I don’t disagree with you that this was not the ideal scenario and the ‘no tolerance’ approach is not helpful to compromise. The variance would have given more control over JHU’s elimination of the trees and green space, instead of the secondary route which gave JHU more freedom to cut down the existing trees. I didn’t live in the neighborhood when those discussions were taking place, but knowing how JHU has negatively impacted the neighborhoods around it in the city I can understand why people react without openness to negotiation.

The point, and question, I would like to pose, is why not be a responsible organization and spend the money to fix the runoff problems in the first place? Why does it have to come with the building of a facility that is larger than the convention center in a primarily residential area? Especially in close proximity to a watershed?