Opinion ID: 2320269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superblock.

Text: In 1999, the Baltimore City Council enacted an amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan, City of Baltimore Ordinance 99-423, for the Westside section of Downtown Baltimore which was advertised as the largest Urban Renewal Plan since the Inner Harbor revitalization took place. Section 3 of that Ordinance states: That it is necessary to acquire, by purchase or by condemnation, for urban renewal purposes, the fee simple interest or any lesser interest in and to the following properties or portions thereof, together with all right, title, interest. . . .  Section 4 of Ordinance 99-423 gives the BDC, acting pursuant to its contract with the Mayor and City Council, [7] certain responsibilities with respect to the Westside project. Sections 5 and 6 of Ordinance 99-423 contain additional responsibilities the BDC is required to fulfill, separate and apart from its contract with the City. [8] It is the matter referred to by the parties as the Superblock that brings this case before the Court. The Superblock is a part of the Westside project and its boundaries are, generally, the 100 block of Clay Street and the 200 block of West Lexington Street on the north; the 100 block of North Howard Street on the west; West Fayette Street on the south; and North Liberty Street on the east. Within this perimeter are more than 50 individual properties which comprise a total of 3.62 acres. Some of the properties to be condemned or purchased by the City, as part of the Superblock project, are owned by respondents. On October 27, 2003, the BDC solicited requests for proposals (RFP's) to develop the Superblock. All of the respondents submitted development proposals to the BDC for the buildings they owned or occupied by February 27, 2004. On October 23, 2004, respondents submitted a written request to the BDC seeking, under Maryland's Public Information Act, access to minutes of meetings of the BDC's Board of Directors, copies of the proposals submitted for the Superblock, and other information in the BDC's possession regarding the proposals. On November 9, 2004, the BDC's President denied the request, writing: As a separate non-profit corporation, the City of Baltimore Development Corporation is not subject to the Maryland Public Information Act. On November 16, 2004, all of the respondents, except Carmel Realty, received a letter from the BDC stating that it would contact each of them to arrange a meeting within two weeks of the date of the letter to discuss each respondent's proposal for the development of his or her property. Respondents were to come prepared to discuss overall costs, financing sources and uses, owner's equity, anticipated public tax credit, subsidy, and grant or loan assistance. . . . The letter was signed by the BDC's Chief Operating Officer. On November 18, 2004, respondents submitted a written request to the BDC for information regarding the BDC's Board of Directors' scheduled meetings so that respondents could attend. The record does not contain a response by the BDC to this request. On that same day, the BDC's Board of Directors met and voted unanimously to recommend to the Mayor one entity as the key developer for the Superblock. Two other developers were selected to revitalize areas within the Superblock, but Carmel Realty was the only respondent to be selected as a developer. On November 29, 2004, respondents filed a two count Complaint alleging that the BDC, as the economic development arm of Baltimore City, is subject to the provisions of the Open Meetings Act and that, as the City's instrumentality, the BDC is subject to the provisions of Maryland's Public Information Act. On March 14, 2005, the Circuit Court heard arguments on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. On June 8, 2005, the Circuit Court issued an Order with a Memorandum Opinion granting petitioner's motion and denying respondent's motion. Respondents appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. On January 24, 2006, in an unreported opinion, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and found that Maryland's Open Meetings and Public Information Acts applied to the BDC. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.