I have loved basketball my entire life. I still remember the first time I watched the NCAA Championship game, and it left an indelible impression on me that caused me to want to play the game for many years afterwards. That is why a recent commentary in the Baltimore Sun caught my eye. The headline for the commentary read “Baltimore County Homeowners’ Association Orders Kids’ Basketball Hoops Removed; Parents Suspect Discrimination.”
As the article went on, it described that eleven-year-old and thirteen-year-old boys who live in the subdivision known as Rockland Ridge, off Falls Road and inside the Beltway, have enjoyed shooting balls on portable hoops set up in their parents’ driveways. But the Homeowners Association instructed the families of the boys to remove the portable hoops because the hoops violated the declaration of the covenants for the subdivision. The author of this commentary, Andrea K. McDaniels, who is the deputy editorial page editor for the Sun, reported that the boys were crushed at the possibility of losing one of their favorite pastimes, and their parents suspected that their sons were being discriminated against because the two young men are African American and Korean American.
Somehow, unexplained in the article, the Speaker of the House of Delegates, Adrienne Jones, became aware of the situation, and she was concerned enough to call for legislation to address it. House Bill 1347 was submitted by Delegate Barve of Montgomery County, and it would “prohibit unreasonable limitations on the location and use of a portable basketball apparatus on property in which an individual owns or has exclusive right to use.” The bill was passed in the House of Delegates and the Senate, and presumably it will be signed by the governor. I found it intriguing that the bill was sponsored by a Montgomery County delegate when the problem arose in Baltimore County, but the reason for that may never be answered.
It is also impossible to know whether racial bias played any part in the events as the parents suspect. The president of the homeowners’ association strongly denied that racial bias played any part in the matter. He went on to say that in 2017 the HOA’s architectural review committee denied a request to install a portable hoop, and another hoop was removed in 2020 after a complaint by a neighbor. Neither prior case involved people of color, according to the president.
What struck me as noticeably absent from this commentary was the failure of the parents to appreciate the impact of the covenants before this whole situation played out. I live in a subdivision that does not have a declaration of covenants, and therefore I only must be mindful of zoning regulations and possibly building permits before I undertake any outdoors improvements on my property. But in this subdivision, the original developer determined that in order to preserve the property values and amenities of the development, as well as to maintain the common areas, that it would be wise to set up a declaration of covenants. The covenants for some communities are very exacting and stringent, while in others the rules are loose and minimal. But all potential buyers in a subdivision governed by covenants should be made aware of the declaration by either their realtor, the title company at closing on the property or both.
Had the parents of these young men read the declaration of covenants, they would have seen that no landscape feature can be removed from any lot without the approval of the HOA. Similarly, television and radio antenna are not allowed per the covenants. So, forget about subscribing to the DISH Network or DirecTV. As it relates to this situation, part of the covenant reads “no structure of a temporary character…. recreational structures, or other similar structures shall be erected, used or maintained on any Lot at any time.” That seems truly clear, and you wonder why the parents did not try to get the covenants amended before the portable hoops went up or why they even bought in a subdivision with an exacting set of covenants.
I wish Ms. McDaniels had been more balanced in her commentary. There are many social justice stories worth exploring, but I do not think that this qualifies as one.
I have mixed feelings about one of the items in the County Executive’s proposed budget. Specifically, he states that he is funding 122 teaching positions that had been eliminated in the Board of Education’s suggested budget because of declining enrollment projections for next year. One part of me feels sorry for these persons who could have lost their jobs, but another part of me says this is how the system is supposed to work, yet the Executive wants to override it. Just maybe he should have left the system alone. Let me explain.
Normally in the private economy if a product does not sell, at some point the company producing that product will eliminate production of that good and more than likely lay off the employees who produced it. The same sort of principle applies to education funding in Maryland. The State provides education funding, in part, based upon the number of students in a county’s school system. More students translate to more funding, and conversely, less students equates to less money. That is why the school system eliminated those teachers in its’ budget.
It is equally clear that a certain segment of the parents in Baltimore County are dissatisfied with the education being provided by Baltimore County Public Schools. Those parents are turning to private schools, parochial schools, and home schooling as their preferred alternatives, and as a result we are seeing a decline in enrollment.
Now if this dissatisfaction does not have any resulting consequence, such as the loss of jobs, what will motivate a change in behavior to improve the environment in Baltimore County Public Schools? That is what bothers me about this line item in the County Executive’s budget.
Eric Rockel
Vice President, GTCC