patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!
Local Voices
Coordinator, The Gaithersburg - North Potomac - Rockville Coalition, online at www.scale-it-back.com

Blog: Johns Hopkins, Seriously, Are You Freaking Kidding Me?

Over five years of ducking, weaving and empty marketing rhetoric.  Johns Hopkins seems determined to play the role of a selfish 900 pound bully. 

Johns Hopkins was able to buy Belward Farm from Elizabeth Banks for $5 million instead of its acknowledged value of $54 million because Ms. Banks was willing to accept the lower price in order to have a minimally intrusive academic campus on her farm.  Ms. Banks thought a university campus would serve as a fitting legacy for her family who had owned the farm for over 100 years.  And, she was willing to take the lower amount in order to see her wishes carried out.  Unfortunately, it appears that her faith in the University was sadly misplaced.

There was a deed.  JHU wrote it and insisted that they would need to build in flexibility.  Flexibility to build the desired 4,000 person leafy campus OR the current plan for a 15,000 person high-rise commercial office complex?  NO. That is way beyond flexible!  They built in loopholes and now they are taking advantage of an elderly woman who trusted them.

It appears that the officials at Johns Hopkins had no intention of honoring their original commitments to Elizabeth Banks.  Even though the University, Ms. Banks and her family agreed upon a plan for Belward Farm in 1997, the University chose not to follow through with that plan.  They waited for Ms. Banks to die and then they enlisted the county’s support in their efforts to rezone the farm for a massive money-making commercial real estate venture, over three times larger than the 1997 plan.  As Frederic Fransen, Executive Director of the Center for Excellence in Higher Education said, “…the Montgomery County officials, smelling money, eagerly approved the revised plans.  What's particularly troublesome is that local officials, in effect, became co-conspirators in the University's effort to shaft the donor.”

Hopkins is offering ground leases for commercial development with buildings up to 14 stories tall.  The University has not committed to occupy any of the buildings on the farm.  The Great Seneca Science Corridor Master Plan requires that only 40% of the commercial development be “science-related”.  So, 60% could be almost anything else.  Certainly not a leafy campus and hardly the formula for a so-called “Science City”.

According to a Washington Post article on February 19, 2001 by Dana Hedgpeth, Ms. Banks’ relationship with Johns Hopkins soured during construction on the eastern parcel when the bulldozers began to remove the trees in the buffer.  According to the article, Ms. Banks said “They came, they lied to me” she said.  “It hurt me so.  I had all the faith in the world.  They turned on me.  They stabbed me in the back.”  The article further stated “Liz Banks wanted to do a good deed, and she has, but the reality of her decision has returned to haunt her.” 

The officials at Johns Hopkins have chosen to ignore the fact that there are many people living and breathing today who know exactly what Ms. Banks wanted on her farm and what she absolutely abhorred.  Elizabeth Banks was ADAMANT that her farm must not be used for residential or commercial development.  When she died in 2005, her obituary stated:  “Her love of the land led Ms. Banks and her family to sell Belward Farm at a gift price to Johns Hopkins University to ensure its development as a campus instead of a housing or commercial complex.” 

She would never have sold Belward Farm to JHU if she had known that a massive commercial office complex would be built on her farm.  And she certainly would not have sold Belward Farm to Hopkins for one-fifth of its value if she had known they were planning to rip her off. 

Elaine Amir, Executive Director of the Johns Hopkins University Montgomery County Campus, was a personal friend of Elizabeth Banks.  Yet she admitted at a community meeting that the University’s plans are “not at all what she [Ms. Banks] would have wanted”.  Elaine said she spent many hours with Ms. Banks and sat with her during thunderstorms. 

John Dearden, who worked for 12 years at JHU and served as its Director of Sponsored Projects at the time the farm was donated to the university, said he is in strong support of the family’s efforts because he “spent several years of my professional life working on [the gift].” He is positive the university “understood the intent” of the donor was to create a “version of [JHU’s] Homewood campus’, not a high-rise commercial complex that is part of Montgomery County’s ‘Science City.’”

Joseph R. Davis, a 40-year veteran expert on Maryland land planning issues was directly involved in the zoning process of the Belward Farm property; first as a planner and program manager with the Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Commission (M-NCPPC). This is what Mr. Davis said to the Court about these events:

“…Elizabeth Banks was firmly opposed to residential and commercial development of [Belward Farm].  Her views concerning her intent to preserve [Belward Farm] from development were much publicized and widely known in the community.”

Negative reaction to Johns Hopkins’ refusal to honor the intentions of Elizabeth Banks has been widespread.  Steve Leimberg’s July 2012 Charitable Planning Newsletter states, “In the world of philanthropy, there is perhaps no principle more important than adherence to donor intent.  Indeed, the law requires charities to comply with a donor’s restrictions on contributions so that donor intent will be fulfilled.

Courts have zealously guarded such restrictions and strive to ensure that donor intent is followed.”

Mr. Leimberg quotes Richard L. Fox who is an attorney and partner in the Philadelphia office of the law firm of Dilworth Paxon LLP where he heads the Philanthropic and Nonprofit practice.  Mr. Fox provided an Executive Summary, the Facts and Comments on the case.

In his commentary he states:

“Like all donor intent cases, this case has stirred the passions of many and it will be interesting to see how Johns Hopkins reacts to this matter given the public pressure being placed on it to follow the purported donor intent under the deed and contract conveying Belward Farm.  Institutions generally are reluctant to get into fights with donors that could potentially cause problems with future donors.  But, there is so much money involved in this matter that this is a case that Johns Hopkins apparently is willing to see through in an effort to have the 2011 development plan move forward.”

In an effort to force Johns Hopkins to honor their aunt’s intentions, the family is now embroiled in a lawsuit against the University.  The family is not asking for compensation beyond court costs. They simply want the officials at Johns Hopkins University to do what they promised their aunt they would do.  Is that asking too much?  Hopkins is huge and they have zillions of dollars to pay high-priced lawyers.  But, seriously, Johns Hopkins show some class!  And a little honesty and integrity wouldn’t hurt.

The hearing on Summary Judgment will be held Friday, October 26, 2012 in the Montgomery County Circuit Court in Rockville, MD.  The trial is scheduled to begin on November 13, 2012 in the Circuit Court in Rockville.  To read the news and legal documents regarding the lawsuit, please see www.scale-it-back.com

jnrentz1

8:15 am on Thursday, October 25, 2012

Ms. Baron;

Thank you for your excellent article on Belward and Johns Hopkins. It seems that the bully in this matter is going to continue its blatant dishonesty and with the collusion of the officials of Montgomery County, go on to do its part to urbanize and over crowd us. I suppose Johns Hopkins and Montgomery County zoning officials and others will only be happy when our 500 square miles resemble Mid Town Manhattan.

I for one, hope you win your case.

Best regards,

jnrentz

Reply

Mike

11:28 am on Thursday, October 25, 2012

This writer of this article clearly has a vendetta against Hopkins.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Donna Baron (Scale-it-back.com)

1:34 pm on Thursday, October 25, 2012

"Vendetta" is a strange word to use. Is telling the truth a "vendetta"?

I have lived about a quarter of a mile from Belward Farm for over 30 years. I watched Elizabeth Banks tend her pristine historic farm. I heard about her battles to preserve her farm. I knew that she had sold it to Johns Hopkins because they supposedly understood her intentions to create a legacy for her family.

When Hopkins announced that they were ready to move forward, I went to all the meetings because I was excited to hear about their plans. At first they would not tell us what they were going to do on the farm.

Then they announced that they would build 4.6 to 6.5 million sq ft of commercial space in buildings up to 14 stories tall. They said we could arrange it any way we wanted it. There was no discussion. There was no mention of Elizabeth Banks' intentions for her farm. There was no recognition of the effects of their plans on the adjacent neighborhoods.

