she said, Dorsey should follow the lead of other chairs “and veer on the side of as much participation as possible.”

Holding public hearings at 9 a.m., limiting comments to two minutes and requiring virtual commenters to register 48 hours beforehand all discourage community input, Prier believes.

“I’ve actually written to Council President Cohen to outline the problem with that,” she told The Brew.

“Not impartial”

Nichole’ Gatewood thinks Cohen should remove Dorsey as chair. “He’s not impartial,” said Gatewood, president of the Hillsdale Heights Neighborhood Association, who also wanted to testify last week.

Re-opening the hearing on Bill 25-0066 is an obvious fix, she said, but the larger issue is that Dorsey is not temperamentally suited to sitting as chair and doesn’t make enough effort to act in a neutral manner.

His chiding tone toward Council Vice President Sharon Green Middleton, a bill critic, at the November 20 hearing, Gatewood feels, “was highly inappropriate.”

Prier further pointed out that after being persuaded to allow in-person testimony last week, Dorsey made no secret of his annoyance at having to do so, saying, for example, “We heard from Mr. John Murphy at the previous hearing. But I guess we’re going to hear from Mr. John Murphy again.” It was the same as he introduced others.

“His remarks seemed intended to make people who were opponents feel embarrassed, like ‘Oh, you’re over-participating,”’ Prier said.

“For people supporting the bill, no one reminded them of how many times they’ve spoken before.”

Marble Hill’s Charles Williams has written a detailed letter to Cohen and other city leaders arguing why the process has been flawed and 25-0066 should be halted.

But last week, during his two minutes before the committee, he made it personal, describing himself as a first-generation homebuyer and pleading: “Our neighborhood, we are really struggling. I ask you to please reconsider.”