One hundred fifty years ago today, at the age of forty-one, Brigadier General Robert Selden Garnett, C.S.A., was shot and killed by a Union marksman. Garnett was the first general officer to be killed in the Civil War.

Garnett’s lineage was already rich in history. His maternal grandfather was a French general, Jean Pierre de Gouges, and a great-great-grandmother, Olympe de Gouges, was executed in Paris in 1793 for “counter-revolutionary” writings. On his father’s side, his family had been making history in Virginia since the seventeenth century. Garnett’s great-grandfather, Captain James Garnett, was a justice of Essex, sheriff of the county, and a member of the House of Burgesses. One of Garnett’s first cousins was Alexander Yelverton Peyton Garnett, physician to Jefferson Davis. Another first cousin, Brigadier General Richard Brooke Garnett, C.S.A., would be killed in Pickett’s charge in 1863. An uncle was Major General George Mercer Brooke, U.S.A., of War of 1812 fame. Other uncles had represented Virginia in the Congress of the United States, including Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, who had served both as speaker of the house and as senator, and Muscoe Russell Hunter Garnett of Elmwood, the one Garnett colonial house standing today. The latter’s wife, the daughter of Edwin A. Stevens, founder of the Stevens Technical Institute, first America’s Cup winner, and commodore of the New York Yacht Club, would be abducted from Elmwood during the war by Union troops at her father’s urging and not returned until after her husband’s death in 1864. Garnett’s father represented Essex County in the house of representatives and appointed Robert E. Lee to West Point. Garnett himself was in the class of 1841 at the Point.

According to a contemporary newspaper account, Garnett was “about five feet eight inches, rather slenderly built, with a fine high arching forehead and regular and handsome features, almost classic in their regularity and mingled delicacy and strength of beauty. His hair, almost coal black, as were his eyes, he wore long on the neck, in the prevailing fashion among the Virginia aristocracy.” An Oregon historian, H. Dean Guie, wrote more recently that Garnett was “reserved, aloof and proud, exacting but as prompt to commend as to reprimand,” that he was “austere, slight, darkly handsome” and “held the respect and confidence of subordinates and enjoyed the esteem of superiors.”

Twice brevetted for bravery in the Mexican War, to captain and then major, Garnett was Zachary Taylor’s aide-de-camp when Taylor was elected president in 1848. In the spring of 1849, Garnett was sent by the new president with Congressman T. Butler King of Georgia to California to negotiate the newly won territory’s entry into the Union. It was Garnett who designed California’s state seal.

From 1852 to 1854, while Robert E. Lee was superintendent at West Point, Garnett was commandant of cadets there. Recruiting in New York City thereafter, Garnett met Marianna Easton Nelson, the only child of a stockbroker, who was from New Bedford, Massachusetts, but then resided in winter on 40th Street, between Fifth and Madison Avenues. Marianna’s family was rich in history too. On her mother’s side, Marianna descended from a line of Quaker abolitionists.  Her great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather, Nicholas Easton (b.1593), built the first English house on the site of Newport, Rhode Island, in 1639, and was governor of Rhode Island from 1672 until his death in 1675. His son John, also in Marianna’s line, was governor from 1690 to 1695 and wrote a “Narrative of the Causes Which Led to King Philip’s War,” accepted as giving an unbiased account of the Wampanoags’ grievances. Marianna’s maternal grandmother was Ruth Brown of Providence. According to the letter Garnett wrote to his mother to announce the engagement, Marianna was “of fair complexion, blue eyes, light hair, slightly under the medium stature, slight of figure, but animate. Her expression of face is considered by all as very pretty and particularly indicative of gentleness and sweetness of disposition. Her mental qualities are good,” she is “very womanly in character, disposition,” and she has “most ladylike manners. She is all that I could desire her to be and eminently suited to my tastes.” By reputation, Marianna was one of the great beauties of New York, and Garnett one of the city’s most popular bachelors. On Tuesday, January 22, 1857, Garnett and Marianna were married there.

