Report a Comment

Donna, I am sympathetic to Elizabeth Banks if what you say is true. But why didn't she put that in the deed? Instead she explicitly stated in the deed that the use was not limited to the development of a research campus affiliated with Johns Hopkins. Could it be that she included such stipulations exactly because she was fond of Hopkins and wanted them to be able to make the best use of the land in a way that advanced research and medicine? Surely she knew how dense the Hopkins Medical campus is.

I understand the folks at scale-it-back.com have an issue with "Science City", and I can understand why. But given that everything Hopkins proposed is in accordance with Mrs. Banks' deed, I find it hard to be convinced by the "but what she really meant was..." argument.

If Hopkins develops this land in an unattractive way, or if they use it for purposes unrelated to research and medicine, then I can see the point of the suit. But ultimately, it's not up to you to decide how Hopkins develops the land. It was up to Mrs. Banks. And she made her choice decades ago.

by Confused on Dec 5, 2011 3:28 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam