Arson Fires Deemed Worst In Maryland History (LOTS of pictures)

The Denver Channel ^ | December 7, 2004

[Stoat]

Arson Fires Deemed Worst In Maryland History

Investigators Comb Burned Homes For Evidence

 

POSTED: 6:45 am EST December 7, 2004

UPDATED: 1:56 pm EST December 7, 2004

 

INDIAN HEAD, Md. -- Fire investigators are searching for evidence in the rubble of dozens of torched houses in what's being called the worst arson fire in Maryland State history.

According to Faron Taylor, a deputy state fire marshal, more than 20 federal, local and state investigators searched for forensic evidence. Some $10 million in damage was done at 41 homes at the Hunters Brooke subdivision, near Indian Head in Charles County. And, Taylor said, 12 homes were destroyed.

The fires were reported before 5 a.m. Monday, drawing firefighters from Charles and three other counties to the 319-unit subdivision about 25 miles south of Washington, Charles County spokeswoman Nina Voehl said. The homes, in a development next to an environmental preserve, were priced between $400,000 and $500,000.

The pricey new subdivision has been the subject of a lawsuit between environmentalists and the Army Corps of Engineers. FBI spokesman Barry Maddox said FBI agents examined the scene, and ecoterrorism was one of the motives that would be investigated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Stoat]

ELF is a terrorist group and should be pursued as such

Agreed, although I would also suggest a simple series of questions to activists from Greenpeace and other more 'mainstream' enviro groups the next time they darken your door, looking for money:

• What has your group done to purge your organization of eco-terrorists?
• What has your group done to assist law enforcement in the apprehension of eco-terrorists?
• Has your group supported legislation stiffening penalties for eco-terrorists?
• Has your group organized any rallies to support the victims of eco-terror?
• Has your group organized any drives to directly and financially assist the victims of eco-terror?
• Has your group publicly denounced eco-terror?  If so, what form did this denunciation take?  How many people did it reach?

This little list took just a few moments for a scruffy stoat to dream up....I have no doubt that Freepers' collective focus could come up with many more.....

[meyer]

Worst arson in Maryland history? Garbage. No one died. How about the drug thug who threw an incendiary device into the rowhome of a God fearing family in East Baltimore coupla years ago? Although that residence was probably not worth 25% of the land value of one of the luxury Charles County new homes burned, most of the slum dwelling family in Baltimore was killed. Confusing money for lives is a real problem.

You raise a good point, and I would agree to the extent that it involves innocent life. But one must consider whose money and whose life are at stake. For example, my house is worth considerably more than the life of the punk that might try to torch it. Find the arsonists and shoot 'em on sight.

[Robert A Cook PE]

According to Rush, the eco-freaks have been bitterly protesting these houses for several years = They are "worried" about wetlands, insects, and a flower in swamps near the Potomac.

[meyer]

maybe its time for some anti-enviros to head out and wreck the precious little swamp that these idiots purport to want to protect. Just destroy it. Cut down the trees, poison the water, bulldoze it. Whatever it takes. Fill it with cement for all I care.

This stuff really torques me (as you might be able to tell).

[MD_Willington_1976]

Why just burn them at a stake in front of the court house...if they like fire so much, let'm have it.

[dakine]

I live right down the road, just posting what I read...

[chs68]

"D.C. parasites need these homes to host lobbiest parties"

"D.C. parasites"?????

Before I get offended, please let me know just who you consider to be "D.C. parasites".

You might also be interested to know that there are, most likely, very few lobbyists who would consider homes as far from the center of D.C. as Indian Head, Maryland. They are much more likely to have their homes on Capitol Hill, in Georgetown, or in Bethesda or McLean.

[mindspy]

Not that I agree with their tactics, I must say I agree with wanting to get rid of suburban housing tracks. The problem is the developers are so damn cheap and greedy. Rather than building less houses and incorporating them into the landscape they come in bulldoze everthing and stick a bunch of ugly boxes up. What's with that. They are charging plenty of money for this homes and could very well make things much nicer and more environmentally friendly. Further the people that move in this homes on the edge of wilderness then complain because the wilderness and its inhabitants encroach on their homes. Also most residential developers haven't an ounce of creativity and these housing projects they develop are just plain ugly and stupid.

[sodpoodle]

"Patricia Stamper, an Indian Head resident and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said investigators had not contacted her Monday, and she doubted members any of the groups involved in the lawsuit would have turned to arson"

I am sure she is thrilled with the outcome.
Wonder how she would feel if someone tried to drive her out of her residence?

Her selfish liberal attitude is: "I've got mine - to hell with everyone else who wants to live here! Private property rights be damned!"

[American in Israel]

Man, that is the life savings of a whole lot of family's up in smoke. Hope they catch the Arson and sue his arse off, him and his buddies should flip burgers in San Quenton to pay back every dime.

If this was ELF I would be for a suit that would force their members to sell everything they own to pay this back.

[Mase]

"Worst arson in Maryland history? Garbage. No one died. How about the drug thug who threw an incendiary device into the rowhome of a God fearing family in East Baltimore coupla years ago? Although that residence was probably not worth 25% of the land value of one of the luxury Charles County new homes burned, most of the slum dwelling family in Baltimore was killed. Confusing money for lives is a real problem."


As I remember it was retribution for calling the police regarding drug dealing going on in their neighborhood. This was just about as tragic a story as can be told - a struggling family trying to keep their kids and neighborhood safe from some brazen thugs with no fear of a system designed to protect them over the family who dared to try to deal with the problem. It is a shame the focus is more on money than lives here.

[Yo-Yo]

Thank you environmentalist whackoes for causing all of that air pollution.

[WildHorseCrash]

The problem is the developers are so damn cheap and greedy.

Do you base this assertion on anything other than the fact that you don't like the properties?

Rather than building less houses and incorporating them into the landscape they come in bulldoze everthing and stick a bunch of ugly boxes up. What's with that.

"Incorporating them into the landscape" means what, exactly? Building tree houses? Perhaps mud huts? Many people actually prefer to live on land that is cleared of trees. You get to enjoy a lawn and there is no need to deal with leaves, dead branches, leaf litter or bird droppings.

If you don't want to live on a cleared lot, then don't. That is your prerogative. But don't mistake your aesthetic preferences for facts.

They are charging plenty of money for this homes and could very well make things much nicer and more environmentally friendly.

They are, no doubt, charging exactly what the market will bear. "Nicer", again, is your arbitrary preference masquerading as an objective standard. As for being "environmentally friendly," well, thanks to the eco-freak terrorists, these houses are a lot less environmentally friendly now, aren't they.

Further the people that move in this homes on the edge of wilderness then complain because the wilderness and its inhabitants encroach on their homes.

...are what? Are they bad people? Are they mean? Are they "environmentally unfriendly"? Please don't delay in passing judgment on these people...

Also most residential developers haven't an ounce of creativity and these housing projects they develop are just plain ugly and stupid.

Yet it's amazing how many people there are who are willing to purchase and live in these "ugly" and "stupid" developments. As for creativity, there appeared to be a great deal of creativity in architectural design in these buildings, although it is difficult to tell because someone who thought they were "ugly" and "stupid" decided to resort to terrorism and burn them to the ground.

[mindspy]

I base this assetion on the fact that I have been in real estate development for twenty years.
About people buying this ugly houses. People don't care. they don't care what was there as long as they can have their big box on a itty bitty piece of land surrounded by the more of the same. The love their little 8 x 12 lawn and perhaps plant a few flowers. why do they build this type of development in wild areas and why do people buy them? Because the land is cheap and the developer can make alot more money. Not that there is anything wrong with making money I just wish people were more sensitive to the environment and used more creativity in their planning. Not only that people that live in rural areas before they made unrural do not want to live next to Stepford Ranch or Square Box Estates. I am one of those people. the people that live in these subdivisions should just stay in the city.

[rllngrk33]

The homes, in a development next to an environmental preserve, were priced between $400,000 and $500,000.

The pricey new subdivision has been ...

For the DC area this is not a pricey subdivision. It's probably a step above a "starter home" as far as new homes are concerned. I saw some of the new owners of the houses that were destroyed on local news last night and for the most part they were middle class.

[jackbill]

Here is the real estate page with drawings of what the houses were supposed to look like - and the prices:

http://www.newhomesource.com/search/home_results.aspx?sid=08c7725dc54e4b52b8705f64929ce723&refer=DMR302&cid=21561&mid=302&pid=1

[WildHorseCrash]

About people buying this ugly houses. People don't care. they don't care what was there as long as they can have their big box on a itty bitty piece of land surrounded by the more of the same. The love their little 8 x 12 lawn and perhaps plant a few flowers.

No, people do care, they just don't care about the same things, to the same degree, as you do. And what's great about this country is that they are free to pursue their happiness as much as you are.

You may not value a spacious home with a little bit of ground, but these purchasers do, and they have every right to pursue that within the bounds of the law.

why do they build this type of development in wild areas and why do people buy them? Because the land is cheap and the developer can make alot more money.

And because by doing so they are meeting a demand in the marketplace, and, in the process, making the American Dream come alive for those people who view owning one of these properties as the American Dream.

Another reason that they sell is that there are a lot of people who do not want to live in the cities or in first generation suburbs, but want to live in spacious surroundings away from the hustle and bustle of the city. That's why these houses are built and why they are bought.

There is a demand there for these types of properties. People like them. People want to live there.

Not that there is anything wrong with making money I just wish people were more sensitive to the environment and used more creativity in their planning.

This is the second time you've made this objection regarding creativity and environmental sensitivity without explaining what you mean. Do you mean that they should voluntarily build houses that won't sell or that people do not want?

Not only that people that live in rural areas before they made unrural do not want to live next to Stepford Ranch or Square Box Estates. I am one of those people.

Then those people have every right to purchase the land that is to be developed and preserve its "rural" character. And if they cannot afford to, then that is too damn bad. That's life.

people that live in these subdivisions should just stay in the city.

Why? So you aren't put out? So your taxes are kept at an artificially deflated rate? People do not want to live in the city. They want to live in semi-rural suburbs. If you don't like it, then you have the option of moving to a more rural areas?

[mindspy]

Oh please. You say they want to live in spacious surroundings, then why do they purchase homes built so close together one can hear their neighbor fart?

When I talk of being environmentally sensitive I mean the developer need not bulldoze away the natural landscape but build into it. There are some developers (very few) doing it this way and their developments are selling and at higher prices. So you see being cheap and greedy isn't always going to give you the biggest profit margin.

I am through now because this arguement is falling on deaf ears adhered to a head stuck in the 20th century.

[oyez]

ELF is not as much concerned about environment than forcing people into doing its will. They have had a long running battle with real estate developers. Of course the developers are in business of providing people what they want. ELF wants people to live in high rise warehouses, like what the Eastern Bloc built for its people..

[HangnJudge]

Arson is a felony offense precisely because the likelihood of loss of life and limb is very high and, once initiated, arson can indiscriminately spread to other life bearing structures. Just because no one died doesn't decrease the felonious aspect of the act. If you shoot at someone and miss them, it is still a felony assault