The previous August, Garnett, by then a major, had been assigned to build and command Ft. Simcoe, in the Washington Territory, to control, fight, and sometimes protect the neighboring Indian tribes, loosely referred to by the whites as “the Yakima Nation.” On April 5, 1857, Garnett and his new wife began the arduous journey there, arriving at the post on May 17th. The following April, Marianna wrote a friend in Lockport, New York, where her aunt and uncle and several first cousins lived — her father’s brother and her mother’s sister were husband and wife as well — that her ten-week-old son, Arthur Nelson Garnett, was a “fat, happy and healthy child.” Of herself, “the long sea voyage from New York to San Francisco has entirely cured the Neuralgia from which I suffered and I expect now to live to be a fat and healthy old lady.”

On August 10, 1858, Garnett set out to round up and bring to justice a band of about 100 hostile Indians who had two months earlier attacked and turned back an expedition of California gold miners. When he left, his wife and child were well. On September 17th, three days before Garnett’s return, Marianna died, of “bilious fever.” She was twenty-six and had been married a mere twenty months. Her child outlived her by six days. Garnett was given leave to take them back for burial in the Nelson family plot in the Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn.

He repeatedly extended his leave, travelling in England, France, and Italy, hoping never to return to the memories at Ft. Simcoe, and waiting for Virginia’s decision in the matter of the Union. Garnett did not return to the United States until April of 1861, and, on April 17th, in his last two-week extension of leave, Virginia seceded. Garnett resigned from the Army of the United States on April 30th. Shortly thereafter, he was named adjutant general of the Virginia forces, with the rank of colonel, under Robert E. Lee. On June 6th, he was raised to the rank of brigadier general.

In July, Lee sent Garnett to save a desperate situation — to organize and control what seemed sure to be a costly rout of untrained and inexperienced Georgia and Virginia troops after the Union victory at Philippi, Virginia. Garnett’s retreat was very largely successful. Despite his being outnumbered six to one by McClellan’s troops, Garnett saved his army. Attempting, however, to cover his main column, which had just crossed over the Cheat River, Garnett posted ten sharpshooters in some driftwood near Corrick’s Ford, but, with an appreciation of the importance of setting an example that hardly seems conceivable today, did not take cover himself. It was not enough. As the Union troops appeared on the far side of the stream, according to Union accounts, the green sharpshooters fired one volley and then withdrew, save for one. Garnett turned and waved his scarf to rally them, and at that moment he was shot in the back. The one marksman who stuck with Garnett was felled by the next shot. The Union officers who came upon Garnett moments after he fell all knew him. One had been his roommate at West Point for four years. They posted a guard to protect his body from any indignity.

On August 28, 1865, having been interred at Greenmount Cemetery in Baltimore for the duration of the war, Garnett was laid to rest next to his wife and child in Green-Wood. Garnett had erected an obelisk to their memory, but his own grave remained unmarked until this year. With their deaths, two family lines, woven deep in the texture of American history, and full of so much promise, came to a wasteful end.

Garnett obelisk at Green-Wood Cemetery

Courtesy of Enoch Pratt Free Library, Central Library and State Library Resource Center, Baltimore

As a past president of the Ward One Residents Association I can say with confidence that its policy has always been to oppose making the downtown a generic event venue because it puts too great a strain on the delicate balance of residential and business uses there. On the other hand, events and institutions that reflect the special history and character of Annapolis are to be encouraged. A National Sailing Hall of Fame passes that test. Many people seem to have forgotten that the Association supported the original Whitbread Race — with a unanimous vote of a quorum of the membership at an open meeting. For years Ward One had a booth at the boat shows, which it gave up only because it became harder and harder to find residents with time to volunteer. More recently, I had not heard a single Ward One member express opposition to establishment of the Hall of Fame at City Dock. But as the details were gradually disclosed, the doubts multiplied.

Because I am also a past president of the Chesapeake Bay Yacht Racing Association and a past chairman of what is now called the Annapolis Historic Preservation Commission, the then Ward One president asked me to serve on the citizens advisory committee that was formed by the Hall of Fame boosters – precisely in the hope that I could bridge some gaps which might arise. As it happened, that group met once and then was abandoned. And I found myself troubled by the sailing aspect of the proposal, more specifically the boosters’ apparent lack of interest in the relatively non-elitist historic origins of “yacht” racing.

When the City’s original Hall of Fame proposal was first circulated a few years ago, it was a modest one – restore the house on the site and turn it into a museum. This seemed perfect to me. The on-site Captain Burtis House is about the same age as Eastport’s Williams House (touted as the oldest house in Eastport). It’s the last remnant of the Hell Point maritime community (most of the rest was lost to federal condemnation for the Naval Academy before the federal government became more enlightened about historic preservation). It currently houses the Maryland Natural Resources Police, a direct descendant of the State Oyster Police (better known as the “Oyster Navy”).

Established by the General Assembly in 1868 to protect the Chesapeake Bay’s 356,000 acres of natural oyster bars from excess and unlicensed dredging by “oyster pirates,” at the outset the Oyster Navy had one side-wheel steamer and two sailboats to cover all that ground. At its peak, it had two steamers, four schooners, and six sloops. The house on the proposed Hall of Fame site was home to William Burtis, who served as one of the captains in the Oyster Navy and leased his wharf to the Oyster Navy for their boats.

I can’t remember where I first heard it, maybe from Gary Jobson, but it’s now a standard joke in the sailing world that the first sailboat race undoubtedly occurred the first time one boat came within sight of another. Fast sailboats on the Chesapeake Bay certainly raced for serious functional reasons – the fastest log canoe or bugeye got its catch to market first, or evaded the sloops of the Oyster Navy if need be. Just imagine match-racing with the added tactical tool of firearms. The watermen in log canoes were reputed to be the fastest sailors on the Bay, and they could sail in waters too shallow for a faster steamer to follow.

The word “yacht” nowadays puts on airs, and is frequently criticized as elitist and off-putting. But its origins are as modest as the original plan for the Burtis property. According to an online etymological dictionary, it dates back at least to 1557, from “yeaghe, ‘a light, fast-sailing ship,’ probably from Norw. jaght, from M.L.G. jacht, shortened form of jachtschip ‘fast pirate ship,’ lit. ‘ship for chasing,’ from jacht ‘chase,’ from jagen ‘to chase, hunt,’ from O.H.G. jagon * * *.” That’s the true origin of sailboat racing — watermen, pirates, and maritime law enforcement — and the Captain Burtis House and its history make a perfect introduction to a Sailing Hall of Fame.

As Gary Jobson puts it in a promotional video, a laudable purpose of the Hall of Fame will be “educational,” to celebrate “unsung heroes and heritage” and “inspire youth involvement” and “outreach” to “new sectors of society.” However, I believe that the plan to eliminate the Captain Burtis House reflected a bit of putting on airs as well. If we really want to celebrate sailing’s unsung heroes and heritage, leaving the Captain Burtis House out of the story would have been a big step in the wrong direction.

There are places in the United States where there is no zoning law, and a landowner can put his land to any use he pleases, unless it is illegal for some other reason. Annapolis is not one of those places, and nor is anywhere else in the State of Maryland. In Annapolis, the City has a Department of Planning and Zoning charged with comprehensive land use planning and staffed by people with college and university training in city planning and related academic disciplines.

The Ward One Sector Study was undertaken by the department to achieve consensus over a sensible planning policy for Ward One, articulate a master plan reflecting that policy, and start the work toward implementing it. The study’s participants included the planning professionals employed by the City, a consultant under contract with the City, residents, and businessmen, including non-residents with no voting rights in the City. Four of the businessmen represented the hospitality industry. The study group held countless meetings and hearings for about three years to reach its conclusions.

Recognizing the link between the health of the neighborhoods and the commercial areas, the study agreed that Annapolis must remain “livable” and needed “special protections for the most vulnerable neighborhoods.” The study further identified several disturbing trends in the ward, of which declining population (down about 20% from 1970 to 1990, an average of 1% per year), particularly single-family residential population, was at the head of the list. Another trend identified was a steady decrease of local serving businesses and an increase in establishments serving alcohol.

Today there are approximately 5600 alcohol-serving customer seats in Ward One (in contrast to 3700 residents), of which about 15% have been added since 1980 (again, up an average of about 1% per year). Based on increasing complaints from our residents, the Association advocated rolling back all closings to midnight. As the then president of the association, John Prehn, explained in a letter to the Mayor and City Council in 1990, the primary problems were noise, fighting, loitering, cruising, littering, parking violations, public urination, and speeding through residential streets, particularly at closing time. Observing tavern activity over time, we concluded that the two o’clock licenses were disproportionately burdensome not only to the peace of the residential neighborhoods, but also to costly city services: police were called to break up fights, and ambulances were summoned to take injured patrons to the hospital. Late night patrons waiting in line were relatively young, under thirty-five, and were there to drink and party, not eat; in effect, the two o’clock licenses marked the difference between a restaurant and a night club. The sign aimed at Route 50 for the satellite Buddy’s on Hudson Street said it all with admirable candor: Buddy’s Late Night.

In the current regrettable climate of personal attacks, it is noteworthy that Captain Prehn’s letter also pointed out the difficulty of reaching the position we did, because the proprietors of the late-night establishments are reputable citizens, who “run fine restaurants which help to make Annapolis the wonderful community it is,” and have made sincere and energetic efforts to help with the problems we identified. Unfortunately, despite those efforts, downtown Annapolis was more and more being seen by young people from the greater metropolitan area surrounding us as a party town, a place to go and drink until two o’clock in the morning. Five years later, it has not gotten any better, and for a vision of a possible future as a regional watering hole, talk to residents of Georgetown in Washington or Fells Point in Baltimore. The Baltimore Sun of September 10th gives a very vivid description of how bad it has become in Fells Point.

Understandably, representatives of the hospitality industry objected very strenuously to rolling back existing licenses, and it became an intensely-debated issue in the Sector Study deliberations. Ultimately the Association and other Sector Study participants agreed on a fairly obvious compromise: the City would not take away any late licenses already in effect, but it would forbid any new ones. While this approach was unlikely to make downtown conditions any better, it was hoped it would keep them from getting any worse. And most importantly for present purposes, it was plainly the least disruptive compromise available. Simply, it recognizes the enormous difference in expectation interests between taking away something you already have and depend on (one of the hospitality spokesmen estimated 30% of his trade was dependent on the late license), as against merely eliminating the possibility of getting something you do not already have and cannot possibly be depending on.

In July of 1993, the City Council passed a resolution adopting the Sector Study as City planning policy. The same day, inexplicably, it approved a new two o’clock conditional use, Buddy’s, it had disapproved three years earlier before the Sector Study was completed. This was the first violation of the compromise — by the City. It was this latter approval that the Association challenged in court, arguing that it was illegal for the Council to change its mind on a conditional use application “without a substantial change in conditions,” particularly when it had just adopted as official City policy a comprehensive plan specifically forbidding new two o’clock licenses.

Minutes of a meeting of the Economic Matters Committee in September, 1993, reflect the views of the hospitality industry expressed by the proprietor of Middleton’s, Jerry Hardesty (who now operates O’Brien’s as well and whose current intentions there, according to an article in the business section of the Capital, are frustrated by having a two o’clock license only for the first floor). According to the summary of his testimony, they would “stand by” the compromise so long as restaurants’ and bars’ existing two o’clock licenses would be valid “in perpetuity,” and “transferable” in a sale. A further condition of industry support was that the seating caps would be removed in favor of more liberal square-footage public safety guidelines. Finally, he indicated that the industry preference was for the agreement to be “codified” into a City ordinance. An October memorandum from the Sector Study consultant listed the existing two o’clock licenses, so there could be no misunderstanding.

Before codification was accomplished, however, another establishment which did not have a two o’clock license, Maria’s, presented a variation on the reasonable expectation interest argument: its application for such a license was already to some degree pending, and its proprietor had a reasonable expectation of being at least allowed to complete the process. We did not think that this was a good argument — indeed it violated the compromise — again. Nevertheless, the City Council accepted it, and the ordinance adopted in June, 1994, to codify the compromise also permitted this establishment to continue to pursue approval of the “conditional use” and liquor license needed for two o’clock closing.

There has been a lot of confused talk about the “conditional use” process, and a brief explanation might be helpful. What zoning law is all about is regulating land use, and some “uses” are recognized as more “intense” than others, having the largest potential for disruption. In Annapolis, the more intense uses, such as bars and restaurants, are not currently permitted automatically in the historic district or near residential areas, but must be approved as conditional uses, with operating conditions imposed, on a case-by-case basis, based on each applicant’s unique circumstances. There is no explicit law forbidding, say, ecdysiastic lap-dancing establishments, but one presumes that none would survive conditional use review. By their nature, such case-by-case determinations are sometimes a difficult balancing act — it is not the same as adding a column of figures, where disagreement means someone simply goofed.

As it happened, Maria’s application was rejected on its merits by the Council. Statutory standards for approval of such uses require, for example, a finding that the use will not be “injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property * * * or substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood” and that a “community need for the use has been established.”

In June of 1995, the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland held in our favor against Buddy’s, ruling that the Council’s action in approving Buddy’s second application was “arbitrary and capricious,” and hence unlawful. Immediately thereafter, O-34-95 and 0-35-95 were introduced.

With the exception of Alderman Tullier, whom I do not know, I have enjoyed some sort of personal dealings with every member of the Council as well as with the Mayor, and I am sincere when I say that one-on-one they seem to be honorable people doing what they think is best for the City, and that I have nothing but warm personal regard for each of them. Nevertheless, it is hard for downtown residents to see these two bills as anything but collective revenge against us for the courthouse victory.

The two bills would not simply undo the part of the compromise favoring residents, although 0-35-95 does just that. The more far-reaching, O-34-95, would then eliminate not only the midnight liquor limit downtown, but also the entire conditional use process for “any restaurant” there permitted to “remain open” until midnight on June 13, 1994. Thus, not only would the twelve existing establishments with midnight liquor licenses be automatically permitted both to extend their hours until two o’clock and to “expand * * * to include a bar, dancing and live entertainment,” but six other restaurants permitted to stay open until midnight, but currently without any liquor license, could apparently do the same thing. And lest we forget the thirteen existing restaurants with two o’clock licenses, they too benefit, since they could fully “intensify” their “use” to that of a night club without any of the conditional use protections now required. Additionally, the City Code currently allows expansion into an adjacent building subject to the conditional use process, but eliminating the process for restaurants and bars would apparently make City approval of that expansion automatic as well, not to mention expansion onto the sidewalk and, if the recent Capital editorial carries the day, onto the rooftops.

Penetrating the confusion and personal animosity which have regrettably characterized most of the debate on this issue, these bills are said to rest on “fairness.” As one restaurant owner who does not have a two o’clock license put it to me, where was the fairness in letting the four Sector Study industry representatives, all of whom already had two o’clock licenses, cut a deal which “codified” their monopoly “in perpetuity.” While I admit that this point has some appeal, the proposed cure will not withstand analysis. As I said, the key to the current compromise was protection of reasonable expectation interests: the expectation that the City would not take away a license on which your livelihood depended was much more reasonable than any expectation that the City would start handing out such licenses to anybody who asked. There has not been a new two o’clock license lawfully granted since 1985 (Pete’s Place) — even before the Sector Study there had been a moratorium in fact if not quite in law. And viewed from that perspective it is hard to see any “fairness” difference between those who already have restaurants and those who only aspire to them — neither had any reasonable expectation of obtaining a late license.

I have heard aldermen from other wards remark that the historic district is the jewel in the City’s crown and that it belongs to all the City’s residents, and I quite agree. This bill will apparently be considered at public hearings at City Hall by the City Council on Monday, March 22d. If you believe in the regional watering hole vision of the historic district, Georgetown East or Fells Point South — as a Main Street T-shirt already has it, “a drinking town with a sailing problem” — then other aldermen have the power of the majority to do it to us. If, as I suspect, it is not your vision of the City’s jewel any more than it is mine, then please let the aldermen from the other wards know.

Josh Cohen’s position on on “council-manager” is now that he will hire a certified professional city manager, but have him or her answerable to the mayor, not the council as a whole. What seems to have been overlooked in the talk about change is that we already have that arrangement with the current administration: like him or not, Mr. Agee is ICMA-certified. See http://icma.org/credentialed/?hsid=1&ssid1=2521&ssid2=2526

Also overlooked is that the goal is not only to ensure competent management, but also to insulate operational management from political interference by one elected official. It is all too easy for a single elected official to use operational control to reward supporters and penalize opponents, but it’s quite a bit harder for a majority of the council to line up that way.

Mayors are elected for leadership, vision, charisma, things like that, and it’s only blind luck electing one with any management ability. What makes us think we will be so lucky in the next election or any other election? If the past eight years didn’t convince us of the need for an operational manager separate from the mayor, I would have thought that the Zina Pierre story would have. Here was a candidate with everything one needed to be elected — vision, charisma, presence, eloquence, etc. Several of my own supporters predicted that she would win because she came across as the most mayoral of all of us. And the truth is she might have made a very good mayor, but perhaps she wouldn’t have been a very good operational manager.

A moderate Republican friend recently gave me a book to read called “The Second Civil War – How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America.”  I am not very far into it yet, but the central message is one that I argued in my campaign: we have become polarized along party lines to the point that our politicians are more interested in party loyalty and ideology than in solving public problems.

That attitude seems to have trickled down, where it makes even less sense, to local elections. Most American cities have already adopted non-partisan elections, and we should do the same thing, for the simple reason that party ideology has almost nothing to do with local governance.

Republican aldermanic candidate Greg Stiverson supports non-partisan city elections:

Fundamentally, I believe Annapolis needs nonpartisan elections. Every other city in Maryland, with the exception of Frederick and Baltimore, has nonpartisan municipal elections. State and national politics have virtually nothing to do with issues of local concern.

Independent mayoral candidate Chris Fox also supports non-partisan elections.

The other argument in favor of non-partisan elections is perhaps more provocative to party leaders, but well illustrated in Maryland. When one party dominates the voter rolls, the primary election, despite its generally lower turnout (and often less serious choice — remember when George Wallace won Maryland primaries?), decides the outcome.

Although much has been made of the Democratic nominee having come in second in the primary, the reality is that approximately 11/12 of the eligible Democratic voters did not vote for Josh Cohen, and indeed even just looking at the people who actually voted, almost 2/3 voted against Josh Cohen. That Josh came in with the second highest plurality is about as meaningful statistically as his shoe size. When we call that “democracy,” we are fooling ourselves.

Run-off elections are the best answer, but they cost money. Although we do have special elections fairly often when elected officials leave their positions early, most politicians balk at run-offs. The next best thing is what’s called  “instant runoff voting” (IRV). As explained in a blog posting by activist Will Small:

IRV is elegantly simple and helps foolproof the election, preventing the spoiler issue and preempting issues such as the sullied results of the democratic primary. In IRV the electorate ranks their candidates in order of preference. If there is a majority winner at the 1st choice the judges stop counting. If not, they go on to the 2nd choice and so on. Takoma Park has it.

See http://www.fairvote.org/

Dear city leaders:

This is a good time to talk about introducing Instant Runoff Elections, or IRV, to the Annapolis city democratic process. IRV is elegantly simple and helps foolproof the election, preventing the spolier issue and preempting issues such as the sullied results of the democratic primary. In IRV the electorate ranks their candidates in order of preference. If there is a majority winner at the 1st choice the judges stop counting. If not, they go on to the 2nd choice and so on. Takoma Park has it.

Sadly the failure of the party, media and populace to properly vet the candidates resulted in inconclusive read of the electorate’s choice. To proceed without rerunning the election would further dilute the democrats standing. I hope they, with the moniker of democrats, manage to find it within themselves to uphold the democratic process for our small city. It would support the long-term democratic process and prevent future botches such as this if you and our other leaders would enact IRV for us.

Thank you,

(Name deleted)

Statement of Gilbert Renaut, Democratic candidate for Mayor of Annapolis

First I want to thank my supporters and volunteers, who have been pleasure to work with and indispensible to my successes. Second I want to thank the voters who welcomed me when I knocked on their doors and even called me when I missed them when I knocked. Third, I want to thank the other candidates, who have not been merely civil and polite, but downright friendly.

In 2005, in a three-way race, I challenged an incumbent mayor who had full party support and who outspent me ten-to-one. I turned down developer contributions that would have doubled my budget. I lost by fewer than 800 votes. I beat the Republican nominee by more than two-to-one.

I entered the 2009 race in the firm belief that I was the best candidate to heal the wounds from the current administration and bring us all back together as citizens in a common effort to make Annapolis what it should be. I haven’t changed my mind. Moreover, I do believe in the saying attributed to Winston Churchill: “Never give in. Never, never, never, never.”

With turnout traditionally low in City primaries, and so many Democrats in the running, it is probably impossible to get poll results outside the margin of error. Nevertheless, I have to make the best of the information that is available, and it suggests that there are at least two candidates with a considerable number of votes to win this race, and it’s a close race.

As I have said before, this is not an ego trip for me — my concern is what’s best for the City of Annapolis and to ensure that our City gets the best Mayor possible. For these reasons, I have decided to withdraw my candidacy from the mayoral race and throw my support to the candidacy of Trudy McFall.