I have no vendetta. I am just appalled at the unbridled arrogance of Johns Hopkins. I can't believe that, with all the overwhelming sentiment against their plans, they simply don't give a rip about the family or the residents.

Cindy

12:02 pm on Thursday, October 25, 2012

JHU has clearly exploited Mrs. Bank's genersosity. No one has a vendetta against JHU. The goal of JHU has nothing to do with honoring donor intention. Belward Farm's legacy should not be stampeded over by greed driven corporations. I believe JHU is not worthy of building anything here. The entire farm should be put in a life long conservation easement and left for future generations to honor and enjoy.

Reply

Fred Foo

3:36 pm on Friday, October 26, 2012

The article says "Courts have zealously guarded such restrictions and strive to ensure that donor intent is followed.”

Are you saying the courts should ignore the wording of the gift and try to figure out what Ms. Banks meant to say? I doubt the courts will agree with you.

Rather than suing JHU, it would be more productive for the Banks family to sue her own counsel. It's her own lawyers who made a colossal error and should be held liable. If she didn't use lawyers, than she is at fault, not JHU. Can anyone imagine giving millions of dollars away without a lawyer to make sure the money is used for the intended purpose?

I have sympathy for Ms. Banks and have had it up to here with overdevelopment in MC but, in this case, JHU appears to be in the right.

Reply
Comment_arrow

jnrentz1

4:10 am on Saturday, October 27, 2012

Fred Foo:

Johns Hopkins may be legally right, but they are morally wrong.

Sandy Ressler

6:22 pm on Friday, October 26, 2012

JHU is clearly doing whatever they can to monetize the valuable property. In the post is the quote " Institutions generally are reluctant to get into fights with donors that could potentially cause problems with future donors." Very interesting...perhaps the scale-it-back people should also explore impending donations and the other sources of income JHU is pursuing, and be sure that these future donors are aware of the Belward Farm situation.

Reply

Donna Baron (Scale-it-back.com)

9:33 pm on Friday, October 26, 2012

Today, Circuit Court Judge Ronald Rubin ruled in favor of Johns Hopkins, granting Summary Judgment. Apparently, the intent of the donor doesn’t matter in court.

Hopkins, with their high-priced lawyers, was able to write the contract with just enough of the right words to make Ms. Banks think that they understood and would carry out her wishes. But, they also wrote it with enough ambiguity and “flexibility” to get exactly what they wanted all along…a high-rise commercial office complex for 15,000 people.

It is such a disappointment but it is not unlike most issues in the county where the residents object to the county’s plans. In the end, the county does exactly what they decided to do in the first place.

I asked Tim Newell, Ms. Banks’ nephew, if he plans to appeal. He said he will discuss it with his lawyer.

Reply

Fred Foo

9:25 am on Saturday, October 27, 2012

I'm relieved the court sided with JHU. To do otherwise would open the court system to all sorts of ridiculous claims. ("My *intent* in buying that lottery ticket was to get the million-dollar prize, your honor. Give it to me!")

Reply
Comment_arrow

Donna Baron (Scale-it-back.com)

9:59 am on Saturday, October 27, 2012

To say "I'm relieved the court sided with JHU." indicates you have no heart. But I am not so naive as to think that the courts care anything about "heart" or morality or integrity or honor.
Ms. Banks was old-school. She trusted Johns Hopkins because they said all the right things. She had a lawyer who is also deceased but apparently they both believed the officials at Johns Hopkins. That is the problem here. They believed that Johns Hopkins was an honorable institution with the best of intentions. Rubbish.
Johns Hopkins is a business. Their focus is on the money. They said they expect to make $12 billion on Ms. Banks' property. They don't give a rip about honor, integrity, intentions, promises or morality. They did what they needed to do to get Ms. Banks property so they can make tons of money.
Our hope is that their money may be used to do some good. But the whole Belward Farm/Johns Hopkins process is certainly unsavory at best. It reeks with Gordon Gecko, "Greed is good".
Let that be the lesson for anyone who thinks about giving money to Johns Hopkins or any other big business, regardless of the image they try to portray.

Leave a comment