It is times like this that we must stick together and embrace our shared visions so that Annapolis can get the Mayor who, in my eyes, will work hard for Annapolitans. And that person is Trudy McFall

Trudy McFall is the one candidate who has the experience in managing a large government agency. Trudy McFall also has the experience in starting and running a business. Trudy McFall understands the importance of local small business. Trudy McFall is also sensible about the dangers of over-development and out-of-scale building. And, Trudy McFall is in favor of the council-manager proposal, which I believe is crucial for the future success of Annapolis. Thus, Trudy McFall is a candidate who I strongly believe will break from the past and bring real change and reform to City Hall.

I am confident that Trudy McFall will bring outreach, transparency, and policy to the mayor’s office to make Annapolis the best city that it can be.

I will vote enthusiastically for Trudy McFall as Mayor of Annapolis and urge my supporters to vote for Trudy McFall as well.

September 12th article from the Capital at: http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2009/09/12-10/Renaut-leaves-race-for-mayor.html

2. What is the best strategy for fighting crime in Annapolis?

I have consistently supported the proposition that community policing, with foot patrolmen walking neighborhoods they know and areas where crime seems most common, is the best way to keep crime down. Keeping a crime from happening is vastly superior to arriving after the criminals have fled. I support the current police chief’s moves in that direction

3. What is your stance on a City Manager?

I favor it. What I will do when mayor is to appoint a qualified city manager to the existing “city administrator” position and by executive order give him or her the authority and responsibilities of a manager. Having an elected official responsible for pothole triage just ensures that we’ll never have a comprehensive maintenance program. The usual way it goes now is that only the squeakiest (or best-connected) wheel gets fixed, and everything else is left for the next mayor, preferably to make the next mayor to look bad.

4. Do you support a city tax cap proposal?

If the cap were indexed to some reasonable inflationary standard I would probably support it, but the one that’s proposed is not.  Normally, I would think a cap was imprudent, but given the huge increases City residents have been subjected to the past eight years, and given the current state of the economy, I appreciate the public wish for one. However, an arbitrary cap below expected inflationary levels only reduces and weakens the government’s purchasing power year after year, which is what has been happening to the county.

5. The city borrowed close to $6 million just to ‘balance’ the 2010 operating budget, this means they had to borrow this money just for the daily operation of this city. At the same time no city department head makes less than $100,000 a year (not including benefits). We have so many departments that produce nothing, are totally ineffective. We have 16 sister cities and pay for delegates from these cities to visit Annapolis or send delegates to their cities. Our union employees received DOUBLE DIGIT raises two years ago, since then they have received 4.56% raises every year, including this year when we BORROWED money to ‘balance’ the budget. What will you do about this if you are elected Mayor?

Except in some sort of emergency, borrowing money to fund operations or to balance a budget is completely inappropriate and leaves a larger problem for the next mayor and city council and ultimately the citizens of Annapolis. The Capital reported that tax receipts to the city had gone up 126% in the last eight years, a truly remarkable increase. One of the first things I will do as mayor is charge the new city manager and the finance director to conduct an audit to determine exactly where those increases were allocated, then promptly work to reduce excess spending. As mayor, I will commit to being a responsible leader who is accountable to the people.

6. Do you support lowering the city’s Homestead Property tax cap? It’s currently 10% where as the county’s cap is 2%.

Yes. The Homestead Credit is a cap on annual assessments of owner-occupied principal residences, and under state law the taxable assessment increase cannot exceed 10%, but local governments can lower it. The county has lowered it to 2%, but the city enjoys the full 10%. Ideally, I believe it should be indexed to inflation, but the last time the issue came up I supported a 4% limit as a compromise, since 4% would cover ordinary inflation, which lately has been somewhere between 2% and 4%.

7. How do you feel about expanding the number of 2 am liquor licenses?

The last time this battle was fought, I was president of the Ward One Residents Association and led the forces against any more 2 am licenses. It’s a compromise that was agreed to before my involvement. I still favor that position. There are still people living downtown, which is a good thing, and we should not burden them any more than we have.

8. What are your ideas for continued development of inner West Street? What rules would you put in place to ensure that developers are required to support the infrastructure needs of any further development downtown?

Ideally, I would like to see all new commercial development locally owned and operated and built in human scale, and I will do everything in my power to encourage just that. Big-box chain retail with huge impervious parking lots is the worst threat both to the environment and to the existing local businesses. Infrastructure is more complicated, and the new city manager and I will first talk to the department heads to get the benefit of their views, then I will ask the city manager for a comprehensive plan. The basic premise under which I will operate is that all development should pay its own way, and I will do my best to put an end to development subsidies. This issue is of great concern to me and which is one of the reasons that my campaign has pledged not to take any campaign contributions from developers. I believe that the City should belong to its residents and development should be limited.

9. Do you have any ideas to deal with nuisance crimes (pan handling, public drinking, noise etc.)?

It is pretty well accepted now that a government that puts up with nuisance crimes ends up with more worse crimes. For that reason I am generally in favor of zero tolerance and more aggressive enforcement. As above, I think community policing, with as many officers on foot patrol as possible, is the primary way to discourage such behavior, and I think the new police chief is going in the same direction to the extent he can do so within his budget and staffing constraints.

10. Biographical information (age, occupation, education, where you are originally from, family).

I am 62, a mostly retired lawyer, born in Phoenix, Arizona, where my father was training to be an RAF Spitfire pilot, and my mother had moved because of her father’s health. I grew up in downtown Baltimore. Amicably divorced, three adult children, one granddaughter.

11. How long you have lived in Annapolis and what community do you live in, or what street?

I have lived here since 1975, and I was a student at St. John’s from 1964-68. The community is “Spa View Heights,” not part of the original Murray Hill plat, but usually referred to by people who do not know that as part of Murray Hill.

12. A summary of what you feel are the most important problems facing Annapolis today and how you would go about solving those problems.

It depends on how you slice it, because they are all interrelated — everything depends on improved and integrated City management. Economic development and sustainability, which right now are high on most people’s lists, are related to education, transit, and parking (among other things), Over-development is a severe threat to the environment and economic development. Ethnic and economic polarization are a threat to our community spirit and civic pride. Here’s the way I see it, or one slice anyway.

My first priority will be to hire a qualified city manager and do an audit of expenditures to see where the additional tax revenues collected in the past ten years have gone and the full extent of the expansion and contracting out we have been reading about. More generally, my priorities would be outreach, transparency, and policy.

Outreach means not relying on hearing testimony, but walking all the streets, both figuratively and literally, asking all our residents and business-owners what they think, and meeting regularly with other leaders we need to get along with, such as the county executive, our delegation to the general assembly, and the governor.

Transparency is making decisions in the open, seeking advice from people who are affected and people who know the most about the issue, and explaining honestly why we favor a particular decision or approach, before it becomes finalized, being honest about increased tax revenues due to increased assessments, instead of pretending we’ve lowered taxes.

Policy is what you should end up after you’ve explained honestly and listened sincerely. Instead of reacting on an ad hoc basis, the City should have and follow policies that are predictable, intelligent, and fair.

Clearly, Annapolis is a special place to live and a gem on the Chesapeake Bay, thus everything that the Mayor of Annapolis does should have a focus on cleaning up the environment and making this place great for our residents, businesses, and visitors.

13. Details about other times you have run for office.

I ran for mayor as an independent (required by federal Hatch Act) in 2005, attempting to unseat an incumbent with full party support who outspent me about ten to one. Then as now I turned down any contributions from developers and anyone else who might give me even the appearance of a conflict of interest as mayor (contributions I turned down would have doubled my budget). Lost by about 700 votes.

14. Organizations you are a part of (this includes churches, civic groups, clubs, commissions, committees etc.).

I am currently a member of Ward One and Murray Hill Residents Associations, but have severed all other such ties.

The article: hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2009/08/24-16/City-union-endorsements-questioned.html

An article in the Sunday Capital stresses how much developers’ contributions fill the campaign coffers of other candidates. Gilbert does not accept contributions from developers or any other business interests that might give him even the appearance of a conflict of interest as mayor.

Article at http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2009/08/23-49/Developers-nonresidents-bankroll-city-mayoral-races.html

The video that was done by the mayor’s public affairs office is now available “on demand” on the City’s web site at:

http://origin.peg.tv/pegtv_player?s=annapolis

That will get you a menu where you need to click “elections,” and there you can scroll down to watch Gilbert’s interview (or anyone else’s).

Gilbert recorded an interview with Dr. Herma Percy for our locally owned WNAV, 1430 on your AM dial. It can be heard on WNAV’s website “on demand” at http://www.wnav.com/

Capital article on the town meeting at http://www.hometownannapolis.com/news/top/2009/08/12-22/Crowd-speaks-out-on-bay-cleanup.html